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) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6830
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
This is one of a few threads discussing issues surrounding our changes to Command Ships, warfare links, and local repair modules for Odyssey 1.1 and beyond.
The other threads are : Warfare Links, Mindlinks, Gang Bonuses Local armor and shield rep changes Command Ship model changes
We posted the general plan for the command ships in a dev blog late last year, and most of what was said there stands. The goal remains to make each command ship an entertaining and engaging ship to fly by giving them all the bonuses to gang links and all bonuses for combat. Their specialization is derived from the gang link bonuses, with a strong subtheme of durability as befits a ship class that lends itself to FCing and that is a very valuable target.
All the command ships have two unbonused highslots that can be used for two gang links, or as general utility highslots. The tension between the two free highslots and the three simultaneous link role bonus is intentional, giving people options to make tradeoffs. There's one command ship that covers each of the lead weapon systems for their race with Amarr getting a missile boat with a drone subtheme instead of a dedicated droneboat because of Khanid.
All of the command ships are also getting the full strength t2 resists that were formerly only on the fleet commands. This means more resists for the old field commands.
One significant change from the proposal last year is the link bonuses on the Amarr and Gallente ships, which we've swapped thanks to player feedback. Amarr gets armor and info, Gallente gets armor and skirmish which fits them much better.
Absolution: Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances 10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use Command Ships skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire 10%(+5) bonus Medium Energy Turret damage Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Information Warfare links Slot layout: 7 H, 3 M, 7 L, 5 turrets (-1), 0 launchers (-1) Fittings: 1500 PWG (-75), 400 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3100(-263) / 5200(+595) / 4500(+176) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 70(+7.5) / 87.5(+6.25) Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 62.5(+9.38) / 80(+10) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3375 / 750s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 / 0.71(+0.006) / 13300000(-200000) / 13.09s(-0.09) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 75km (+25) / 210 / 7(+1) Sensor strength: 21 Radar (+5) Signature radius: 265 Cargo capacity: 375 (+25)
Damnation: Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances 10% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile velocity Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to all Armor hitpoints 10% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile damage (Was link bonus) Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Information Warfare links Slot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 6 L , 2 turrets (-2), 5 Launchers Fittings: 1300(-290) PWG, 500(+25) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(+37) / 5000(+395) / 4300(-24) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 70 / 87.5 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 62.5 / 80 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3375 / 750s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 / 0.7(-0.004) / 13500000 / 13.10s(-0.08) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 (+25) / 100 (+75) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km (+20) / 210 / 7(+1) Sensor strength: 22 Radar (+6) Signature radius: 265 Cargo capacity: 645
Nighthawk: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10%(+5) bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage Command Ships skill bonuses: 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) Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and Information Warfare links Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1) Fittings: 825 PWG (+115), 550 CPU (-5) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5500(+695) / 3200(-163) / 3700(-144) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 80(+10) / 70(+7.5) / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 86.25(+6.88) / 62.5(+9.38) / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2812(-187.5) / 625s(-41.7) / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.65(+0.02) / 14810000(+800000) / 13.35s (+1.15) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km (+20) / 195 / 9(+1) Sensor strength: 24 Gravimetric (+5) Signature radius: 285 Cargo capacity: 700
Vulture: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage (was link bonus) Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and Information Warfare links Slot layout: 7 H , 6 M, 4 L, 5 turrets, 2 launchers (-3) Fittings: 1275 PWG, 545 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5300(+495) / 3400(+37) / 3900(+56) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 80 / 70 / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 86.25 / 62.5 / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000 / 667s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.67(+0.042) / 14000000(-10000) / 13s (+0.8) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 95km (+20)/ 195 / 9(+1) Sensor strength: 23 Gravimetric (+4) Signature radiu... Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
210
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:21:00 -
[2] - Quote
1st on a Dev Post! Woohoo. My Feature\Idea:-á Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee"
Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up! |
Swiftstrike1
Interfector INC. Fade 2 Black
124
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:23:00 -
[3] - Quote
Nice changes. I still don't like that the gang link skills have the social attribute as one of their modifiers though, as they are clearly combat skills as opposed to "proper" social skills. Fleet Bookmarks |
Sarmatiko
1337
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
Quote:The other threads are : Command Ship model changes
NO FOZZY PLS NO
Also glad that Marauders are safe, for now.. -¥ |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6838
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:30:00 -
[5] - Quote
Sarmatiko wrote: Also glad that Marauders are safe, for now..
/Maniacal Laugh Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
752
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
oh god Unforgiven Storm for CSM 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. (If I don't get in in the next 5 years I will quit trying) :-) |
Landaz
Raven's Flight Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:36:00 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Sarmatiko wrote: Also glad that Marauders are safe, for now..
/Maniacal Laugh
Cant wait to see what u did with them! |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
226
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:40:00 -
[8] - Quote
I think that at least one of the two Minmatar CS and one of the two Gallente hulls should get their local tank bonuses (iconic though they are) swapped for resists - it's important for gangs to be able to field skirmish links, and in larger fights, the resistance bonus is important to enable logi to keep the CS up. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
306
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:44:00 -
[9] - Quote
Eos and Astarte look terrifying |
Marc Callan
Interstellar Steel Templis Dragonaors
246
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:46:00 -
[10] - Quote
Wait, why does the Eos still have the MHT tracking bonus if all its other combat bonuses seem to be going to drones? "Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred..." - Niccolo Machiavelli-á |
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
124
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:48:00 -
[11] - Quote
So you decided to give the (currently pretty much) useless heavy drone bonus on the new Ishtar another go at the Eos over a more useful sentry bonus?
Does that mean you're closing in on fixing drones or is it just an attempt at a little bit of comedy? |
Pertuabo Enkidgan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:49:00 -
[12] - Quote
Alright here we go! |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
306
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:49:00 -
[13] - Quote
Marc Callan wrote:Wait, why does the Eos still have the MHT tracking bonus if all its other combat bonuses seem to be going to drones?
Because it's still an in your face ship.
That tracking will be VERY useful |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
101
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:49:00 -
[14] - Quote
Is there a link for the command ship model changes, or has that not been announced yet? |
Kasutra
Tailor Company Hashashin Cartel
210
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:49:00 -
[15] - Quote
Marc Callan wrote:Wait, why does the Eos still have the MHT tracking bonus if all its other combat bonuses seem to be going to drones? Same reason as the Tristan, I'd guess. |
Entity
X-Factor Industries Synthetic Existence
508
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:50:00 -
[16] - Quote
So, Astarte getting a massive damage nerf?
The damage/rof changes do not offset the 29% reduced damage from losing 2 turrets, and adding 2 completely unbonused launchers isn't that particularly appealing.
GòªGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGòæGûæGûæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòæGûæGòæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòªGòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòªGòùGòöGòù GòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòùGòöGòúGûæGòöGòùGòáGûæGûæGòáGûæGòáGòùGòáGò¥GûæGòæGòáGûæGòáGò¥GòæGòæGòæGòÜGòù Gò¬GòÉGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòÜGò¥GûæGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGûæGòÜGò¥GòæGòæGòÜGò¥GûæGò¬GòÜGò¥GòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòæGòÜGò¥ Got Item? |
Capqu
Love Squad
188
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:51:00 -
[17] - Quote
eos 2 gud
stop making drones track so well :(
wrecking shots are already bullshit enough when you're flying a stiletto http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Mizhir
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
28212
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:53:00 -
[18] - Quote
Looks great. But I find it odd that the Eos drone tracking bonus only applies to heavy drones. We will never forget you Saede!
I bet you dont see things like this so often in EVE |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
387
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:54:00 -
[19] - Quote
Such a welcome change, Fozzie! Keep up the good work! Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6853
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:54:00 -
[20] - Quote
Entity wrote:So, Astarte getting a massive damage nerf?
The damage/rof changes do not offset the 29% reduced damage from losing 2 turrets, and adding 2 completely unbonused launchers isn't that particularly appealing.
It's going from 10.9 effective turrets to 10. However I expect the extra utility high, lower mass and extra resists to more than compensate. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
243
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:56:00 -
[21] - Quote
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? How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:57:00 -
[22] - Quote
I'm waiting for the whole "WTF Gallente Local Rep Bonus AGAIN!!!"...
Still the 15% repairer bonus.. + now they can fit armor links...
Their capacitor will be empty in minutes.
Probably would have been a better choice to have a flat out health increase in the Eos.
50/50 on it. People will still go by default to the Damnation because... well its a brick.
The Eos does have the potential to bring ALLOT of pain to the field (the offensive Damnation essentially).
Still questionable on the livability.
Lets see what the beancounters say.
oh fyi ty for not assaulting the Orca or Rorqual with the link changes. |
Lidia Caderu
Cobalt Academy Catastrophic Uprising
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:57:00 -
[23] - Quote
Why does all the ships that got changed they all have same cap recharge rate among one class? |
Capqu
Love Squad
188
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:58:00 -
[24] - Quote
hey fozzlord,
could i get a command destroyer?
need a better ship to fc talwars from, two skirmish links at 10% would be gravy
thanks in advance http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
226
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:58:00 -
[25] - Quote
Good god that claymore. Double rof bonuses and explosion velocity will be pretty brutal. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:58:00 -
[26] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote: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?
Abso lost a turret and a missle launcher, but gained 5%.
I'm pretty sure it gained extra damage, and now saves on capacitor a bit more. |
Kyt Thrace
Lightspeed Enterprises Fidelas Constans
255
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:58:00 -
[27] - Quote
Awesome changes!
Glad I already have Command Ship level 5 & all of the Leaderships skills to level 5! \o/ R.I.P. Vile Rat |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6863
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:58:00 -
[28] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote: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?
You can look at in terms of effective turrets.
Sleipnir goes from 11.6666 effective turrets to 11.25 Astarte goes from 10.9 effective turrets to 10 Abso stays at 10 effective turrets Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Aegis Solaris
2059
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:01:00 -
[29] - Quote
Defensive links are going down in effectiveness, but reppers are going up ineffectiveness. This does not balance out in all cases, only cases where repping is viable. That is it will not help vs:
Alpha strikes. High sec ganks. Blob fleets where the primary gets so much DPS it dies fast. It might help small scale PvP by making repper fits viable. I guess thats something. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
250
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:05:00 -
[30] - Quote
Sleipnir: gun ship Claymore: missile ship
Now question: why didnt you do same for Minmatar HACs? Caldari: hybrid and missile, Gallente: drone and hybrids, Amarr: lasers and... missiles? Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |
|
Gneeznow
L'Avant Garde
101
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:08:00 -
[31] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:I think that at least one of the two Minmatar CS and one of the two Gallente hulls should get their local tank bonuses (iconic though they are) swapped for resists - it's important for gangs to be able to field skirmish links, and in larger fights, the resistance bonus is important to enable logi to keep the CS up.
This definitely! And don't change their hulls to other BC models! And don't make the claymore a missile boat, it's gay! |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1385
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:13:00 -
[32] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, these changes look great, can't wait to use an Eos finally. What about the orca? It is a command ship and I believe you said it was going to be part of the command ship balance pass. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:13:00 -
[33] - Quote
i'd love to see a harb based abso model :D
but why doesnt the abso get a 4th mid -_- IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Araneatrox
Claritech Skatteverket AB
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:14:00 -
[34] - Quote
Every time i read one of these suggestions i look at it and think to myself "Yea interesting, if only i could PYFA to see changes the difference"
So with that being said, Changes look nice. Would like to see how the perform. Vulture and Nighthawk look hugely tanky too.
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:15:00 -
[35] - Quote
Gneeznow wrote:Tsubutai wrote:I think that at least one of the two Minmatar CS and one of the two Gallente hulls should get their local tank bonuses (iconic though they are) swapped for resists - it's important for gangs to be able to field skirmish links, and in larger fights, the resistance bonus is important to enable logi to keep the CS up. This definitely! And don't change their hulls to other BC models! And don't make the claymore a missile boat, it's gay!
Now I say the claymore should most definetly become a missile boat, and get a rainbow flag paint job to boot.
As much as we would like the minmatar and gallente ships to get the amarr resist profile, I don't see CCP doing it.
And yes CHANGE the BC models. The EOS should have the Myrmidon Hull. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6867
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:15:00 -
[36] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Fozzie, these changes look great, can't wait to use an Eos finally. What about the orca? It is a command ship and I believe you said it was going to be part of the command ship balance pass.
I sure hope I never said that
It's not being changed as part of this pass. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
219
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:16:00 -
[37] - Quote
I'm not sure I enjoy the Astarte changes. For a damage-only role, the Navy Brutix is essentially now a higher-damage and higher-EHP alternative, and at half of the price. All the other ones are nice, but the Astarte is just disappointing. Really disappointing. |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:16:00 -
[38] - Quote
CCP FOZZIE, despite my dislike for the lack of listen to posts in the HAC`s thread.. this are very very good changes, well done. I very much like it shows all types of weapons systems. from missles, projectiles, hybrids, and now DORNES!!!!!. also great job, this should keep them now in their own class above the navy BC`s and other cruiser hulls, I love this.!!!
GREAT JOB!!!! |
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet Cerberus Unleashed
86
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:16:00 -
[39] - Quote
You are giving the Sleipnir 2 times 50% DPS bonus? Is that legal??!? o_O
(Ok, just read it actually REDUCES the effective number of turrets...)
But what about the Eos? MHT Tracking bonus? |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1189
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:19:00 -
[40] - Quote
Nerd boner. So the eos is a big tristan? There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6873
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:21:00 -
[41] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:I'm not sure I enjoy the Astarte changes. For a damage-only role, the Navy Brutix is essentially now a higher-damage and higher-EHP alternative, and at half of the price. All the other ones are nice, but the Astarte is just disappointing. Really disappointing.
You need to increase the RoF bonus to 7.5% or add additional drone bandwidth/bay.
Astarte gets more raw gun dps before damage mods (10 vs 9 turrets), rep bonus, better resists, the link bonus and an extra utility high. Navy Brutix gets another low, more tracking, more raw HP and a lower price tag.
For a lot of uses the Navy Brutix will be better, but there are plenty of places where the Astarte will be superior as well. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
219
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:23:00 -
[42] - Quote
Such as? I guess you guys forgot that if you want to 'solo pee vee pee' with that rep bonus, you can't actually use links because you won't have a squad member to enjoy those bonuses with. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
243
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:24:00 -
[43] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: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? You can look at in terms of effective turrets. Sleipnir goes from 11.6666 effective turrets to 11.25 Astarte goes from 10.9 effective turrets to 10 Abso stays at 10 effective turrets
notbad.jpg
I'll continue my Sleipnir/Claymore training then. It would make more sense, given their role, to have the Gallente and Minmatar CSs with a resistance bonus rather than a local tank bonus.
Still like the changes though, I like the increase in T2 resists.
Edit: Given that T3s still have a 25% bonus to link effectiveness, I assume they will see a nerf to that subsystem in the future? How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:25:00 -
[44] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Nerd boner. So the eos is a big tristan?
The Eos is a T2 Myrmidon. just change the hull already. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6877
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:25:00 -
[45] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:Such as?
Such as when you have logistics to take advantage of the resists, or are small gang active tanking (niche I know), or want to provide bonused gang links for either armor or skirmish in an armor gang (much less niche). Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
808
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:26:00 -
[46] - Quote
The active-tank bonuses are silly on ships that are designed to be used in fleet situations. There's a good reason why HICs all have resist bonuses, and so should CS. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1387
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:26:00 -
[47] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Fozzie, these changes look great, can't wait to use an Eos finally. What about the orca? It is a command ship and I believe you said it was going to be part of the command ship balance pass. I sure hope I never said that It's not being changed as part of this pass. Well here you go. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Lucas Ericsson
Obstergo Bitten.
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:27:00 -
[48] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote:You are giving the Sleipnir 2 times 50% DPS bonus? Is that legal??!? o_O
Silence.
I approve of the balancing and I'm sure it's appreciated that player feedback was used. I enjoy seeing command ships on the field instead of tucked away in a POS or off grid.
CCP Fozzie wrote: All the command ships have two unbonused highslots that can be used for two gang links, or as general utility highslots. The tension between the two free highslots and the three simultaneous link role bonus is intentional, giving people options to make tradeoffs.
Genius.
|
Gosti Kahanid
Farstriders Apocalypse Now.
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:27:00 -
[49] - Quote
What I noticed, the Eos and Absolution are the only two ships which can-¦t fit weapons in all their High-Slots... While I understand it in the Case of the Eos because it is a Drone-Ship, why the Abolution, which already has a smaller Dronebay than the Damnation |
Jonatan Reed
Origin. Black Legion.
68
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:28:00 -
[50] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: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? You can look at in terms of effective turrets. Sleipnir goes from 11.6666 effective turrets to 11.25 Astarte goes from 10.9 effective turrets to 10 Abso stays at 10 effective turrets
Can someone explain whatthe hell effective turrets even means? When the hell did this metric even come from? ELITE PVP, WHADDUP |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6877
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:28:00 -
[51] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Fozzie, these changes look great, can't wait to use an Eos finally. What about the orca? It is a command ship and I believe you said it was going to be part of the command ship balance pass. I sure hope I never said that It's not being changed as part of this pass. Well here you go.
Ahh yes, I was talking about the bonuses to the links themselves. We did consider shifting some of the mining bonuses away from the ship hulls but in the end decided to leave them at 3% and 5%. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
220
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:28:00 -
[52] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:Such as? Such as when you have logistics to take advantage of the resists, or are small gang active tanking (niche I know), or want to provide bonused gang links for either armor or skirmish in an armor gang (much less niche).
Resists? On an Astarte? I guess you've forgotten that Gallente T2 armor hulls get to double dip in that hilarious configuration of 50% EM and 10% Explosive. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:30:00 -
[53] - Quote
so... the command ship model change has been upgraded from something you were just considering, to a thing?
video
dev blog Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1387
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:32:00 -
[54] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Fozzie, these changes look great, can't wait to use an Eos finally. What about the orca? It is a command ship and I believe you said it was going to be part of the command ship balance pass. I sure hope I never said that It's not being changed as part of this pass. Well here you go. Ahh yes, I was talking about the bonuses to the links themselves. We did consider shifting some of the mining bonuses away from the ship hulls but in the end decided to leave them at 3% and 5%. I see, I was hoping the Orca would get a Siege warfare link bonus in addition to its mining link bonus, and since non-mining links can't be used in a pos I don't believe it would be broken.
Just for reference the Rorqual gives 10% while deployed, or is that being changed? Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Hayman Wakefield
Trans-Stellar Salvage Shipping and Securities
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:33:00 -
[55] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Absolution: Slot layout: 7 H, 3 M, 7 L, 5 turrets (-1), 0 launchers (-1)
Why is this the only ship other than the Eos that can't have a full rack of weapons, even if 2 would always be un-bonused? The Eos at least makes sense for a full damage platform might put on drone links. Pretty please you spent so many resources on missile graphics let me fire them from my Abso if I really want to.
|
Lithorn
The Dark Tribe Seventh Sanctum.
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:34:00 -
[56] - Quote
Sarmatiko wrote:Quote:The other threads are : Command Ship model changes
NO FOZZIE PLS NO Also glad that Marauders are safe, for now.. Ninja please! Marauders need some boosting, they just don't really cut it anymore.. I'm trained for them but I wont fly one or buy it. |
Aglais
Liberation Army
306
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:36:00 -
[57] - Quote
"10%(+5) bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage"
aAaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA STOP |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:36:00 -
[58] - Quote
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 |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:36:00 -
[59] - Quote
Yea well I guess we have some choices now.
Want a frigate droneboat, ishkur/tristan Need a cruiser, Vexor, Navy Vexor, Ishtar Wait BC droneboat, Myrmidon, EOS Battleship Baby!!! Dominix, Navy Dominix.
Ishtar's now useful, Dominix has come into its own, Ishkur's always been a fun ship, and now the Gallente have a Command Ship Platform that is now at least viable.
The EOS vs the Damnation though, the EOS will wreck that ship as a damage platform.
The guns though... They don't seem to be overly useful (0 damage bonus to them, but they get a tracking bonus. Were looking at 150, to 200 dps tops from the guns?
Curious cause that bonus seems to be somewhat malformed. |
Boltorano
Devious Chemicals
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:36:00 -
[60] - Quote
Nice velocity bonus on the Damnation, would look even better on the HAM Legion subsystem if I say so myself.
*wink wink, nudge nudge* |
|
Astald Ohtar
Kernel of War Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:37:00 -
[61] - Quote
So alpha Sleipnir doctrine?
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:37:00 -
[62] - Quote
Baren wrote: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
Minmatar historically have lower sensor strength vs most other ships. Didn't look at the claymore tbh. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:38:00 -
[63] - Quote
Fozzie, EOS.. Myrmidon Hull.
PWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEE! |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
60
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:39:00 -
[64] - Quote
NVM |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:42:00 -
[65] - Quote
Aglais wrote:"10%(+5) bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage"
aAaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA STOP
The Nighthawk still will be the top missle boat with the claymore close behind. on top of getting 10% bonus to kenetic damage, we got a 5% ROF bonus and an explosion radius bonus for better damage application.
Nighthawk: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10%(+5) bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage Command Ships skill bonuses: 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) |
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:43:00 -
[66] - Quote
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. |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:44:00 -
[67] - Quote
CCP FOZZIE, I just have a question on wording
Nighthawk: 5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)
Should it not say,
Nighthawk: 5% bonus to reduction of Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity) |
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
140
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:44:00 -
[68] - Quote
Can you please just give up on the idea of on Grid Boosting ships until you fix off grid boosting?
You're side grading or nerfing some of these ships in the name of something that will never happen in a fleet fight (On Grid Boosting) until you remove off grid boosting.
Making someone be outside the shields is only part of the problem. You're still going to see Command/T3s just orbiting around outside the shields now. |
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:44:00 -
[69] - Quote
Can't wait to try out a 250mm II fitted Vulture |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
243
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:45:00 -
[70] - Quote
Lithorn wrote:Sarmatiko wrote:Quote:The other threads are : Command Ship model changes
NO FOZZIE PLS NO Also glad that Marauders are safe, for now.. Ninja please! Marauders need some boosting, they just don't really cut it anymore.. I'm trained for them but I wont fly one or buy it.
Maybe in 1.2? Hopefully they do BLOPs at the same time. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
Kyt Thrace
Lightspeed Enterprises Fidelas Constans
256
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:45:00 -
[71] - Quote
Baren wrote:Aglais wrote:"10%(+5) bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage"
aAaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA STOP The Nighthawk still will be the top missle boat with the claymore close behind. on top of getting 10% bonus to kenetic damage, we got a 5% ROF bonus and an explosion radius bonus for better damage application. Nighthawk: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10%(+5) bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage Command Ships skill bonuses: 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)
^^ I just found my new ratting ship. R.I.P. Vile Rat |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:45:00 -
[72] - Quote
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.
LOL go home. you prolly only have 10mil sp and are butt hurt you cant fly one. |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
651
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:46:00 -
[73] - Quote
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 OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Rain6637
Team Evil
1615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:46:00 -
[74] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:Don't know if this is the best tread for this but here it goes:
Gang Bonuses will be given only in grid while in fleet or they will continue to be delivered if in system and in fleet?
TY haha so happy about the drake nighthawk and myrm eos and its drone changes, i don't even care right now. when i wake up one day to find those in my hangar it's going to be better than Christmas.
out of the lot, I get to keep my long black claymore hnngggggg Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
55
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:48:00 -
[75] - Quote
Looking great Fozzie!
I have only two little complaints:
1- please give the Abso launchers so it can have a full asortment of gusn liek the rest.
2- I would really really like the eos or the astarte to have some other sort of tanking bonus aswell, im sick of rep bonuses on all of them when obviously the drone boat one can make the best use of it. Hell maybe even give the claymore a diferant tanking bonus, would love to finaly see a ship with shield HP per lvl.
3- (bonus complaint but not to important) give the Vulture a tracking bonus instead of one of those range bonuses
Everything else is gravy tho, cant wait to try some of them. especialy the eos and claymore. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6889
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:48:00 -
[76] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Fozzie, these changes look great, can't wait to use an Eos finally. What about the orca? It is a command ship and I believe you said it was going to be part of the command ship balance pass. I sure hope I never said that It's not being changed as part of this pass. Well here you go. Ahh yes, I was talking about the bonuses to the links themselves. We did consider shifting some of the mining bonuses away from the ship hulls but in the end decided to leave them at 3% and 5%. I see, I was hoping the Orca would get a Siege warfare link bonus in addition to its mining link bonus, and since non-mining links can't be used in a pos I don't believe it would be broken. Just for reference the Rorqual gives 10% while deployed, or is that being changed?
It's not being changed. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Janeway84
Masters Of Destiny Pride Before Fall
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:49:00 -
[77] - Quote
Nice changes overall except for all ships loosing a turret slot/ launcher slot. Makes me wonder if astarte is gonna be worth to take into battle vs battlecruisers.
can you give astarte back its 7th turret slot? and give NH another mid slot? |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
127
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:50:00 -
[78] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote: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
The damnations damage has universally been pathetic. The Eos and Astarte would mow it down to kibble.
Damnation will still be the fleet brick. I'd like to start seeing some Eos/Ast fits now. |
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:51:00 -
[79] - Quote
Baren 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. LOL go home. you prolly only have 10mil sp and are butt hurt you cant fly one.
They require more "wasted" SP that gives you no benefit at all 99% of the time than a dreadnought.
EDIT: I posted carrier instead of dread for some stupid reason. |
Deirdre Anethoel
Antimatter Delivery Inc.
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:52:00 -
[80] - Quote
So you're terribly afraid of powercreep on hacs, but you make every single command ship (except the vulture, because double optimal bonus is bad) into massive combat beasts? It's not like BCs were already taking all the space in term of brawling ships, now we have a whole class of ships with massive weapon bonus, T2 resists AND tanking bonus. With that, they should become the natural option for heavy brawling with costly ships, eclipsing both T3 and hacs. I think some of those changes could have been done on some of the hacs instead of command ships (the eagle and deimos could use some of the treatment given to their command ship counterparts).
But at least I'm happy to see we will have more option, since both command ship in the same race gives the same racial link bonus with different weapon options, you can choose the one the most adapted to your fleet composition. The fact that we still have half of them suited for large fleets (resist bonus) and half of them suitable for small gang (rep bonus) sounds cool. Could have been interesting to have this split in each race instead of having two fleet races and two small gang races. But it's flavorful that there is no "fleet" (aka with passive tank bonus) command ship with skirmish bonus.
I totally expect to see tons of the active tank ones in solo/small gang, and to see the fleet ones become an interesting doctrine to compete really strongly with the other expensive subcaps (hacs, T3s), since they have both massive tank and massive gun bonuses. I think you will have to monitor their effects on those ship's use cases, they may reduce hacs potential roles even more. Right now, at least half the hacs are designed for brawling and lack some of the tools for zipping around and controlling engagement range, so the few still used for that, like the zealot, may get overshadowed even more by more combat BCs. This could be fine if you give them back another role, but if they stay like they are, they may become useless.
I may be overreacting and overestimating the raw combat potential of the new command ships, but I'm afraid I'm not. |
|
Yazzinra
Scorpion Ventures Rim Worlds Protectorate
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:53:00 -
[81] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Eos: Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints (was 5% MHT damage) Command Ships skill bonuses: 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) Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links Slot layout: 6 H (-1), 4 M, 6 L, 4 turrets (-1) Fittings: 1200 PWG (-225), 425 CPU (-25) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3600(-244) / 4600(+276) / 5200(+395) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 60 / 85 / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 67.5 / 83.75 / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2812 / 625s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 145 / 0.704 / 13000000(-250000) / 12.69s (-0.24) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 (+50) / 250 (+100) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+10) / 200 / 8(+1) Sensor strength: 22 Magnetometric (+4) Signature radius: 300 Cargo capacity: 400
if this goes live with changing the hull to the Myrmidon, I think ill finally have a reason to get CS 5.
coupled with the other changes announced, im very excited. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6890
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:53:00 -
[82] - Quote
Baren wrote:CCP FOZZIE, I just have a question on wording
Nighthawk: 5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)
Should it not say,
Nighthawk: 5% bonus to reduction of Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)
Any time we say bonus we generally mean that the stat goes in whatever direction is better. So yes it's a reduction. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
141
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:53:00 -
[83] - Quote
Deirdre Anethoel wrote:So you're terribly afraid of powercreep on hacs, but you make every single command ship (except the vulture, because double optimal bonus is bad) into massive combat beasts? It's not like BCs were already taking all the space in term of brawling ships, now we have a whole class of ships with massive weapon bonus, T2 resists AND tanking bonus. With that, they should become the natural option for heavy brawling with costly ships, eclipsing both T3 and hacs. I think some of those changes could have been done on some of the hacs instead of command ships (the eagle and deimos could use some of the treatment given to their command ship counterparts).
But at least I'm happy to see we will have more option, since both command ship in the same race gives the same racial link bonus with different weapon options, you can choose the one the most adapted to your fleet composition. The fact that we still have half of them suited for large fleets (resist bonus) and half of them suitable for small gang (rep bonus) sounds cool. Could have been interesting to have this split in each race instead of having two fleet races and two small gang races. But it's flavorful that there is no "fleet" (aka with passive tank bonus) command ship with skirmish bonus.
I totally expect to see tons of the active tank ones in solo/small gang, and to see the fleet ones become an interesting doctrine to compete really strongly with the other expensive subcaps (hacs, T3s), since they have both massive tank and massive gun bonuses. I think you will have to monitor their effects on those ship's use cases, they may reduce hacs potential roles even more. Right now, at least half the hacs are designed for brawling and lack some of the tools for zipping around and controlling engagement range, so the few still used for that, like the zealot, may get overshadowed even more by more combat BCs. This could be fine if you give them back another role, but if they stay like they are, they may become useless.
I may be overreacting and overestimating the raw combat potential of the new command ships, but I'm afraid I'm not. You're over reacting.
Notice that most ships lost turrets/launchers. The improved bonuses are to compensate for that. |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
221
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:54:00 -
[84] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:It's not being changed.
Given up on trying to justify the Astarte nerf? |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
265
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:54:00 -
[85] - Quote
Dat Sleipnir.
I agree the Eos and the Claymore need resist bonuses, Racial continuity be damned in this case.
Other than that, better than your Vaga changes is all I can say. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6890
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:55:00 -
[86] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
624
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:55:00 -
[87] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Baren wrote:CCP FOZZIE, I just have a question on wording
Nighthawk: 5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)
Should it not say,
Nighthawk: 5% bonus to reduction of Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity) Any time we say bonus we generally mean that the stat goes in whatever direction is better. So yes it's a reduction.
This isnt exactly a high priority, but there are some place where the same bonus is given as both +5% and -5% bonus. The first one that comes to mind is the 5% missile rof implant vs the officer named version of the same implant. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
474
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:56:00 -
[88] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:Such as? Such as when you have logistics to take advantage of the resists, or are small gang active tanking (niche I know), or want to provide bonused gang links for either armor or skirmish in an armor gang (much less niche). Resists? On an Astarte? I guess you've forgotten that Gallente T2 armor hulls get to double dip in that hilarious configuration of 50% EM and 10% Explosive.
That allows you to use your brain and fit an explosive hardener s and a EM ahrdener with NO stack nerf between them without need to worry with the other resists! |
Lexar Mundi
Aperture Harmonics K162
61
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:56:00 -
[89] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:Nice changes. I still don't like that the gang link skills share the charisma modifier with social skills though, as they are clearly combat skills as opposed to "proper" social skills.
well if you think about it your ship is communicating to the other ships to give them bonuses lol.
Commanding is a social thing to do. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
387
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:58:00 -
[90] - Quote
With the Damnation retaining it's 10%/level armor bonus, don't you guys think it'll still be the king over the others for FCing an armor gang? Is this intentional to keep it in this position? Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
|
Raimo
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
68
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:59:00 -
[91] - Quote
Looks like a good overall direction |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6900
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:59:00 -
[92] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:It's not being changed. Given up on trying to justify the Astarte nerf?
Astarte is fine l2p Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Hayman Wakefield
Trans-Stellar Salvage Shipping and Securities
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:00:00 -
[93] - Quote
Well done on completely trolling CCP Rise on the Eagle, that Vulture tweak is great and it has two launchers unlike the Abso |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:01:00 -
[94] - Quote
is the heavy drone tracking bonus of the eos applied to sentries as well? IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
58
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:01:00 -
[95] - Quote
Deirdre Anethoel wrote:So you're terribly afraid of powercreep on hacs, but you make every single command ship (except the vulture, because double optimal bonus is bad) into massive combat beasts?
Sleipnir, Abso, Astarte were already beasts. Sleipnir and Astarte are actually losing a bit of their turret damage. Astarte still looks a bit scary. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:01:00 -
[96] - Quote
dat nighthawk drake..... ................................... Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Aglais
Liberation Army
306
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:02:00 -
[97] - Quote
Fozzie, can we PLEASE cut the kinetic damage bonus on the Nighthawk and turn it into a general damage bonus? I don't know if this is an attempt to differentiate it from the Damnation or an attempt to keep it from being remarkable in more than like two situations. I know, it's going to have the Drake model, but it's a T2 ship, and it's going to not be cheap. What good will it be if it's only really effective with the one damage type that gets shut down the most? |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
221
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:02:00 -
[98] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:It's not being changed. Given up on trying to justify the Astarte nerf? Astarte is fine l2p
50% EM 10% Explosive, active tank bonus, 6 lowslots and only two rig slots
Yeah, sure. I'm sure you can see how 'fine' the Astarte is by seeing how often its used right now. |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
651
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:02:00 -
[99] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote: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 The damnations damage has universally been pathetic. The Eos and Astarte would mow it down to kibble. Damnation will still be the fleet brick. I'd like to start seeing some Eos/Ast fits now.
the dam is the fleet brick for sure, would just be nice if there was another to join it. OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Deirdre Anethoel
Antimatter Delivery Inc.
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:02:00 -
[100] - Quote
Voith wrote: You're over reacting.
Notice that most ships lost turrets/launchers. The improved bonuses are to compensate for that.
Edited, you're right. They may become viable as fleet compositions (because huge tank + decent damage is still good), but it's likely they won't be overpowered at all. Could be interesting. More options is always good.
|
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1389
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:03:00 -
[101] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:is the heavy drone tracking bonus of the eos applied to sentries as well? No, just the microwarp velocity part. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:04:00 -
[102] - Quote
CCP FOZZIE can you please get as active as you are in his Rebalance Threads ``cough`` cough`` HAC`s |
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:05:00 -
[103] - Quote
For the end goal of getting Command ships back on grid, there really needs to be more balance amongst the command ships. The Minmitar/Gallente would do fine in smaller gang combat, where their rep bonus might actually be able to hold up, or they can fit enough resists for a logi or two to keep them alive, but in the larger scale of combat... they're too paper thin. Rep bonuses are great if you never plan on being shot at by more than 3 people.
Can we get a buffer/resist bonus on 1 minmitar and gallente hull? Have it be a 5% base armor/shield, or have it be a sig radius bonus to go with the sig radius link, making them hard ships to hit so they don't NEED the huge buffers typically associated with Caldari and Amarr.
The Law is a point of View |
Boltorano
Devious Chemicals
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:07:00 -
[104] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:For the end goal of getting Command ships back on grid, there really needs to be more balance amongst the command ships. The Minmitar/Gallente would do fine in smaller gang combat, where their rep bonus might actually be able to hold up, or they can fit enough resists for a logi or two to keep them alive, but in the larger scale of combat... they're too paper thin. Rep bonuses are great if you never plan on being shot at by more than 3 people.
I'm no expert, but isn't that kind of the point? |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:07:00 -
[105] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Baren wrote:CCP FOZZIE, I just have a question on wording
Nighthawk: 5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)
Should it not say,
Nighthawk: 5% bonus to reduction of Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity) Any time we say bonus we generally mean that the stat goes in whatever direction is better. So yes it's a reduction.
awesome |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6908
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:09:00 -
[106] - Quote
Baren wrote:CCP FOZZIE can you please get as active as you are in his Rebalance Threads ``cough`` cough`` HAC`s
HACs are being shepherded by CCP Rise, although we discuss it all constantly and contribute a ton to each other's designs. I am completely in favor of the HAC changes he posted. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Deirdre Anethoel
Antimatter Delivery Inc.
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:10:00 -
[107] - Quote
Boltorano wrote:Kenrailae wrote:For the end goal of getting Command ships back on grid, there really needs to be more balance amongst the command ships. The Minmitar/Gallente would do fine in smaller gang combat, where their rep bonus might actually be able to hold up, or they can fit enough resists for a logi or two to keep them alive, but in the larger scale of combat... they're too paper thin. Rep bonuses are great if you never plan on being shot at by more than 3 people.
I'm no expert, but isn't that kind of the point?
I like the fact that skirmish link boats (gallente/minmatar) will be hard to keep alive in large fleets. They are skirmish, that's the point. Sounds really good to me. |
Eshnala
TURN LEFT Exodus.
27
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:12:00 -
[108] - Quote
CS are still too slow for using them in a propper skirmish fleet tbh. Sleip or Claymore should be able to go 2k+ so it can keep up with linked tier3s/nano-bs. |
Failgokker
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:12:00 -
[109] - Quote
Granted, I'm not the biggest EFT wizard out there, so I'm not going to debate the individual buffs/nerfs.
However, CCP Fozzie you want boosting ships to be on grid with the fleets. I follow that quite fine. However, what role does the command ship expect to take in the fleet? I get that they are important fleet booster, but it's about the most boring thing to do in a fleet, while requiring a terrible long training time (Fleet Command V was hell).
The usage of using POS's or a t3 in a safespot was a way for those of us in fleet boosting ships to be able to fly 2 chars in large scale combat. With the new changes I'm not sure that'll be the case, and i'm finding it difficult to figure out if the new command ships in large battles will be anything other than flying bricks without anything active to do during combat?
|
Alpheias
Euphoria Released Verge of Collapse
2286
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:14:00 -
[110] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Sleipnir: Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage (was 5% RoF) 7.5% bonus to shield boosting amount Command Ships skill bonuses: 10%(+5) bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links 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) / 3600(-244) / 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
Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeet! Allow me to be frank. You will not like me. You will not like me now, and you will not like men++ a good deal less as we go on. |
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
243
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:15:00 -
[111] - Quote
Xequecal wrote:Baren 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. LOL go home. you prolly only have 10mil sp and are butt hurt you cant fly one. They require more "wasted" SP that gives you no benefit at all 99% of the time than a dreadnought. EDIT: I posted carrier instead of dread for some stupid reason.
The skills requires for a CS are link skills, which fit in its role, and Minmatar BC 5, and the racial (hull size) skill to 5 is standard on all T2 ships.
So they don't waste SP at all. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1706
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:16:00 -
[112] - Quote
Oh my word yes. Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
Capn Jack
Shadow Vanguard.
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:17:00 -
[113] - Quote
So come Odyssey 1.1 Gallente are getting 2 big nerfs, Deimos loses a huge chunk of EHP and the Astarte loses ~8% dps (not home so can't do the math) do you feel that Gallente ships in general are currently too powerful for single and small gang warfare that you can justify these changes? (note: that these ships are already not the most used ships, and with these nerfs we might well see a decline in their use). |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
257
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:18:00 -
[114] - Quote
Between the reduced effectiveness and ganglinks and lack of an option to ease redundancy with fleet bonuses, I'm a little disappointed that not more was made to make sure they had added staying power to "bring them back on field" instead of constantly relying on offgrid/POS methods, especially combined with the nerfs to these. I guess I can understand it being difficult to balance if they could easily reach several hundred thousand EHP while making them have bite as well, but yeah.
Is there any hope of having that automated sorting of fleet bonuses that was mentioned a while back? STANDING ON THE VERGE OF PROLAPSE |
glepp
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
97
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:21:00 -
[115] - Quote
Nice changes, but why keep the local rep bonuses? These are gang ships as defined by their role, and local reps are useless in any gang setting. Change it for a hitpoint bonus instead to differentiate from the resist bonus on amarr/caldari.
As it stands it's a logical contradiction that means armor fleets won't have skirmish links when you remove off-grid boosts. |
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1360
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:21:00 -
[116] - Quote
Sounds like a great plan overall. It always annoyed the living hell out of me that "Hey, this ship that's 200m ISK is designed to sit out in the middle of nowhere and do absolutely nothing! Welcome to EVE, that's so much fun!!"
Cheers and great job.
Where I am. |
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:22:00 -
[117] - Quote
Boltorano wrote:Kenrailae wrote:For the end goal of getting Command ships back on grid, there really needs to be more balance amongst the command ships. The Minmitar/Gallente would do fine in smaller gang combat, where their rep bonus might actually be able to hold up, or they can fit enough resists for a logi or two to keep them alive, but in the larger scale of combat... they're too paper thin. Rep bonuses are great if you never plan on being shot at by more than 3 people.
I'm no expert, but isn't that kind of the point?
Isn't 'what' kinda the point?
CCP did a great job of not saying who gets bonuses to what Link type this time around, but IIRC from last read(with the update from this time) The only two races that have a skirmish bonus are Gallente and Minmitar. So if you're saying that fleets larger than 10 ships shouldn't have Skirmish links, then yeah, I guess that is the point. If that's NOT the case, than CCP is just dropping active rep bonuses on all of the Gallente and minmitar things cause.... profit?
Yeah. The Law is a point of View |
Rall Mekin
End-of-Line
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:23:00 -
[118] - Quote
To be honest, with HAM range being so limited, the Sleipnir has a huge advantage over the Claymore. What about changing one of the bonuses of the Claymore to be a flight time bonuses or missile velocity bonus? I realize the power of an explosion velocity bonus, but, if its serious going to be considered as a HAM ship, HAM's need a little more range in my opinion.
HAM's, in general, are still neglected a lot in PVP except in wormhole space, mainly because basically all short range weapons with similar damage output have better range. HAM legions are popular in wormhole space, but that's because most fighting is done, well, on a wormhole. It will see a lot of use in hole, I believe, but I don't think your going to see HAM Claymore's actually used in PVP very often.
I think the Minmatar just have a good ratting, active, PVE heavy missile boat now. Join End-of-Line, -EOL, today, and kill your CEO!(Terms and conditions apply.) |
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:25:00 -
[119] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:The skills requires for a CS are link skills, which fit in its role, and Minmatar BC 5, and the racial (hull size) skill to 5 is standard on all T2 ships.
So they don't waste SP at all.
Well, the point is that all those link and leadership skills do not help your character in any way when you're flying any other ship. Hell, the majority of those SP do not help you in any way even when you're flying THAT ship, since you can only reasonably fit 1 or 2 links on it anyway if you're not offgrid boosting.
BC V lets you fly other battlecruisers, so that one isn't "useless." The link skills are just like Advanced Spaceship Command and Jump Drive Operation, near-zero benefit skills that function entirely as timesinks to get into a dreadnought. I just think it's kind of dumb for command ships to have MORE deadweight SP than a capital ship. IMHO, they should each just require V in the two link skills they're bonused towards. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
398
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:25:00 -
[120] - 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. |
|
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:25:00 -
[121] - Quote
Rall Mekin wrote:To be honest, with HAM range being so limited, the Sleipnir has a huge advantage over the Claymore. What about changing one of the bonuses of the Claymore to be a flight time bonus or missile velocity bonus? I realize the power of an explosion velocity bonus, but, if its serious going to be considered as a HAM ship, HAM's need a little more range in my opinion.
HAM's, in general, are still neglected a lot in PVP except in wormhole space, mainly because basically all short range weapons with similar damage output have better range. HAM legions are popular in wormhole space, but that's because most fighting is done, well, on a wormhole. It will see a lot of use in hole, I believe, but I don't think your going to see HAM Claymore's actually used in PVP very often.
I think the Minmatar just have a good ratting, active, PVE heavy missile boat now.
HAM's have a better effective Range than most Medium sized turret weapons, though they do not have the fall off to play with that most of them have either.
The Law is a point of View |
Luscius Uta
Unleashed' Fury Forsaken Federation
53
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:25:00 -
[122] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:It's not being changed. Given up on trying to justify the Astarte nerf? Astarte is fine l2p
It's fine for the purpose you've intended, so I suppose people should stop using it for other intents, such as ratting or solo PvP. Can we stop calling EVE a sandbox please? Also it still has a dumb falloff bonus. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:26:00 -
[123] - Quote
glepp wrote:Nice changes, but why keep the local rep bonuses? These are gang ships as defined by their role, and local reps are useless in any gang setting. Change it for a hitpoint bonus instead to differentiate from the resist bonus on amarr/caldari.
As it stands it's a logical contradiction that means armor fleets won't have skirmish links when you remove off-grid boosts. in the sense that info/skirmish is for small ship play, the local rep vs fleet tank cs boosts makes sense.
beautiful ships such as the claymore and nighthawk might die, but you get to fly them first.
sorry i just can't get over how beautiful the kaalakiota drake is going to be. it's a dream come true. i just sold my vulture for a nighthawk in jita. Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Sushi Nardieu
Bite Me inc Bitten.
147
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:29:00 -
[124] - Quote
Command Ships don't feel individualized or focused anymore. They all do similar things even if certain boost types they have are "secondary" to their race. If you, Fozzie, want to make T2 ships truly specialized then just give them a bonus to one link type.
Command ships feels like a blob of the same ships. The main difference between them all is the weapon type. For example, the EOS and Astarte both have armour repairing bonuses. This is hardly exciting for what should be 2 distinct ships.
Certain CS will have resist bonuses across the board. This will be a clear indication of what CS ships will be fielded in large gang warfare and which will not (non-resist bonus CS). This does not feel like the ethos of where EVE should go.
If anything CS are becoming much more generalized than even their T3 counterparts. Unless there is more information to be revealed or data to be made clear, that is what the current iteration feels like.
Secondly, T3s are being thrown under the bus here. Why is there the need to make them generalized ships? This feels like an outdated concept because the majority of the fitting meta is designed to be specialized.
This flat rate 15% bonus Fozzie. Too easy. Make it per level and make CSV a valuable skill.
Making them equal to T2 ships does not feel wrong but making them worse than T2 ships is just weird. I understand that certain modules on T3 ships are just overpowered and certain ones are useless. Warfare Processor at 5% per lvl is overpowered but 2% per lvl feels underpowered.
Also, T3 boosting. Either take it out completely or make it competitive, is what I have in mind. The Guns of Knowledge-á |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
387
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:31:00 -
[125] - Quote
I still think either the Damnation should lose one of its double tank bonuses or the other Command ships should be complimented similarly. Otherwise, the tanking potential on the Damnation is going to be too appealing to use an Astarte or any of the Gallente boats in an armor fleet.
Similarly, one of the shield CSs should be compensated with a shield hp bonus to give shield fleet FCs an option. Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
58
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:31:00 -
[126] - Quote
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? |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
756
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:32:00 -
[127] - Quote
This is a T2 specialized command ship.
Specialized in what: COMMAND
Definition in real world: http://www.answers.com/topic/command-ship
Quote:Command ships serve as the flagships of the commander of a fleet. They provide communications, office space, and accommodations for a fleet commander and his staff, and serve to coordinate fleet activities.
(...) command ship features the command and control components prevalent on landing ships (command) and also feature the capability to land troops and equipment. These forces will be slightly less than on a pure landing ship due to the nature of the ship as a command vessel (...)
In Eve a Command Ship should be used by a fleet commander (FC).
What a FC does: commands the fleet, calls targets. It should be the last one to die.
What these ships should focus to support the FC Job and support his role of command:
- Give fleet bonus - Durable (best tank and buffer tank in a fleet) - Excellent electronic bonus (to allow him to not get jammed/damped easily by no electronic module and allow him to keep calling targets)
Everything else is secondary, the command ship should not be a ship built to have a good firepower but when I look at the command ship bonuses I only see DPS bonus related stuff instead of COMMAND related stuff.
Get your priorities strait, this is a COMMAND SHIP or a COMBAT SHIP? Unforgiven Storm for CSM 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. (If I don't get in in the next 5 years I will quit trying) :-) |
Boltorano
Devious Chemicals
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:34:00 -
[128] - Quote
Sushi Nardieu wrote:Command Ships don't feel individualized or focused anymore. They all do similar things even if certain boost types they have are "secondary" to their race. If you, Fozzie, want to make T2 ships truly specialized then just give them a bonus to one link type..
I'd like to see an Eos in space more than once a decade. |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
58
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:35:00 -
[129] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:I still think either the Damnation should lose one of its double tank bonuses or the other Command ships should be complimented similarly. Otherwise, the tanking potential on the Damnation is going to be too appealing to use an Astarte or any of the Gallente boats in an armor fleet.
I didn't know large fleet fights were Gallente thing.
Quote:Similarly, one of the shield CSs should be compensated with a shield hp bonus to give shield fleet FCs an option.
Check Vulture. |
Die Warzau
SRE Brotherhood
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:37:00 -
[130] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: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? You can look at in terms of effective turrets. Sleipnir goes from 11.6666 effective turrets to 11.25 Astarte goes from 10.9 effective turrets to 10 Abso stays at 10 effective turrets Hey Fozzie, where are you getting 11.25 for the Sleipnir? I get the same answer as you for the "before" picture: 7 turrets * 1.25 (+25% damage) / 0.75 (+25% RoF) = 11.66
But for after I only get: 5 turrets * 2 (+100% damage) = 10
|
|
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:38:00 -
[131] - Quote
Die Warzau wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: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? You can look at in terms of effective turrets. Sleipnir goes from 11.6666 effective turrets to 11.25 Astarte goes from 10.9 effective turrets to 10 Abso stays at 10 effective turrets Hey Fozzie, where are you getting 11.25 for the Sleipnir? I get the same answer as you for the "before" picture: 7 turrets * 1.25 (+25% damage) / 0.75 (+25% RoF) = 11.66 But for after I only get: 5 turrets * 2 (+100% damage) = 10
The two damage bonuses are multiplicative, 1.5 * 1.5 = 2.25 = +125% damage. |
Highsec Clarke
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:41:00 -
[132] - Quote
OMG! Fail! Let CCP Rise do the job... and Eos/Ishtar bonus on specific Drones makes the other useless, while all other ships channel all their bonuses into one type of weapon... I really hope that Armor Rep will work someday... but it seems not to be in the near future... |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
933
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:43:00 -
[133] - Quote
Each race should have one command ship that has a bonus to local reps and one that has a passive tank bonus!
Other than that, the changes look good but i'm no command ship expert Putting work in since 2010. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
244
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:46:00 -
[134] - Quote
Highsec Clarke wrote:OMG! Fail! Let CCP Rise do the job... and Eos/Ishtar bonus on specific Drones makes the other useless, while all other ships channel all their bonuses into one type of weapon... I really hope that Armor Rep will work someday... but it seems not to be in the near future... We wont see any Gallente command ships in the near future...
Hell no. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Hathrul
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Polarized.
289
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:47:00 -
[135] - Quote
so minmatar and gallente command ships get a local rep bonus which makes them useless in fleet fights and reduce them to small scale fights with active tank or off-grid boosting
i thought you wanted to get rid of off-grid boosting? why cant all races have 1 local tank boost and 1 buffer tank version so all races have a viable choice for either situation |
CM Abimees
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:48:00 -
[136] - Quote
Hey Fozzie! I see you improving C-ships but what about command strategic cruisers? I have trained one of my toon only for boosting with strategic cruisers and i have wasted 30 mil IP for that. But with those changes my char is pretty useless. Can you give me skill reimbursment to fix my toon? |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
1174
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:48:00 -
[137] - Quote
Looks nice |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
398
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:49:00 -
[138] - 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. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1390
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:50:00 -
[139] - Quote
Hathrul wrote:so minmatar and gallente command ships get a local rep bonus which makes them useless in fleet fights and reduce them to small scale fights with active tank or off-grid boosting
i thought you wanted to get rid of off-grid boosting? why cant all races have 1 local tank boost and 1 buffer tank version so all races have a viable choice for either situation Gallente and Minmatar get local rep bonuses yes they both also get skirmish warfare links which makes them better for small scale fights, kind of like local reps Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
257
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:50:00 -
[140] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Sarmatiko wrote:Also glad that Marauders are safe, for now.. /Maniacal Laugh You madman. Don't hurt my Vargur. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
398
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:50:00 -
[141] - 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. |
Coldheart Jones
United Brothers Of Eve Seventh Sanctum.
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:51:00 -
[142] - Quote
Minmatar once again getting the nerf bat. i mean why Take so much away from the sleipnir? and they Claymore come on your all saw the cyclones horrid failure why repeat it.. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1390
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:51:00 -
[143] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: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......... So is the Tristan Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
326
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:52:00 -
[144] - Quote
Oh lol, another gallente drone ship with a turret tracking bonus. So the eos has 3 bonuses while everyone else has 4? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
398
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:55:00 -
[145] - 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. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1390
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:56:00 -
[146] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Oh lol, another gallente drone ship with a turret tracking bonus. So the eos has 3 bonuses while everyone else has 4? The Eos is a close range Brawler, hence the bonus to heavy drones only. the tracking bonus makes blasters and heavy drones a deadly combo. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
101
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:57:00 -
[147] - Quote
And Command Ships are getting some new models as well? |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
330
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:57:00 -
[148] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Oh lol, another gallente drone ship with a turret tracking bonus. So the eos has 3 bonuses while everyone else has 4? The Eos is a close range Brawler, hence the bonus to heavy drones only. the tracking bonus makes blasters and heavy drones a deadly combo.
How about one of those 10% damage bonuses instead? |
Cpt Boomstick
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:57:00 -
[149] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Absolution: Fittings: 1500 PWG (-75),
Damnation: Fittings: 1300(-290) PWG
Astarte: Fittings: 1350 PWG (-100)
Eos: Fittings: 1200 PWG (-225)
Sleipnir: Fittings: 1300 PWG (-160)
Claymore: Fittings: 1100 PWG (-290)
Nighthawk: Fittings: 825 PWG (+115), 550 CPU (-5)
So many of these ships are already super tight on powergrid using a proper fit. I see here most of them are actually getting powergrid reductions in the same context of wanting to have them include ganglinks on board which use 200 powergrid each just for the t1 version. I also included the nighthawk here which is notoriously tight on CPU and its actually losing another 5 cpu. This really doesn't make any sense to me. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1390
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:00:00 -
[150] - Quote
Cpt Boomstick wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Absolution: Fittings: 1500 PWG (-75),
Damnation: Fittings: 1300(-290) PWG
Astarte: Fittings: 1350 PWG (-100)
Eos: Fittings: 1200 PWG (-225)
Sleipnir: Fittings: 1300 PWG (-160)
Claymore: Fittings: 1100 PWG (-290)
Nighthawk: Fittings: 825 PWG (+115), 550 CPU (-5)
So many of these ships are already super tight on powergrid using a proper fit. I see here most of them are actually getting powergrid reductions in the same context of wanting to have them include ganglinks on board which use 200 powergrid each just for the t1 version. I also included the nighthawk here which is notoriously tight on CPU and its actually losing another 5 cpu. This really doesn't make any sense to me. links got a 100mw grid reduction. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
Alsyth
60
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:02:00 -
[151] - Quote
General thoughts:
The lack of "on grid only" ganglinks is really, really bad. Without it ganglinks will never be "fixed", out of POS or not.
Active repair bonus still as bad as ever. When will you realize it just prevent those ships from being good in fleet while giving an almost imperceptible bonus only when there is no logi on field? Especially when you have really poor base resistances and not enough slots to compensate (Gallente...). Only thing that saves Claymore/Sleipnir is their base resists which allows to omni-tank, and ASB which are worth it when armor boosters are not, but still, passive bonus would help them for fleets.
Make CSs like HICs, and give them all a passive bonus to resistances as a role bonus.
-Add capacitor like you did for HACs. -Info warfare feels wasted on Amarr, better on damps than on TDs. -No Skirmish on tanky CS (because yes, active bonus -> lack tank in fleets) is annoying.
Ship by ship:
TLDR: Nighthawk really needs a fix. A complete redesign, from slot layout to PG to bonuses. The others are disappointing but not too bad. Stealth nerfs to agility/speed/capacitor are really annoying.
Absolution: 10 effective turrets (or 8) instead of the former 10. No improvement in dps which is sad. It's lacking compared to Legion, Sleipnir, and even Zealot (for the price difference). Fitting is rather good. Tank will be CS-worthy, might even be on par with Legion?
Thoughts: -add a damage application bonus like ALL other CS would be welcome (tracking/optimal?) -a real dronebay, 50mb. It already gains no dps, at least give it that. -boost the cap and drop the turret capacitor use bonus, to add the other (tracking/optimal). Or just do as I said above and put the resists as a role bonus.
Damnation:
7.5 launchers... Bad. Especially given the aweful state HML are in. You promised us all CS will be worthy to be flown as dps ships, this one won't be. No bonus to RLM is really annoying, as usual. HML and HAM are bad atm compared to rapid light. The tank feels really massive, as usual. Will be harder to dual plate though, with the PG nerf.
Thoughts: -add better missile bonuses or drone damage to go with its 50mb dronebay [Khanid do missiles AND drones, cf Curse] -bonus to rapid light too
Nighthawk:
The absolute worst of the bunch. And you really don't want it to get any better it seems.
Still lack PG, won't be able to fit 2 links+5 launchers+LSE+MWD. Claymore has 175 more PG (+20%) for no reason: both are shield missile ships. 10 launchers worth of kinetic (not enough) 6.7 worth of other damage (aweful). Current has same for kinetic, but more elsewhere.
Thoughts: -stops forcing Caldari missile ships into kinetic, give it 10% to all -give it RLM bonus -+100PG, just to be in line with Claymore -fix the slot layout (impossible to omni tank it properly with 5 meds on caldari ships), and impossible to nano either, so the 5 lows are wasted (or used for PG mods because you did not give it enough PG) -the nerf to cap and align time is really annoying, the ship is already so bad... But no, you had to make it the slowest and the less agile of all...
Vulture:
Might actually be mildly interesting. 7.5 turrets is not enough, but really good range, and the locking range to go with it.
Thoughts: -make it blaster worthy too somehow? Shield fleets like blasters too...
Astarte:
10 turrets instead of the former 10.9 turrets, so a dps nerf. Not needed imo. Better dronebay is nice though. Active repair bonus still as bad as ever on that kind of ship, just make it bad for fleet while not helping much for small gang.
Thoughts -replace active bonus by passive bonus (as a role bonus like HICs) -give it back some shield...
Eos:
Turret tracking bonus feels totally out of place and useless. Bonus to heavy drone only is annoying, but might make it more balanced... Still, feels as dumb as giving bonus to blasters and not rails.
Sleipnir:
Was too good, had to nerf it? Had 11.67 turrets, now 11.25, but better alpha... Poor compensation... Nerf to dronebay, why? Nerf to agility (and thus speed with MWD on) is really, really bad. HUGE nerf to CPU (-11%) will make active tanking fits struggle.
-give it the cpu, dronebay, agility back... -passive bonus instead of active ofc.
Claymore:
8.9 effective launchers in all damage type with a full flight of medium, a good slot layout for a missile boat, omni base resist so better actual tank, faster, easier to fit: NO NEED TO FLY NIGHTHAWK EVER. Double ROF is bad for overheat and ammo usage though.
Thoughts: -seems good, looking forward to test it -give it rapid light missiles bonus.......... |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:02:00 -
[152] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Baren wrote:CCP FOZZIE can you please get as active as you are in his Rebalance Threads ``cough`` cough`` HAC`s HACs are being shepherded by CCP Rise, although we discuss it all constantly and contribute a ton to each other's designs. I am completely in favor of the HAC changes he posted.
Oh I agree I love the changes. I just like to see DEV`s interact witht he players when they create threads. right now you have posts on almost every page of your threads. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
398
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:02:00 -
[153] - 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. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
387
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:03:00 -
[154] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:I still think either the Damnation should lose one of its double tank bonuses or the other Command ships should be complimented similarly. Otherwise, the tanking potential on the Damnation is going to be too appealing to use an Astarte or any of the Gallente boats in an armor fleet. I didn't know large fleet fights were Gallente thing. Quote:Similarly, one of the shield CSs should be compensated with a shield hp bonus to give shield fleet FCs an option. Check Vulture. Get this. Maybe--just MAYBE--a Fleet would like to use Armor and Skirmish links. *mind blown*
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vulture: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage (was link bonus) Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and Information Warfare links Also, can you show me in these 4 bonuses which one applies to shield hitpoints? Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
257
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:08:00 -
[155] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:I didn't know large fleet fights were Gallente thing..
wat
http://raynor.cl/eve/formRecive.php?id=fDnkNQO STANDING ON THE VERGE OF PROLAPSE |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1390
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:09:00 -
[156] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Also why does the vulture need 2 optimal range bonuses to use blasters? .... its not a sniper come on damage or tracking please
Might be because Caldari mostly uses Railguns and not blasters. One could even argue that Railguns and Blasters work on 2 completely different theories and should be separated, but that is for a different thread. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Shigsy
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
68
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:14:00 -
[157] - Quote
Am I calculating it wrong or does the new Sleip do 6.8k volley with faction EMP? |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
257
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:15:00 -
[158] - Quote
Shigsy wrote:Am I calculating it wrong or does the new Sleip do 6.8k volley with faction EMP?
Get this mang, it also does it with faction fusion and faction phased plasma. STANDING ON THE VERGE OF PROLAPSE |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
129
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:17:00 -
[159] - Quote
Happy enough. |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
384
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:18:00 -
[160] - Quote
I'd like the see the damnation be put on par with the rest, as is there's no reason to use anything but that for large fleet fights, which doesn't really add flavor, but just negates choice.
Also, why does the EOS still get a bonus to MHT instead of it's drones, which are really the reason to use the ship over the Astarte. As is, its a poor Astarte and a slightly mediocre Myrmidon. Just throw it the Drone bonuses and give it a reason to exist. It won't step on the other drone boats as its used for a different purpose. Keep the bonus to Heavy's if you're worried about the sentry aspect.
Why does Gallente not get a bonus to Information warfare links? Isn't that their racial bonus?
|
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
388
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:18:00 -
[161] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:Also why does the vulture need 2 optimal range bonuses to use blasters? .... its not a sniper come on damage or tracking please
Might be because Caldari mostly uses Railguns and not blasters. One could even argue that Railguns and Blasters work on 2 completely different theories and should be separated, but that is for a different thread. Blasters and Rails are fine. They use the same ammo, and that means they're both Hybrids. The fact that one is extremely close, high tracking and the other is extremely long range, low tracking is as similar as ACs being close, high falloff, low alpha and Arties being long range, high optimal, high alpha. They don't operate under "completely different theories."
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:22:00 -
[162] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Each race should have one command ship that has a bonus to local reps and one that has a passive tank bonus!
Rather not. Amarr is quite bad at passive tanking because lack of med slots required for shield tanking. And you can't passive tank a armor tanker. |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
865
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:22:00 -
[163] - Quote
Jonatan Reed wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: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? You can look at in terms of effective turrets. Sleipnir goes from 11.6666 effective turrets to 11.25 Astarte goes from 10.9 effective turrets to 10 Abso stays at 10 effective turrets Can someone explain whatthe hell effective turrets even means? When the hell did this metric even come from?
Its an easy way of comparing different damage bonuses in a simple way that they have always used.
8 turrets with 25% bonus (so lvl 5 on a 5% per level skill) = 10 turrets 6 Turrets with 50% bonus (so level 5 on a 10% per level skill) = 9 turrets
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
398
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:23:00 -
[164] - 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. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
129
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:23:00 -
[165] - Quote
The only thing I agree with is the damnation booster issue. Yes the flying chicken won't get alpha'd off the field, it won't be doing much of anything damage wise though.
And yea having 100+ships all target you and shoot at once can't be the main focal factor of the ship. The recent megabrawals... Not much was surviving once targeted. Subcaps do blow up in large fleet ops.
These can survive on the field. The changes are good, there's no need to hide the ship in a safe vs using it (it will still happen).
|
Doddy
Dark-Rising
865
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:25:00 -
[166] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Each race should have one command ship that has a bonus to local reps and one that has a passive tank bonus! Rather not. Amarr is quite bad at passive tanking because lack of med slots required for shield tanking. And you can't passive tank a armor tanker.
I don't think you get passive tanking. Passive tanking = no repair, so any armour buffer tank is passive tanking. Amarr is by far the best race at passive tanking.
I think you are thinking of shield "passive" tanking which relies on shield regen. Whether it is actually passive tanking depends on how you define passive. The shield is regening, so its certainly not fully passive, but the player is not controlling it so it is passive on the pilots part. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
388
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:27:00 -
[167] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote: I'd like the see the damnation be put on par with the rest, as is there's no reason to use anything but that for large fleet fights, which doesn't really add flavor, but just negates choice.
Also, why does the EOS still get a bonus to MHT instead of it's drones, which are really the reason to use the ship over the Astarte. As is, its a poor Astarte and a slightly mediocre Myrmidon. Just throw it the Drone bonuses and give it a reason to exist. It won't step on the other drone boats as its used for a different purpose. Keep the bonus to Heavy's if you're worried about the sentry aspect.
Why does Gallente not get a bonus to Information warfare links? Isn't that their racial bonus?
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. Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
494
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:28:00 -
[168] - Quote
everything looks pretty good but.... The effective turret lost on the Astarte is pretty dumb... |
Lucas Ericsson
Obstergo Bitten.
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:28:00 -
[169] - Quote
FOZZIE FAN ART
<3 U |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:29:00 -
[170] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Tobias Hareka wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Each race should have one command ship that has a bonus to local reps and one that has a passive tank bonus! Rather not. Amarr is quite bad at passive tanking because lack of med slots required for shield tanking. And you can't passive tank a armor tanker. I don't think you get passive tanking. Passive tanking = no repair, so any armour buffer tank is passive tanking. Amarr is by far the best race at passive tanking. I think you are thinking of shield "passive" tanking which relies on shield regen. Whether it is actually passive tanking depends on how you define passive. The shield is regening, so its certainly not fully passive, but the player is not controlling it so it is passive on the pilots part.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Tanking#Passive_tanking |
|
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:30:00 -
[171] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Tobias Hareka wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Each race should have one command ship that has a bonus to local reps and one that has a passive tank bonus! Rather not. Amarr is quite bad at passive tanking because lack of med slots required for shield tanking. And you can't passive tank a armor tanker. I don't think you get passive tanking. Passive tanking = no repair, so any armour buffer tank is passive tanking. Amarr is by far the best race at passive tanking. I think you are thinking of shield "passive" tanking which relies on shield regen. Whether it is actually passive tanking depends on how you define passive. The shield is regening, so its certainly not fully passive, but the player is not controlling it so it is passive on the pilots part.
Armor doesn't regen, so if you passive tank armor you're done after one fight, win or lose. You have to go back to a friendly station to repair, and that could be far away. If you passive tank shield you can survive in enemy space forever and keep killing until someone finally beats you. |
Elendar
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:31:00 -
[172] - Quote
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!
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
494
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:32:00 -
[173] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:
The damnations damage has universally been pathetic. The Eos and Astarte would mow it down to kibble.
Damnation will still be the fleet brick. I'd like to start seeing some Eos/Ast fits now.
If by "mow it down" you mean take 10+ minutes to kill, then yeah I agree with you...
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
129
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:35:00 -
[174] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:PinkKnife wrote: I'd like the see the damnation be put on par with the rest, as is there's no reason to use anything but that for large fleet fights, which doesn't really add flavor, but just negates choice.
Also, why does the EOS still get a bonus to MHT instead of it's drones, which are really the reason to use the ship over the Astarte. As is, its a poor Astarte and a slightly mediocre Myrmidon. Just throw it the Drone bonuses and give it a reason to exist. It won't step on the other drone boats as its used for a different purpose. Keep the bonus to Heavy's if you're worried about the sentry aspect.
Why does Gallente not get a bonus to Information warfare links? Isn't that their racial bonus?
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.
Agreed. The 125 bandwidth limit on drones has caused allot of issues with the droneboats balancing wise. Its like everything droneboat got 125 bandwidth and has been a balancing act between 5 heavies vs 5 sentries. Now I like the Eos, I think its potential will be crazy, the tank is still in question as we all compare it to the Damnation.
|
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:36:00 -
[175] - Quote
Maybe the they could all use just a little more dps, |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
129
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:37:00 -
[176] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:
The damnations damage has universally been pathetic. The Eos and Astarte would mow it down to kibble.
Damnation will still be the fleet brick. I'd like to start seeing some Eos/Ast fits now.
If by "mow it down" you mean take 10+ minutes to kill, then yeah I agree with you...
Ok killing a damnation is about as fast as chopping down a tree with a Herring.
The damnation wont' be doing much besides just orbiting watching its health bleed. |
ALeKasandra
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:37:00 -
[177] - Quote
Will change carriers? They are also able to be the command ship. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
129
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:39:00 -
[178] - Quote
Elendar wrote: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!
10 v 10 or 20 v 20, EOS will actually contribute.
100+.. yea I can see it geting wtf stomped in seconds vs the minute it would take to pop the Damnation. |
Bacchanalian
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
221
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:40:00 -
[179] - Quote
Elendar wrote: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.
To be honest, I think for that context of fight they'd be better off giving carriers the same bonuses as the command ships when it comes to links. Buffing command ships for the occasional 400 vs 400 leaves them unbalanced in other contexts.
Carriers have a bonus to the fitting on gang links, do they not? Why not give them the same leadership-related bonuses. It seems that as they had leadership skills as prerequisites for flying them, the notion existed in some past iteration of CCP and perhaps got lost along the way.
|
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:40:00 -
[180] - Quote
I am curious about astarte cargo capacity. The brutix has 475 m3 cargo bay while Myrmidon retains 400.
Should not astarte and eos follow the same path? Astarte: 475 m3 Eos: 400 m3
After all astarte needs much more ammunition to store in its cargo hold. |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
494
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:41:00 -
[181] - Quote
Baren wrote:Maybe the they could all use just a little more dps,
Or at the very least have the same number of total slots as "most" t2 do compared to parent t1 hull... At least pre patch there were two commands that were like this... The drop of a slot on the Sleipnir and claymore put them all -1 compared to their parent hulls... While I do like the normalized slot number that has been created by this, I still feel Fozzie went the wrong direction.
I'd strongly suggest giving all of the commands +1 tanking slot. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
934
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:47:00 -
[182] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Each race should have one command ship that has a bonus to local reps and one that has a passive tank bonus! Rather not. Amarr is quite bad at passive tanking because lack of med slots required for shield tanking. And you can't passive tank a armor tanker.
LOL don't be silly, you know i'm referring to a buffer tank... That's still kind of passive in my book as you don't have to do anything to achieve your tank.
Rek Seven wrote:Each race should have one command ship that has a bonus to local reps and one that has a passive/ buffer tank bonus! Other than that, the changes look good but i'm no command ship expert
Fixed for your convenience. Putting work in since 2010. |
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:50:00 -
[183] - Quote
Overall I quite like it. You've cut out a role for commands as a ship that can field siege links and actually be quite useful in fleets or solo. They offer a nice mix of damage, survivability, and bring something to their fleets that'd be desirable. Nerf offgrid links and they'd be in a great spot.
Why cant hacs get the same love. |
Elendar
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:52:00 -
[184] - Quote
Bacchanalian wrote:Elendar wrote: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.
To be honest, I think for that context of fight they'd be better off giving carriers the same bonuses as the command ships when it comes to links. Buffing command ships for the occasional 400 vs 400 leaves them unbalanced in other contexts. Carriers have a bonus to the fitting on gang links, do they not? Why not give them the same leadership-related bonuses. It seems that as they had leadership skills as prerequisites for flying them, the notion existed in some past iteration of CCP and perhaps got lost along the way.
Even for 100 man fleets, a size most nullsec alliances can field for alliance fleets, only the vulture and damnation are realistically viable at present. At 400 people even these are very stretched to survive. Its for this sort of average size 0.0 alliance fleet that i think all 4 fleet command ships should be viable.
At present if i bring a claymore to an ahac gang it will die first because its the easiest target to kill in the fleet. This should not be the case.
Links for a carrier isn't necessarily a bad idea but it shouldn't be the necessity or people will end up dropping them all the time along with triage and that makes fights less interesting, ends them faster and becomes rapidly unviable for anyone without supercap majority to backup their link carrier. |
Gnoshia
Section 8. Fatal Ascension
56
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:57:00 -
[185] - Quote
Oh my. That new Nighthawk will be even better than it is now for PvE. May become an actual contender with the Tengu! |
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:59:00 -
[186] - Quote
I also echo elendar's concerns. The minmatar/gallente ships are too vulnerable for large fleet fights. Not having natural resists or EHP to match up to their companions means they start off already incredibly hobbled.
It'd be nice to see one ship for each race left intact as an active brawler, but the other ship get a bit of love to make it tougher. Why do caldari and amarr get a monopoly on these bonuses, when they are far far far far far better for large gang situations. You have two commands for each race, so it makes sense to have one designed around small gangs and one designed for larger fleets. In the case of minmatar, you could leave the claymore with its active bonus, and give the sleip a strong passive tanking bonus.
Thats my only complaint, but the ships are pretty good otherwise. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
177
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:00:00 -
[187] - Quote
The Nighthawk's damage bonuses have been moved around, and rapid light missiles have been removed, but neither of these were called out as changes.
Currently: Caldari Battlecruiser bonuses: 5% bonus to RLML, HAM, and HML ROF 4% bonus to shield resistances
Command ships bonuses: 5% bonus to missile kinetic damage (includes RLML) 5% bonus to heavy missile explosion velocity
After your change, the ROF bonus is on Command Ships and the damage bonus is on Caldari Battlecruiser. I guess it was moved in order to account for the loss of the launcher? Makes sense, but still might want to call it out (additionally on any other ships that may have had the same thing happen).
Also, why is the Nighthawk having its RLML bonus removed? RLMLs are awesome, and I'd hate to see the ship nerfed by not getting a damage/ROF bonus to them anymore :( |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
865
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:03:00 -
[188] - Quote
I like the changes overall (though active rep bonus makes little sense) but why you hate nighthawk?. Its lagging behind the other CS currently and its buffs will only really have it hold station in comparison. You could at least let it get the bonus to all damage types. |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
207
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:04:00 -
[189] - Quote
I would just like to question the idea of putting 2 10% bonuses on the Sleipnir. With 11.25 effective turrets, in an artillery configuration it will be capable of enormous alpha strikes for medium weapons. At the moment the only comparable ship is either the 'Cane with 7.5 turrets of alpha strike, the Muninn with 6.25, and the current Sleipnir at 8.75. Now we jump 2.5 effective turrets worth of alpha to the Sleipnir at 11.25 turrets of alpha? Perhaps a RoF bonus might be more fitting. Even a 7.5% bonus (shows me 5*1.5/.625=12, perhaps a bit high, but not enormously out of line with current). |
Lilan Kahn
The Littlest Hobos Whores in space
168
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:05:00 -
[190] - Quote
slepnir also taking massive dps nerf |
|
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
207
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:07:00 -
[191] - Quote
Lilan Kahn wrote:slepnir also taking massive dps nerf Barely. less than one whole turret. That's less than a 4% DPS nerf, with so much more utility. |
Shigsy
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
68
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:07:00 -
[192] - Quote
Sleip does 800 DPS with 425s? |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4429
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:08:00 -
[193] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:It's not being changed. Given up on trying to justify the Astarte nerf? Astarte is fine l2p 50% EM 10% Explosive, active tank bonus, 6 lowslots and only two rig slots Yeah, sure. I'm sure you can see how 'fine' the Astarte is by seeing how often its used right now. Wow buddy, way to ignore the actual important aspects of the ship.
You might look a bit closer at the other base resists by the way:
Quote:Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 60(+10) / 85(+7.5) / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 67.5(+8.13) / 83.75(+8.13) / 10 To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
55
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:09:00 -
[194] - Quote
Why did you put the hybrid tracking bonus on a ship with no gun damage bonus?
Why did you put the hybrid tracking bonus on a ship that already has bonused drones to deal with smaller targets?
Why are command ships with active tank bonuses even a thing? |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
335
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:11:00 -
[195] - Quote
Tuxedo Catfish wrote: Why are command ships with active tank bonuses even a thing?
Apparently if you aren't fitting your command ship so that it has 30k ehp and can tank 1 battlecruiser, but gets totally disabled by a medium neut, you aren't doing small enough gang pvp. |
Michael J Caboose
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:12:00 -
[196] - Quote
Hortoken Wolfbrother wrote:I also echo elendar's concerns. The minmatar/gallente ships are too vulnerable for large fleet fights. Not having natural resists or EHP to match up to their companions means they start off already incredibly hobbled.
It'd be nice to see one ship for each race left intact as an active brawler, but the other ship get a bit of love to make it tougher. Why do caldari and amarr get a monopoly on these bonuses, when they are far far far far far better for large gang situations. You have two commands for each race, so it makes sense to have one designed around small gangs and one designed for larger fleets. In the case of minmatar, you could leave the claymore with its active bonus, and give the sleip a strong passive tanking bonus.
Thats my only complaint, but the ships are pretty good otherwise.
No. The mimatar/gallente command ships get a very powerful bonus to skirmish links. In exchange, they are more fragile. Less useful in fleets, but good in gangs. The amarr/caldari command ships get a very powerful bonus to EHP. In exchange, they get a bonus to the crappy info warfare links that are seldom even used.
Seems fair. Give the minmatar/gallente EHP bonuses, and no one will ever use amarr or caldari command ships. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
494
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:13:00 -
[197] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:It's not being changed. Given up on trying to justify the Astarte nerf? Astarte is fine l2p
Ego mongering fozzie at his finest yet again |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
865
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:13:00 -
[198] - Quote
Xequecal wrote:Doddy wrote:Tobias Hareka wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Each race should have one command ship that has a bonus to local reps and one that has a passive tank bonus! Rather not. Amarr is quite bad at passive tanking because lack of med slots required for shield tanking. And you can't passive tank a armor tanker. I don't think you get passive tanking. Passive tanking = no repair, so any armour buffer tank is passive tanking. Amarr is by far the best race at passive tanking. I think you are thinking of shield "passive" tanking which relies on shield regen. Whether it is actually passive tanking depends on how you define passive. The shield is regening, so its certainly not fully passive, but the player is not controlling it so it is passive on the pilots part. Armor doesn't regen, so if you passive tank armor you're done after one fight, win or lose. You have to go back to a friendly station to repair, and that could be far away. If you passive tank shield you can survive in enemy space forever and keep killing until someone finally beats you.
Yep, but it doesn't make buffer tanking armour any less passive does it? Of course seeing as we are talking about command ships here there is gonna be someone else to rep it for you anyway.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1238
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:13:00 -
[199] - Quote
Why are there two rep bonused Command ships but not ONE rep bonused cruiser hull?
You know the ships that are more likely to be used in small scale scenarios where the rep bonus is actually useful? You are being really inconsistent with your rep bonuses CCP. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
55
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:14:00 -
[200] - Quote
Michael J Caboose wrote:Hortoken Wolfbrother wrote:I also echo elendar's concerns. The minmatar/gallente ships are too vulnerable for large fleet fights. Not having natural resists or EHP to match up to their companions means they start off already incredibly hobbled.
It'd be nice to see one ship for each race left intact as an active brawler, but the other ship get a bit of love to make it tougher. Why do caldari and amarr get a monopoly on these bonuses, when they are far far far far far better for large gang situations. You have two commands for each race, so it makes sense to have one designed around small gangs and one designed for larger fleets. In the case of minmatar, you could leave the claymore with its active bonus, and give the sleip a strong passive tanking bonus.
Thats my only complaint, but the ships are pretty good otherwise. No. The mimatar/gallente command ships get a very powerful bonus to skirmish links. In exchange, they are more fragile. Less useful in fleets, but good in gangs. The amarr/caldari command ships get a very powerful bonus to EHP. In exchange, they get a bonus to the crappy info warfare links that are seldom even used. Seems fair. Give the minmatar/gallente EHP bonuses, and no one will ever use amarr or caldari command ships.
That's actually a pretty good answer.
I reiterate my first two questions, though. |
|
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:14:00 -
[201] - Quote
Michael J Caboose wrote:No. The mimatar/gallente command ships get a very powerful bonus to skirmish links. In exchange, they are more fragile. The amarr/caldari command ships get a very powerful bonus to EHP. In exchange, they get a bonus to the crappy info warfare links that are seldom even used.
Seems fair. Give the minmatar/gallente EHP bonuses, and no one will ever use amarr or caldari command ships. I think you're having a seizure bro. |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
866
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:14:00 -
[202] - Quote
Lilan Kahn wrote:slepnir also taking massive dps nerf
No its taking a tiny dps nerf and a big alpha buff.
|
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
55
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:15:00 -
[203] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Lilan Kahn wrote:slepnir also taking massive dps nerf Barely. less than one whole turret. That's less than a 4% DPS nerf, with so much more utility.
Sleps getting a 100% damage bonus to 5 guns, that = 10 guns worth of damage, thats more than 1.5 turets worth of damage lost. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
335
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:16:00 -
[204] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Goldensaver wrote:Lilan Kahn wrote:slepnir also taking massive dps nerf Barely. less than one whole turret. That's less than a 4% DPS nerf, with so much more utility. Sleps getting a 100% damage bonus to 5 guns, that = 10 guns worth of damage, thats more than 1.5 turets worth of damage lost.
You're exceptionall bad. The suggested sleipnir does too much damage, it has more effective weapons than any other CS for some reason, when actually they should probably all be more or less the same. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4429
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:17:00 -
[205] - Quote
Capn Jack wrote:So come Odyssey 1.1 Gallente are getting 2 big nerfs, Deimos loses a huge chunk of EHP and the Astarte loses ~8% dps (not home so can't do the math) do you feel that Gallente ships in general are currently too powerful for single and small gang warfare that you can justify these changes? (note: that these ships are already not the most used ships, and with these nerfs we might well see a decline in their use). Translation:
You took away my sucker and gave me this big bag of cash instead.... I want my sucker back. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
866
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:18:00 -
[206] - Quote
Cpt Boomstick wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Absolution: Fittings: 1500 PWG (-75),
Damnation: Fittings: 1300(-290) PWG
Astarte: Fittings: 1350 PWG (-100)
Eos: Fittings: 1200 PWG (-225)
Sleipnir: Fittings: 1300 PWG (-160)
Claymore: Fittings: 1100 PWG (-290)
Nighthawk: Fittings: 825 PWG (+115), 550 CPU (-5)
So many of these ships are already super tight on powergrid using a proper fit. I see here most of them are actually getting powergrid reductions in the same context of wanting to have them include ganglinks on board which use 200 powergrid each just for the t1 version. I also included the nighthawk here which is notoriously tight on CPU and its actually losing another 5 cpu. This really doesn't make any sense to me.
Other than the reduction of grid usage for ganglinks in the other thread (linked in this one)? And the fact the NH needs 1 less launcher?
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4429
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:19:00 -
[207] - Quote
glepp wrote:Nice changes, but why keep the local rep bonuses? These are gang ships as defined by their role, and local reps are useless in any gang setting. Change it for a hitpoint bonus instead to differentiate from the bonuses on amarr/caldari. Amarr get both, caldari get resists, gallente get hp, and minnies get more speed+reps.
As it stands it's a logical contradiction that means armor fleets won't have skirmish links when you remove off-grid boosts. Active tanking has been buffed. You might also take a peek at the resist buffs that took place under the hood as well.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
55
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:20:00 -
[208] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Goldensaver wrote:Lilan Kahn wrote:slepnir also taking massive dps nerf Barely. less than one whole turret. That's less than a 4% DPS nerf, with so much more utility. Sleps getting a 100% damage bonus to 5 guns, that = 10 guns worth of damage, thats more than 1.5 turets worth of damage lost. You're exceptionall bad. The suggested sleipnir does too much damage, it has more effective weapons than any other CS for some reason, when actually they should probably all be more or less the same.
I think you are the bad one here good sir, not only is the slep taking a huge damage nerf guns but also drones, but it also dosent do any more damage than most CS, the Claymore is getting 10 effective missles and 5 med drones. the Astarte and Eos will also be able to keep up in dps quite easily. Tho i do think the Abso and Vulture could use some love. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6986
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:21:00 -
[209] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Goldensaver wrote:Lilan Kahn wrote:slepnir also taking massive dps nerf Barely. less than one whole turret. That's less than a 4% DPS nerf, with so much more utility. Sleps getting a 100% damage bonus to 5 guns, that = 10 guns worth of damage, thats more than 1.5 turets worth of damage lost.
That's not how damage bonuses work good sir.
It's 11.25 effective turrets after this proposal. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Michael J Caboose
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:21:00 -
[210] - Quote
Also, since the link to the command ship model thread in the OP is non-existent, I'll say it here;
PLEASE do not change the model of the Absolution to the Harbinger model. The bloody chicken is an icon, and the Harb is one of the ugliest ships in the game. Only the caldari Turkey-with-a-Suitcase is worse. |
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
194
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:21:00 -
[211] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Entity wrote:So, Astarte getting a massive damage nerf?
The damage/rof changes do not offset the 29% reduced damage from losing 2 turrets, and adding 2 completely unbonused launchers isn't that particularly appealing.
It's going from 10.9 effective turrets to 10. However I expect the two utility highs, lower mass and extra resists to more than compensate.
|
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
207
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:23:00 -
[212] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Goldensaver wrote:Lilan Kahn wrote:slepnir also taking massive dps nerf Barely. less than one whole turret. That's less than a 4% DPS nerf, with so much more utility. Sleps getting a 100% damage bonus to 5 guns, that = 10 guns worth of damage, thats more than 1.5 turets worth of damage lost. Learn to math, dumbass. I have no patience for people who refuse to people who have explained that mathematically it loses almost nothing.
So, just for you: New Sleipnir: 10% bonus to damage 10% bonus to damage 5 turrets
5 * 1.5 * 1.5 = 11.25
(in case you didn't know, those two are separate bonuses that stack multiplicatively on each other. Just let me know if you need any help actually understanding what "stacking multiplicatively" means)
Old Sleipnir: 5% bonus to damage 5% bonus to RoF 7 turrets
7 * 1.25 / .75 = 11.6 (repeating)
(Again, the two SEPARATE bonuses stack on each other.)
New Sleipnir vs Old Sleipnir
11.25/11.666666666 = .9643 etc. Meaning that the new Sleipnir gets over 96% as much DPS as the old one.
Less than a 4% dps nerf.
Get it now?
Or do you still disbelieve the math? |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
335
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:24:00 -
[213] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Goldensaver wrote:Lilan Kahn wrote:slepnir also taking massive dps nerf Barely. less than one whole turret. That's less than a 4% DPS nerf, with so much more utility. Sleps getting a 100% damage bonus to 5 guns, that = 10 guns worth of damage, thats more than 1.5 turets worth of damage lost. You're exceptionall bad. The suggested sleipnir does too much damage, it has more effective weapons than any other CS for some reason, when actually they should probably all be more or less the same. I think you are the bad one here good sir, not only is the slep taking a huge damage nerf guns but also drones, but it also dosent do any more damage than most CS, the Claymore is getting 10 effective missles and 5 med drones. the Astarte and Eos will also be able to keep up in dps quite easily. Tho i do think the Abso and Vulture could use some love.
So bad.
Also I like how your complaint is that the sleipnir isn't better than everything else (it still is ofc). |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
2193
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:24:00 -
[214] - Quote
Aeril Malkyre wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sarmatiko wrote:Also glad that Marauders are safe, for now.. /Maniacal Laugh You madman. Don't hurt my Vargur.
He won't, you have my word.
*Quickly hides the half-dissected Vargur lying next to the Frenchman and replaces it with a half-eaten baguette* |
|
glepp
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:24:00 -
[215] - Quote
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Michael J Caboose wrote:Hortoken Wolfbrother wrote:I also echo elendar's concerns. The minmatar/gallente ships are too vulnerable for large fleet fights. Not having natural resists or EHP to match up to their companions means they start off already incredibly hobbled.
It'd be nice to see one ship for each race left intact as an active brawler, but the other ship get a bit of love to make it tougher. Why do caldari and amarr get a monopoly on these bonuses, when they are far far far far far better for large gang situations. You have two commands for each race, so it makes sense to have one designed around small gangs and one designed for larger fleets. In the case of minmatar, you could leave the claymore with its active bonus, and give the sleip a strong passive tanking bonus.
Thats my only complaint, but the ships are pretty good otherwise. No. The mimatar/gallente command ships get a very powerful bonus to skirmish links. In exchange, they are more fragile. Less useful in fleets, but good in gangs. The amarr/caldari command ships get a very powerful bonus to EHP. In exchange, they get a bonus to the crappy info warfare links that are seldom even used. Seems fair. Give the minmatar/gallente EHP bonuses, and no one will ever use amarr or caldari command ships. That's actually a pretty good answer. I reiterate my first two questions, though. No, local reps are wasted as soon as incoming dps > 1k, which means any gang > 1 Attack BC, really.
So this either means that gallente CS won't be using one of their boni, or that armor gangs will never get bonused skirmish links. The minnie ships could compensate if they were faster (ie Attack BC speeds), but the Eos/Astarte are way too big/sluggish to sig/speed tank. Bye bye DP HAC armor fleets, it was fun while it lasted.
Give the Gallente CS a tad more speed and swap local rep bonus on at least one for a hitpoint (not resist) bonus to allow it some more time to catch reps, please.
|
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:24:00 -
[216] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Or do you still disbelieve the math?
You can probably feel the wind as someone prepared to dunk on you. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
55
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:26:00 -
[217] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Goldensaver wrote:Lilan Kahn wrote:slepnir also taking massive dps nerf Barely. less than one whole turret. That's less than a 4% DPS nerf, with so much more utility. Sleps getting a 100% damage bonus to 5 guns, that = 10 guns worth of damage, thats more than 1.5 turets worth of damage lost. That's not how damage bonuses work good sir. It's 11.25 effective turrets after this proposal.
Ahh I see now how "CCP math" works (bonuses should be a set number not stack on top of eachother, its extreamly misleading) , you guys really should add a tutorial to the game all about mosual and bonuses stacking. |
Gareth Burns
Reclamator's KRYSIS.
22
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:26:00 -
[218] - Quote
OK!
You've done HACs & Command Ships...
Where are my Marauders!
on the upside it looks like both HACs and Command Ships got a good bonus to Sensor Strength... which is one of the big points that need to be changed on Marauders. Noblesse Oblige Gû¦ Gareth Burns |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4429
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:27:00 -
[219] - Quote
Xequecal wrote:Doddy wrote:Tobias Hareka wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Each race should have one command ship that has a bonus to local reps and one that has a passive tank bonus! Rather not. Amarr is quite bad at passive tanking because lack of med slots required for shield tanking. And you can't passive tank a armor tanker. I don't think you get passive tanking. Passive tanking = no repair, so any armour buffer tank is passive tanking. Amarr is by far the best race at passive tanking. I think you are thinking of shield "passive" tanking which relies on shield regen. Whether it is actually passive tanking depends on how you define passive. The shield is regening, so its certainly not fully passive, but the player is not controlling it so it is passive on the pilots part. Armor doesn't regen, so if you passive tank armor you're done after one fight, win or lose. You have to go back to a friendly station to repair, and that could be far away. If you passive tank shield you can survive in enemy space forever and keep killing until someone finally beats you. Jesus.
Stop confusing buffer tanking with passive tanking.
You also need to realize that buffer tanks are extremely effective on the right ship, but someone in your gang needs to have remote repair (preferably a logistics of some sort, even a logistics frigate will do) for in between fight repair work. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Ariesen Serenity
SRE Brotherhood
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:27:00 -
[220] - Quote
But the Sleip is also losing 15 drone bandwidth. So that's a small dps downgrade also (added in to the 96%) |
|
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
207
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:27:00 -
[221] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Goldensaver wrote:Lilan Kahn wrote:slepnir also taking massive dps nerf Barely. less than one whole turret. That's less than a 4% DPS nerf, with so much more utility. Sleps getting a 100% damage bonus to 5 guns, that = 10 guns worth of damage, thats more than 1.5 turets worth of damage lost. That's not how damage bonuses work good sir. It's 11.25 effective turrets after this proposal.
I would like to ask if that is the best choice completely, considering it will have the largest alpha of any medium weapon ship. I'm just concerned about the double damage bonuses. Would you perhaps consider changing one to RoF?
I know you're in balancing, I know you probably know better than me. I just want to raise my concerns about that much alpha strike. I know it's not large arty levels of damage, but it also isn't large arty levels of tracking. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
336
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:28:00 -
[222] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Xequecal wrote:Doddy wrote:Tobias Hareka wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Each race should have one command ship that has a bonus to local reps and one that has a passive tank bonus! Rather not. Amarr is quite bad at passive tanking because lack of med slots required for shield tanking. And you can't passive tank a armor tanker. I don't think you get passive tanking. Passive tanking = no repair, so any armour buffer tank is passive tanking. Amarr is by far the best race at passive tanking. I think you are thinking of shield "passive" tanking which relies on shield regen. Whether it is actually passive tanking depends on how you define passive. The shield is regening, so its certainly not fully passive, but the player is not controlling it so it is passive on the pilots part. Armor doesn't regen, so if you passive tank armor you're done after one fight, win or lose. You have to go back to a friendly station to repair, and that could be far away. If you passive tank shield you can survive in enemy space forever and keep killing until someone finally beats you. Jesus. Stop confusing buffer tanking with passive tanking. You also need to realize that buffer tanks are extremely effective on the right ship, but someone in your gang needs to have remote repair (preferably a logistics of some sort, even a logistics frigate will do) for in between fight repair work.
I vote that 'passive shield tanking' (i.e. SPRs, purgers, etc.) be renamed to recharge tanking. |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
207
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:30:00 -
[223] - Quote
Ariesen Serenity wrote:But the Sleip is also losing 15 drone bandwidth. So that's a small dps downgrade also (added in to the 96%) I will admit that I did not notice that. In the "best" scenario you had 3 mediums and 2 lights, and now are downgraded to 5 lights. That is a real decrease to DPS, if small. that does also assume that you never use ECM drones or the sort, or just carry warriors for some protection against frigates.
But you did bring up a point I didn't notice, so I cede defeat. |
Commander Skulls
Celestial Armag3ddon Tribal Band
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:30:00 -
[224] - Quote
My Astarte..... no... |
Ariesen Serenity
SRE Brotherhood
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:34:00 -
[225] - Quote
BTW, I love the changes. The dps downgrades, coupled with the ability to use (and have the highs) for multiple links, with the additional bonuses, and Hull changes (PLEASE GIVE ME 'CANE SLEIP!!! and Mrym Eos!!!!!)....love it all.
Course, I'm probably going to sell all my Nighthawks for Claymores... |
mine mi
Boinas Rojas Gentlemen's Agreement
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:36:00 -
[226] - Quote
I think the command ships, should come in 2 versions, one focused on gank, for small fleets and other tank focused for large fleets |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
233
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:36:00 -
[227] - Quote
My biggest concern is that there is no good skirmish command ship that has staying power, especially in an armor doctrine. The armor skirmish boosters actually take a double hit in that they have less low slots to work with when building a tank and they lack the resist bonus. You could actually count it triple if you consider that the damnation has a 10% armor bonus on top of those two advantages.
I would really hate to see the legion be the skirmish warfare ship for armor fleets because it can't get alpha-ed off by perfectly coordinated sentry drone fleets, while the galente boosters remain as second class citizens in the command ship world. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4429
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:38:00 -
[228] - Quote
glepp wrote:Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Michael J Caboose wrote:Hortoken Wolfbrother wrote:I also echo elendar's concerns. The minmatar/gallente ships are too vulnerable for large fleet fights. Not having natural resists or EHP to match up to their companions means they start off already incredibly hobbled.
It'd be nice to see one ship for each race left intact as an active brawler, but the other ship get a bit of love to make it tougher. Why do caldari and amarr get a monopoly on these bonuses, when they are far far far far far better for large gang situations. You have two commands for each race, so it makes sense to have one designed around small gangs and one designed for larger fleets. In the case of minmatar, you could leave the claymore with its active bonus, and give the sleip a strong passive tanking bonus.
Thats my only complaint, but the ships are pretty good otherwise. No. The mimatar/gallente command ships get a very powerful bonus to skirmish links. In exchange, they are more fragile. Less useful in fleets, but good in gangs. The amarr/caldari command ships get a very powerful bonus to EHP. In exchange, they get a bonus to the crappy info warfare links that are seldom even used. Seems fair. Give the minmatar/gallente EHP bonuses, and no one will ever use amarr or caldari command ships. That's actually a pretty good answer. I reiterate my first two questions, though. No, local reps are wasted as soon as incoming dps > 1k, which means any gang > 1 Attack BC, really. So this either means that gallente CS won't be using one of their boni, or that armor gangs will never get bonused skirmish links. The minnie ships could compensate if they were faster (ie Attack BC speeds), but the Eos/Astarte are way too big/sluggish to sig/speed tank. Bye bye DP HAC armor fleets, it was fun while it lasted. Give the Gallente CS a tad more speed and swap local rep bonus on at least one for a hitpoint (not resist) bonus to allow it some more time to catch reps, please. Again, I think you are overlooking the buffs that were made to resistances. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
207
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:40:00 -
[229] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:My biggest concern is that there is no good skirmish command ship that has staying power, especially in an armor doctrine. The armor skirmish boosters actually take a double hit in that they have less low slots to work with when building a tank and they lack the resist bonus. You could actually count it triple if you consider that the damnation has a 10% armor bonus on top of those two advantages.
I would really hate to see the legion be the skirmish warfare ship for armor fleets because it can't get alpha-ed off by perfectly coordinated sentry drone fleets, while the galente boosters remain as second class citizens in the command ship world. A Legion set up for boosting will also get volleyed off. Basically if you want bonused Skirmish links in a gang, you'll have to bring in something squishy. If you are willing to settle for unbonused, you'll be fine. it's only a 15% bonus difference. Sometimes you'll just have to settle for the weaker links for a larger gang.
Besides, the Gallente CSs get high damage output, making them more useful in a small gang setting where everybody has to pull their weight. Have you looked at the Damnation's DPS? |
NetheranE
Error-404 Cup Of ConKrete.
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:41:00 -
[230] - Quote
I like these changes, again. Fozzie, your methods have yet to disappoint.
I would be a little concerned with the sliepnir have 100% dmg, a 5k alpha is quite frightening, but then again I guess it is the epitome of sub-BS projectile users.
The Nighthawk looks MUCH better now, however, Id rather the see the Nighthawk at 7/6/4 than 7/5/5. However, I can see that this treads on the toes of the new active claymore.... Okay, I take that back.
WP FOZZIE. YOU WIN THIS TIME. |
|
NetheranE
Error-404 Cup Of ConKrete.
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:44:00 -
[231] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:My biggest concern is that there is no good skirmish command ship that has staying power, especially in an armor doctrine. The armor skirmish boosters actually take a double hit in that they have less low slots to work with when building a tank and they lack the resist bonus. You could actually count it triple if you consider that the damnation has a 10% armor bonus on top of those two advantages.
I would really hate to see the legion be the skirmish warfare ship for armor fleets because it can't get alpha-ed off by perfectly coordinated sentry drone fleets, while the galente boosters remain as second class citizens in the command ship world.
This is fine, skirmish armor fleets are a little bit of an oddity. We should keep agility and nano-based fighting with shield tanking, while giving ewar and resilience to armor fleets. Ever thought of how powerful armor scorpions will be under the boosts of a new damnation running info and armor?
|
glepp
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:44:00 -
[232] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:glepp wrote:Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Michael J Caboose wrote:Hortoken Wolfbrother wrote:I also echo elendar's concerns. The minmatar/gallente ships are too vulnerable for large fleet fights. Not having natural resists or EHP to match up to their companions means they start off already incredibly hobbled.
It'd be nice to see one ship for each race left intact as an active brawler, but the other ship get a bit of love to make it tougher. Why do caldari and amarr get a monopoly on these bonuses, when they are far far far far far better for large gang situations. You have two commands for each race, so it makes sense to have one designed around small gangs and one designed for larger fleets. In the case of minmatar, you could leave the claymore with its active bonus, and give the sleip a strong passive tanking bonus.
Thats my only complaint, but the ships are pretty good otherwise. No. The mimatar/gallente command ships get a very powerful bonus to skirmish links. In exchange, they are more fragile. Less useful in fleets, but good in gangs. The amarr/caldari command ships get a very powerful bonus to EHP. In exchange, they get a bonus to the crappy info warfare links that are seldom even used. Seems fair. Give the minmatar/gallente EHP bonuses, and no one will ever use amarr or caldari command ships. That's actually a pretty good answer. I reiterate my first two questions, though. No, local reps are wasted as soon as incoming dps > 1k, which means any gang > 1 Attack BC, really. So this either means that gallente CS won't be using one of their boni, or that armor gangs will never get bonused skirmish links. The minnie ships could compensate if they were faster (ie Attack BC speeds), but the Eos/Astarte are way too big/sluggish to sig/speed tank. Bye bye DP HAC armor fleets, it was fun while it lasted. Give the Gallente CS a tad more speed and swap local rep bonus on at least one for a hitpoint (not resist) bonus to allow it some more time to catch reps, please. Again, I think you are overlooking the buffs that were made to resistances.
|
Rose Roses
Artificial Memories
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:45:00 -
[233] - Quote
NetheranE wrote: I would be a little concerned with the sliepnir have 100% dmg, a 5k alpha is quite frightening.
5k alpha would be dangerous if it had a tracking bonus. Like this, it's mostly wayne. Lokis (both armor and faggotnanofit) run ~ 4.7k alpha using faction SR, and you need 6 of them to just blap a thorax :( |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
224
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:46:00 -
[234] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Aeril Malkyre wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sarmatiko wrote:Also glad that Marauders are safe, for now.. /Maniacal Laugh You madman. Don't hurt my Vargur. He won't, you have my word. *Quickly hides the half-dissected Vargur lying next to the Frenchman and replaces it with a half-eaten baguette*
good thing we're paying attention to all the correct things in this thread, right? lets just ignore the fact that these changes won't do **** for minmatar/gallente cs outside of 1v1s and make ****** superficial jokes about an off-topic ship class |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
224
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:47:00 -
[235] - Quote
glepp wrote:Again, I think you are overlooking the buffs that were made to resistances.
oh yes, that 8% additional kinetic resist on top of a 75% base while explosive is still at 10%, really handy |
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:48:00 -
[236] - Quote
The PWG and CPU nerfs are too harsh. And why does Astarte lose 14.3% of its maximum damage? |
glepp
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:48:00 -
[237] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:glepp wrote:Again, I think you are overlooking the buffs that were made to resistances. oh yes, that 8% additional kinetic resist on top of a 75% base while explosive is still at 10%, really handy
Wasn't me who said it. Have re-edited my post. Damn these fat fingers. |
Rose Roses
Artificial Memories
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:49:00 -
[238] - Quote
glepp wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:glepp wrote: No, local reps are wasted as soon as incoming dps > 1k, which means any gang > 1 Attack BC, really.
So this either means that gallente CS won't be using one of their boni, or that armor gangs will never get bonused skirmish links. The minnie ships could compensate if they were faster (ie Attack BC speeds), but the Eos/Astarte are way too big/sluggish to sig/speed tank. Bye bye DP HAC armor fleets, it was fun while it lasted.
Give the Gallente CS a tad more speed and swap local rep bonus on at least one for a hitpoint (not resist) bonus to allow it some more time to catch reps, please.
Again, I think you are overlooking the buffs that were made to resistances.
a) What is a DP HAC fleet? I never seen such a thing nor ever thought about doing it without beer and wine. b) boosting astarte/eos will tank around 1.5k/2.2k ehp/s with reasonable fits while boosting armor (all 3). Even using the current stats and modules, you can tank a talos and two oracles using current Tech-3-links. Maybe not on paper, but in space. |
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
258
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:54:00 -
[239] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Aeril Malkyre wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sarmatiko wrote:Also glad that Marauders are safe, for now.. /Maniacal Laugh You madman. Don't hurt my Vargur. He won't, you have my word. *Quickly hides the half-dissected Vargur lying next to the Frenchman and replaces it with a half-eaten baguette* YTTERRRRBIIIIIUUUUUUMMMMM!!1!! /me shakes fists |
glepp
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:54:00 -
[240] - Quote
Rose Roses wrote:glepp wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:glepp wrote: No, local reps are wasted as soon as incoming dps > 1k, which means any gang > 1 Attack BC, really.
So this either means that gallente CS won't be using one of their boni, or that armor gangs will never get bonused skirmish links. The minnie ships could compensate if they were faster (ie Attack BC speeds), but the Eos/Astarte are way too big/sluggish to sig/speed tank. Bye bye DP HAC armor fleets, it was fun while it lasted.
Give the Gallente CS a tad more speed and swap local rep bonus on at least one for a hitpoint (not resist) bonus to allow it some more time to catch reps, please.
Again, I think you are overlooking the buffs that were made to resistances. a) What is a DP HAC fleet? I never seen such a thing nor ever thought about doing it without beer and wine. b) boosting astarte/eos will tank around 1.5k/2.2k ehp/s with reasonable fits while boosting armor (all 3). Even using the current stats and modules, you can tank a talos and two oracles using current Tech-3-links. Maybe not on paper, but in space. A) DP = Dual Prop. Applies to MWD setups as well. CS are way too slow to keep up. Same for Attack BC gangs.
B) Ok, so in any fight with more than three attack BC on the other side, the bonus is useless. |
|
Stridsflygplan
Tigers in the Snow Nyratic
64
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:58:00 -
[241] - Quote
Like that you gave Medium arty 10% RoF because they already have good alpha and then give the sleipnir 24% bigger alpha then a 1400mm fitted Tornado. If that was the idea sure otherwise maybe give the sleipnir a RoF bonus and arty a damage bonus instead of RoF so the alpha is more balanced across ships. The best medium arty ship right now is the Loki that does the same alpha as a Tornado. feels like the Muninn needs 2 damages bonuses if to even come close to this alpha. Would be nice to know your thoughts Fozzie |
Jason Dunham
Andvaranaut Conglomerate
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:00:00 -
[242] - Quote
I think that it's important to read all the threads on the proposed changes before you judge one specific sub-area. The great and terrible thing about EVE is that everything affects everything else.
So for example, some of these command ships have local rep bonuses instead of ehp bonuses. But since they are also buffing local reps, this would make the command ship more independent, and free up a pilot since logistics may not be necessary in all fleet setups now.
I think that with the changes, flexibility is the key. No, some of the old "tried and true" setups won't be as strong as they were, but I think that the added flexibility will end up making gameplay more interesting. It's going to be different, but that's not always bad.
Keep up the good work. |
Sean Parisi
Fugutive Task Force A T O N E M E N T
328
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:01:00 -
[243] - Quote
Why does the Night Hawk get caught up using Kinetic where as the Damnation gets a flat bonus to all missiles? Where as Claymore receives a double ROF bonus? |
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:01:00 -
[244] - Quote
the drone bay on the eos seems far too small compared to all other drone boats 4 unbonused guns are not a good enough reason to give it that little drone bay Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4429
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:01:00 -
[245] - Quote
Quote:Nope, gallente have therm/kin bonuses, and the Astarte got a slight buff to those. Doesn't help jack against anything shooting lazors/ACs/missiles. Local rep bonus is good for solo/very small gang. These ships are made for all fleet sizes, and since Damnation doesn't boost skirmish, you either gotta go without in say, a 20-man BS fight, or ignore the local rep bonus, making it wortless. That's actually a pretty decent buff to base resists, and it's effectiveness is dependent on what the enemy is shooting. Lasers do EM/Thermal by the way, and Caldari frequently are using Kinetic missiles due to their bonus restrictions. Projectile ammo frequently will be affected as well.
Yes, it's not as high resists across the board and more vulnerable to high alpha in a fleet situation, but hardly an easy target if set up properly. Past that point the 15% boost all active tanking just got isn't anything to sneeze at, especially in an encounter like the 20 man BS fight you gave as an example. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
2198
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:01:00 -
[246] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Aeril Malkyre wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sarmatiko wrote:Also glad that Marauders are safe, for now.. /Maniacal Laugh You madman. Don't hurt my Vargur. He won't, you have my word. *Quickly hides the half-dissected Vargur lying next to the Frenchman and replaces it with a half-eaten baguette* good thing we're paying attention to all the correct things in this thread, right? lets just ignore the fact that these changes won't do **** for minmatar/gallente cs outside of 1v1s and make ****** superficial jokes about an off-topic ship class
Why so serious? Do you wanna know how I got these scars?
Yep, Fozzie, Rise and I never talk to each other regarding ship balancing changes, despite the fact we sit 5 meters apart. And besides, nobody cares about Marauders right? But you are right on one point, derailing the thread is bad, my apologies, I'll stop that now. Bad Ytterbium, bad. |
|
Red Woodson
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:03:00 -
[247] - Quote
I'm mildly disappointed in the link bonus being a fixed role bonus, but it is only a mild disappointment. Still, you know there is no rule limiting you to 2 bonuses per skill, right? Carriers prove that. Not sure why info warfare fits with amarr better than skirmish, but I guess I see why skirmish fits better with gallente than it does with amarr.
I am considerably more disappointed in the lack of buffer available to the gallente ships, and to a lesser extent minmatar as well. The rep bonus is entirely inappropriate for a ship designed to be on field in a fleet battle. You acknowledged this with the resist bonus on the heavy interdictors, so i cant figure out why you are so resistant to applying the same fix to command ships. Unless you are deliberately pigeon holing gallente and minmatar into small gang while allowing caldari and amarr to excel at both.
And assuming you absolutely have to local tank for some strange reason, has anyone run the numbers yet to see how many rep cycles it takes a local tanked eos/astarte to catch up with a local tanked absolution/damnation considering the extra ehp from the armor and resist bonus? The claymore/sleip may do a bit better in comparison to the vulture/nighthawk due to the minmatar native T2 resists and the faster cycle time on shield tanks. Minmatar will also be a bit more survivable due to the speed difference between them and caldari, which doesn't really exist for gallente vs amarr.
I'm also a bit surprised these have the same number of slots as combat battlecruisers. I'd expected them all to gain the 1 slot the sleip and claymore had over them, rather than the sleip and claymore loose a slot. Indeed, they have the same 10 mids+lows as most hacs now.
Finally, the eos's drone bay seems a tad small. I realize that giving it a full 3 flights of heavies(375m3) is unlikely, but maybe enough room for 2 flights of heavies and a flight of lights or mediums?(275 or 300)*shrug* not a hugh deal. |
Sarmatiko
1340
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:04:00 -
[248] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:But you are right on one point, derailing the thread is bad, my apologies, I'll stop that now. Bad Ytterbium, bad. Yes, make dedicated thread about Marauders. Seriously, please. -¥ |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
1165
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:05:00 -
[249] - Quote
WTF I trained skirmish to V for my damnation now I'm getting the rug pulled out under me again? I want/need skirnish or my incursion damnation I been using for Incursion booster An' then [email protected], he come scramblin outta theTerminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system'scrashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children' |
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
146
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:05:00 -
[250] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Eos: Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints (was 5% MHT damage) Command Ships skill bonuses: 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) Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links
Is it not possible to turn Eos into a full on drone boat? A T2 Myrmidon of sorts? The hybrid turret bonus seems kinda pointless.
Overall awesome changes (except the repping/resists bonuses... but yeah) \o/ W-Space Realtor |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
494
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:06:00 -
[251] - Quote
Red Woodson wrote:
I'm also a bit surprised these have the same number of slots as combat battlecruisers. I'd expected them all to gain the 1 slot the sleip and claymore had over them, rather than the sleip and claymore loose a slot. Indeed, they have the same 10 mids+lows as most hacs now.
This this and more of this...
Why commands are all -1 slot (I do and you should count rigs as slots) compared to their parent bcs?
|
AstraPardus
THE INSURGENCY The Unthinkables
274
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:08:00 -
[252] - Quote
What is this sudden urge, this sudden desire? It was never there before... Every time I post is Pardy time! :3 |
glepp
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:12:00 -
[253] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: That's actually a pretty decent buff to base resists, and it's effectiveness is dependent on what the enemy is shooting. Lasers do EM/Thermal by the way, and Caldari frequently are using Kinetic missiles due to their bonus restrictions. Projectile ammo frequently will be affected as well.
Yes, it's not as high resists across the board and more vulnerable to high alpha in a fleet situation, but hardly an easy target if set up properly. Past that point the 15% boost all active tanking just got isn't anything to sneeze at, especially in an encounter like the 20 man BS fight you gave as an example.
It's a decent buff if the opponent is shooting Multifreq, Phased Plasma or Scourge, yes. What is the damage distribution on scorch, the most commonly used crystal in a kiting Pulse Oracle? (Answer:36EM/8therm) Any Missile ship shooting kin at a Gallente hull desrves to lose, and it's not very common now. With the changes to Phoons and Ravens, do you really think this large-sigged ship will survive long in a BS fight without ignoring its hull bonus?
In a 20 v 20 BS fight, 2k local reps is worth nothing, since you need to gimp you buffer to fit it. Think paint+webs+large sig+lowish buffer. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
399
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:12:00 -
[254] - 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. |
Magnus Coleus
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:15:00 -
[255] - Quote
So field command and fleet command ships are becoming essentially identical from the point of view of fleet links, and the distinctions between the two is boiling down to tankiness / DPS?
Can't say I like that, from a roleplay / gameplay point of view.
How about this:
Field command ships:
- Optimized for small gangs (armor rep / shield booster / base shield regen bonuses)
- Can use 2 links
- Slight DPS boost (compared to current proposal)
- Slight sensor / range nerf
Fleet command ships:
- Optimized for larger fleets (resist bonuses)
- Can use 3 links
- Reasonable DPS nerf (compared to current proposal)
- Reasonable sensor / range buff
Naturally, these would still need to be adjusted for each race, but I think they currently overlap too much (field vs. fleet) and giving each race a resist-based command ship and a repair-based command ship would silence the main complaint people seem to have. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
451
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:15:00 -
[256] - Quote
so they all are the same just with different weapons?:O |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
400
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:18:00 -
[257] - 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. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
198
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:18:00 -
[258] - Quote
Can someone please explain to me how the Nighthawk isn't totally outclassed by the Claymore in every way imaginable.
Claymore has + speed, + drone bay, 2 non damage specific bonuses, + agility, lower mass (nighhawk actually go more massand worse agility WTF?), an extra tank mid slot, better distribution of resistances good for fleet work, a solo boost bonus....... and on and on and on.
Claymore is better on DPS in every way fashonable... and nearly 50% higher dps when not using kinetic on either ship.
Was the Nighthawk not **** before... are you just finding ways for people not to fly it now? |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
226
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:20:00 -
[259] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Why so serious? Do you wanna know how I got these scars?
Yep, Fozzie, Rise and I never talk to each other regarding ship balancing changes, despite the fact we sit 5 meters apart. And besides, nobody cares about Marauders right? But you are right on one point, derailing the thread is bad, my apologies, I'll stop that now. Bad Ytterbium, bad.
Why are the races:
Gall Min: ACTIVE ACTIVE Cal Amarr: PASSIVE PASSIVE
Why can't it be:
Gall Cal Min Amarr: ACTIVE PASSIVE
Big gangs can't have shield/armor + skirmish? |
Rose Roses
Artificial Memories
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:20:00 -
[260] - Quote
So gonna stock up on Eos'. Screw the rest, CS with drones is best. |
|
Howling Jinn
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:22:00 -
[261] - Quote
Yes lets boost t1 ships, nerf t2 ships. Because this game is all about newbies.
|
Justin Cody
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:22:00 -
[262] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Entity wrote:So, Astarte getting a massive damage nerf?
The damage/rof changes do not offset the 29% reduced damage from losing 2 turrets, and adding 2 completely unbonused launchers isn't that particularly appealing.
It's going from 10.9 effective turrets to 10. However I expect the two utility highs, lower mass and extra resists to more than compensate.
something something leave brittany (my astarte) alone! Not only is it a damage nerf, but the grid is taking a huge hit. I though command ships were getting boosted. Guess I was wrong. Time to sell. Good to know. I guess off grid t3 links are the only viable option. |
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
42
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:23:00 -
[263] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Entity wrote:So, Astarte getting a massive damage nerf?
The damage/rof changes do not offset the 29% reduced damage from losing 2 turrets, and adding 2 completely unbonused launchers isn't that particularly appealing.
It's going from 10.9 effective turrets to 10. However I expect the two utility highs, lower mass and extra resists to more than compensate.
10.9375 to 9.375, please stop rounding numbers so biasedly.
|
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
227
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:25:00 -
[264] - Quote
Witchking Angmar wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Entity wrote:So, Astarte getting a massive damage nerf?
The damage/rof changes do not offset the 29% reduced damage from losing 2 turrets, and adding 2 completely unbonused launchers isn't that particularly appealing.
It's going from 10.9 effective turrets to 10. However I expect the two utility highs, lower mass and extra resists to more than compensate. 10.9375 to 9.375, please stop rounding numbers so biasedly.
:fozzie: |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
198
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:25:00 -
[265] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Can someone please explain to me how the Nighthawk isn't totally outclassed by the Claymore in every way imaginable.
Claymore has + speed, + drone bay, 2 non damage specific bonuses, + agility, lower mass (nighhawk actually go more massand worse agility WTF?), an extra tank mid slot, better distribution of resistances good for fleet work, a solo boost bonus....... and on and on and on.
Claymore is better on DPS in every way fashonable... and nearly 50% higher dps when not using kinetic on either ship.
Was the Nighthawk not **** before... are you just finding ways for people not to fly it now?
Still waiting for you to collect your thoughts and justify why you're a good dev team who can't even see this one. This is embarrassing. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4429
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:27:00 -
[266] - Quote
glepp wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: That's actually a pretty decent buff to base resists, and it's effectiveness is dependent on what the enemy is shooting. Lasers do EM/Thermal by the way, and Caldari frequently are using Kinetic missiles due to their bonus restrictions. Projectile ammo frequently will be affected as well.
Yes, it's not as high resists across the board and more vulnerable to high alpha in a fleet situation, but hardly an easy target if set up properly. Past that point the 15% boost all active tanking just got isn't anything to sneeze at, especially in an encounter like the 20 man BS fight you gave as an example.
It's a decent buff if the opponent is shooting Multifreq, Phased Plasma or Scourge, yes. What is the damage distribution on scorch, the most commonly used crystal in a kiting Pulse Oracle? (Answer:36EM/8therm) Any Missile ship shooting kin at a Gallente hull desrves to lose, and it's not very common now. With the changes to Phoons and Ravens, do you really think this large-sigged ship will survive long in a BS fight without ignoring its hull bonus? In a 20 v 20 BS fight, 2k local reps is worth nothing, since you need to gimp you buffer to fit it. Think paint+webs+large sig+lowish buffer. Yes, I'd take any of the CS we are discussing into that. Without the slightest hesitation. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Howling Jinn
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:28:00 -
[267] - Quote
This is so bad.. Literally running to amarr right now trying to get rid of these ships. |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
207
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:29:00 -
[268] - Quote
Justin Cody wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
It's going from 10.9 effective turrets to 10. However I expect the two utility highs, lower mass and extra resists to more than compensate.
something something leave brittany (my astarte) alone! Not only is it a damage nerf, but the grid is taking a huge hit. I though command ships were getting boosted. Guess I was wrong. Time to sell. Good to know. I guess off grid t3 links are the only viable option. -2 turrets, and the grid is taking a hit. I ought to, since it has to fit 2 less turrets now. Hell, it's not even losing 2 turrets worth of grid anyways, and it gets 2 utility highs.
Witchking Angmar wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Entity wrote:So, Astarte getting a massive damage nerf?
The damage/rof changes do not offset the 29% reduced damage from losing 2 turrets, and adding 2 completely unbonused launchers isn't that particularly appealing.
It's going from 10.9 effective turrets to 10. However I expect the two utility highs, lower mass and extra resists to more than compensate. 10.9375 to 9.375, please stop rounding numbers so biasedly.
No, 10.9375 to 10. Math man, learn it.
5*1.5/.75 = 10. Bonuses stack on each other, RoF is done by division due to the interaction, yadda yadda. |
Sigras
Conglomo
475
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:30:00 -
[269] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Can someone please explain to me how the Nighthawk isn't totally outclassed by the Claymore in every way imaginable.
Claymore has + speed, + drone bay, 2 non damage specific bonuses, + agility, lower mass (nighhawk actually go more massand worse agility WTF?), an extra tank mid slot, better distribution of resistances good for fleet work, a solo boost bonus....... and on and on and on.
Claymore is better on DPS in every way fashonable... and nearly 50% higher dps when not using kinetic on either ship.
Was the Nighthawk not **** before... are you just finding ways for people not to fly it now? because when doing its main damage type, the nighthawk had 10 effective launchers while the claymore has 8 effective launchers?
Seriously, how often does damage selection actually matter? its not like people omni-tank or anything . . .
Also, the NH has the resist bonus which is orders of magnitude better than the worse-than-useless local rep bonus
honestly dude, ive never seen you post anything positive on these forums . . . ive come to the conclusion that you just dont like change. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
198
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:33:00 -
[270] - Quote
Sigras wrote:I'm Down wrote:Can someone please explain to me how the Nighthawk isn't totally outclassed by the Claymore in every way imaginable.
Claymore has + speed, + drone bay, 2 non damage specific bonuses, + agility, lower mass (nighhawk actually go more massand worse agility WTF?), an extra tank mid slot, better distribution of resistances good for fleet work, a solo boost bonus....... and on and on and on.
Claymore is better on DPS in every way fashonable... and nearly 50% higher dps when not using kinetic on either ship.
Was the Nighthawk not **** before... are you just finding ways for people not to fly it now? because when doing its main damage type, the nighthawk had 10 effective launchers while the claymore has 8 effective launchers? Seriously, how often does damage selection actually matter? its not like people omni-tank or anything . . . Also, the NH has the resist bonus which is orders of magnitude better than the worse-than-useless local rep bonus honestly dude, ive never seen you post anything positive on these forums . . . ive come to the conclusion that you just dont like change.
I've posted plenty of positive when it's deserved. Can't fix bad development choices. Also learn math. claymore is about 8.9 turrets of firepower... plus a larger drone bay. |
|
Thogn
Republic Logistics
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:35:00 -
[271] - Quote
Good Evening,
is there any timeframe - where we will see this changes take place ?
thx for a reply |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
389
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:35:00 -
[272] - Quote
Thogn wrote:Good Evening,
is there any timeframe - where we will see this changes take place ?
thx for a reply Odyssey 1.1 release.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
XXSketchxx
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
344
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:41:00 -
[273] - Quote
Quote:Can't say I like that, from a roleplay / gameplay point of view.
No one cares. |
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
42
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:44:00 -
[274] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:No, 10.9375 to 10. Math man, learn it.
5*1.5/.75 = 10. Bonuses stack on each other, RoF is done by division due to the interaction, yadda yadda.
Yeah, edited my post.. Thought it was damage bonus, not ROF at first. |
Sol Trader
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:48:00 -
[275] - Quote
God damn, whatever you do don'/t replace the models. It will be shooting yourself in the foot when you actually want a new t2 bc.
Furthermore, who at ccp has a hard on for the drake hull. First the navy drake, now nighthawk drake? Gross.
And replacing the iconic sleipnir? come the **** on. |
Magnus Coleus
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:50:00 -
[276] - Quote
XXSketchxx wrote:No one cares.
You clearly cared enough to post a reply.
Not enough to read the actual post all the way through, though.
|
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
271
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:51:00 -
[277] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Why so serious? Do you wanna know how I got these scars?
Yep, Fozzie, Rise and I never talk to each other regarding ship balancing changes, despite the fact we sit 5 meters apart. And besides, nobody cares about Marauders right? But you are right on one point, derailing the thread is bad, my apologies, I'll stop that now. Bad Ytterbium, bad.
5 meters!?! No wonder the ship balancing is all over the place. The optimal range for a Frenchman is 1.13 m with a falloff of 3.13 m. You are balancing well into falloff. This explains a lot. Rise must be sitting the farthest away. |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
257
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:51:00 -
[278] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:Witchking Angmar wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Entity wrote:So, Astarte getting a massive damage nerf?
The damage/rof changes do not offset the 29% reduced damage from losing 2 turrets, and adding 2 completely unbonused launchers isn't that particularly appealing.
It's going from 10.9 effective turrets to 10. However I expect the two utility highs, lower mass and extra resists to more than compensate. 10.9375 to 9.375, please stop rounding numbers so biasedly. :fozzie:
:grarr: STANDING ON THE VERGE OF PROLAPSE |
glepp
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:52:00 -
[279] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:glepp wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: That's actually a pretty decent buff to base resists, and it's effectiveness is dependent on what the enemy is shooting. Lasers do EM/Thermal by the way, and Caldari frequently are using Kinetic missiles due to their bonus restrictions. Projectile ammo frequently will be affected as well.
Yes, it's not as high resists across the board and more vulnerable to high alpha in a fleet situation, but hardly an easy target if set up properly. Past that point the 15% boost all active tanking just got isn't anything to sneeze at, especially in an encounter like the 20 man BS fight you gave as an example.
It's a decent buff if the opponent is shooting Multifreq, Phased Plasma or Scourge, yes. What is the damage distribution on scorch, the most commonly used crystal in a kiting Pulse Oracle? (Answer:36EM/8therm) Any Missile ship shooting kin at a Gallente hull desrves to lose, and it's not very common now. With the changes to Phoons and Ravens, do you really think this large-sigged ship will survive long in a BS fight without ignoring its hull bonus? In a 20 v 20 BS fight, 2k local reps is worth nothing, since you need to gimp you buffer to fit it. Think paint+webs+large sig+lowish buffer. Yes, I'd take any of the CS we are discussing into that. Without the slightest hesitation. With local reps on your Astarte? |
XXSketchxx
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
344
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:58:00 -
[280] - Quote
So the nighthawk is still shit.
The cerb is still shit.
What do you guys have against caldari missile boats? |
|
Balzac Legazou
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:59:00 -
[281] - Quote
Magnus Coleus wrote:How about this: Field command ships:
- Optimized for small gangs (armor rep / shield booster / base shield regen bonuses)
- Can use 2 links
- Slight DPS boost (compared to current proposal)
- Slight sensor / range nerf
Fleet command ships:
- Optimized for larger fleets (resist bonuses)
- Can use 3 links
- Reasonable DPS nerf (compared to current proposal)
- Reasonable sensor / range buff
[...] giving each race a resist-based command ship and a repair-based command ship would silence the main complaint people seem to have. Gû¦
This.
Grarr Dexx wrote:[...] Why can't it be:
Gall Cal Min Amarr: ACTIVE PASSIVE
Big gangs can't have shield/armor + skirmish? Gû¦
Or this, which is kind of the same thing.
There are two types of command ships, so just give each race a "local tank" version (field command) and a "fleet tank (resist-based)" version (fleet command).
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
198
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:04:00 -
[282] - Quote
Let's futher talk about the Resistance gaps in Command ships.
The resistance bonus system to command ships really doesn't make much sense
How is it possible that a 20% boost to resistances only provides an average 2.5% reduction in recieved dps from a ship such as the nighthawk compared to a ship such as the Claymore.
Let me explain this more clearly before people bad at math 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 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. |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
50
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:06:00 -
[283] - Quote
Wow this is going to be crazy
CS rebalance Sleipnir: Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage (was 5% RoF) 7.5% bonus to shield boosting amount Command Ships skill bonuses: 10%(+5) bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff
plus this
Medium Artillery: +10% Rate of Fire -5% Tracking
=
holy **** crazy sleipnir |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4429
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:06:00 -
[284] - Quote
glepp wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:glepp wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: That's actually a pretty decent buff to base resists, and it's effectiveness is dependent on what the enemy is shooting. Lasers do EM/Thermal by the way, and Caldari frequently are using Kinetic missiles due to their bonus restrictions. Projectile ammo frequently will be affected as well.
Yes, it's not as high resists across the board and more vulnerable to high alpha in a fleet situation, but hardly an easy target if set up properly. Past that point the 15% boost all active tanking just got isn't anything to sneeze at, especially in an encounter like the 20 man BS fight you gave as an example.
It's a decent buff if the opponent is shooting Multifreq, Phased Plasma or Scourge, yes. What is the damage distribution on scorch, the most commonly used crystal in a kiting Pulse Oracle? (Answer:36EM/8therm) Any Missile ship shooting kin at a Gallente hull desrves to lose, and it's not very common now. With the changes to Phoons and Ravens, do you really think this large-sigged ship will survive long in a BS fight without ignoring its hull bonus? In a 20 v 20 BS fight, 2k local reps is worth nothing, since you need to gimp you buffer to fit it. Think paint+webs+large sig+lowish buffer. Yes, I'd take any of the CS we are discussing into that. Without the slightest hesitation. With local reps on your Astarte? Yep. How I'd play it would depend entirely on how the Ravens/Phoons were set up. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Sean Parisi
Fugutive Task Force A T O N E M E N T
328
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:07:00 -
[285] - Quote
XXSketchxx wrote:So the nighthawk is still shit.
The cerb is still shit.
What do you guys have against caldari missile boats?
But atleast they get to shoot Kinetic fist missiles. Think about it, Kinetic - Fist - Missiles. |
Vince Draken
D00M. Northern Coalition.
22
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:15:00 -
[286] - Quote
Terrible changes shame on you Fozzie |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
207
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:16:00 -
[287] - Quote
Witchking Angmar wrote:Goldensaver wrote:No, 10.9375 to 10. Math man, learn it.
5*1.5/.75 = 10. Bonuses stack on each other, RoF is done by division due to the interaction, yadda yadda. Yeah, edited my post.. Thought it was damage bonus, not ROF at first.
Alright, alls good. I'm just getting sick and tired of people calling Fozzie out about this stuff without even checking their math. It's not the first time in the thread it's happened. Someone was claiming the Sleipnir went from 11.666 turrets to 10 as opposed to 11.25. I'm sorta undecided on the changes, though I'm largely becoming happy because of them, but I just can't stand people spreading misinformation about this stuff. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
198
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:19:00 -
[288] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Witchking Angmar wrote:Goldensaver wrote:No, 10.9375 to 10. Math man, learn it.
5*1.5/.75 = 10. Bonuses stack on each other, RoF is done by division due to the interaction, yadda yadda. Yeah, edited my post.. Thought it was damage bonus, not ROF at first. Alright, alls good. I'm just getting sick and tired of people calling Fozzie out about this stuff without even checking their math. It's not the first time in the thread it's happened. Someone was claiming the Sleipnir went from 11.666 turrets to 10 as opposed to 11.25. I'm sorta undecided on the changes, though I'm largely becoming happy because of them, but I just can't stand people spreading misinformation about this stuff.
yeah, the devs aren't doing any misinformation of their own :-/ |
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:20:00 -
[289] - Quote
XXSketchxx wrote:The cerb is still shit.
You're clinically insane.
|
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
171
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:25:00 -
[290] - Quote
PLEASE give one gallente ship a resistance bonus. armour rep amount is useless in a larger fleet.
please please please please please please!!!!!!!! |
|
Ms Valkyrie
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:26:00 -
[291] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Yep, Fozzie, Rise and I never talk to each other regarding ship balancing changes, despite the fact we sit 5 meters apart.
Only 5 meters from the portland dude? God please save Yitterbium's and Fozzie's souls!
|
Leskit
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:27:00 -
[292] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Damnation: Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances 10% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile velocity Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to all Armor hitpoints 10% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile damage (Was link bonus) Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Information Warfare links Slot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 6 L , 2 turrets (-2), 5 Launchers Fittings: 1300(-290) PWG, 500(+25) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(+37) / 5000(+395) / 4300(-24) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 70 / 87.5 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 62.5 / 80 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3375 / 750s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 / 0.7(-0.004) / 13500000 / 13.10s(-0.08) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 (+25) / 100 (+75) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km (+20) / 210 / 7(+1) Sensor strength: 22 Radar (+6) Signature radius: 265 Cargo capacity: 645
As much as like like keeping the 10% armor amount bonus, this will do less damage than a sacrelige (499 damn vs 516 sac) For upping the abso's resistances and base armor amount, I just can't see the trade-off. Most of the other CS's look like heavy dps platforms that can also stay on field a little longer, but the Damnation still looks like the sole ship for boosting only. Could we get that 10% damage changed to a ROF bonus? I was really really hoping to have a HAM spewing monster in the new damnation. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
233
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:27:00 -
[293] - 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.
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.
Your math is pretty atrocious.
If you have 50% base resist, and your hull ends up with a 20% bonus to resists, your ship will have a total of 50 + (100-50)*.2 total resist, in this case 60% total resist.
So if you get hit with 100 base damage with just the 50% resist you take 50 damage. If get hit with 100 base damage with 60% reisit you take 40 damage.
It doesn't matter what the base resist is, you will always take 20% less damage. But the effect that has is a 25% boost to survivibility. To illustrate this, take a ship with 500 hp. If you're taking the damage from above with just the base resist it takes 10 seconds to burn through the HP. If you have the extra resist profile it takes 12.5 second, or 25% longer to burn through the same amount of hp.
If you don't understand everything I just said you probably shouldn't be attacking the devs for their understanding of the game mechanics.
I'm Down wrote: 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
To bring your attrocious math full circle lets look at just this statement.
Claymore: Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 75 / 60 / 40 / 50 = 225 base resists
Nighthawk: Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 80(+10) / 70(+7.5) / 50 = 200 base resists
The nighthawk with the 20% resist bonus: EM = 0 + (100-0)*.2 = 20 TH = 80 + (100-80)*.2 = 84 Kin = 70 + (100-70)*.2 = 76 Exp = 50 + (100-50)*.2 = 60 240 total resists
I have no idea what you're trying to say besides this because whatever math you thought was supporting your argument is bad. |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
207
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:28:00 -
[294] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: yeah, the devs aren't doing any misinformation of their own :-/
Such as? Are they posting stats while claiming they're completely different? Can you link me to the post where a Dev says that a ship gets 100k EHP but only gets 50k EHP in a maximum tank setup with perfect boosts? Can you share with me the post where a Dev claims that a ship will get 15 effective turrets where it only gets 10?
It's one thing for them to think that things will be fine and post their belief in the matter. It's another to perform the calculations incorrectly and spread incorrect information. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4429
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:32:00 -
[295] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Goldensaver wrote:Witchking Angmar wrote:Goldensaver wrote:No, 10.9375 to 10. Math man, learn it.
5*1.5/.75 = 10. Bonuses stack on each other, RoF is done by division due to the interaction, yadda yadda. Yeah, edited my post.. Thought it was damage bonus, not ROF at first. Alright, alls good. I'm just getting sick and tired of people calling Fozzie out about this stuff without even checking their math. It's not the first time in the thread it's happened. Someone was claiming the Sleipnir went from 11.666 turrets to 10 as opposed to 11.25. I'm sorta undecided on the changes, though I'm largely becoming happy because of them, but I just can't stand people spreading misinformation about this stuff. yeah, the devs aren't doing any misinformation of their own :-/ It's not really the Dev's fault if people don't understand what the numbers mean, despite how many times it's been explained.
I'm pretty sure Fozzie and Rise know how the formula's work, but thanks for the recap. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Minister of Death
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
60
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:35:00 -
[296] - Quote
Not a giant fan of these changes, sorry to say :(
Also, Nighthawk .vs Vulture...
Nighthawk: Signature radius: 285 Cargo capacity: 700
Vulture: Signature radius: 285 Cargo capacity: 400 (+55)
Claymore: Signature radius: 240
Why does the Claymore have such a smaller sig rad?
Why does the Vulture have ~half the cargo of a Nighthawk? |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
133
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:35:00 -
[297] - Quote
Lady Naween wrote:PLEASE give one gallente ship a resistance bonus. armour rep amount is useless in a larger fleet.
please please please please please please!!!!!!!!
I'm eyeballing the Eos and the Astarte. There is an issue. The Astarte is potentially a damage monster, ontop of it, it can now fit links (the good ones for Gallente). It now has the potential to outlast a small fight (small to medium fleet fight) due to its ability to repair monkey itself (that with both the NOS changes and the Repairer changes, it could essentially be a endless fight against a Astarte unless you can bring a Substantial amount of DPS to break it. The same could be said about the Damnation but most don't fit repairers on it (cause it makes it lose hit points and has no bonus).
The viable choice is the EOS, but it has also become a possible DPS monster Magnet, having the same tank as the Astarte, but now with Heavy drones that will not Miss, almost always hit for close to if not full damage (even on cruisers and frigates, note the alpha of sentry drones on Dominix's in the tournament), and ontop of that, now has turrets that will pretty much never miss either. The EOS has the potential to be a Dominix on the Field, that can repair itself, launch a full fight of super tracking heavies, boost the group and do damage if brawling.
Giving one of the ships extra resists would be... well a bit crazy.
(I'm being frank I would love to get the Amarr resists on gallente ships but the repairing bonus would be overkill). Not all fights are 100 Vs, 100, sometimes is 20 vs 20, or 40 vs 40.
|
Extraterra
Twinstar Universal Services Test Alliance Please Ignore
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:37:00 -
[298] - Quote
NICE CHANGES. ILOVE IT |
Ivana Twinkle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
385
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:43:00 -
[299] - Quote
haha boosting claymores will be the first ship nuked off the field now. |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
50
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:43:00 -
[300] - Quote
CCP FOZZIE.
is there a reason all Command ships expect the knighthawk have Power Grid over 1200
NIGHTHAWK Fittings: 825 PWG (+115) |
|
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
109
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:44:00 -
[301] - Quote
I think a sound argument could be made that like HICs, CS all need to have 'super tank' as part of the baseline. Homogenization is bad and all that but once the technical hurdles are cleared they will be expected to be on grid for all conceivable engagement ranges and sizes. Based on this I donGÇÖt think having them be the weak link from a tank perspective in a BS gang is a good thing conceptually. Just like HICs make other trade offs, I wouldnGÇÖt mind seeing what these would turn into with a bit more focus on survivability.
My suggestion would be to make the resist bonus part and parcel with the link bonus. Give all the Gal/Amarr hulls 20% armour resists, all the Min/Cal hulls 20% shield resists and keep the bonuses the same on Gal/Min and replace the current resist bonuses with 10% to armour and shield hp for Cal/Amarr CS (finding a fourth bonus for the damnation shouldnGÇÖt be tough). |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
171
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:45:00 -
[302] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote: I'm eyeballing the Eos and the Astarte. There is an issue. The Astarte is potentially a damage monster, ontop of it, it can now fit links (the good ones for Gallente). It now has the potential to outlast a small fight (small to medium fleet fight) due to its ability to repair monkey itself (that with both the NOS changes and the Repairer changes, it could essentially be a endless fight against a Astarte unless you can bring a Substantial amount of DPS to break it. The same could be said about the Damnation but most don't fit repairers on it (cause it makes it lose hit points and has no bonus).
The viable choice is the EOS, but it has also become a possible DPS monster Magnet, having the same tank as the Astarte, but now with Heavy drones that will not Miss, almost always hit for close to if not full damage (even on cruisers and frigates, note the alpha of sentry drones on Dominix's in the tournament), and ontop of that, now has turrets that will pretty much never miss either. The EOS has the potential to be a Dominix on the Field, that can repair itself, launch a full fight of super tracking heavies, boost the group and do damage if brawling.
Giving one of the ships extra resists would be... well a bit crazy.
(I'm being frank I would love to get the Amarr resists on gallente ships but the repairing bonus would be overkill). Not all fights are 100 Vs, 100, sometimes is 20 vs 20, or 40 vs 40.
I would consider whether these ships should have gone to 7 lows. I'm pretty sure the EOS could, but I guess you can't get a mega tank Command Ship, and a DPS monster to boot.
I am all for removing the damage and rep amount on one of each of the 4 races to get the damnation like brick tank. Tbh when i am in a CS i dont give a rats behind on damage just that i am to survive. that way we would have an option, small gang.. bring out the damage one.. large fleet.. EHP up the wazzoo. as it is now when the fleet starts to scale up.. i have to bring the damnation which limits my links because anything else gets alphad to fast. (yes i cant spell today, darn meds) |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1057
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:47:00 -
[303] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote: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
An then you'll start watching full gangs of command ships everywhere assaulting everything with little to no logistics because they can either push stupid amounts of dps and reps or because they can simply bring enough dps and even more stupid amounts of tank.
Look at it like this, Command ship are already solo pownmachines in solo situations, give them more without drawbacks and they'll become high/low sec nightmares, null sec full fleets of those and some support would become impossible to kill.
Atm the balance seems rather in line, first the amount and advantage over T3's I'm super happy with this, then not much happy about DPS nerf but they're getting a bit extra here and there. Local reps are changing a bit, not as far as they should get balanced because deadspace SB's will still be stupidly op, take a Sleipnir with a faction SBA+combat booster+implants+links and you get a thing able to tank an entire gang on his own and still not die. (double xl'asb was exactly that and I did it a couple times)
If something claymore and vulture need is better agility or speed, I'd say both for all command ships, after all at this SP level the commander should be able to fully experiment the benefits of his skills with such ship. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
210
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:48:00 -
[304] - Quote
Baren wrote:CCP FOZZIE.
is there a reason all Command ships expect the knighthawk have Power Grid over 1200
NIGHTHAWK Fittings: 825 PWG (+115) That's an interesting catch. Even the Claymore has almost 300 more PG than it, and they use the same weapon and tanking systems...
Either the Nighthawk needs another PG buff, or it'll be delegated to a HAC style ship as it won't have the PG to mount the links. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
234
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:51:00 -
[305] - Quote
NetheranE wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:My biggest concern is that there is no good skirmish command ship that has staying power, especially in an armor doctrine. The armor skirmish boosters actually take a double hit in that they have less low slots to work with when building a tank and they lack the resist bonus. You could actually count it triple if you consider that the damnation has a 10% armor bonus on top of those two advantages.
I would really hate to see the legion be the skirmish warfare ship for armor fleets because it can't get alpha-ed off by perfectly coordinated sentry drone fleets, while the galente boosters remain as second class citizens in the command ship world. This is fine, skirmish armor fleets are a little bit of an oddity. We should keep agility and nano-based fighting with shield tanking, while giving ewar and resilience to armor fleets. Ever thought of how powerful armor scorpions will be under the boosts of a new damnation running info and armor?
I think you're missing that skirmish links are used in almost every mega fleet to help control mobility and reduce signature radius. I know in almost every fleet I'm in we have skirmish boosters to help with sig tanking, and the extra mobility and tackle range is nice too.
Which is what concerns me with the proposed changes. There's no option to brick tank an armor skirmish booster, which makes it a prime candidate to alpha off the field using assisted sentry drones and their perfectly coordinated alpha. It would be nice if one of the galente command ships was able to be brick tanked, but it looks like the only option is to use a tech III and fit it up so that it has as many lows as possible. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4430
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:56:00 -
[306] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Baren wrote:CCP FOZZIE.
is there a reason all Command ships expect the knighthawk have Power Grid over 1200
NIGHTHAWK Fittings: 825 PWG (+115) That's an interesting catch. Even the Claymore has almost 300 more PG than it, and they use the same weapon and tanking systems... Either the Nighthawk needs another PG buff, or it'll be delegated to a HAC style ship as it won't have the PG to mount the links. I have a feeling it has to do with how their tank will typically be set up, but you two may well have a point there. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
177
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:58:00 -
[307] - Quote
Agreed the Nighthawk doesn't look that great compared to the other two missile command ships. A flight of medium drones more than makes up the damage difference, and you can carry an additional flight of lights to handle frigates. Nighthawk needs to be 7/6/4, at least, and needs to lose the kinetic-only restriction (especially now that the restriction is 50% instead of just 25%).
It also needs to get an RLML bonus back, like it currently has on TQ. |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
210
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:01:00 -
[308] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Goldensaver wrote:Baren wrote:CCP FOZZIE.
is there a reason all Command ships expect the knighthawk have Power Grid over 1200
NIGHTHAWK Fittings: 825 PWG (+115) That's an interesting catch. Even the Claymore has almost 300 more PG than it, and they use the same weapon and tanking systems... Either the Nighthawk needs another PG buff, or it'll be delegated to a HAC style ship as it won't have the PG to mount the links. I have a feeling it has to do with how their tank will typically be set up, but you two may well have a point there. Both get 7 highs that use approximately 100 PG apiece (medium launchers or links, averages around 100) leading to 700 PG there. A MWD takes 150 PG, and LSE's take about 150 PG. Assuming a standard 2 LSE's you're at ~1150 PG. The Nighthawk gets 1031 PWG at max skills, and will need fitting mods for that. But for some reason, the Claymore gets 1375 PWG, leaving an oddly high 225 PWG left after all that for more fitting. Also, the Nighthawk doesn't get much more CPU either, so I don't really know what's supposed to be done here. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4430
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:03:00 -
[309] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:NetheranE wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:My biggest concern is that there is no good skirmish command ship that has staying power, especially in an armor doctrine. The armor skirmish boosters actually take a double hit in that they have less low slots to work with when building a tank and they lack the resist bonus. You could actually count it triple if you consider that the damnation has a 10% armor bonus on top of those two advantages.
I would really hate to see the legion be the skirmish warfare ship for armor fleets because it can't get alpha-ed off by perfectly coordinated sentry drone fleets, while the galente boosters remain as second class citizens in the command ship world. This is fine, skirmish armor fleets are a little bit of an oddity. We should keep agility and nano-based fighting with shield tanking, while giving ewar and resilience to armor fleets. Ever thought of how powerful armor scorpions will be under the boosts of a new damnation running info and armor? I think you're missing that skirmish links are used in almost every mega fleet to help control mobility and reduce signature radius. I know in almost every fleet I'm in we have skirmish boosters to help with sig tanking, and the extra mobility and tackle range is nice too. Which is what concerns me with the proposed changes. There's no option to brick tank an armor skirmish booster, which makes it a prime candidate to alpha off the field using assisted sentry drones and their perfectly coordinated alpha. It would be nice if one of the galente command ships was able to be brick tanked, but it looks like the only option is to use a tech III and fit it up so that it has as many lows as possible. I have a feeling that they will be staying towards the rear of the engagement, preferably out of range of the sentries in use... and likely need to play the warp off and repair on the way back game. Which means we'll be seeing the newly buffed medium rails used a lot more commonly on these ships.
Keep in mind that even when they get forced on grid (hasn't happened just yet) they will just need to be on grid when used for fleet boosts, and a grid is a big place. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Dvla
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:03:00 -
[310] - Quote
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. |
|
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
235
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:14:00 -
[311] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:I have a feeling that they will be staying towards the rear of the engagement, preferably out of range of the sentries in use... and likely need to play the warp off and repair on the way back game. Which means we'll be seeing the newly buffed medium rails used a lot more commonly on these ships.
Keep in mind that even when they get forced on grid (hasn't happened just yet) they will just need to be on grid when used for fleet boosts, and a grid is a big place.
It's fair to say that 'on grid' is a large area, but if you're anywhere near your fleet you're a target. The optimal engagement range for gardes goes out to around 80km when using domi's, if you switch to any other sentry it stretches over 120km. We'll see what they ultimately choose to do with boosting on grid, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have to be close enough to be engaged to use their boosts. |
Mark Artreides
NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:17:00 -
[312] - Quote
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.
QFT. Get your heads out of your collective asses CCP.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4431
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:17:00 -
[313] - Quote
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. You might consider that since CS will be quite effective in a fight with or without links it's pretty doubtful that only your wing commanders will be in them. Which makes it a bit difficult to assassinate them unless you have inside intel.
Also your definition of "paper thin tank" is ... interesting to say the least.
However, I will say that fleet boosts really need to affect every member of the fleet... regardless of position or whether you happen to be doing the boosting or not. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Leskit
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:17:00 -
[314] - Quote
Dvla wrote: 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.
Because the damnation's dps sucks in relation to the others (~500). Even the sacrilege gets more dps. I don't expect to see it fielded en masse unless it's an attrition fleet. just my view. |
Kenhi sama
Project Stealth Squad The Initiative.
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:18:00 -
[315] - Quote
why does the eos only have 16 slots while all others have 17? |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4431
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:18:00 -
[316] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:I have a feeling that they will be staying towards the rear of the engagement, preferably out of range of the sentries in use... and likely need to play the warp off and repair on the way back game. Which means we'll be seeing the newly buffed medium rails used a lot more commonly on these ships.
Keep in mind that even when they get forced on grid (hasn't happened just yet) they will just need to be on grid when used for fleet boosts, and a grid is a big place. It's fair to say that 'on grid' is a large area, but if you're anywhere near your fleet you're a target. The optimal engagement range for gardes goes out to around 80km when using domi's, if you switch to any other sentry it stretches over 120km. We'll see what they ultimately choose to do with boosting on grid, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have to be close enough to be engaged to use their boosts. Quite possible. It should be interesting. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4431
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:20:00 -
[317] - Quote
Kenhi sama wrote:why does the eos only have 16 slots while all others have 17? Because it's a drone boat. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Rikard Stark
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:22:00 -
[318] - Quote
Dvla wrote: Which makes it a bit difficult to assassinate them unless you have inside intel.
Confirming no one in null sec has spies |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
171
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:22:00 -
[319] - Quote
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.
quoting for truth!
|
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
235
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:23:00 -
[320] - Quote
Leskit wrote:Dvla wrote: 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.
Because the damnation's dps sucks in relation to the others (~500). Even the sacrilege gets more dps. I don't expect to see it fielded en masse unless it's an attrition fleet. just my view.
The damnation is built to be a brick tanked command ship, and it's damn good at it's job. All the other command ships seem to be leaning towards the "battlecruiser sized HAC," but the damnation is the only ship I've seen FC's use to actually stay on the field of a fleet engagement. I just think it would be nice to have more than one command ship designed that way.
Kenhi sama wrote:why does the eos only have 16 slots while all others have 17?
Because drone boat. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4431
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:25:00 -
[321] - Quote
Rikard Stark wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: Which makes it a bit difficult to assassinate them unless you have inside intel. Confirming no one in null sec has spies Of course they do, but then they are going to get popped regardless of what they are flying... rendering the whole argument moot. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Mark Artreides
NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:29:00 -
[322] - Quote
Rikard Stark wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: Which makes it a bit difficult to assassinate them unless you have inside intel. Confirming no one in null sec has spies
Also super capitals are a fairy tale. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4431
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:29:00 -
[323] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Leskit wrote:Dvla wrote: 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.
Because the damnation's dps sucks in relation to the others (~500). Even the sacrilege gets more dps. I don't expect to see it fielded en masse unless it's an attrition fleet. just my view. The damnation is built to be a brick tanked command ship, and it's damn good at it's job. All the other command ships seem to be leaning towards the "battlecruiser sized HAC," but the damnation is the only ship I've seen FC's use to actually stay on the field of a fleet engagement. I just think it would be nice to have more than one command ship designed that way. Kenhi sama wrote:why does the eos only have 16 slots while all others have 17? Because drone boat. While I don't view the other CS as unworkable (just workable in different ways than currently), I really can't disagree with this sentiment. Especially since I've long been a fan of the armor bonus the Damnation currently has. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Rikard Stark
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:29:00 -
[324] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Rikard Stark wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: Which makes it a bit difficult to assassinate them unless you have inside intel. Confirming no one in null sec has spies Of course they do, but then they are going to get popped regardless of what they are flying... rendering the whole argument moot. CCP clearly want to (eventually) move boosts on grid though. I really can't understand why you would oppose giving them at least a chance to survive being primaried. And as for you comment on everyone flying them in a fleet that's just dumb and you're clearly responding from a position of ignorance concerning null sec warfare and fleet comps. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4431
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:30:00 -
[325] - Quote
Mark Artreides wrote:Rikard Stark wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: Which makes it a bit difficult to assassinate them unless you have inside intel. Confirming no one in null sec has spies Also super capitals are a fairy tale. Close. Super caps are for fairies. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Daktar Jaxs
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:30:00 -
[326] - Quote
why one earth would you choose to make the game experience of the one of the groups of people who play your game most worse? |
Mark Artreides
NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:31:00 -
[327] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Rikard Stark wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: Which makes it a bit difficult to assassinate them unless you have inside intel. Confirming no one in null sec has spies Of course they do, but then they are going to get popped regardless of what they are flying... rendering the whole argument moot.
Ranger 1 wrote:You might consider that since CS will be quite effective in a fight with or without links it's pretty doubtful that only your wing commanders will be in them. Which makes it a bit difficult to assassinate them unless you have inside intel.
Also your definition of "paper thin tank" is ... interesting to say the least.
However, I will say that fleet boosts really need to affect every member of the fleet... regardless of position or whether you happen to be doing the boosting or not.
Are you even the same dude posting? Or are you just posting random answers? At one post you say they will just get popped and in the other you are arguing the paper thin tank on the other fleet command ships.
You sir, have no clue what you are talking about. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
235
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:31:00 -
[328] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Of course they do, but then they are going to get popped regardless of what they are flying... rendering the whole argument moot.
Being a logi pilot I've held a FC against obnoxious incoming DPS (q9pp, 3we, 9-v etc) which is why I'm pushing for more command ships other than the legion to be able to survive against a headshot...assuming the logi's are on the ball. |
Drunken Bum
416
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:32:00 -
[329] - Quote
These ships are gonna **** all over everyone and every thing. I cant wait. This is the first balance pass where ive liked the look of every ship. After the patch we're giving the market some gentle supply restriction, like tying one wrist to the bedpost loosely with soft silk rope. Just enough to make things a bit more exciting for the market, not enough to make a safeword necessary. -á-Fozzie |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
585
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:33:00 -
[330] - Quote
FFS active tanking bonuses? Still? Really?
Get a grip guys, Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
|
Catherine Laartii
Khanid Regional Directorate
27
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:35:00 -
[331] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Is there a link for the command ship model changes, or has that not been announced yet?
Here you all go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m8bZ7ThlRY |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4431
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:36:00 -
[332] - Quote
Rikard Stark wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Rikard Stark wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: Which makes it a bit difficult to assassinate them unless you have inside intel. Confirming no one in null sec has spies Of course they do, but then they are going to get popped regardless of what they are flying... rendering the whole argument moot. CCP clearly want to (eventually) move boosts on grid though. I really can't understand why you would oppose giving them at least a chance to survive being primaried. And as for you comment on everyone flying them in a fleet that's just dumb and you're clearly responding from a position of ignorance concerning null sec warfare and fleet comps. LOL hardly.
What I actually said is that they will be much more common, we'll very likely see fleet doctrines shifting a fair amount in the near future.
Also, I don't oppose bonuses to resistance or buffer amount. However I can also see way to make repair bonuses work within the current meta. I try not to always compare things from the point of view of "but if we do things exactly as we are now, this won't work"... because that is a losing point of view.
Most of your better fleet (and gang composition) doctrines got their start from someone looking at a set of abilities that everyone else thought was "meh" and realized it could be made to work very well indeed. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Domiblob
Viziam Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:36:00 -
[333] - Quote
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.
This. |
Tirion Stargazer
Dutch Squad Novus Dominatum
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:37:00 -
[334] - Quote
I dislike the mixup of field and fleetcom roles,
the fleetcoms could use a little seasoning, but the fleetcoms are getting into an odd direction
|
El Scotch
Eighty Joule Brewery Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:39:00 -
[335] - Quote
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.
This seems rather relevant, CCP. Would you please comment further?
|
Dominionix
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
53
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:39:00 -
[336] - Quote
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.
Not empty quoting. CCP you really need to take this in to account, these ships are designed for FLEET combat, and they are so vulnerable to hostile fleets they will be an absolutely horrible, miserable experience for whoever has to fly them. Whilst I don't like the AFK in a POS boosters, at least that means they can be done with alts rather than ruining the game for 5 people in every fleet. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4431
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:40:00 -
[337] - Quote
Mark Artreides wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Rikard Stark wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: Which makes it a bit difficult to assassinate them unless you have inside intel. Confirming no one in null sec has spies Of course they do, but then they are going to get popped regardless of what they are flying... rendering the whole argument moot. Ranger 1 wrote:You might consider that since CS will be quite effective in a fight with or without links it's pretty doubtful that only your wing commanders will be in them. Which makes it a bit difficult to assassinate them unless you have inside intel.
Also your definition of "paper thin tank" is ... interesting to say the least.
However, I will say that fleet boosts really need to affect every member of the fleet... regardless of position or whether you happen to be doing the boosting or not. Are you even the same dude posting? Or are you just posting random answers? At one post you say they will just get popped and in the other you are arguing the paper thin tank on the other fleet command ships. You sir, have no clue what you are talking about. No, YOU have no clue what I'm talking about. Big difference.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Scooter McCabe
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
273
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:41:00 -
[338] - Quote
El Scotch 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. This seems rather relevant, CCP. Would you please comment further?
There might be something to this CCP.
|
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
60
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:45:00 -
[339] - Quote
Dat Myrmidon. |
General Nusense
Not Posting With My Main
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:45:00 -
[340] - Quote
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.
HEY MR. GOONIE WHY NOT POST THIS WITH YOUR MAIN TOONIE? |
|
Craystorm
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:45:00 -
[341] - Quote
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.
This is a good post.
As a Pilot who flys a Wing/Fleet Booster Alt regularly: Let us field them with the fleet on grid (fix wing recieving fleet boosts + unfuck the shield tank problems this dude is talking about) or let them boost in peace without constantly alt+tabbing to check for probes.
Tank you :> |
Dograzor
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:45:00 -
[342] - Quote
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? |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
201
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:45:00 -
[343] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote: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.
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. Your math is pretty atrocious. If you have 50% base resist, and your hull ends up with a 20% bonus to resists, your ship will have a total of 50 + (100-50)*.2 total resist, in this case 60% total resist. So if you get hit with 100 base damage with just the 50% resist you take 50 damage. If get hit with 100 base damage with 60% reisit you take 40 damage. It doesn't matter what the base resist is, you will always take 20% less damage. But the effect that has is a 25% boost to survivibility. To illustrate this, take a ship with 500 hp. If you're taking the damage from above with just the base resist it takes 10 seconds to burn through the HP. If you have the extra resist profile it takes 12.5 second, or 25% longer to burn through the same amount of hp. If you don't understand everything I just said you probably shouldn't be attacking the devs for their understanding of the game mechanics. I'm Down wrote: 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
To bring your attrocious math full circle lets look at just this statement. Claymore: Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 75 / 60 / 40 / 50 = 225 base resists Nighthawk: Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 80(+10) / 70(+7.5) / 50 = 200 base resists The nighthawk with the 20% resist bonus: EM = 0 + (100-0)*.2 = 20 TH = 80 + (100-80)*.2 = 84 Kin = 70 + (100-70)*.2 = 76 Exp = 50 + (100-50)*.2 = 60 240 total resists I have no idea what you're trying to say besides this because whatever math you thought was supporting your argument is bad.
you have fallen into the dev trap and totally missed the point.
The only thing a resist bonus changes is a lvl 0 ship compared to that same ship at lvl 5. It has no cross connection to any other ship unless the have identical resistances.
In the case of the Tech 2 ships, some have hole filled while others further buff strengths. When you already have high base resist, the 20% resist bonus means drastically less than it would with 0 resist.
Numbers don't lie, you just don't understand math at all.
Break it down at it's simplest level using your own numbers
240 is not 20% higher than 225. |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
589
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:45:00 -
[344] - Quote
Scooter McCabe wrote:El Scotch 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. This seems rather relevant, CCP. Would you please comment further? There might be something to this CCP. +1 Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Daktar Jaxs
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:46:00 -
[345] - Quote
To put this another way: the bloc of players that comprises nearly 10% of your subscribed accounts is more than a bit unhappy about these changes. Would you like to go away and have another think about them. |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
1354
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:46:00 -
[346] - Quote
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.
Got the poke to like this post.
I read it.
And liked it, genuinely.
Fozzie, listen to this guy.
edit: he also raises the issue with all the damn ewar modules in mid slots. Armor rarely, if ever, need to make that choice.
Maybe, move the command modules to a high slot. if you need them. which you don't. Dual Pane idea: Click!
CCP Please Implement |
Caneb
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:47:00 -
[347] - Quote
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. Everyone on eve-o look closely, this is what a Good Post looks like. |
William Darkk
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:48:00 -
[348] - Quote
Disappointed with the repair/boost effectiveness bonuses. Those wont save you when you're primary, but a resist bonus has a chance.
It's not like no Min/Gal ships have resist bonuses, the hictors do. |
General Nusense
Not Posting With My Main
70
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:48:00 -
[349] - Quote
LOOK AT ALL THE CFC NERDS COMING OUT OF THE WOODWORK TO LIKE A POST AND POST IN THIS THREAD. MR.VEE PINGS, CFC THREADNAUGHTS.
|
Shear Terror
Empty Wallets Inc. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:48:00 -
[350] - Quote
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.
What he said ^^^^^
|
|
Catherine Laartii
Khanid Regional Directorate
27
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:49:00 -
[351] - Quote
Entity wrote:So, Astarte getting a massive damage nerf?
The damage/rof changes do not offset the 29% reduced damage from losing 2 turrets, and adding 2 completely unbonused launchers isn't that particularly appealing.
Addition of drone damage bonus should offset that significantly. |
Kael Attrell
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:49:00 -
[352] - Quote
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.
Agreed. While I'm excited about having improved t2 battlecruisers to play with, I'm not so sure about why they're being called command ships. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
401
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:49:00 -
[353] - 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. |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
1354
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:49:00 -
[354] - Quote
General Nusense wrote:LOOK AT ALL THE CFC NERDS COMING OUT OF THE WOODWORK TO LIKE A POST AND POST IN THIS THREAD. MR.VEE PINGS, CFC THREADNAUGHTS.
Oh you. Dual Pane idea: Click!
CCP Please Implement |
Calmoto
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:50:00 -
[355] - Quote
resist + armour hp bonus on a damnation where is the vultures shield hp bonus? active boosting on a claymore?
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
wtf is going on |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
56
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:51:00 -
[356] - Quote
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.
QFT
|
Dograzor
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:51:00 -
[357] - Quote
General Nusense wrote:LOOK AT ALL THE CFC NERDS COMING OUT OF THE WOODWORK TO LIKE A POST AND POST IN THIS THREAD. MR.VEE PINGS, CFC THREADNAUGHTS.
Tbh I'd say that any large sov alliance would agree to what Dvla posted, not just CFC. Any other major entities that would like to comment? |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
201
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:52:00 -
[358] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:I'm Down wrote:Let's futher talk about the Resistance gaps in Command ships.
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.
It would certainly be better for the Nighthawk to get 10%/ lvl hp bonus. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
401
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:52:00 -
[359] - 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. |
Rikard Stark
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:52:00 -
[360] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Rikard Stark wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Rikard Stark wrote:[quote=Ranger 1] Which makes it a bit difficult to assassinate them unless you have inside intel. Confirming no one in null sec has spies Of course they do, but then they are going to get popped regardless of what they are flying... rendering the whole argument moot. However I can also see way to make repair bonuses work within the current meta.
Posting for posterity |
|
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
1354
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:52:00 -
[361] - 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
Claymore is now a ship designed to take functional advantage of a ASB. Considering it's the 'skirmish' command ship, it makes sense.
Dual Pane idea: Click!
CCP Please Implement |
Daktar Jaxs
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:53:00 -
[362] - Quote
Zagdul wrote: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 Claymore is now a ship designed to take functional advantage of a ASB. Considering it's the 'skirmish' command ship, it makes sense.
considering no-one at ccp plays eve it probably made sense to them |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
84
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:55:00 -
[363] - Quote
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. For a group of ships meant to fulfill the same role for different fleets, they certainly have very different bonuses. Th Damnation being the only one with double tanks bonuses is pretty unbalanced for a re-balancing attempt.
How is it that the heavy interdictors can all share the infinitely superior resist bonus due to their niche role but you choose to give some of these a useless local rep bonus?
Come on CCP Fozzie, I thought the two strike balancing was CCP Rise's thing. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
401
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:55:00 -
[364] - 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. |
Solai
Jolly Codgers Get Off My Lawn
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:56:00 -
[365] - Quote
General Nusense wrote:Dvla wrote: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. HEY MR. GOONIE WHY NOT POST THIS WITH YOUR MAIN TOONIE? Cuz people might judge the post based on the poster rather than the content of the post. ...Why do you want to know?
Also, Dvla is right on. I fly logi, and I notice I can keep the Amarr FC ships alive, but consistently cannot keep the others up. |
Zankul
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:56:00 -
[366] - Quote
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.
What this dude said.
|
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:58:00 -
[367] - Quote
Zagdul wrote: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 Claymore is now a ship designed to take functional advantage of a ASB. Considering it's the 'skirmish' command ship, it makes sense. Yeah, it will be great for all those active repper fleets going around these days.
Get out. |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
177
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:00:00 -
[368] - Quote
Dograzor wrote:General Nusense wrote:LOOK AT ALL THE CFC NERDS COMING OUT OF THE WOODWORK TO LIKE A POST AND POST IN THIS THREAD. MR.VEE PINGS, CFC THREADNAUGHTS.
Tbh I'd say that any large sov alliance would agree to what Dvla posted, not just CFC. Any other major entities that would like to comment?
hey we are not a major entity but what he said is 100% true. repair bonus is kinda.. meh once the fleet scales up. so if some people want to lable me a cfc nerd for that.
*shrugs*
guess i need to apply to goons then |
Zalgo13
Section 8. Fatal Ascension
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:01:00 -
[369] - Quote
Lady Naween wrote:Dograzor wrote:General Nusense wrote:LOOK AT ALL THE CFC NERDS COMING OUT OF THE WOODWORK TO LIKE A POST AND POST IN THIS THREAD. MR.VEE PINGS, CFC THREADNAUGHTS.
Tbh I'd say that any large sov alliance would agree to what Dvla posted, not just CFC. Any other major entities that would like to comment? hey we are not a major entity but what he said is 100% true. repair bonus is kinda.. meh once the fleet scales up. so if some people want to lable me a cfc nerd for that. *shrugs* guess i need to apply to goons then
spai |
Ltazza
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:04:00 -
[370] - Quote
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.
Predicting CCP's answer to be: "This is not the final redesign. That real redesign is coming 'soon'". They will then go ahead with these stupid and clearly out of touch changes while we have to wait for the real changes for a year or more.
But who am I kidding, CCP won't reply to this. |
|
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
177
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:04:00 -
[371] - Quote
oh dammit and i thought i was so sneaky too
|
Mithrawndo
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:04:00 -
[372] - Quote
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.
QFT
While you're at it, can we throw out damage bonuses on blockade runners, freighters, orcas, rorquals, and any other non-dps ship just for the sake of having the option of stepping outside of their intended roles? Buff the battle badger with 5% damage to light missile per level and explosion radius.
|
Dograzor
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
36
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:04:00 -
[373] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Dograzor wrote:
Valid questions, CCP do you have answers?
They don't usually answer our questions .. why would they change that here?
Hope, just call it hope. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
236
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:05:00 -
[374] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Numbers don't lie, you just don't understand math at all.
Your post
I'm Down wrote:A ship with 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage with a 20% resistance bonus will have 55% resistance, and therefore take 45 damage.
Please share more of your mathematics. |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
655
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:06:00 -
[375] - Quote
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.
pretty much this OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Alexander the Great
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
112
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:08:00 -
[376] - Quote
Damnation is still the only CS viable on field in large battles.
What (re)balance are you talking about? |
dee x3
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:10:00 -
[377] - Quote
Quote: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.
Have to agree here. |
glepp
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
101
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:12:00 -
[378] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Mark Artreides wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:You might consider that since CS will be quite effective in a fight with or without links it's pretty doubtful that only your wing commanders will be in them. Which makes it a bit difficult to assassinate them unless you have inside intel.
Also your definition of "paper thin tank" is ... interesting to say the least.
However, I will say that fleet boosts really need to affect every member of the fleet... regardless of position or whether you happen to be doing the boosting or not. Are you even the same dude posting? Or are you just posting random answers? At one post you say they will just get popped and in the other you are arguing the paper thin tank on the other fleet command ships. You sir, have no clue what you are talking about. No, YOU have no clue what I'm talking about. Big difference. You suggested bringing an active tank to a 20v20 BS fight...
I rest my case. |
glepp
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
101
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:13:00 -
[379] - Quote
dee x3 wrote:Quote: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.
Have to agree here. +1 |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
236
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:13:00 -
[380] - Quote
Alexander the Great wrote:Damnation is still the only CS viable on field in large battles.
What (re)balance are you talking about?
It's really just a culture clash between the people who want oversized HACs and people who want ships that don't get blapped off grid in one volley in a fleet fight. I honestly think the old fleet command ships should all be brick tanks, and the old field command ships can be the oversized HACs. |
|
Resgo
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:13:00 -
[381] - Quote
So the Damnation is the only command ship that actually seems to be setup as well a command ship. It has both an armor bonus and armor resist bonuses. There is no shield ship equivalent and even worse both of the Minmatar ships are setup for a local active repairs. When is the last time you saw a fleet of 20+ battle cruisers or bigger where the repairs were local. I'd love to see at least one of each race be viable for surviving on the battlefield. Setting up the missile cruisers with viable tank would be really nice. I understand the Sleipnir has a long tradition of use as a dps brawler but the claymore certainly does not. I tend to wish there were a separate group of tech 2 battle cruisers which were more dps and brawly focused to the command ships could actually be command ships. |
Ix Method
Axis of Hugs
33
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:14:00 -
[382] - Quote
Unforgiven Storm wrote:The Gallente and Minmatar have no resist bonus instead they have rep bonus, while in a small gang is all nice in a fleet they will be primary and vaporized before logistics can do anything about it. Definitely agree with this, by their very nature these things need some decent staying power. It would be nice to see each race can at least one that can buffer tank like a beast, whether you justify it as their 'role' or whatever. |
Dograzor
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
36
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:14:00 -
[383] - Quote
Sigh. This thread seems to be heavily moderated. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1058
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:14:00 -
[384] - Quote
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.
This guy must be Space Jesus.
+1
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Catherine Laartii
Khanid Regional Directorate
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:14:00 -
[385] - Quote
If the 'dictor rebalance is going to be half as good as this, I'm going to be a very, very happy pod pilot. :) |
bootmanj
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:15:00 -
[386] - Quote
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.
+1
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4432
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:18:00 -
[387] - Quote
glepp wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Mark Artreides wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:You might consider that since CS will be quite effective in a fight with or without links it's pretty doubtful that only your wing commanders will be in them. Which makes it a bit difficult to assassinate them unless you have inside intel.
Also your definition of "paper thin tank" is ... interesting to say the least.
However, I will say that fleet boosts really need to affect every member of the fleet... regardless of position or whether you happen to be doing the boosting or not. Are you even the same dude posting? Or are you just posting random answers? At one post you say they will just get popped and in the other you are arguing the paper thin tank on the other fleet command ships. You sir, have no clue what you are talking about. No, YOU have no clue what I'm talking about. Big difference. You suggested bringing an active tank to a 20v20 BS fight... I rest my case. I get the impression you think that a 20vs20 BS fight is a "fleet" engagement. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
371
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:18:00 -
[388] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The rules: 2. Be respectful toward others at all times.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
11. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.
The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a petition under the Community & Forums Category. ISD Ezwal Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:20:00 -
[389] - Quote
Between this and the industrial changes, I'm torn as to which is my favorite! I can almost assure you that I will finish training for an Astarte now. This is good all around to me. |
Capn Jack
Shadow Vanguard.
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:21:00 -
[390] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:It's not being changed. Given up on trying to justify the Astarte nerf? Astarte is fine l2p
So we can take that as a yes... I just don't see how the Astarte fits in, in the current meta even with the resist buff it still loses ~8% dps and doesn't gain any other noticable bonus's why nerf the astarte and buff or not nerf other ships as hard?
I Still see these Commandships as missing a large chunk of EHP to fit their role... sure a dual repping astarte does tank pretty well but within the current meta, it's only place is in small gang warfare, and even there it's not really a viable option, I like that you try to give us more options, and don't get me wron here I love that you want to put the Boosting ships on field, but... they would just with the current system get taken off the field way too fast.
And lets not get started on how bad the price tag on running a AAR is with the current price of nano paste... and yes you at CCP Set the price of nano paste by how much you produce on the blueprint... running a ASB is so much cheaper.
I feel that your views on Gallente ships is for small gang warfare mostly. And yay for for finally getting a boost to local armor repping to put it closer in line with active shield tanks! |
|
Derek Shmawesome
We Know Derek
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:22:00 -
[391] - Quote
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.
This. CCP, if you want ppl to do large fleets, that are worth news items on the BBC, Forbes and whatnot you need to get your priorities straight. Nobody in their right mind will warp a paper-thin non-Amarr commandship or T3 into a 1000 men fight. And nobody in their right mind forms fleet compositions accidently either. So this means nobody will fly anything but the Amarr for boosting. And this again means everyone will be in armor tanks. Eventually we will find out which armor tanked fleet is best and after than it's only the number or pilots that decides the outcome. How ******* lame is that?
CCP, read about what Vee wrote there and start using your brains! |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4432
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:23:00 -
[392] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Alexander the Great wrote:Damnation is still the only CS viable on field in large battles.
What (re)balance are you talking about? It's really just a culture clash between the people who want oversized HACs and people who want ships that don't get blapped off grid in one volley in a fleet fight. I honestly think the old fleet command ships should all be brick tanks, and the old field command ships can be the oversized HACs. I really wouldn't have a problem with this.
You are correct, some people view CS as only being used for large fleet engagements and want the huge buffer.
Others want them to be a viable alternative for more modest engagements, or even solo work.
... and then there are others (like our friend who posted above) view a little 20vs20 engagement as a fleet battle.
There are those who only think a CS is useful if it can stand in the middle of the fleet and absorb everything that's thrown at it, while others would prefer something that stays to the rear of the fight (using it's combat ability to deal primarily with anything slipping back to take it out).
People have wildly different expectations and definitions of how the vessels will be used, and that is causing a great deal of confusion. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Angry Mustache
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
62
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:28:00 -
[393] - Quote
While on the subject, why not give us bigger HAC's rather than shoehorning that role into the differant role of being a "fleet command ship".
The people who want proper T2 fighting battlecruisers don't want to train up a half a year of leaderships skills that they will rarely use
The people who want a durable fleet boosting ship to command from don't want to have their ship bonuses wasted on guns that they will never shoot, or even fit.
If the name of the game for T2 is specialization, then make these ships specialized. The old idea of Field/Fleet command ships is actually very workable.
"Command Ships" should be extremely difficult to remove from the field, they should have absurd tanks, bonuses to warfare links, and very good electronics - Locking range, Scan resolution, and sensor strength. Hell, perhaps even add on Probing/target painting bonuses so they truly help the fleet. A true command ship would only have guns for KM whoring, and possibly smartbombs to remove drones.
"Bigger Hacs" should be another thing altogether, and arguably every "reworked" command ship (except for damnation) we have right now is a Bigger Hac rather than a "Command Ship". Giving these ships the tank to have the stay power they need to command would make them too difficult to remove when used in a DPS role. If the damage bonuses were nerfed to accommodate Command ship tanks, nobody would use them for pewing. Most importantly, do not make us train 6 million in Leadership to have to fly these things, there should be a semi-logical progression from HACs, perhaps an AWU V requirement and/or tech 2 medium weapons of that race. And if your fleet is not big enough to justify a proper command ship, it's acceptable to slap some links on a T2 BC and leave it at that. http://themittani.com -á- your one stop site for all News Eve Related |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
592
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:30:00 -
[394] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:Alexander the Great wrote:Damnation is still the only CS viable on field in large battles.
What (re)balance are you talking about? It's really just a culture clash between the people who want oversized HACs and people who want ships that don't get blapped off grid in one volley in a fleet fight. I honestly think the old fleet command ships should all be brick tanks, and the old field command ships can be the oversized HACs. I really wouldn't have a problem with this. You are correct, some people view CS as only being used for large fleet engagements and want the huge buffer. Others want them to be a viable alternative for more modest engagements, or even solo work. ... and then there are others (like our friend who posted above) view a little 20vs20 engagement as a fleet battle. There are those who only think a CS is useful if it can stand in the middle of the fleet and absorb everything that's thrown at it, while others would prefer something that stays to the rear of the fight (using it's combat ability to deal primarily with anything slipping back to take it out). People have wildly different expectations and definitions of how the vessels will be used, and that is causing a great deal of confusion. The thing is, we've already got oversized HAC's in Tech 3's. Commandships should excel at being on the field in a similar way to HIC's. Perhaps let the sleipnier and maybe Eos keep active tanking bonuses, otherwise, without some amazing new change to active tanking mechanics... Nope. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Terrorfrodo
Renegade Hobbits for Mordor
556
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:31:00 -
[395] - Quote
Will Command T3s still only be able to activate a single link without fitting Command Processors? If so, it will be impossible to create combat-capable T3s that utilize their new 'diversity' (that comes at the high cost of crappy quality).
If we want to fly T3s that have two, three or more links, making use of their generalization, they will have to fit several Command Processors, which eat up all the fitting resorces and leave no mid slots for tank, ewar or tackle. Command T3s will thus go extinct, because they are inferior as off-grid boosters and also bad as on-grid combat ships.
Please remember, T3s that could potentially fill many roles with different fits, are of no use to anyone, because you can have only one of the potential fits on the battlefield at any one time. To fulfil their promise of diversity, they (still) need to be able to fill several roles at the same time. . |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
390
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:31:00 -
[396] - Quote
Pattern Clarc wrote:FFS active tanking bonuses? Still? Really? I've actually given up trying to make points about why the active rep bonuses suck in comparison to resist bonuses (and to a certain extent, buffer ones).
CCP is looking at active bonuses with rose-colored glasses, envisioning some perfect world where an active repair bonus can keep parity with a resist one. Unfortunately, this simply isn't so and will never be without significant changes to how active rep bonuses/resist bonuses work with incoming reps.
Over the time I've been involved posting here on the Eve-O forums, there have been several suggestions to improve active tanking vs resists, with perhaps the best being that active rep bonuses boost incoming reps by the bonused amount and resist bonuses would "resist" some amount of incoming rep (obviously balanced so that the two perform similarly in the same situation).
This sort of approach wouldn't address that resist bonuses still have some advantage in passive, or buffer, tanking, but at least it would put the two on parity when logi is on the field. Otherwise, CCP is simply happy with saddling some ships with wasted bonuses unless you're specifically fit for local tank.
What's more, the ships saddled with an active repair/boost bonus aren't even compensated by having an addition low/mid slot, so at least the argument could be made that if you wish to forego the active bonus, you can always add another eanm/invuln to compensate for the difference. In fact, the ships with the active bonuses typically have LESS low or midslots than a comparable ship with a resist bonus, only further pushing the active ships into obscurity over their resist-bonus brethren.
I can understand the fear of not wanting to "make all ships the same" by having resist or active bonuses that essentially perform the same under similar circumstances. But I am sure that most--if not nearly all--posters on these forums would agree that saddling ships with bonuses that would intentionally have to be wasted under very common "buffer" situations is not acceptable and provides no compelling gameplay choice. Something creative should be iterated on that would provide a compelling reason to take either/or ship in a given situation, with the pilot's choice revolving around weapon selection, engagement range, ewar selection or similar. The choice should NOT be mandated by having ships--many ships--forego an option to see action if that pilot has trained, say, Gallente and blasters or Minmatar and ACs.
Consider that the Mega post-rebalance saw more use after it was "compensated" with 8 low slots (to much Amarr ruckus.) Now, it is a compelling choice (among other things, certainly) to pick Mega over an Abaddon, because although the Baddon has an innate resist bonus, the Mega can compensate its lack of a bonus by making that new low slot an additional energized adaptive nano membrane. I'm certainly not advocating that all ships saddled with an active bonus are compensated in a similar manner by the addition of low- or midslots. Simply put, something to place the two tanking styles on parity needs to be worked on. And it should be a top priority. Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4433
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:35:00 -
[397] - Quote
Pattern Clarc wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:Alexander the Great wrote:Damnation is still the only CS viable on field in large battles.
What (re)balance are you talking about? It's really just a culture clash between the people who want oversized HACs and people who want ships that don't get blapped off grid in one volley in a fleet fight. I honestly think the old fleet command ships should all be brick tanks, and the old field command ships can be the oversized HACs. I really wouldn't have a problem with this. You are correct, some people view CS as only being used for large fleet engagements and want the huge buffer. Others want them to be a viable alternative for more modest engagements, or even solo work. ... and then there are others (like our friend who posted above) view a little 20vs20 engagement as a fleet battle. There are those who only think a CS is useful if it can stand in the middle of the fleet and absorb everything that's thrown at it, while others would prefer something that stays to the rear of the fight (using it's combat ability to deal primarily with anything slipping back to take it out). People have wildly different expectations and definitions of how the vessels will be used, and that is causing a great deal of confusion. The thing is, we've already got oversized HAC's in Tech 3's. Commandships should excel at being on the field in a similar way to HIC's. Perhaps let the sleipnier and maybe Eos keep active tanking bonuses, otherwise, without some amazing new change to active tanking mechanics... Nope. Yeah, I added an edit along that line just as you posted.
Quote:Edit:
I think their might be more clarity if we could get something concrete out of Fozzie as to the proposed role of T3 cruisers when used for this purpose.
If they are being designed as the ship of choice for smaller/roaming gangs, and CS as being designed as the go to ship for large fleet engagements, I think we could have a lot more focus to these discussions.
By the way, if the above is true, then those wishing bonuses more along the lines of resistance buffs or raw HP buffs instead of active tank buffs have a much more compelling case. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Moridunum Kanjus
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:38:00 -
[398] - Quote
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.
This needs to be sorted before anything else +1.
Slightly off-topic but for the love of god don't change the Nighthawk to a Drake hull. It's one of the best looking ships as it is.
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
202
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:39:00 -
[399] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:I'm Down wrote:Numbers don't lie, you just don't understand math at all. Your postI'm Down wrote:A ship with 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage with a 20% resistance bonus will have 55% resistance, and therefore take 45 damage. Please share more of your mathematics.
That line literally only exist because I had to use a saved draft rather than an edited draft when the post failed to post first time.
I'll be the first to tell you it was a mistake and has absolutely no weight on the entire rest of a very long post. The whole point of the post was about the relationship of 2 ships in balance. The re-edited version points this out. |
Sigras
Conglomo
475
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:42:00 -
[400] - 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 please do me a favor and go buy a drake or nighthawk and and just sit down in it with BC 5 . . . ill wait . . . now look at your shield explosive resists . . . now tell me, whose a good girl who needs to learn how to math . . . (hint you end up with 60% resists not 55%)
seriously, though, the bonus works exactly the same way that you would expect, if you would take 100 explosive damage with a 50% base resistance, you end up taking 50 damage, increase that resistance to 60% and you end up taking 40 damage 40/50 = .8 or 80% which means you're taking 20% less damage; just like you would expect from a 20% bonus.
Same thing with a base resist of 0% 100 damage with 0% resist = 100 damage; 100 damage with a 20% resist bonus = 80 damage so 20% less.
I'm Down wrote: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. the above is only true if you continue along the idiotic line of thinking that you fit both ships the same way. All you did was point out that there is an EM hole that needs to be plugged by a hardener in the NH. I was also going to point out that a single EM hardener on the NH has a much better effect at raising the "average resists" than does a kinetic hardener on the claymore, but it doesnt matter because this argument is moot.
Not to mention that the NH has 17% more shields than the claymore but you know, that fact doesnt fit your pre conceived idea, so i guess you chose to exclude it
TL;DR there is more to a ship than its bonuses, perhaps you should check out the other stats. |
|
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
593
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:47:00 -
[401] - Quote
And...
RE: Changes to active tanking mechanics... Go reactive. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Lugia3
Pirates Incorporated
504
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:47:00 -
[402] - Quote
Claymore will be blatently better than the Sleipnir now.
I approve of buffing the dual-XL ASB Claymore. Yarr |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4433
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:47:00 -
[403] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:I'm Down wrote:Numbers don't lie, you just don't understand math at all. Your postI'm Down wrote:A ship with 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage with a 20% resistance bonus will have 55% resistance, and therefore take 45 damage. Please share more of your mathematics. That line literally only exist because I had to use a saved draft rather than an edited draft when the post failed to post first time. I'll be the first to tell you it was a mistake and has absolutely no weight on the entire rest of a very long post. Consider this:
If I had hypothetically 90% base resists, and a 20% bonus to those resists, I would have 92% resists.
True, this is only a 2% increase at that level.
However, if I were taking 1000dps with 90% resists I'd be taking 100dps... with 92% resists I'd be taking 80dsp... a difference of 20% less damage relative to the damage that would actually be getting thorough.
Those bonuses do matter to the end damage that you actually receive, no matter how you slice it. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
202
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:48:00 -
[404] - Quote
Sigras wrote: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 please do me a favor and go buy a drake or nighthawk and and just sit down in it with BC 5 . . . ill wait . . . now look at your shield explosive resists . . . now tell me, whose a good girl who needs to learn how to math . . . (hint you end up with 60% resists not 55%) seriously, though, the bonus works exactly the same way that you would expect, if you would take 100 explosive damage with a 50% base resistance, you end up taking 50 damage, increase that resistance to 60% and you end up taking 40 damage 40/50 = .8 or 80% which means you're taking 20% less damage; just like you would expect from a 20% bonus. Same thing with a base resist of 0% 100 damage with 0% resist = 100 damage; 100 damage with a 20% resist bonus = 80 damage so 20% less. I'm Down wrote: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. the above is only true if you continue along the idiotic line of thinking that you fit both ships the same way. All you did was point out that there is an EM hole that needs to be plugged by a hardener in the NH. I was also going to point out that a single EM hardener on the NH has a much better effect at raising the "average resists" than does a kinetic hardener on the claymore, but it doesnt matter because this argument is moot. Not to mention that the NH has 17% more shields than the claymore but you know, that fact doesnt fit your pre conceived idea, so i guess you chose to exclude it. TL;DR there is more to a ship than its bonuses, perhaps you should check out the other stats.
And the claymore doesn't have an extra mid for a shield extender or hardener? Guess that 6% from a PDS in the NH low will account for that huh?.... lets see 2100 * 1.25 * 1.20 *1.20 = 3750 bonus shield for the claymore without even adding in gang bonuses....
Lets also not consider the fact that the NH has to actually burn a mid slot for a dedicated EM hardener that has no benefits other than to EM... Where as a Claymore can use that same slot for an Invul if it so desires because it doesn't have that hole. Lets see, gaining 30% across the board for a slot or 55% for one...
|
Suliux
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:49:00 -
[405] - Quote
CCP Fozzie,
Great work, this looks like fun stuff.
Forgive me if this was already mentioned, I have a question concerning the Claymore and Sleipnir stats.
Looking over the stats the Claymore is more agile, faster, more base EHP, and extra mid slot to support the active shield tanking design.
While I can see the sweet new niche for the Sleipnir as an alpha beast, it's main offensive strength has always been it's vaga like high AC DPS w/ awesome falloff and ability to GTFO if needed. Keep in mind AC falloff range is still hovering around long point range, which is also HAM range; HAMs are applying more or all of their DPS (usually) that far, while AC's are what, ~50%?
Why is a ship specifically designed to fight closer than it's brother, given less agility, speed, AND base tank? I'm not sure exactly how much more EHP the extra 100 hull HP add when you throw on a DCII, but it isn't going to overshadow an invul is it? Seems a little backwards to me: Sleipnir has less tank (due to less mid slots ~mostly~), so it should be faster and more agile. I would love to hear an explanation for this.
Thanks, - Suli
edit: spelling correction |
Kirtar Makanen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:50:00 -
[406] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:I'm Down wrote:Numbers don't lie, you just don't understand math at all. Your postI'm Down wrote:A ship with 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage with a 20% resistance bonus will have 55% resistance, and therefore take 45 damage. Please share more of your mathematics. That line literally only exist because I had to use a saved draft rather than an edited draft when the post failed to post first time. I'll be the first to tell you it was a mistake and has absolutely no weight on the entire rest of a very long post. Actually it does have weight on the most of the post since the post assumes that the mistake is actually true. |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
593
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:51:00 -
[407] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote: Consider that the Mega post-rebalance saw more use after it was "compensated" with 8 low slots (to much Amarr ruckus.) Now, it is a compelling choice (among other things, certainly) to pick Mega over an Abaddon, because although the Baddon has an innate resist bonus, the Mega can compensate its lack of a bonus by making that new low slot an additional energized adaptive nano membrane. I'm certainly not advocating that all ships saddled with an active bonus are compensated in a similar manner by the addition of low- or midslots. Simply put, something to place the two tanking styles on parity needs to be worked on. And it should be a top priority.
A 7 mid Maelstrom? Where do I sign up? Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
656
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:51:00 -
[408] - Quote
its very simple.
pick one from each race and add res and hp amount bonus's
pick one from each race and active tank dps bonus it.
balance accordingly
OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Guru Gaspar
The Patriots
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:51:00 -
[409] - Quote
I like the look of these on first glance.
2 questions:
Any chance the damnation could get something besides missile velocity? Its not bad, but its also not like this ship is going to be a skirmisher.
Any chance the nighthawk could move a low to a mid to make it more viable in smaller gangs where it needs a point and web? |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
202
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:56:00 -
[410] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:I'm Down wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:I'm Down wrote:Numbers don't lie, you just don't understand math at all. Your postI'm Down wrote:A ship with 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage with a 20% resistance bonus will have 55% resistance, and therefore take 45 damage. Please share more of your mathematics. That line literally only exist because I had to use a saved draft rather than an edited draft when the post failed to post first time. I'll be the first to tell you it was a mistake and has absolutely no weight on the entire rest of a very long post. Consider this: If I had hypothetically 90% base resists, and a 20% bonus to those resists, I would have 92% resists. True, this is only a 2% increase at that level. However, if I were taking 1000dps with 90% resists I'd be taking 100dps... with 92% resists I'd be taking 80dsp... a difference of 20% less damage relative to the damage that would actually be getting thorough. Those bonuses do matter to the end damage that you actually receive, no matter how you slice it.
and yet you're still not comparing 2 ships resistances
|
|
Solai
Jolly Codgers Get Off My Lawn
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:56:00 -
[411] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote:While on the subject, why not give us bigger HAC's rather than shoehorning that role into the differant role of being a "fleet command ship".
The people who want proper T2 fighting battlecruisers don't want to train up a half a year of leaderships skills that they will rarely use
The people who want a durable fleet boosting ship to command from don't want to have their ship bonuses wasted on guns that they will never shoot, or even fit.
If the name of the game for T2 is specialization, then make these ships specialized. The old idea of Field/Fleet command ships is actually very workable.
"Command Ships" should be extremely difficult to remove from the field, they should have absurd tanks, bonuses to warfare links, and very good electronics - Locking range, Scan resolution, and sensor strength. Hell, perhaps even add on Probing/target painting bonuses so they truly help the fleet. A true command ship would only have guns for KM whoring, and possibly smartbombs to remove drones.
"Bigger Hacs" should be another thing altogether, and arguably every "reworked" command ship (except for damnation) we have right now is a Bigger Hac rather than a "Command Ship". Giving these ships the tank to have the stay power they need to command would make them too difficult to remove when used in a DPS role. If the damage bonuses were nerfed to accommodate Command ship tanks, nobody would use them for pewing. Most importantly, do not make us train 6 million in Leadership to have to fly these things, there should be a semi-logical progression from HACs, perhaps an AWU V requirement and/or tech 2 medium weapons of that race. And if your fleet is not big enough to justify a proper command ship, it's acceptable to slap some links on a T2 BC and leave it at that.
This is excellent stuff. Command/boosting needs durability, or its no good. But the flipside is that a ship with that kind of durability shouldn't be able to throw out lots of damage, or else it's just *better,* which we know is bad. Maybe the answer is differentiating T2 fighty BC's away from command BCs. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
203
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:57:00 -
[412] - Quote
Solai wrote:Angry Mustache wrote:While on the subject, why not give us bigger HAC's rather than shoehorning that role into the differant role of being a "fleet command ship".
The people who want proper T2 fighting battlecruisers don't want to train up a half a year of leaderships skills that they will rarely use
The people who want a durable fleet boosting ship to command from don't want to have their ship bonuses wasted on guns that they will never shoot, or even fit.
If the name of the game for T2 is specialization, then make these ships specialized. The old idea of Field/Fleet command ships is actually very workable.
"Command Ships" should be extremely difficult to remove from the field, they should have absurd tanks, bonuses to warfare links, and very good electronics - Locking range, Scan resolution, and sensor strength. Hell, perhaps even add on Probing/target painting bonuses so they truly help the fleet. A true command ship would only have guns for KM whoring, and possibly smartbombs to remove drones.
"Bigger Hacs" should be another thing altogether, and arguably every "reworked" command ship (except for damnation) we have right now is a Bigger Hac rather than a "Command Ship". Giving these ships the tank to have the stay power they need to command would make them too difficult to remove when used in a DPS role. If the damage bonuses were nerfed to accommodate Command ship tanks, nobody would use them for pewing. Most importantly, do not make us train 6 million in Leadership to have to fly these things, there should be a semi-logical progression from HACs, perhaps an AWU V requirement and/or tech 2 medium weapons of that race. And if your fleet is not big enough to justify a proper command ship, it's acceptable to slap some links on a T2 BC and leave it at that. This is excellent stuff. Command/boosting needs durability, or its no good. But the flipside is that a ship with that kind of durability shouldn't be able to throw out lots of damage, or else it's just *better,* which we know is bad. Maybe the answer is differentiating T2 fighty BC's away from command BCs.
basically what he's saying, bar few, it's another ship without any role.
|
Tampopo Field
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
33
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:03:00 -
[413] - Quote
The proposed changes for CS seem to force a choise between ship survivability in larger fleets, in the form of resistance bonus, and the more useful skirmish link bonuses. While this seems to create a balance between different CS as link ships, I'm somewhat concerned about the potential role of link fit strategic cruisers.
They could be given the role of less effective universal booster, by giving them a smaller bonus (10% perhaps) to tank, information and skirmish links. Or they could be given a more powerful bonus (20% maybe) to information and skirmish links. Or equally more powerful bonus to tank links only. However, all these options would either make them OP, useless or very marginalized when comapred to the CS.
I'd recommend changing the link bonuses into one CS from each rage having a link bonus to tanking while the others would have a link bonus to both information and skirmish links. This would free up the niche of a less powerful but more generalized link ship for strateginc cruisers that would have a smaller link bonus to tank, information and skirmish links. It would also allow a choise between active and passive tank to be separate from the choise between which links to use. Or use with bonus.
Aside from that I like what I'm seeing. Especially when in the light of the proposed repper mod changes. Notification: Because I'm lazy, I have a tendency to post without proof reading. This may result in various errors including but not limited to typos, weird typos, grammatical errors, bizarre sentence structure, words written repeatedly, mislocated paragraphs, pointlessly complicated explanations, general incoherency, and abrupt endings. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4433
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:04:00 -
[414] - Quote
Quote:and yet you're still not comparing 2 ships resistances while quoting a dated post that has already been fixed for the 1 error that has no weight on the point. I wasn't commenting on your debate between the two ships. I was commenting on your assertion that resistance bonuses didn't truly offer the advantage you would think (and that somehow this has been misrepresented by CCP), when in fact they do reduce incoming damage in a logical manner.
I do recognize you made an error and admit to not correcting it before the post went out (+1 on that), but it did also affect some of your assertions throughout your post. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Corporal Cina
Offworld Miners and Fabricators Guild
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:05:00 -
[415] - Quote
Command Ships should be like HICs.
Huge tank. 1 main purpose
I completely agree with whomever above said that these are just bigger HACs.
Give us a T2 BC and one Command Ship for each race?
edit: I know this is not the exact solution, but at least we can recognize the problem? It seems there are a lot of level heads here who see that there is no way you can force command ships on the grid without giving them Damnation like tanks. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1740
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:07:00 -
[416] - Quote
Hate links love the changes the only major concern i have is that the Nighthawk still seems like its going to be a complete pain in the ass to fit and its fitting is considerably more gimped than any other command ship.
Also lol people in this thread meeting Yaay for the first time and realizing what kind of garbage he is. |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
1360
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:10:00 -
[417] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Zagdul wrote: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 Claymore is now a ship designed to take functional advantage of a ASB. Considering it's the 'skirmish' command ship, it makes sense. Yeah, it will be great for all those active repper fleets going around these days. Get out.
Sorry this change doesn't effect your playstyle friend.
:iiam: Dual Pane idea: Click!
CCP Please Implement |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:11:00 -
[418] - Quote
CS skill level 1 is sufficient for using as a command ship and as it stands i need more incentive to dump 40 d into taking that skill to level V.
maybe take a look at that metric in a year and decide to give the CS a tank bonus per skill level. though i'm scared to ask for that, due to the chances of returning to a per level link effectiveness bonus to spite the griping.
i'm happier for the positives than i am jealous of the damnation, but an on grid nighthawk with 6 links and command processors is going to suuuuuck.
correct me if i'm wrong but mandatory 6 link nighthawk fitting is:
link link link link link empty due to fitting
core defense field extender core defense field extender
prop ASB command proc command proc command proc
damage control II coproc reactor control reactor control reactor control
i need... either PG, a mid, or a HP bonus.
I'm only flying it because it's going to be pretty. and willing to lose it for the same reason. but i'm probably in the minority on that one.
and let's be real here. using it as a link boat at all precludes any need for the combat bonuses.
excellent level 4 missioning boat, though. for drake lovers it's a pure dream Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
936
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:12:00 -
[419] - Quote
Jason Dunham wrote: So for example, some of these command ships have local rep bonuses instead of ehp bonuses. But since they are also buffing local reps, this would make the command ship more independent, and free up a pilot since logistics may not be necessary in all fleet setups now.
Yeah but we have two command ships so why can't we have one buffer tanked and one active tank?
Putting work in since 2010. |
Erutpar Ambient
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation Black Core Alliance
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:14:00 -
[420] - Quote
What the hell is with the Rep bonuses?!?!
So a few things that CCP does consistantly that make certain implications.
Rep bonuses are gallente and minmatar racial specific bonuses. Resist bonuses are amarr and caldari racial specific bonuses.
And by having knowledge of the dispairities of rep bonuses vs resist bonuses in large fleet combat CCP has implied that Amarr and caldari are intended for Large fleet battles whereas minmatar and gallente are for small gang/solo only.
We all know that rep bonuses will always be less effective than resist bonuses for large fleet warfare. There's nothing you can do to change this short of limiting the number of ships that can simultaneously target a single ship. Its time to get past the philosophy of rep/resist being racially specific.
Each race has 2 variations of basically the same ship fitting the same role. Why don't we split these into slightly separate roles? Why don't we have one ship be more geared towards fleet command with resist bonuses. We can call them a "Fleet" Command Ship. And another ship with rep bonuses that is more geared towards solo or small gang roams that you can field in all directions. We could call these "Field" command ships.
All sarcasm aside, the resist vs rep problem will always exist in its same form. Why don't we stop beating our heads agaisnt a brick wall and stop using them???????????
What you could do is just change the Resist and Rep bonus to Shield and Armor Rig bonuses. This way people could choose between resist bonuses or rep bonuses or a multitude of other bonuses that don't really change how the ships function. Except of course there isn't a blanket resist rig however good or bad that may be. And there isn't a shield rep amount rig which is easily remedied. |
|
PipeViper
Demon-War-Lords Fatal Ascension
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:14:00 -
[421] - Quote
The Broadsword gets a resistance increase stat for durablitly, so its not like a command ship cannot have the same thing, especially if it fulfills a role, and this even goes for the "fast race". The active tanking bonus is just pretty dumb IMO for the Fleet command when its meant to hand out bonuses in large fleets where it's in extreme danger. |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
179
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:15:00 -
[422] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Jason Dunham wrote: So for example, some of these command ships have local rep bonuses instead of ehp bonuses. But since they are also buffing local reps, this would make the command ship more independent, and free up a pilot since logistics may not be necessary in all fleet setups now.
Yeah but we have two command ships so why can't we have one buffer tanked and one active tank?
which would make everyone much happier and i cant see all that many people being mad about it.
but.. :ccp:
I normally love fozzies work.. and not just because he is cute.. but this is.. I am disappointed. and i got max LD (yes even mining director and fleet command to 5) and command ship to 5.. so.. it isnt like i just now and then hop into a command ship |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
767
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:18:00 -
[423] - Quote
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.
well said sir, well said. Like I said in a previous post: Get your priorities strait, these are COMMAND SHIPS or COMBAT SHIPS? Unforgiven Storm for CSM 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. (If I don't get in in the next 5 years I will quit trying) :-) |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
826
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:18:00 -
[424] - Quote
Does anyone else believe a 50 CPU loss on the Sleipnir to be too much? Especially in light that it's going to want to be fitting more gang links? It's already CPU-strict, and a loss of 50 CPU on a ship that only had 475 to begin with is a tremendous blow to its capabilities. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:21:00 -
[425] - Quote
there's gotta be a reason for these changes beyond the gameplay. like getting people train the CS skill for months of subs (or something). too much doesn't make sense.
wait, am i supposed to fit a medium ASB to the nighthawk (is that what the rep bonus is for?) Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Fredric Wolf
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:27:00 -
[426] - Quote
It is accurate that the Asterte is getting a lower recharge rate +15.18 with the stats posting in this thread with the old recharge of +18.75? If this is the case what is your thoughts behind this as it will make running guns, MWD, and links all at the same time -26 GJs? |
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:28:00 -
[427] - Quote
Mithrawndo 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. QFT While you're at it, can we throw out damage bonuses on blockade runners, freighters, orcas, rorquals, and any other non-dps ship just for the sake of having the option of stepping outside of their intended roles? Buff the battle badger with 5% damage to light missile per level and explosion radius.
and for god sake we need more drones on everything! we just got far too few! almost no ship with utility! Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Sir Ladle
Empty Wallets Inc. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:28:00 -
[428] - Quote
So, as far as not being able to boost inside of a POS shield, will this also apply to Rorquals and Orcas who's job is to sit there all day and never leave shields? If they can't boost from the shields, won't that just further break mining? |
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
64
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:32:00 -
[429] - Quote
Awesome!
CCP Fozzie wrote:Command Ship model changes
Wait, what ?! |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
179
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:35:00 -
[430] - Quote
Sir Ladle wrote:So, as far as not being able to boost inside of a POS shield, will this also apply to Rorquals and Orcas who's job is to sit there all day and never leave shields? If they can't boost from the shields, won't that just further break mining?
read more clearly they said that mining links work fine in pos shields for now until they can fix the orca and rorqual |
|
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
241
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:36:00 -
[431] - Quote
Sir Ladle wrote:So, as far as not being able to boost inside of a POS shield, will this also apply to Rorquals and Orcas who's job is to sit there all day and never leave shields? If they can't boost from the shields, won't that just further break mining?
Well, to be fair, now that more of the bonuses are wrapped up into the links themselves you can fly a boosting alpha cane to protect you from those evil gankers. |
Draekas Darkwater
Frank Exchange of Views Accidentally The Whole Thing
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:36:00 -
[432] - Quote
I don't fly in large fleets, but I do keep reading about them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the trend I see is that as fleet fights get larger, and alpha becomes more impossible to tank, the tactic of blapping FCs off the field at the outset of any battle gets more popular.
Its easy to understand WHY its being done, but is it good for the game? Seems to me FCs have enough on thier plates just herding the sheep that there should be some kind of dedicated C&C ship for them to fly. One that has insane HPs, excellent EWAR resistance or immunity and long lock range. They also need to be mobile/agil enough to stick with the fleet its flying in, so perhaps multiple flavours of such a ship is required (frig/cruiser/BC/BS/Cap?).
For obvious reasons they'd have to be pretty annemic at anything except FCing (no highs maybe? or one to get on KMs).
While these changes look pretty nice from a small gang/fleet perspective, Its going to be pretty hard to command from a pod if the trend continues as EVE grows. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
242
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:38:00 -
[433] - Quote
Ashlar Vellum wrote:Awesome! CCP Fozzie wrote:Command Ship model changes Wait, what ?!
Eos -> myrm Absolution -> harbinger Sleip -> hurricane Nighthawk -> drake |
glepp
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
101
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:44:00 -
[434] - Quote
Solution to the whole Nothing Is As Good As The Damnation-problem: 1. Make all CS give bonuses to all links. 2. Set the ships apart by changing other characteristics: Amarr: slow armor bricks Gallente: fast armor [something less sturdy but faster than a brick] Caldari: slow shield bricks Minnie: Fast shield [you get the idea]
Make each race have two options for weapon systems and let Minnie/Gallente have one each without local rep bonuses (shield/armor HP instead, for instance)
Also, my point in mentioning a 20v20 BS fight was that at even such a small level, the local rep boni are useless.
But alas, i fear it's too late for this, since CCP seem to have made up their minds too much. |
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
64
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:45:00 -
[435] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Ashlar Vellum wrote:Awesome! CCP Fozzie wrote:Command Ship model changes Wait, what ?! Eos -> myrm Absolution -> harbinger Sleip -> hurricane Nighthawk -> drake Well, that's not so awesome then. =/
thx for the info Ersahi Kir. |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
210
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:51:00 -
[436] - Quote
Can people please stop quoting Dvla in full? Seriously, it has been quoted in full 10 times on each page, now it's just wasting peoples time. It's a pain in the ass scrolling through it on my phone. If you like the post that much, with a long post like that can you just put "Dvla's right" and link the post or just quote an excerpts or something and just like the post? As it is you just keep adding walls of the exact same text to every page. My phone and likely other peoples don't like that. Especially because most people are just saying "agreed". A like on his post also implies you agreed. |
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:53:00 -
[437] - Quote
People quote text worth quoting. Note how I quated everything you said worth saying. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
452
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:54:00 -
[438] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Ashlar Vellum wrote:Awesome! CCP Fozzie wrote:Command Ship model changes Wait, what ?! Eos -> myrm Absolution -> harbinger Sleip -> hurricane Nighthawk -> drake :O
so one of the best looking ship becomes a lame bark and the golden chicken will be that something?:(
|
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
242
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:55:00 -
[439] - Quote
Ashlar Vellum wrote:Eos -> myrm Absolution -> harbinger Sleip -> hurricane Nighthawk -> drake Well, that's not so awesome then. =/
thx for the info Ersahi Kir.[/quote]
NP
I'm actually really excited about the Eos change, the myrm is a sexy hull that got cheated out of the navy battlecruiser slot. I'm glad it got another ship, and the creodron skin makes it look awesome.
The other hulls are more of a hodge podge of opinions. The sleip cane looks sexy but some people really like the cyclone hull, so it's a wash. I think the general opinion of the other two are more favorable, but some people really like the chicken absolution and the ferox nighthawk.
As long as the Eos gets changed I'm pretty content with the entire situation. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:02:00 -
[440] - Quote
Im really looking forward to the Black (nighthawk) drake and the blue (myrmidon) Eos. I personaly liked Amarr T2 more when it was gold with red highlights, not red with gold highlights so whatever on the harbinger. and we already have a camo fleet cain so meh on the slep |
|
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
211
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:03:00 -
[441] - Quote
Hortoken Wolfbrother wrote:People quote text worth quoting. Note how I quoted everything you said worth saying. Though I liked the post, I don't want to read through it 50 times in one thread, nor have to skip over it consistently on my mobile device. Were I on my computer I wouldn't mind so much, but my phone isn't the greatest. I didn't ask people to stop referencing the post, merely to trim the quotes. but go ahead and be inflammatory, thank you very much. It's not like I enjoy reading these forums and wouldn't mind being able to read something other than the one post. |
Aglais
Liberation Army
308
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:04:00 -
[442] - Quote
So let me get this straight here. The two shield tanking missile command ships go as follows:
Claymore: Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire (was MPT RoF) 7.5% bonus to shield boosting amount Command Ships skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire (was link bonus) 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile explosion velocity (was MPT tracking) Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 6 M, 4 L, 2 turrets (-3), 5 Launchers (+2) Fittings: 1100 PWG (-290), 525 CPU (+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4700(+376) / 3800(-44) / 3400(+37) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 75 / 60 / 40 / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 90 / 67.5 / 25 / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2625 / 583s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 170 / 0.7(-0.004) / 12500000 / 12.13s (-0.07) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(+10) / 75(+35) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+20) / 220 / 7(+1) Sensor strength: 22 Ladar (+6) Signature radius: 240 Cargo capacity: 575 (+100)
Nighthawk: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10%(+5) bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage Command Ships skill bonuses: 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) Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and Information Warfare links Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1) Fittings: 825 PWG (+115), 550 CPU (-5) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5500(+695) / 3200(-163) / 3700(-144) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 80(+10) / 70(+7.5) / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 86.25(+6.88) / 62.5(+9.38) / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2812(-187.5) / 625s(-41.7) / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.65(+0.02) / 14810000(+800000) / 13.35s (+1.15) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km (+20) / 195 / 9(+1) Sensor strength: 24 Gravimetric (+5) Signature radius: 285 Cargo capacity: 700
I have bolded things that don't make any sense.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE NIGHTHAWK'S FIFTH LOWSLOT?
Why did you give the Nighthawk such an awful damage bonus? I mean you have ~6 effective launchers if you're not using kinetic damage! SIX! THAT IS HORRENDOUS! I cannot believe people are thinking that this ship is going to be better for anything. Yeah, it'll be better at failing to kill things than before that's for sure! It'll be better at being the missile command ship nobody chooses because the Claymore seems to outclass it in terms of it's offensive bonuses and slot layout (SERIOUSLY, WHY DOES THE NIGHTHAWK NEED THIS SLOT LAYOUT? CALDARI HAVE LOADS AND LOADS OF MID SLOTS. Minmatar tend to be the ones with this sort of configuration, for the sake of 'flexibility'. They can pull it off due to their stats, the Nighthawk CAN'T!
I thought the T1 battleship rebalancing changes were embarrassing- these have blown what you did to the Raven (and how you kept the Typhoon mostly better than it in most contexts) completely out of the water. I fear for what you plan on doing with Marauders, the Golem especially. Let me guess. You're going to change it's role bonus to +100% kinetic torpedo and cruise missile damage, and ignore all other damage types as you have for the Nighthawk and Cerberus. Then you're going to make it slower and heavier and vomit all over it's ability to fit anything. Because it's "too good at PvE" despite not having a role outside of mission running. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1060
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:05:00 -
[443] - Quote
Hortoken Wolfbrother wrote:People quote text worth quoting. Note how I quoted everything you said worth saying.
He's problem is not relevant to this thread, maybe he just posted in the wrong thread and should get a link to some PC provider or CCP customer support.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
ImaGrapeYou Aldent
Sons of The Forge SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:06:00 -
[444] - Quote
So they have a nice new change to the command ships. They took the old requirement to fly them away and added more leadership to them. I have all cruisers 5 and BC 5 and I'm still 50 days from flying any one of them. |
Oddsodz
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
65
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:06:00 -
[445] - Quote
Can I just ask, Why does the "Eos" still have a almost wasted bonus to ARMOR repping, I Can understand it on a "Asterte", But why must the "Eos" have it also,. Has it not become clear that this ship will be flew in a fleet. And 9/10 times that fleet with have logi ships with it. It is a waste of a bonus. Please change it to something that is more suited to it's role as a ship that fly's in a fleet. Be it a Rof for guns or a 2nd for drones. A Speed bonus for the hull maybe? Anything but the useless repping bonus that is not going to get used unless in 1v1 honour fights.
Please change that.
Thank you for reading |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:08:00 -
[446] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Can people please stop quoting Dvla in full? Seriously, it has been quoted in full 10 times on each page, now it's just wasting peoples time. It's a pain in the ass scrolling through it on my phone. If you like the post that much, with a long post like that can you just put "Dvla's right" and link the post or just quote an excerpts or something and just like the post? As it is you just keep adding walls of the exact same text to every page. My phone and likely other peoples don't like that. Especially because most people are just saying "agreed". A like on his post also implies you agreed. QFT
also. I hope the survivability issues will be addressed after they become apparent through use and popularity.
*crosses fingers* first pass first pass Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:10:00 -
[447] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote: I think the general opinion of the other two are more favorable, but some people really like the chicken absolution and the ferox nighthawk. you mean the stretched chicken absolution, squeezed chicken nightawk, fat chicken onyx, stuffed chicken basilisk, and the squashed chicken rook? Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
242
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:10:00 -
[448] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Im really looking forward to the Black (nighthawk) drake and the blue (myrmidon) Eos. I personaly liked Amarr T2 more when it was gold with red highlights, not red with gold highlights so whatever on the harbinger. and we already have a camo fleet cain so meh on the slep
I'll agree with the entire slep thing. Honestly I think they need to change the brutor tribe skin theme. The camo makes it look too much like a navy ship, and I'd rather see a neat looking color scheme that the other T2 ships get. Something like a bright hunters orange would look awesome, it would be like an announcement to everyone that "here comes buttsex!"
The white camo theme of the thukkur can stay, because the white has a unique and neato look. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:13:00 -
[449] - Quote
Aglais wrote:So let me get this straight here. The two shield tanking missile command ships go as follows:
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE NIGHTHAWK'S FIFTH LOWSLOT? FOR A REACTOR CONTROL DUE TO LOW PG! Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
242
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:15:00 -
[450] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote: I think the general opinion of the other two are more favorable, but some people really like the chicken absolution and the ferox nighthawk. you mean the stretched chicken absolution, squeezed chicken nightawk, fat chicken onyx, stuffed chicken basilisk, and the squashed chicken rook?
I thought the onyx was a dinosaur with a briefcase? |
|
Aglais
Liberation Army
309
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:16:00 -
[451] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Aglais wrote:So let me get this straight here. The two shield tanking missile command ships go as follows:
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE NIGHTHAWK'S FIFTH LOWSLOT? FOR A REACTOR CONTROL DUE TO LOW PG!
DUMB.
The real fix is to further increase power grid, shift fifth low to a med slot. Problem solved!
'Mandatory' PG mods are UTTER BULLSHIT and SHOULD NOT BE A CONCEPT THAT HAS TO HAPPEN. An RCU is for when you're trying to do a really shifty fit that might not work otherwise. Not trying to just do a basic fit because the ship doesn't have enough PG to fit all of what it's supposed to have in the first place. It's especially egregious on missile ships because they don't even have alternate gun sizes to upgrade/downgrade into! |
Sara Sue
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:17:00 -
[452] - Quote
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.
This defiantly needs attention before anything else. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
90
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:17:00 -
[453] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:CCP Fozzie suggest shield boost amount because it matches up nicely with other Minmatar ships, provides some fun new potential, and is relatively low risk because of its small impact at larger scales. You already got quoted by CCP Rise saying the shield boost amount has a small impact at larger scales, and yet you still give these ships whose entire purpose is to grant benefits in larger scales this weaker bonus?
Can we please address this disparity between local rep bonus and resist bonus already? It keeps being put off and it has affected every re-balancing effort except Cruisers and Destroyers. Stop kicking the can and do something about it already. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:26:00 -
[454] - Quote
Aglais, i don't know much and so/but I think the PG limitation is to keep players from fitting something. like an XL ASB or something
oh, wait. i know why. because launchers take less PG, so basically the command ship pilots are making a mistake by trying to use a missile command ship as a command ship.
it would seem the nighthawk will be for high sec mission runners who want to impress their friends and also help the mission gang by fitting a resist link.
****. Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:26:00 -
[455] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:CCP Rise wrote:CCP Fozzie suggest shield boost amount because it matches up nicely with other Minmatar ships, provides some fun new potential, and is relatively low risk because of its small impact at larger scales. You already got quoted by CCP Rise saying the shield boost amount has a small impact at larger scales, and yet you still give these ships whose entire purpose is to grant benefits in larger scales this weaker bonus? Can we please address this disparity between local rep bonus and resist bonus already? It keeps being put off and it has affected every re-balancing effort except Cruisers and Destroyers. Stop kicking the can and do something about it already. Exactly. Needs to be repeated. Active bonuses are useless for large fleets. Its fine to put it on one ship from the races, but putting it on both ships is really a dumb decision. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
827
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:31:00 -
[456] - Quote
Draekas Darkwater wrote:I don't fly in large fleets, but I do keep reading about them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the trend I see is that as fleet fights get larger, and alpha becomes more impossible to tank, the tactic of blapping FCs off the field at the outset of any battle gets more popular.
Its easy to understand WHY its being done, but is it good for the game? Seems to me FCs have enough on thier plates just herding the sheep that there should be some kind of dedicated C&C ship for them to fly. One that has insane HPs, excellent EWAR resistance or immunity and long lock range. They also need to be mobile/agil enough to stick with the fleet its flying in, so perhaps multiple flavours of such a ship is required (frig/cruiser/BC/BS/Cap?).
For obvious reasons they'd have to be pretty annemic at anything except FCing (no highs maybe? or one to get on KMs).
While these changes look pretty nice from a small gang/fleet perspective, Its going to be pretty hard to command from a pod if the trend continues as EVE grows. FCing the battle and flying a command ship are very different things. Just because you're giving boosts to the fleet doesn't mean you get to tell them what to do. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Drake Doe
SVER True Blood
259
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:38:00 -
[457] - Quote
Want to trade: Nighthawk for a Claymore or Damnation "The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! *pops more corn*" ---Evernub-- |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:41:00 -
[458] - Quote
yesterday. or: before I heard there would be navy mindlinks Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
180
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:43:00 -
[459] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:yesterday. or: before I heard there would be navy mindlinks
its in the other thread
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3426016 |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:44:00 -
[460] - Quote
my picture? Rainf1337 on Twitch |
|
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
58
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:49:00 -
[461] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:my picture?
Lol Rain your such a troll
Anyway I kinda wonder why CCP Fozzie didnt make that last dev post conferming the CS model changes, he puts 3 out in one day and leave one as a suprise? even tho we have a failry good idea what it is. Seams fishy, unless hes trying to wait for art department to give him some shots of them. |
Varesk
Origin. Black Legion.
450
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:50:00 -
[462] - Quote
Please get rid of the active tanking and give buffer instead. The active tanks will just make the ship weaker and not able to receive reps. if you give it a buffer, at least there will be a chance that you can get reps and live. |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
181
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:52:00 -
[463] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:my picture?
sorry your pic is still hanging over my bed |
Tore Vest
326
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:59:00 -
[464] - Quote
I beleve that any cmd ship in a fleet will be fitted with so mutch tank as possible... While highslot will have links, probelauncher, and one or two gunns for km-whoring.
I cant imagine a cmd ship as a high dps ship... unless in a small gang fleet maby....
Active tank is a waste... and many will try to fit those ships with passive tank.... untill they have been one-vollyed of the field enough times to be seen useless.
Looking forward to try out those new cmd ships tho No troll. |
Draekas Darkwater
Frank Exchange of Views Accidentally The Whole Thing
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:11:00 -
[465] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:Draekas Darkwater wrote:I don't fly in large fleets, but I do keep reading about them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the trend I see is that as fleet fights get larger, and alpha becomes more impossible to tank, the tactic of blapping FCs off the field at the outset of any battle gets more popular.
Its easy to understand WHY its being done, but is it good for the game? Seems to me FCs have enough on thier plates just herding the sheep that there should be some kind of dedicated C&C ship for them to fly. One that has insane HPs, excellent EWAR resistance or immunity and long lock range. They also need to be mobile/agil enough to stick with the fleet its flying in, so perhaps multiple flavours of such a ship is required (frig/cruiser/BC/BS/Cap?).
For obvious reasons they'd have to be pretty annemic at anything except FCing (no highs maybe? or one to get on KMs).
While these changes look pretty nice from a small gang/fleet perspective, Its going to be pretty hard to command from a pod if the trend continues as EVE grows. FCing the battle and flying a command ship are very different things. Just because you're giving boosts to the fleet doesn't mean you get to tell them what to do.
Obviously. The whole command ship name is basically a misnomer, they aren't command ships, they're fleet booster ships.
Yet Fozzie still mentioned that they are popular among FCs for thier resiliance. T3s are as well for the same reason. I simply mention that in today's EVE, and the EVE of the future where fleets keep getting larger, perhaps there is need for a real C&C ship to service the real FCs in EVE. Something you can reliably command a large fleet in, without it being a solo pwnmobile or blapped off the field. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1617
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:12:00 -
[466] - Quote
the nighthawk's stats look great in EFT if i give it boosts from another nighthawk Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3215
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:17:00 -
[467] - Quote
Command Ships V just became my favourite skill
Eos, my precious new baby <3
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3215
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:22:00 -
[468] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Command Ship model changes
so much awesome
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
354
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:23:00 -
[469] - Quote
Draekas Darkwater wrote:Obviously. The whole command ship name is basically a misnomer, they aren't command ships, they're fleet booster ships.
Yet Fozzie still mentioned that they are popular among FCs for thier resiliance. T3s are as well for the same reason. I simply mention that in today's EVE, and the EVE of the future where fleets keep getting larger, perhaps there is need for a real C&C ship to service the real FCs in EVE. Something you can reliably command a large fleet in, without it being a solo pwnmobile or blapped off the field. Actually, the only way for a FC to survive a blob now is a capital ship. Giving more and more hp to comand ship for the sake of them surviving a blob focused fire can only lead to absurd things or this capital comand ship solution. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1617
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:24:00 -
[470] - Quote
I give up, I don't know how to fit this nighthawk. it's beautiful, but it's going to be two claymores for me.
two link type bonuses is a nice thought, but what you're suggesting with the layout is one link from two class types and I don't see that being used outside the smallest of roaming gangs.
I'm seeing a beautiful, 135k ehp claymore with two invulns, three LSEs and two MCDFEs. Rainf1337 on Twitch |
|
Baron vonDoom
Scorn.
62
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:31:00 -
[471] - Quote
Rethorical question just for reassurance: Those are just the provisory changes for Odissey 1.1 and related changes to that half-hearted first step to fix everything that's wrong with boosting these days, not the ship rebalance in itself which will properly happen in a later iteration.
c/d? |
Sigras
Conglomo
477
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:34:00 -
[472] - Quote
It occurs to me that you guys are trying to make command ships a bit more fun to fly because sitting in a POS giving boosts isnt really fun.
However it seems you went with a generalized design instead of a specialized design. If it were me, id design a ship that actual fleet commanders want to use.
This would be my FC command ship example
Dedicated Command Ship Damnation: Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances +5 max locked targets per level Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to all Armor hitpoints 3% bonus to effectiveness of Armored and Information Warfare Links per level
Role Bonus: Immune to Electronic Sensor Effects (E-war, Sensor Dampening, remote sensor boosting), Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 6 H (-1), 3 M (-1), 8 L (+2) , 0 turrets (-4), 0 Launchers (-5) Fittings: 1200(-390) PWG, 500(+25) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(+37) / 6000(+1395) / 4300(-24) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 70 / 87.5 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 62.5 / 80 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3375 / 750s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 (-30) / 0.7(-0.004) / 11500000 (+1000000) / 18.18s(+5.0) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 (-25) / 0 (-25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 150km (+100) / 210 / 7(+1) Sensor strength: 22 Radar (+6) Signature radius: 265 Cargo capacity: 645
If you required boosters to be on grid, this would be the ideal fleet command ship. I would even have considered moving a large portion of the link's effectiveness over to the command ship hull instead of the link specialization skill in order to encourage people using these things in combat instead of aligned out at 200 km
This would be a great ship for the FC to fly allowing him to keep tabs on his fleet from one end of the grid to the other without worrying about disruption; also with 2 resist bonuses and 8 tank slots this thing is going to be around for a while. The trade off being that this ship is about the speed and agility of a battleship. |
Sylana Sif
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:37:00 -
[473] - Quote
I hope my question doesn't get lost in the bulk of replys
So you guys discussed changing the Model of the command ships, i fly Absolution and the Damnation on my main, they are both awesome ships and i LOVE the prophecy hull, can you please either confirm/negate my suspicions so i can have my last few weeks in damnation/absolution before you swap it for harbringers hull if indeed that has become more then just a discussion? |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
182
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:38:00 -
[474] - Quote
Sigras: tbh i wouldnt mind something like that. at the moment my damnation only has a civilian gun on it to KM ***** anyway. so it isnt like the dps is all that important to me at least. My job is to give boosts, and be a brick. if they said, no you cant have any guns or drones. i would say ok.. do i get a nice tank? I do.. cool beans I am happy.
ask any of my alliance mates, i rarely even km ***** in my logis prefering to do the job i am there for.. rep!
edit, seriously that word is censured?! *snorts* good thing i never posted with my scanning alt then |
Sigras
Conglomo
477
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:39:00 -
[475] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Sigras wrote:I'm Down wrote: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. the above is only true if you continue along the idiotic line of thinking that you fit both ships the same way. All you did was point out that there is an EM hole that needs to be plugged by a hardener in the NH. I was also going to point out that a single EM hardener on the NH has a much better effect at raising the "average resists" than does a kinetic hardener on the claymore, but it doesnt matter because this argument is moot. Not to mention that the NH has 17% more shields than the claymore but you know, that fact doesnt fit your pre conceived idea, so i guess you chose to exclude it. TL;DR there is more to a ship than its bonuses, perhaps you should check out the other stats. And the claymore doesn't have an extra mid for a shield extender or hardener? Guess that 6% from a PDS in the NH low will account for that huh?.... lets see 2100 * 1.25 * 1.20 *1.20 = 3750 bonus shield for the claymore without even adding in gang bonuses.... Lets also not consider the fact that the NH has to actually burn a mid slot for a dedicated EM hardener that has no benefits other than to EM... Where as a Claymore can use that same slot for an Invul if it so desires because it doesn't have that hole. Lets see, gaining 30% across the board for a slot or 55% for one... The point is that these arguments are all moot; the only thing that matters is the stats of the ships once they are fully fitted. Comparing bonuses in a vacuum is as stupid as it sounds. |
MrDiao
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:43:00 -
[476] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Damnation: 10% bonus to all Armor hitpoints
What do you mean by "all" Armor hitpoints? Is there something like "shield armor hitpoints" or "structure armor hitpoints"? lol |
Draekas Darkwater
Frank Exchange of Views Accidentally The Whole Thing
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:46:00 -
[477] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Draekas Darkwater wrote:Obviously. The whole command ship name is basically a misnomer, they aren't command ships, they're fleet booster ships.
Yet Fozzie still mentioned that they are popular among FCs for thier resiliance. T3s are as well for the same reason. I simply mention that in today's EVE, and the EVE of the future where fleets keep getting larger, perhaps there is need for a real C&C ship to service the real FCs in EVE. Something you can reliably command a large fleet in, without it being a solo pwnmobile or blapped off the field. Actually, the only way for a FC to survive a blob now is a capital ship. Giving more and more hp to comand ship for the sake of them surviving a blob focused fire can only lead to absurd things or this capital comand ship solution.
Is that a real problem though? T3s and the like are already being fit with greater than battleship EHP to try to survive such fights. As long as the ship can't do much else other than target ships reliably, move with the fleet type/comp that suits it, and is extremely unlikely to die while still supported, isn't there a place in EVE for such a ship for real FCs?
Just throwing ideas out there, but lets say: Cruiser sized hull for basic characteristics (speed/align/sig/ect) ~ million EHP, very high resists 1 High for KM whoring or whatever. 1 or 2 mids only for a prop mod or whatnot. 1 or 2 lows for a DC, local rep, whatever. immunity to ECM and damps 250km locking range high native sensor resolution
Basically a ship that can't do anything much itself, but is a reliable platform for calling the shots from.
|
Rain6637
Team Evil
1617
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:54:00 -
[478] - Quote
it's going to be something like this Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
245
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 01:29:00 -
[479] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Role Bonus: Immune to Electronic Sensor Effects (E-war, Sensor Dampening, remote sensor boosting), Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules ,,, This would be a great ship for the FC to fly allowing him to keep tabs on his fleet from one end of the grid to the other without worrying about disruption; also with 2 resist bonuses and 8 tank slots this thing is going to be around for a while. The trade off being that this ship is about the speed and agility of a battleship.
That would give way too much advantage to sentry drone fleets. Having a unjammable/dampable drone assist means the only thing you can do to distrupt the perfectly coordinated assisted sentries is headshot the FC. If you want to do that now you have to commit a supercap to the field which raises the amount your committed to the battle.
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Actually, the only way for a FC to survive a blob now is a capital ship. Giving more and more hp to comand ship for the sake of them surviving a blob focused fire can only lead to absurd things or this capital comand ship solution.
The only fleet comp I've seen that could do this is a "sit in a bubble" domi fleet. Every other fleet comp needs to be much more mobile, and a carrier bound FC is going to be far more likely to get caught in a bubble than a battlecruiser bound one.
I'm not saying that no one out there does this, but I've just never seen the possibility outside of a domi fleet. |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 01:42:00 -
[480] - Quote
Is the tech 3 off grid booster per level or a set amount? I am wondering it this is going to change the meta of off grid boosting or not. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
|
Trinkets friend
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
1075
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 01:44:00 -
[481] - Quote
Eos is going to be awesome. YOLO is the Carpe Diem of Gen Y http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
182
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 01:44:00 -
[482] - Quote
Phox Jorkarzul wrote:Is the tech 3 off grid booster per level or a set amount? I am wondering it this is going to change the meta of off grid boosting or not.
The Warfare Processors will now provide a 2% increase in the strength of warfare links per level of their racial defensive subsystem skill. They will also now provide bonuses to three different types of gang links:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3426016 |
Draekas Darkwater
Frank Exchange of Views Accidentally The Whole Thing
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 01:47:00 -
[483] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Sigras wrote:Role Bonus: Immune to Electronic Sensor Effects (E-war, Sensor Dampening, remote sensor boosting), Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules ,,, This would be a great ship for the FC to fly allowing him to keep tabs on his fleet from one end of the grid to the other without worrying about disruption; also with 2 resist bonuses and 8 tank slots this thing is going to be around for a while. The trade off being that this ship is about the speed and agility of a battleship. That would give way too much advantage to sentry drone fleets. Having a unjammable/dampable drone assist means the only thing you can do to distrupt the perfectly coordinated assisted sentries is headshot the FC. If you want to do that now you have to commit a supercap to the field which raises the amount your committed to the battle.
Isn't that more of a problem to do with assigned drones in general being overpowered in today's EVE?
|
Erutpar Ambient
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation Black Core Alliance
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 02:20:00 -
[484] - Quote
Hortoken Wolfbrother wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:CCP Rise wrote:CCP Fozzie suggest shield boost amount because it matches up nicely with other Minmatar ships, provides some fun new potential, and is relatively low risk because of its small impact at larger scales. You already got quoted by CCP Rise saying the shield boost amount has a small impact at larger scales, and yet you still give these ships whose entire purpose is to grant benefits in larger scales this weaker bonus? Can we please address this disparity between local rep bonus and resist bonus already? It keeps being put off and it has affected every re-balancing effort except Cruisers and Destroyers. Stop kicking the can and do something about it already. Exactly. Needs to be repeated. Active bonuses are useless for large fleets. Its fine to put it on one ship from the races, but putting it on both ships is really a dumb decision.
There's nothing to address. There is no fix for Local rep bonus to bring it in line with global resist bonus.
What really is annoying is the Racial mindset. And i really don't understand where it's coming from. I guess Gallente and Minmatar are very ship repair oriented. Ironically enough, when you get to large fleet levels it is exactly the opposite.
Let go of the Idea that Shield Boost and Armor Repair are racially oriented. The only reason Shield Boost is Minmatar flavor is because you guys keep putting these crappy bonuses on the Minmatar ships over and over again!!!!! Same for Gallente and Armor Rep!!!!
STAHP IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Again, Use a bonus that enhances Armor Rigs instead. Then people can decide if they want specific resists, armor amount or armor rep/shield boost bonuses for themselves. Not be forced into one by the ship bonuses. This is an issue throughout the game. Ships are limited in scope so dramatically just because of this one bonus type.The biggest problem with the Rep bonus is that it's not a stand alone bonus. It REQUIRES addition supplemental fitting with resistance and capacitor modules.
Here's a list of the bonuses found on command ships. See if you can spot any that need additional and very specific modification to be functional. Armor Resist Energy Turret Capacitor Usage Energy Turret ROF Energy Turret Damage Armor Hit Points HAM/HM Velocity HAM/HM Damage(including Kinetic only) HAM/HM Explosion Radius HAM/HM Explosion Velocity Shield Resist Hybrid Optimal Hybrid Damage Hybrid ROF Hybrid Falloff Hybrid Tracking Drone Damage/HP Drone Tracking/Speed Projectile Damage Projectile ROF Projectile Falloff
None of these bonuses require additional fitting to be useful. They are effective in and of themselves alone. Rep Bonuses however are required to fit rigs,resists and capacitor (unless ancillary). Sure the weapon bonuses Narrow the scope of your ship to that weapon system, but Rep bonuses (if utilized) narrow your ship to a specific tank, they require the use of a module slot and they compete with either weapon upgrades or tackle/ewar for additional modules slots just to make itself viable.
Think of it this way, Why would you spend the 30+ days to train a ship skill to 5 when you're not going to even use one of the bonuses? Just leave it at level 3 or 4 and you'll be only slightly less effective.
Either Remove Local Repair bonuses or distribute them across all of the races. Or, like I keep mentioning, apply the bonus to something with a lot larger scope such as Armor or Shield rigs. Rigs are a great place to apply them because of the already built in limitations, but also give you the ability to build your ship the way you want. They would only need very mild balancing to adjust some numbers that might be out of line when bonused.
There is no fix for Rep vs Resist. It is long past time to do something different. |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
182
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 02:35:00 -
[485] - Quote
Erutpar Ambient: stop making sense. you know CCP wont listen to anyone making a rational and well thought our argument ^^ |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
211
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 02:43:00 -
[486] - Quote
I would like to note that in exchange for no local buffer tanking bonuses, the Gallente and Minmatar ships get bonuses to both tanking links, and to links that decrease incoming damage. Skirmish links increase speed, and by doing that increase transversal and decrease the amount of tank needed. Secondly it decreases the signature decreasing foes ability to track and apply damage. Thus, in exchange for a local tank bonus, they gain access to the most powerful links, and a heightened ability to mitigate damage. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1618
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 02:59:00 -
[487] - Quote
similarly fit, (3x LSE, 2x invuln, 2x MCDFE) the vulture gets 155k ehp. so between T2 resists and not, it's 20k ehp.
claymore/vulture combo being dictated by 6 mids and to cover siege + info + skirmish...
I'm not upset, considering the ability to 100mn AB and actually satisfy an on-grid boosting role first and foremost.
reiterating my prediction the nighthawk will be a highsec mission queen, largely a pretty drake with 1 link used by pve corps. also: i never liked the ferox hull's look with its tapered hindquarters. Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
53
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 03:01:00 -
[488] - Quote
FINALLY MY MISSILE CLAYMORE OH SWEET JESUS YES |
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 03:13:00 -
[489] - Quote
Is it possible to switch the cargo bays of the Nighthawk and Vulture? |
Cethion
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 03:15:00 -
[490] - Quote
I'm happy to see that command ships are getting some love and rebalancing. It seems that the Astarte will now put out more dps than a Proteus, which is pretty exciting and worrisome. I'm also looking forward to trying out the new Absolution.
However, that being said, I'm still not happy with the gallante command ships still being both active tanked. Especially with the coming local rep bonuses they'll be beastly solo boats, but I hate a wasted bonus in a fleet. |
|
Erutpar Ambient
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation Black Core Alliance
73
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 03:21:00 -
[491] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:I would like to note that in exchange for no local buffer tanking bonuses, the Gallente and Minmatar ships get bonuses to both tanking links, and to links that decrease incoming damage. Skirmish links increase speed, and by doing that increase transversal and decrease the amount of tank needed. Secondly it decreases the signature decreasing foes ability to track and apply damage. Thus, in exchange for a local tank bonus, they gain access to the most powerful links, and a heightened ability to mitigate damage.
You can apply the speed and signature bonus to the Caldari and Minmatar ships, but you can't apply the Resistance bonus to the Gallente and Minmatar ships.
Both Information and Skirmish bonus damage application and damage mitigation in different ways. Skirmish boosts are more passive. Information boosts affect more activated modules.
You can compare them to each other but not to other bonuses. You can only compare bonuses to other bonuses.
The disparity still stands. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1618
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 03:28:00 -
[492] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/xXMLDcC.jpg (vulture should show info links and T2 AB but i derpd)
vulture has more ehp but claymore has the better speed and sig. my gut is telling me they might end up even-ish... well, claymore will be better.
(PG neglected due to upcoming -100 PG per link)
i... don't even care about the guns.
also. low-grade snakes gets the vulture up to 1150, but i'm not dumping that much ISK into a command ship Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Moonlord
Backwater Redux Tactical Narcotics Team
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 04:00:00 -
[493] - Quote
These changes only makes sense if offgrid boosting is being removed. None will field these ships over a tech 3 offgrid booster (for the bonus) or navy bc's or hacs(for combat capabilities). These ships are a compromise of the 2 with no real edge. Grow a pair and remove offgrid boosting. This will provide more interresting and transparent fights and also carve these ships a nieche. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1618
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 04:25:00 -
[494] - Quote
i'm afraid to look at T3 setups, because I dislike T3. and i might like them. Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Kaal Redrum
The Tuskers
43
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 04:32:00 -
[495] - Quote
Quote:Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage (was 5% RoF) 7.5% bonus to shield boosting amount Command Ships skill bonuses: 10%(+5) bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff
You're nutting the Sleipnir from 18.06 effective Turrets to 15 ???
Or did you mean 10% RoF in the BC skill bonus (compared to current 5%)? Cause even then with 5 turrets at CS5 it's still a nerf to 17.5 effective turrets vs 18.06
Or is my math off?
Old: (1.33 + 1.25) x 7 = 18.06 New, your current post: (1.5 + 1.5) x 5 = 15 New, what it should be?: (2 + 1.5) x 5 = 17.5 |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
211
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 04:41:00 -
[496] - Quote
Kaal Redrum wrote:Quote:Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage (was 5% RoF) 7.5% bonus to shield boosting amount Command Ships skill bonuses: 10%(+5) bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff You're nutting the Sleipnir from 18.06 effective Turrets to 15 ??? Or did you mean 10% RoF in the BC skill bonus (compared to current 5%)? Cause even then with 5 turrets at CS5 it's still a nerf to 17.5 effective turrets vs 18.06 Or is my math off? Old: (1.33 + 1.25) x 7 = 18.06 New, your current post: (1.5 + 1.5) x 5 = 15 New, what it should be?: (2 + 1.5) x 5 = 17.5 Old Sleipnir got 7*1.25/.75=11.666 New gets 5*1.5*1.5=11.25
The bonuses stack multiplicatively, not additively. |
Leskit
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
39
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 04:43:00 -
[497] - Quote
Kaal Redrum wrote:Quote:Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage (was 5% RoF) 7.5% bonus to shield boosting amount Command Ships skill bonuses: 10%(+5) bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff You're nutting the Sleipnir from 18.06 effective Turrets to 15 ??? Or did you mean 10% RoF in the BC skill bonus (compared to current 5%)? Cause even then with 5 turrets at CS5 it's still a nerf to 17.5 effective turrets vs 18.06 Or is my math off? Old: (1.33 + 1.25) x 7 = 18.06 New, your current post: (1.5 + 1.5) x 5 = 15 [~17% dps nerf!!?] New, what it should be?: (2 + 1.5) x 5 = 17.5 [~3% dps nerf]
Math is off, see page 2:
CCP Fozzie wrote: You can look at in terms of effective turrets.
Sleipnir goes from 11.6666 effective turrets to 11.25 Astarte goes from 10.9 effective turrets to 10 Abso stays at 10 effective turrets
I take it you didn't make it to page 2 before posting? |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
211
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 04:46:00 -
[498] - Quote
Moonlord wrote:These changes only makes sense if offgrid boosting is being removed. None will field these ships over a tech 3 offgrid booster (for the bonus) or navy bc's or hacs(for combat capabilities). These ships are a compromise of the 2 with no real edge. Grow a pair and remove offgrid boosting. This will provide more interresting and transparent fights and also carve these ships a nieche. 1: in this same patch Tech 3 boosting subs go from 5% per level to 2% per level.
2: they're working on removing off-grid boosting, but there's a lot of legacy code that they have to work through in order to do so. Also, apparently that code has a lot to do with lag, such as in Nita in particular. From what I have read though they do intend to force boosts on grid. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1618
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 04:58:00 -
[499] - Quote
what's the final difference between 2% T3 boosts and 3% CS boosts? I didn't completely understand that one. Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Kane Fenris
NWP
66
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:00:00 -
[500] - Quote
i like the changes very much !
could you comment the changes behind this one? (esp why this agility nerf?) imho nighthawk as it is now its not good... the only use ive seen was as a kiteing bc before hm nerf and before ABC's. so im a little sceptical about the agility nerf esp with the buff to the ship looking like the smaller kind of buffs (i may be wrong didnt no eft warrioring yet)
CCP Fozzie wrote: Nighthawk: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10%(+5) bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage Command Ships skill bonuses: 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) Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and Information Warfare links Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1) Fittings: 825 PWG (+115), 550 CPU (-5) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5500(+695) / 3200(-163) / 3700(-144) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 80(+10) / 70(+7.5) / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 86.25(+6.88) / 62.5(+9.38) / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2812(-187.5) / 625s(-41.7) / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.65(+0.02) / 14810000(+800000) / 13.35s (+1.15) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km (+20) / 195 / 9(+1) Sensor strength: 24 Gravimetric (+5) Signature radius: 285 Cargo capacity: 700
|
|
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
212
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:08:00 -
[501] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:what's the final difference between 2% T3 boosts and 3% CS boosts? I didn't completely understand that one. An approximately 4% difference in effectiveness at skill level 5 and a ~13% effectiveness difference at skill level 1 thanks to the change from per level to role bonus on Command Ships. But if the only purpose is to put it somewhere safe and boost, you'll take the cheaper one that boosts better, so the command ship. This next patch they're nerfin the T3 from 25% at level 5 to 10% bonus at level 5. |
Yun Kuai
Justified Chaos
50
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:09:00 -
[502] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Astarte: Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10%(+5) bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness Command Ships skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret rate of fire (was damage) 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links Slot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 6 L, 5 turrets (-2), 2 launchers (+2) Fittings: 1350 PWG (-100), 440 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3400(-444) / 4800(+476) / 5000(+195) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 60(+10) / 85(+7.5) / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 67.5(+8.13) / 83.75(+8.13) / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+187.5) / 667s(+41.7) / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.7(+0.03) / 12300000 (-950000) / 11.94s (-0.34) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 75(+25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 75km (+20) / 200 / 8(+1) Sensor strength: 23 Magnetometric (+5) Signature radius: 300 Cargo capacity: 400
Eos: Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints (was 5% MHT damage) Command Ships skill bonuses: 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) Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links Slot layout: 6 H (-1), 4 M, 6 L, 4 turrets (-1) Fittings: 1200 PWG (-225), 425 CPU (-25) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3600(-244) / 4600(+276) / 5200(+395) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 60 / 85 / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 67.5 / 83.75 / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2812 / 625s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 145 / 0.704 / 13000000(-250000) / 12.69s (-0.24) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 (+50) / 250 (+100) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+10) / 200 / 8(+1) Sensor strength: 22 Magnetometric (+4) Signature radius: 300 Cargo capacity: 400
Okay a first one thing about the Astarte:
Did no one stop and think about the effects of changing the damage bonus to ROF on the Astarte? So now our high ROF hybrids, high cap using hybrids, high cap using warfare links, and wait for it......******* ridiculous amount of cap used for local reps....seriously go **** yourself CCP. Quit making Gallente ships suck. To angry about this to be polite.
And now about the Eos::
If you're going to force the Eos to just use heavy drones due to the bonuses, why do we continue to make it so we can pop drones with a couple smart bombs? If you're fielding a CS, there's a high chance you're engaging BS. So again, why are Gallente stuck with ships that can have all of their DPS taken out in 15 secs? Bump that drone HP bonus up! |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
211
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:13:00 -
[503] - Quote
The EOS hybrid bonus is a waste of time, with only 4 damage unbonused turrets, I really think that bonus is completely lost. Perhaps 5%/lvl to armour hp, that would do very nicely. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Klingon Admiral
Black Hole Cluster
63
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:24:00 -
[504] - Quote
Akturous wrote:The EOS hybrid bonus is a waste of time, with only 4 damage unbonused turrets, I really think that bonus is completely lost. Perhaps 5%/lvl to armour hp, that would do very nicely.
Armor HP bonus does not correlate with the Gallente races racial tanking cotrine, which is active armor. |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
183
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:26:00 -
[505] - Quote
Klingon Admiral wrote:Akturous wrote:The EOS hybrid bonus is a waste of time, with only 4 damage unbonused turrets, I really think that bonus is completely lost. Perhaps 5%/lvl to armour hp, that would do very nicely. Armor HP bonus does not correlate with the Gallente races racial tanking cotrine, which is active armor.
so therefor their ships must be ****.. you dont see their hic having an active tanking bonus do you? so why must their CS do?
|
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
212
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:28:00 -
[506] - Quote
Klingon Admiral wrote:Akturous wrote:The EOS hybrid bonus is a waste of time, with only 4 damage unbonused turrets, I really think that bonus is completely lost. Perhaps 5%/lvl to armour hp, that would do very nicely. Armor HP bonus does not correlate with the Gallente races racial tanking cotrine, which is active armor.
This isn't role play online, who gives a toss. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Klingon Admiral
Black Hole Cluster
63
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:32:00 -
[507] - Quote
Lady Naween wrote:Klingon Admiral wrote:Akturous wrote:The EOS hybrid bonus is a waste of time, with only 4 damage unbonused turrets, I really think that bonus is completely lost. Perhaps 5%/lvl to armour hp, that would do very nicely. Armor HP bonus does not correlate with the Gallente races racial tanking cotrine, which is active armor. so therefor their ships must be ****.. you dont see their hic having an active tanking bonus do you? so why must their CS do?
Weren't HICs part of the last batch of T2 ships introduced, with Marauder iirc? The bonuses this ships have are all over the place tbh ... Caldari ships with TP bonus, Amarrian/Gallente hulls with webs.
And above that the Phobos is a Roden ship, which generally seem to follow a rather ... eccentric choice of bonuses. |
Dave Stark
3260
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:33:00 -
[508] - Quote
As some one who flies command ships exclusively for the links and nothing more. Making the link bonus a flat 15% rather than 3% per CS level makes me feel a tad cheated. I'd much rather have spent the month CS V took in order to train other skills if I knew it was going to be changed. I'd not have bothered and spent the 30 days on some other skills since it finished training about a week ago.
That said, everything else looks like a solid set of changes. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1618
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:36:00 -
[509] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Rain6637 wrote:what's the final difference between 2% T3 boosts and 3% CS boosts? I didn't completely understand that one. An approximately 4% difference in effectiveness at skill level 5 and a ~13% effectiveness difference at skill level 1 thanks to the change from per level to role bonus on Command Ships. But if the only purpose is to put it somewhere safe and boost, you'll take the cheaper one that boosts better, so the command ship. This next patch they're nerfing the T3 from 25% at level 5 to 10% bonus at level 5. Edit: to expand on this, I mean that in many cases where you're somewhere you control the field and can leave an OGB somewhere safe it's likely you'll use the CS because it's cheaper and provides better boost in addition to not requiring fantastic fitting skills and not gimping hard on the fit. The T3 however, despite providing less boosts will not be substantially worse and will have the option of being cloaky nullified. It will also be able to boost up to 3 different types of links. thanks. i ask because i can't seem to get EFT or Pyfa to manually reflect the upcoming changes. I'll probably go ahead and make myself exactly that--cloaky nullified versions.
the initial perception is "omg 30% worse" but when the highest percentages are in the modules now... I wonder if being hardheaded about hating on T3 is something I should stop.
thanks again. Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Trifle Donier
Sham Rocks Incorporated
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:12:00 -
[510] - Quote
Cethion wrote:I'm happy to see that command ships are getting some love and rebalancing. It seems that the Astarte will now put out more dps than a Proteus, which is pretty exciting and worrisome. I'm also looking forward to trying out the new Absolution.
Uhh... you realise the Astarte is actually getting a fairly hefty dps nerf, right? Not sure why you're acting like its getting a buff...
|
|
Alexander McKeon
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium Kill It With Fire
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:14:00 -
[511] - Quote
This will actually be a rather nice change for PvE; it will now be very feasible to bring a Nighthawk along to provide defensive gang links without sacrificing DPS overly much. For pve gangs of four to ten T3s out killing red crosses, the extra resists will come in very handy; getting alpha'd down to 1/3 shields is never a fun feeling. |
Trifle Donier
Sham Rocks Incorporated
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:15:00 -
[512] - Quote
Yun Kuai wrote: Okay a first one thing about the Astarte:
Did no one stop and think about the effects of changing the damage bonus to ROF on the Astarte? So now our high ROF hybrids, high cap using hybrids, high cap using warfare links, and wait for it......******* ridiculous amount of cap used for local reps....seriously go **** yourself CCP. Quit making Gallente ships suck. To angry about this to be polite.
It has 2 less turrets, so the new Astarte should use slightly less cap shooting guns than the old Astarte. Which isn't to say that its got plenty of spare cap or anything, just that its not changing much.
|
Torei Dutalis
The Golden Scorpion Crew Brigands of New Eden
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:24:00 -
[513] - Quote
I'm a fan of most of the changes, mostly what I expected, with the exception of the Astarte. I know this iteration of the ship seems to have the "this isn't changing" stamp, but was the dps of the Astarte really that game breaking that it warranted being the only command ship to receive such a serious dps nerf? |
Troezar
V I R I I Ineluctable.
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:24:00 -
[514] - Quote
If I was designing these from scratch they'd have massive tanks and weapons designed to support a fleet taking down frigates. This avoids the op tank and gank. If be happy to supply links, stay alive and pick off some of the small stuff. That said I don't have a vested interest in the status quo ;-) |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
213
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:37:00 -
[515] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Goldensaver wrote:Rain6637 wrote:what's the final difference between 2% T3 boosts and 3% CS boosts? I didn't completely understand that one. An approximately 4% difference in effectiveness at skill level 5 and a ~13% effectiveness difference at skill level 1 thanks to the change from per level to role bonus on Command Ships. But if the only purpose is to put it somewhere safe and boost, you'll take the cheaper one that boosts better, so the command ship. This next patch they're nerfing the T3 from 25% at level 5 to 10% bonus at level 5. Edit: to expand on this, I mean that in many cases where you're somewhere you control the field and can leave an OGB somewhere safe it's likely you'll use the CS because it's cheaper and provides better boost in addition to not requiring fantastic fitting skills and not gimping hard on the fit. The T3 however, despite providing less boosts will not be substantially worse and will have the option of being cloaky nullified. It will also be able to boost up to 3 different types of links. thanks. i ask because i can't seem to get EFT or Pyfa to manually reflect the upcoming changes. I'll probably go ahead and make myself exactly that--cloaky nullified versions. the initial perception is "omg 30% worse" but when the highest percentages are in the modules now... I wonder if being hardheaded about hating on T3 is something I should stop. thanks again.
Also, I've noticed that in your fits for command ships such as this, you haven't actually be designating boosts. Notice in the bottom right hand corner of the window, you have Fleet, Wing and Squad Commander options? If you right click those and designate the current fit you are using as a squad booster, it will indicate the effectiveness of the fit in a fleet more effectively as the boosts will be applied.
Also: I think this is actually somewhere where I might consider T3's balanced against their T2 counterparts, though the CS's might need a small increase to the bonus to links. Regardless though I am impressed to say that it's nice to see the T2 being specialized and more powerful at what it does than the T3, but the T3 has its own niche as a versatile ship. The T2 is nice when you have downright control of the field, but the T3 is nice in hostile areas or on roams where you might need the ability to sneak in relatively safely. |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
213
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:42:00 -
[516] - Quote
Torei Dutalis wrote:I'm a fan of most of the changes, mostly what I expected, with the exception of the Astarte. I know this iteration of the ship seems to have the "this isn't changing" stamp, but was the dps of the Astarte really that game breaking that it warranted being the only command ship to receive such a serious dps nerf? It didn't get that much of a DPS nerf, if you ask me. The new Astarte will be dealing 91.7% as much turret DPS while being substantially easier to fit for a gank/tank fit assuming you don't bother with links. If you do want to put links on there it's somewhat harder to fit, but at least you're buffing the fleet.
I will agree that an 8.3% DPS nerf is surprisingly substantial, but it was traded off for 2 utility highs, bonused links, more armour and structure HP, easier fitting in the same sort of gank/spank configuration, a larger cap pool, higher racial resists, less mass, better electronics, and a larger drone bay. |
Suitonia
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
193
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:49:00 -
[517] - Quote
Torei Dutalis wrote:I'm a fan of most of the changes, mostly what I expected, with the exception of the Astarte. I know this iteration of the ship seems to have the "this isn't changing" stamp, but was the dps of the Astarte really that game breaking that it warranted being the only command ship to receive such a serious dps nerf?
*Serious DPS Nerf* The Current Astarte Does ~10% more turret DPS than the new Astarte.
In return you're getting; Better resistances from going up from Field to Fleet CS resistances. Significantly better fittings; You're losing 100 grid but you need to fit 2 less guns. Even if you were fitting Electrons on the Astarte that is an improvement of +165.6 GRID over the current astarte for 5x AWUV Electrons vs 7x, With Neutrons you gain 336.6 grid, more than enough to fit 2x Heavy Assault Launchers if you're upset about the DPS loss. 2 Utility highslots, and with the above change you've got more than enough fittings to be able to fit medium neut/small nos, a medium smartbomb + small nos/neut, links, or missile launchers. Or whatever other effective combination you like. The Warfare Link Bonus Slightly Better Mobility An additionally flight of 25m3 of drones meaning you can have a flight of Warriors/EC-300s in addition to 5x medium drones, giving you more options. Significantly better Sensor Strength and Lock Range, making it better versus electronic warfare. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1619
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:51:00 -
[518] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:[quote=Rain6637]Also, I've noticed that in your fits for command ships such as this, you haven't actually be designating boosts. Notice in the bottom right hand corner of the window, you have Fleet, Wing and Squad Commander options? If you right click those and designate the current fit you are using as a squad booster, it will indicate the effectiveness of the fit in a fleet more effectively as the boosts will be applied. Also: I think this is actually somewhere where I might consider T3's balanced against their T2 counterparts, though the CS's might need a small increase to the bonus to links. Regardless though I am impressed to say that it's nice to see the T2 being specialized and more powerful at what it does than the T3, but the T3 has its own niche as a versatile ship. The T2 is nice when you have downright control of the field, but the T3 is nice in hostile areas or on roams where you might need the ability to sneak in relatively safely. Edit: Also, I have no idea where to find a new version of EFT. Someone might put one up soon, but until then I've been using spreadsheets to convert current fits to 1.1. Most of mine are still compatible, and are recieving nice upgrades in just about everything. wanting to evaluate them on their own, and leadership spots don't receive boosts
*wing commanders Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
214
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:08:00 -
[519] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote: wanting to evaluate them on their own, and leadership spots don't receive boosts
*wing commanders
Ah, that makes sense.
But for anything other than Wing Commanders, they will recieve their own boosts, so it's also important to compare them with boosts in my opinion.
Also, that seems like a bug to me. So who knows. Maybe it'll be changed in the future.
But it makes sense that you would try to compare them on their own merits. That's fair enough. |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:09:00 -
[520] - Quote
Astarte and NH are downright Disappointing.
These were the 2 worst "pewpew" Command Ships and they'll remain the 2 worst ones after this iteration, please think this through. |
|
NeoShocker
Interstellar eXodus The Retirement Club
174
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:17:00 -
[521] - Quote
Well, as a pilot that loves commandships, with CS V, max leadership skills (including mining ones). Took a good look. I'm struggling to find out the difference between a field and fleet commandship type because both have same amount of fleet bonuses.
Stat wise on all of them commandships looks ok. I will take a good look on it tomorrow or sometime later. The biggest thing is... I just don't agree on the bonuses.
Rather than flat 15% on BOTH races, I rather have maybe 20% for primary faction, 15% secondary to make a difference. For example on vulture (my favorite CS)
From:
Quote:Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and Information Warfare links
To:
Quote:Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 20% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and 15% Information Warfare links
Hell, might as well go 15% bonus to siege, and 10% for information warfare if extra 5% bonus is too much.
And that is fleet command ship. What about field? I don't know. Only real difference between the fleet and field is damage and weapon systems. Adding the fleet bonuses lessen the diversity and i don't really like it. |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
36
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:17:00 -
[522] - Quote
I like adjustments for CS, more or less. Not very comfortable with some DPS nerf though. But to be fair I would split those hulls into two different classes. I would leave claymore for example as a command ship and change role of Sleipnir making it Heavy Assault Battlecruiser or something like that. It will have a long training curve as it is now and price of it is already high enough. So we will have same thing as with thorax/maller/moa/rupture hull. To be honest I think making a Sleipnir as a links boat is waste of that ship. Right now it those type of command ships are only competitive T2 hulls, will be shame to screw them. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1620
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:20:00 -
[523] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Rain6637 wrote: wanting to evaluate them on their own, and leadership spots don't receive boosts
*wing commanders
Ah, that makes sense. But for anything other than Wing Commanders, they will recieve their own boosts, so it's also important to compare them with boosts in my opinion. Also, that seems like a bug to me. So who knows. Maybe it'll be changed in the future. But it makes sense that you would try to compare them on their own merits. That's fair enough.
I see what you're getting at.
here's the nano strictly links claymore with siege links 185k ehp
with its own skirmish links 1599 m/s, 233 m sig hah wow. 6.84 speed/sig, 5.449 km agility arc
with its own skirmish links and vulture siege boosts. ****ing sick.
Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Mithrawndo
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:23:00 -
[524] - Quote
On further thought, it seems CCP is trying to make small gangs happy and big fleets happy. We have 2 ships for each race, lets utilize them like this:
Make one a brick, no damage bonuses, passive resists, long range targeting, high sensors, no drone bay type ship. 4 races means you can have armor and skirmish, or armor and information, and vice versa with shield. This is a ship to be FC'ed from, it deals next to no damage so it won't become a plex/ratting ship, you can even make it anti-rat friendly so that rats won't shoot it like you did with the special edition exploring ship.
The second ship for each race will be damage bonuses, an active tank, mid range targeting, high sensor strength, can have a drone bay. This ship can still be utilized in an armor skirmish or armor information, and vice vesa with shield, depending on the role needed.
The thing with command ships is, regardless of what kind it is, what it is NOT is a more powerful HEAVY ASSAULT CRUISER. No where does the name imply it is an assault ship. It is a COMMAND ship, and should be utilized as such. It's entire reason for existing is to remain on field, give fleet bonuses, and to be COMMANDED from. FC's are known people. They're your anchors, they're infamous, they're famous, they aren't that hard to find if you know who you are fighting and/or have done any recon on your enemy. |
blackpatch
Eighty Joule Brewery Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:25:00 -
[525] - Quote
Dvla wrote:...
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?
...
Great post overall, wanted to highlight this part. Local reps are useful for gimmicks, bait, and PVE and that's about it. They just don't scale and they never will. They're not quite a wasted slot for combat ships, but they're darn close.
I'd love to see CCP phase out local rep hull bonuses in favor of meaningful armor bonuses that scale, like %resist or %HP. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1621
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:30:00 -
[526] - Quote
-2 invulns for +1 LSE +1 Pithum C-type invuln from high sec 4/10 site (do they still drop there, if so this is it) Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:43:00 -
[527] - Quote
The Eos looks crap to me. What's the point in giving it turret tracking bonuses and no damage bonus? It only has 4 gun slots which will probably be used for something else, like neuts.
Give the Eos a bonus to armour hit points instead of that stupid rep bonus and get rid of the turret tracking and give it more drone bonuses. |
Jack C Hughes
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:46:00 -
[528] - Quote
Yun Kuai wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Astarte: Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10%(+5) bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness Command Ships skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret rate of fire (was damage) 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links Slot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 6 L, 5 turrets (-2), 2 launchers (+2) Fittings: 1350 PWG (-100), 440 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3400(-444) / 4800(+476) / 5000(+195) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 60(+10) / 85(+7.5) / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 67.5(+8.13) / 83.75(+8.13) / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+187.5) / 667s(+41.7) / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.7(+0.03) / 12300000 (-950000) / 11.94s (-0.34) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 75(+25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 75km (+20) / 200 / 8(+1) Sensor strength: 23 Magnetometric (+5) Signature radius: 300 Cargo capacity: 400
Eos: Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints (was 5% MHT damage) Command Ships skill bonuses: 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) Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links Slot layout: 6 H (-1), 4 M, 6 L, 4 turrets (-1) Fittings: 1200 PWG (-225), 425 CPU (-25) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3600(-244) / 4600(+276) / 5200(+395) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 60 / 85 / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 67.5 / 83.75 / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2812 / 625s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 145 / 0.704 / 13000000(-250000) / 12.69s (-0.24) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 (+50) / 250 (+100) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+10) / 200 / 8(+1) Sensor strength: 22 Magnetometric (+4) Signature radius: 300 Cargo capacity: 400
Okay a first one thing about the Astarte: Did no one stop and think about the effects of changing the damage bonus to ROF on the Astarte? So now our high ROF hybrids, high cap using hybrids, high cap using warfare links, and wait for it......******* ridiculous amount of cap used for local reps....seriously go **** yourself CCP. Quit making Gallente ships suck. To angry about this to be polite. And now about the Eos:: If you're going to force the Eos to just use heavy drones due to the bonuses, why do we continue to make it so we can pop drones with a couple smart bombs? If you're fielding a CS, there's a high chance you're engaging BS. So again, why are Gallente stuck with ships that can have all of their DPS taken out in 15 secs? Bump that drone HP bonus up!
For the cap you now have 5 turrets instead of 7, so with a 5% rof bonus, that is 6.6667 turrets in terms of cap comsumption. better than before.
|
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:51:00 -
[529] - Quote
^ The drone hit point bonus should be replaced with drone resistance. |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
97
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 08:17:00 -
[530] - Quote
Most of the changes look good. However, I believe the nighthawk changes could use a review.
First, as was pointed out by another poster, it doesn't look like the nighthawk is going to have enough grid for links. Please increase the grid further.
Second, it shouldn't be the kinetic damage bonus being increased, IMO. Straightjacketing the NH into kinetic damage with a doubled kinetic bonus removes a good chunk of the reason for using missiles in the first place. That would be okay if the nighthawk's DPS was completely over the top, but it isn't. Please consider the following: set the kinetic damage bonus back to 5%. Change the RoF bonus to a universal damage bonus (increased to compensate for the DPS differences between RoF bonuses and damage bonuses), then add the 5% increase to the new universal damage bonus. This will maintain the kinetic bonus while not totally gimping the ship if it tries to use other damage types. It will also reduce the server stress and ridiculous ammo usage that would be caused by increasing the RoF bonus.
Third, please consider removing a lowslot and replacing it with a midslot. With its 0% (base) EM resist and 50% (base) explosive resist, the nighthawk will need to run both an EM hardener and an invulnerability field to achieve the resists necessary to be survivable (the sleipnir can get away with only one hardener due to a better base resistance profile). Add in a prop mod and a warp disruptor, and you now have one slot left for the rest of your tank or any additional ewar (webs, target painters). As such, I don't see the nighthawk being viable in PvP in its current suggested format.
Hopefully these changes make the nighthawk useful in PvP without making it overpowered. |
|
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
27
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 09:14:00 -
[531] - Quote
Can't help but think 6 lows and no resist bonus on both Astarte and Eos is abit lame. argument that someone gave for them being used in smaller gangs doesn't really make that much sense imo, and it's not like a resist bonus is alot worse than rep bonus for your own tank either. the EHP these 2 ships get is just too low to not be alphaed in a decent size fleet :S
Also, Tracking bonus with no other turret bonus on Eos is abit cheese. I can sort of see why it didn't get another drone related bonus but pretty much ANY other bonus would be better. |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
657
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 09:38:00 -
[532] - Quote
Doed wrote:Can't help but think 6 lows and no resist bonus on both Astarte and Eos is abit lame. argument that someone gave for them being used in smaller gangs doesn't really make that much sense imo, and it's not like a resist bonus is alot worse than rep bonus for your own tank either. the EHP these 2 ships get is just too low to not be alphaed in a decent size fleet :S
Also, Tracking bonus with no other turret bonus on Eos is abit cheese. I can sort of see why it didn't get another drone related bonus but pretty much ANY other bonus would be better.
1 set should be for fleet boosting, so hp and res bonus 1 set should be for small gang, so dps and active tanking
I really don't get why they have done anything else tbh,
plus make wing boosters get there own boosts, fix that OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Ellendras Silver
No Self Esteem ShAdOw PoLiTiCs
73
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 09:41:00 -
[533] - Quote
i realy think that command ships should also get bonus on 3 types of links just as the T3 ships do |
Anja Suorsa
Pyre Falcon Defence Cadre XV-01A Pyre Falcon Defence Combine
133
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 09:56:00 -
[534] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote: Nighthawk -> drake
Do not want |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
134
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:18:00 -
[535] - Quote
Command ships just doubled in price. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
936
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:53:00 -
[536] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:i realy think that command ships should also get bonus on 3 types of links just as the T3 ships do
Since when do T3 get a bonus to 3 types of links?
Putting work in since 2010. |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
183
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:00:00 -
[537] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote:i realy think that command ships should also get bonus on 3 types of links just as the T3 ships do Since when do T3 get a bonus to 3 types of links?
since the upcomming patch where all of this changes
The Warfare Processors will now provide a 2% increase in the strength of warfare links per level of their racial defensive subsystem skill. They will also now provide bonuses to three different types of gang links: Loki: Siege, Armored, Skirmish Proteus: Armored, Skirmish, Information Tengu: Siege, Skirmish, Information Legion: Armored, Skirmish, Information
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3426016
and I disagree that the Cs should get 3 bonuses. T3s are meant to be general use and t2 specialized. so it makes sence t3 gets a wider but lesser bonus. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
140
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:10:00 -
[538] - Quote
One thing I've always wondered... why are the armour-related bonuses labelled as 'Armoured Warfare', but shield-related bonuses are 'Siege Warfare'?
Also, are titan fleet bonuses being touched in this patch (or in the near future)? |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
518
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:16:00 -
[539] - Quote
Nice changes. But imo the nighthawk could use a buff in DPS. A tiny buff from the hull, and a rebalance of heavy missiles now that medium turrets are rebalanced too, damit !
I also note the increase in shield resistances, of a fair amount, but leaving the EM hole. That's interesting :) G££ <= Me |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
936
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:19:00 -
[540] - Quote
Lady Naween wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote:i realy think that command ships should also get bonus on 3 types of links just as the T3 ships do Since when do T3 get a bonus to 3 types of links? since the upcomming patch where all of this changes The Warfare Processors will now provide a 2% increase in the strength of warfare links per level of their racial defensive subsystem skill. They will also now provide bonuses to three different types of gang links: Loki: Siege, Armored, Skirmish Proteus: Armored, Skirmish, Information Tengu: Siege, Skirmish, Information Legion: Armored, Skirmish, Information https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3426016and I disagree that the Cs should get 3 bonuses. T3s are meant to be general use and t2 specialized. so it makes sence t3 gets a wider but lesser bonus.
Ah, so he was talking about future changes... And yes, i agree with you that CS should only have a powerful boost to 2 links where as T3 should have a weaker boost to 3. Putting work in since 2010. |
|
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
314
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:10:00 -
[541] - Quote
Feedback: (I'm focussing more Gallente stuff because thats what I normally prefer to fly)
i) Not sure I agree with the fundamental change by moving Gallente away from Information etc. People have done a lot of training for maxing a ship like the Eos out only now to be told all their Information warfare spec training is useless for that ship and they now need to train 2 other spec skills. In principle this is wrong without offering people refunded skillpoints to re-spend.
ii) While I love the Eos getting its 125 bandwidth of drones back, I don't like the fact you've taken a slot from the ship for this making the Eos 6-4-6, while the Astarte remains 7-4-6.
The Eos should retain 7 highs (albeit yes with more utility highs than turrets to compensate for potentially more overall DPS) because 125 of drones are great but not worth a whole slot. I realise you're trying to stop it becoming a 'WTFsolopwnmobile' again, but being honest and realistic, I doubt many people would complain about a few odd people going out to solo in a 250m+ command ships. More likely they'd be rubbing their hands.
iii) Have you considered splitting the bonuses within races to be more true to their original design? For Example:
Eos - Infomation and Armour Astarte - Armour and Skirmish
Each race would then have more of a mix of boosting possibilities within the Field and Fleet command ships rather than duplicating the boosting roles within each race
iv) Can you confirm the new Faction Mindlinks will be 25% for 2 boosting types, and the T2 will become 25% for just one? - If so, this seems completely unintuitive and you're making T2 worse than faction. T2 should remain boosting one, but with a higher bonus than the dual boosting faction mindlinks IMHO. Say 50% for one boost still for T2 mindlinks and 25% each for 2 boosts for faction. Or alternatively convert the current existing mindlinks all to T1, and leave room for adding a superior/more focussed (than faction - which will become the new baseline) set of T2 mindlinks in the future.
General feedback:
Just to add, I've been playing 8 years now and command ships (the Eos and Astarte) were the first specialised role of ships I trained up for way back then. I really used to enjoy playing the on-grid command ship boosting role before the T3 off grid made that job redundant, so I am absolutely delighted to see the on-grid balls deep form of command put back on top of the boosting pyramid.
Typically in Eve, more risk garners higher rewards, and an on-grid boosting ship is certainly in more risk, so I'm happy the off-grid T3 sillyness has finally had its day at the peak without being made completely redundant.
Perhaps the next thing you CCP folks will consider is introducing some sort of separate boosting 'pyramid' rather than using the FC / Wing / Squad command positions for the massive scale fights.
It is a bit too easy right now to focus the 'boosting ship' and alpha any on-grid boosts off the field in a big fight. Having some contingency within a boosting pyramid structure taking into account for example in a 250 man fleet the fact you brought 5 Damnations, 3 Eos and 3 Claymores and 2 Vultures to maintain boosts in some pre-ordained command / boosting setup rather than the current mechanics which would require mid-fight those ships would manually need to be shifted within fleet positions as each one dies in order to keep the whole fleets boosts active.
The command structure works great in smaller fleets, but a solution (like the above) for larger fights with a bit more loss mitigation built in would be nice - A working "fleet booster role" that can be dished out multiple times to all those running links would be a start.
Cheers.
|
DeadRow
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
120
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:24:00 -
[542] - Quote
Vyktor Abyss wrote:iii) Have you considered splitting the bonuses within races to be more true to their original design? For Example:
Eos - Infomation and Armour Astarte - Armour and Skirmish
Each race would then have more of a mix of boosting possibilities within the Field and Fleet command ships rather than duplicating the boosting roles within each race
This.
Splitting up the bonus between the two ships in each race would be awesome. Otherwise you're just going to use the one with the biggest tank for your booster. Adds a bit of variety to the game in deciding what boosts you want for your fleet and the ship you will need to bring. |
Snakes-On-A-Plane
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:35:00 -
[543] - Quote
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? |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:39:00 -
[544] - Quote
Big like, they should be tough ships like this +1 |
Mark Artreides
NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:52:00 -
[545] - Quote
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.
Not empty quoting.
|
John Henri
Asteria Imperative Tribal Band
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:30:00 -
[546] - Quote
Local repping does not work. CCP get that through your head. It can not scale small gang or large. Until you fix that the field command ships are now useless for PvP
Look at the Merm people tried to put three reps on it to be able to tank some kind of DPS That is not an option in this instance. You are trying to fix a symptom not the cause.
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
136
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:40:00 -
[547] - Quote
Snakes-On-A-Plane wrote: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?
I agree with this.... But CCP will not remove a ship. It would hav been great to roll the field command ships into the hac's "disassemble the ships, rebonus to hac's a little for the ship loss.
It won't happen but its a good thought. |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
866
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:43:00 -
[548] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Goldensaver wrote:Lilan Kahn wrote:slepnir also taking massive dps nerf Barely. less than one whole turret. That's less than a 4% DPS nerf, with so much more utility. Sleps getting a 100% damage bonus to 5 guns, that = 10 guns worth of damage, thats more than 1.5 turets worth of damage lost.
No its getting two 50% bonuses, that is 11.25 guns. While levels of the same skill add together to form one bonus multiple bonuses affecting the same parameter stack. 5*1.5 = 7.5, 7.5*1.5 = 11.25.
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1191
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:45:00 -
[549] - Quote
can you please do us a favour?
make the 7.5% armor bonus also include a cap activation reduction too! that would make the bonus actually usefull
thanks There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
sabastyian
Hellfire Cult The East India Co.
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:02:00 -
[550] - Quote
Boltorano wrote:Sushi Nardieu wrote:Command Ships don't feel individualized or focused anymore. They all do similar things even if certain boost types they have are "secondary" to their race. If you, Fozzie, want to make T2 ships truly specialized then just give them a bonus to one link type.. I'd like to see an Eos in space more than once a decade.
What's an eos? I think i've heard of them in passing...but i have never seen one. Are you sure they exist? |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
287
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:25:00 -
[551] - Quote
Some great changes.
Like a few others I think the 7.5% per level active rep bonus seems odd and after the mostly very good changes it sticks out even more as being out of place. I could kind of see it useful if people could use the one ship as both a booster and combat ship and do the local tank thing but as you need someone else in fleet for links to work it just seems mostly pointless.
Something like a 7.5% per level sig reduction bonus or something of that nature would be more useful IMO.
The Eos I'd rather see dropping back to 3 turrets and getting an extra 25-50m3 drone bay as compensation or staying with 5 turrets and keeping the extra utility high - the current layout seems so much of a compromise and likely to end up being one of those things thats too much of a halfway house to do anything other than under-perform in either intended configurations. |
Captain Organs
Veldspar Industries Brave Collective
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:32:00 -
[552] - Quote
Love the changes. I'd really like to know why the Absolution cannot field a full rack of weapons. Not that I personally would field HAMs or HMLs (or even those pesky rapid lights), but I can imagine some people would. I simply would throw those wondering ganglinks on and call it a day.
Please for the love of all that is good! Don't change the Absolution model! If we change the Absolution to the Harbinger model we lose all laser chicken. No more laser chickens. That makes me largely sad.
Throw everyone for a loop and change the Damnation into a Harbinger
Or...just don't change any of the models and use the Tier 2 models for a second T2 variant of Battlecruisers. I know I'd want that. |
Kataki Soikutsu
EVE University Ivy League
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:49:00 -
[553] - Quote
+1 to making WC receive fleet boosts. That is a very weird bug as boosts are supposed to cascade down the fleet hierarchy.
The changes are interesting but I am not sure they really capture what a command ship is. These should be ships that every FC wants to fly and should be designed with this in mind. Making the Boosting bonus a role bonus is a good step in this direction, but you should go further. In particular separating the hulls into a "large fleet" and "small gang" CS would be the best thing to do as those FCs require very different things.
The large fleet CS should have a brick tank and good electronics systems so the FC can stay on grid under heavy fire and still give commands. The damage bonuses are secondary for this role and there should be a tanking bonus on both the BC & CS skill. Like the Damnation gets both Resists and Armor HP. Outside of large fleet combat these ships should be less desirable due to the poor damage output.
The small gang CS should have good DPS and have more utility highs for links, but should not have anywhere near the tank of the large fleet CS. Think something about the current power level of the Sleipnir but with 3 links. In small gang every ship counts, and having to gimp the DPS by 20% to fit a full compliment of links is a big penalty. In addition you should be looking ahead to when boosting finally becomes On Grid and the affects of forcing ships to gimp themselves to bring a full complement of links.
As an example, consider Incursions. There you are limited in the number of ships you can bring and right now only the Sleipnir is any good for Shield fleets but no where near top tier, with the Nighthawk also being viable but not as good. To run Incursions safely you need 5 links (3 siege & 2 skirmish) which means that you have to have 2 CS on grid. Given the current design 1 will have to be gimped by 20% in damage to fit that third link. In HQs where you have 40 people, this might not be a big deal. But in VG having 2 weaker ships and one of them being gimped just to run Incursions is very steep. Honestly it will increase the barrier to entry both through more demanding fleet compositions and by advanced plays moving up to HQs as VG will be less worth it to do. So please think through what will happen by only giving CSs 2 utility highs when you switch to On Grid boosting.
Another Incursion Aside: Could you do something about Nation Consolidation Networks? Allowing CSs to take both gates instead of just the BS gate would help make them more interesting to do as right now only the T3s are powerful enough to keep up with the BSs on the other side. Also balancing the spawns across sides so that we don't get an easy spawn on one side and a hard one on the other leaving the easy side to sit and wait would be very nice. |
FleetAdmiralHarper
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:53:00 -
[554] - Quote
Nighthawk: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)[/b] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NOOOOOO just ******* NO, IT NEEDS TO BE EXPLOSION VELOCITY to counter the god ******* awful useless velocity of the t2 heavy missiles. t2 heavy missiles are so bad, because they cant apply any damage AT ALL, because of the nonexistent explosion velocity.. if you do this they will be EVEN WORSE. which is ******* unfathomable. as is they already do HALF the damage of t1 missiles to anything thats moving.. regardless of what the dps counter says.
Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), ----->5 Launchers (-1)<---- NOOOO its a ******* NIGHTHAWK NOT A VULTURE OR CRAPOX you already raped heavy missiles to oblivion, DO NOT REMOVE MISSILE SLOTS. i threw a ******* fit when u removed them from the ferox. now that ship is useless. and so are hybrids on caldari vessles.
EVERY GOD DAMN TIME i get close to something fun ccp you either DESTROY it, or you move it another 3 months away. your not going **** YOU ALL I QUIT!!! like you did to my carrier, t2 cruisers, and nighthawk.
my plex runs out soon and ill never renew. im so sick of getting totally jewed by you every time i find something fun to use.
words can not even describe how pissed off i am. gahhh **** this game. |
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:56:00 -
[555] - Quote
Just asking again. What about astarte cargo hold size? Should it not be 475 m3? |
Ong
Born-2-Kill
86
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:59:00 -
[556] - Quote
Claymore, and I guess Sleipnir now still need a buff to their speed, for ships that are meant to provide boosts to nano fleets their stupidly slow when compared to the ships they will be flying with such as hacs/recons, and massively hinders kyiting, which is half the reason why OGB is so much more preferable.
Speeds of those ships with the claymore boosts:
Claymore: 1974 m/s
Vaga: 3464 m/s
rapier: 2481 m/s
Arazu: 2250 m/s
Cynabal: 3500 m/s
zealot: 2491 m/s
At least take it up to the speed of the recons, 2.5kms ish (or whatever speed these ships will be post nerf)
|
Ziranda Hakuli
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
149
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:01:00 -
[557] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:WTF I trained skirmish warfare link to V for my damnation now I'm getting the rug pulled out under me again? I want/need skirnish for my incursion damnation I been using for Incursion booster Is there a logic disconnect somewhere? Skirmish fits better with Amarr due to the Bhaalgorn bonus I thought and Gallente would do better with the INFO warfare link due to the onie's sensor bonus'. CCP Fozzie tricked by meta gamers mistakenly wrote wrote:
One significant change from the proposal last year is the link bonuses on the Amarr and Gallente ships, which we've swapped thanks to player feedback. Amarr gets armor and info, Gallente gets armor and skirmish which fits them much better.
Kid you just need to suck it up. so many plans. so many changes. so many opinions. and still NOTHING IN CONCRETE till its done. you should have known this. and yeah I know it sucks. and i LIKE it. Gallente gets shat on so many times Amarr can suffer |
Sean Parisi
Fugutive Task Force A T O N E M E N T
328
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:05:00 -
[558] - Quote
Are there any plans to bring boosting to smaller ship levels, such as Frig / Dessy / Cruiser should they ever be made to be on grid? |
Dairokuten Maoh
High Flyers Ex Cinere Scriptor
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:07:00 -
[559] - Quote
Command ship role bonus made command ship 5 pilots boost just as good as command ship 1 pilots. S+Öpü«sëìpü½S¦¦pü»täípüÅpÇüS+Öpü«s+îpü½pééS¦¦pü»täípüù Before me, nobody stands. Behind me, nobody stood.
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1397
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:23:00 -
[560] - Quote
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:Nighthawk: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)[/b] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NOOOOOO just ******* NO, IT NEEDS TO BE EXPLOSION VELOCITY to counter the god ******* awful useless velocity of the t2 heavy missiles. t2 heavy missiles are so bad, because they cant apply any damage AT ALL, because of the nonexistent explosion velocity.. if you do this they will be EVEN WORSE. which is ******* unfathomable. as is they already do HALF the damage of t1 missiles to anything thats moving.. regardless of what the dps counter says.
Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), ----->5 Launchers (-1)<---- NOOOO its a ******* NIGHTHAWK NOT A VULTURE OR CRAPOX you already raped heavy missiles to oblivion, DO NOT REMOVE MISSILE SLOTS. i threw a ******* fit when u removed them from the ferox. now that ship is useless. and so are hybrids on caldari vessles.
EVERY GOD DAMN TIME i get close to something fun ccp you either DESTROY it, or you move it another 3 months away. like you did to my carrier, t2 cruisers, and nighthawk, and missile ferox. your not going to get any more money out of me, **** YOU ALL I QUIT!!!
my plex runs out soon and ill never renew. im so sick of getting totally jewed by you every time i find something fun to use.
its bad enough your raping the command modules too now. i cant freaking take it anymore. words can not even describe how pissed off i am. gahhh **** this game.
PS:who ever decided to do this to command ships needs to be ******* shot.
In an effort to save your life, as you're clearly on the verge of stroking out, allow me to explain damage math.
Six launchers with a 25% damage boost and 25% ROF reduction is equivalent to ten unbonused launchers.
Five launchers with a 50% damage boost and a 25% ROF reduction is equivalent to ten unbonused launchers.
Math. It's awesome.
(Un)fortunately(?) this explanation doesn't really do anything to save the posting privileges you're probably on the verge of losing. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
|
Rutger Centemus
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:27:00 -
[561] - Quote
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. seconding this |
Azlana
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:28:00 -
[562] - Quote
+1 |
Shadow Leigon
Militaris Industries Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:30:00 -
[563] - Quote
+1 |
BigSako
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:39:00 -
[564] - Quote
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.
I support his comments |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7155
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:45:00 -
[565] - Quote
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.
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.
Wing command bonuses from fleet is something that I 100% want to get fixed, although there are a few complications that mean I can't promise a specific timeline for it yet.
Command processors are also something that I agree have a lot of problems, not least of which is the big imbalance it created between armor and shield booster ships. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Laura Belle
Leverage Industries Wonder Kids
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:47:00 -
[566] - Quote
buy why eos loose a slot and remains with 16 when ALL the other command ships with 17? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7156
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:47:00 -
[567] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
287
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:49:00 -
[568] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Command processors are also something that I agree have a lot of problems, not least of which is the big imbalance it created between armor and shield booster ships.
Possible to do something with those and rig slots? as that would have the same impact on both tanking types. Tho a bit messy with T2 hulls due to only having 2 rig slots. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
403
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:55:00 -
[569] - 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. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
2559
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:00:00 -
[570] - Quote
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.
ROFL, DEV-BURN lol
|
|
Diivil
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:03:00 -
[571] - Quote
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 :) |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1191
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:10:00 -
[572] - 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.
Seriously though with all the boosts to the Armor rep i feel the only thing missing now is a boost to the rep bonus on Gal ships.
Think of it like the drone bonus its allways a hybrid bonus to hp and damage.
why not make the repair amount bonus also include a reduction in cap activation cost? that would really help gal as they are cap heavy ships using mwd reps and hybrids.
thanks
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7158
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:13:00 -
[573] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
986
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:17:00 -
[574] - Quote
Rroff wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Command processors are also something that I agree have a lot of problems, not least of which is the big imbalance it created between armor and shield booster ships.
Possible to do something with those and rig slots? as that would have the same impact on both tanking types. Tho a bit messy with T2 hulls due to only having 2 rig slots.
I don't think converting them into a rig would be a bad thing. As it goes with Command Ships at least, they will now all be able to fit three links out of the box; if you want all three, you already sacrifice a DPS high. If you want more than that, you could sacrifice a rig slot. Same with T3 cruisers and on up; you can fit what you can fit. Any more will require sacrificing your rig slots. Sounds like a good compromise for a game where fitting is supposed to be all about compromise. And in the case of having to use rigs, everyone would have to compromise from the same ship attribute, regardless of ship or tank type. Rifterlings Corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang PvP. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
ImaGrapeYou Aldent
Sons of The Forge SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:18:00 -
[575] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, you're kind of taking the commandships away from leadership, at least that's how I feel. Might I ask why they take 50 days of leadership to get into? I have battlecruisers for every race 5 and still can't fly them with the support skills for almost very other ship. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1412
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:19:00 -
[576] - Quote
I have to agree that either the rep bonus needs to also be a cap reduction, or armor reps need to have there base cap use reduced. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
95
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:20:00 -
[577] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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. Only the ones that want to live through the battles. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
403
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:20:00 -
[578] - 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. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
497
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:23:00 -
[579] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: 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.
I think that the HP bonus is the big one that needs to be shared to 1 ship of each race. Resistance bonus can be left for caldari and amarr as is more or less "Standard".
The other "issue" I have with the current proposal is the number of slots on these ships. As has been highlighted before in this thread, commands (excluding eos) are all -1 compared to parent t1 and -2 compared to navy variants. +1 slot to each ship, bringing them to total of 20 (including rigs).
I'd also suggest taking a look at cargo sizes on the ships, some of them could really use being matched to their t1 parent hulls.
Anyway, have a good day off.
|
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
986
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:26:00 -
[580] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
...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.
I love ships with resist bonus.
That's why I train for ships with resist bonuses. So that I can fly ships with resist bonuses.
Thankfully, not all ships in this game are exactly the same, so that sometimes I can fly ships that have bonuses to other things.
Otherwise, you may as well do Tiericide v. 2.0 where you nuke all ships, and release the Generic Ship Lineup. You can also go ahead and get rid of those nasty racial skills, and reduce everyone's clones to manageable cost levels!
Generic Frigate Generic Cruiser Generic Battlecruiser Generic Battleship Generic Carrier Generic Dreadnaught Generic Super Generic Titan
Hull bonuses will be easy:
Role Bonus: +50% Have it Your Way, +50% Get Out of Jail Free
+4% all damage resist per level of Generic X for whatever type of tank you want to fit today
+50% ROF for whatever weapons you slap on at random
+50% damage to whatever weapons you slap on at random
+35% Drone damage, hitpoints, mining yield, and MWD speed.
+7.5% per level of Generic X to armor repair and shield repair amount. Rifterlings Corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang PvP. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
|
Craystorm
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:26:00 -
[581] - Quote
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.
|
DaSumpf
Liga Freier Terraner Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:33:00 -
[582] - Quote
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.
THIS
+1 |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
986
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:35:00 -
[583] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:[quote=CCP Fozzie]
The other "issue" I have with the current proposal is the number of slots on these ships. As has been highlighted before in this thread, commands (excluding eos) are all -1 compared to parent t1 and -2 compared to navy variants. +1 slot to each ship, bringing them to total of 20 (including rigs).
Not going to happen, most likely. They stated ages ago that CS were going to be made into 17 module slot ships. The point is to make you have to choose between a full rack of DPS and two links, or a full rack of three links and less DPS. Rifterlings Corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang PvP. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Totalani
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:36:00 -
[584] - Quote
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.
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
404
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:37:00 -
[585] - 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. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
394
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:38:00 -
[586] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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. Please stop. I know you're all hot for having active bonuses, and certainly they're useful in some situations, but for the most part, resist bonuses provide the same benefit as active repair bonuses IN ADDITION to a whole host of other advantages that apply to buffer and logi tanking as well. How is it that you guys can still try and continue to push for "how great" the active bonuses are when they don't provide a net better benefit than a similar resist bonus and COMPLETELY and UTTERLY lack any benefit to a buffer tank or if a Logi is on field. Fix this aspect first. Then you can sell how great they are.
I don't care if active vs resist provide wholly different benefits when in active, buffer, or logi setups. It's just that active provides a benefit in one of those areas and resist provides benefits to ALL of those areas. Make active better for some situations and resist better for others. But resist better (or the same) for all? No, man, that doesn't cut it. You can sell me all you want that active has a place, but as long as resist benefits every tanking style, it's going to be no sale.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
497
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:41:00 -
[587] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:
Not going to happen, most likely. They stated ages ago that CS were going to be made into 17 module slot ships. The point is to make you have to choose between a full rack of DPS and two links, or a full rack of three links and less DPS.
No doubt that an addition high slot removing the choice you speak of would be a bad idea however there are these things called low and mid slots .
|
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
641
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:43:00 -
[588] - 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.
I think particularly with each race getting two kinds of links, there is no need to make every command ship resist and buffer bonused. |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
53
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:47:00 -
[589] - Quote
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. |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
986
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:48:00 -
[590] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Domanique Altares wrote:
Not going to happen, most likely. They stated ages ago that CS were going to be made into 17 module slot ships. The point is to make you have to choose between a full rack of DPS and two links, or a full rack of three links and less DPS.
No doubt that an addition high slot removing the choice you speak of would be a bad idea however there are these things called low and mid slots .
They just removed a high slot from most/all of them. They're not going to get additional mids or lows, pretty much guaranteed. Rifterlings Corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang PvP. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
404
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:50:00 -
[591] - 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. |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
986
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:52:00 -
[592] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:or if a Logi is on field.
Just wait until they get around to limiting logi ships to cycling only one repper per target, or otherwise nerf them in order to bring remote reps in line with local. Because this is CCP, and I can really see them doing that before they start removing local rep bonuses. Rifterlings Corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang PvP. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
497
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:55:00 -
[593] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:
They just removed a high slot from most/all of them.
3 =/= to most or all of them.
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1191
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:58:00 -
[594] - 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.
i would love to see a bonus to e-war/utility drones. something like 15%-20% bonus to effectivness per level There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Aglais
Liberation Army
315
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:58:00 -
[595] - Quote
So are we going to be doing anything about the Nighthawk, or will it be re-released as actually worse than it is now once Odyssey 1.1 hits? Seriously, please reconsider the garbage slot layout and that awful kinetic only damage bonus.
Either that, or alter the Claymore so that it ends up with an explosive only damage bonus, and make it so that the Sleipnir only gets a bonus to the explosive damage in certain ammo types. Damnation, Sacrilege and Vengeance only get bonuses to EM missile damage too. Then you see how much sense something like this makes. (Hint: it's none. It makes no sense. Change it. For the Cerberus too. This isn't 'specialization', this is 'crippling them while trying to make it look like they're good at something'.) |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
986
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:59:00 -
[596] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Domanique Altares wrote:
They just removed a high slot from most/all of them.
3 =/= to most or all of them.
Still very likely not happening. 17 slots said the man, and so there are. Rifterlings Corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang PvP. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Oberus MacKenzie
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:59:00 -
[597] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Sarmatiko wrote: Also glad that Marauders are safe, for now..
/Maniacal Laugh
You stay away from my Kronos you evil man! :P
Great changes. I'm not sure why the Nighthawk's agility got nerfed, but it doesn't really matter since it's only advantage over the Vulture is and will continue to be in running level 5 missions. Definitely excited about these changes, though. I've been looking forward to the day when Command Ships become the true link boats. I'm still in favor of making them need to be on grid to give bonuses (or even have a max range on the bonuses), but I think you're doing the right thing by rolling the changes out slowly. Kudos |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
5507
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:01:00 -
[598] - Quote
So does this maybe mean that the Eos model will change to the Myrmidon hull in the future?
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
986
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:03:00 -
[599] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:So does this maybe mean that the Eos model will change to the Myrmidon hull in the future?
Check this out:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=242316&find=unread
Answer seems to be 'maybe, kinda, if we feel like it and you pester us enough.' Rifterlings Corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang PvP. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1621
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:05:00 -
[600] - Quote
nice. the Eos I decided I wouldn't be using, sold for 375m overnight.
taking a look at what my boosters will look like, I'm not miffed about much. only that I wish I could have the nighthawk carry the siege links... with -1 low +1 mid and 1175 PG.
I would appreciate it greatly if someone explained why the Nighthawk drake is set to have such abysmal PG. Rainf1337 on Twitch |
|
CEO Rockhound
suspended animations DOT None Of The Above
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:10:00 -
[601] - Quote
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.
this needs quoting, and no other posts are needed. Please close this thread.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
5718
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:21:00 -
[602] - Quote
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. Yep. This says pretty much everything I wanted to say and more. -áMy (mostly boring) Youtube channel. |
Sigras
Conglomo
479
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:39:00 -
[603] - Quote
Aglais wrote:So are we going to be doing anything about the Nighthawk, or will it be re-released as actually worse than it is now once Odyssey 1.1 hits? Seriously, please reconsider the garbage slot layout and that awful kinetic only damage bonus.
Either that, or alter the Claymore so that it ends up with an explosive only damage bonus, and make it so that the Sleipnir only gets a bonus to the explosive damage in certain ammo types. Damnation, Sacrilege and Vengeance only get bonuses to EM missile damage too. Then you see how much sense something like this makes. (Hint: it's none. It makes no sense. Change it. For the Cerberus too. This isn't 'specialization', this is 'crippling them while trying to make it look like they're good at something'.) seriously, why do people keep making such a big deal out of a selectable (or non selectable) damage type?!
It's not like people omni-tank or anything . . .
In fact if youre going to be stuck to one damage type, Kinetic isnt a bad way to go, it only makes you suck against T2 gallente ships which ATM are lulz terrible.
Also, the nighthawk is fine, extra shield HP, extra resists, same DPS better lock range, more PG, higher sensor strength. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1740
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:40:00 -
[604] - Quote
Dump command processors, Command Ship Skill should then read you can fit one link +1 link per level of the Command Ship skill, this removes the penalty for shield CS that want to run multiple links.
Seems fairly easy to me.
Also each race should have one of your small gang CS that have nice rounded tank and spank bonuses and each race should have a brick for fleet work.
This isn't really a thing you can skip, getting bonus's alpha'd off the field because you're trying to make CS some small gang capable thing sucks, its always sucked and the first step you need to address in the whole "Bonuses on Grid" deal is having bonuses able to survive being on grid.
Thats like, non negotiable, anything else you do is a waste.
EDIT; Also why does CCP hate the Nighthawk so much that its fitting is 400 pg below EVERY OTHER COMMAND SHIP |
Valterra Craven
73
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:43:00 -
[605] - Quote
One thing I think some people are missing is that these boats as fozzie wants them to be fit, don't really make much sense:
[Astarte, New Setup 1] Medium Armor Repairer II Armor Explosive Hardener II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
10MN Afterburner II Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range 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
Medium Hybrid Burst Aerator II Medium Hybrid Metastasis Adjuster I
Hobgoblin II x5
This setup, with all lvl 5 skills, is short 3% cpu. It seems to me that if you wanted all these ships to lose weapon hard points (such as the astarte) and fit link modules instead, that you need to add CPU to each ship (especially since they lost PG) to compensate for such a move. Consider the fact that those links use 55 cpu where the two 250mm t2 rails I just lost were only using 31.5 CPU...
|
mine mi
Boinas Rojas Gentlemen's Agreement
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:45:00 -
[606] - Quote
As I said before, I divide the ships command into two types, one for small fleets where every dps account and one for fleets where survival is the most important.
DPS comand ship
Absolution: No change Nighthawk: No change Astarte: No change Sleipnir: No change
Tank comand ship
Damnation: No change
Vulture: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range / change by / 10% bonus to all Shield hitpoints 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage (was link bonus)
Eos: Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints (was 5% MHT damage) Command Ships skill bonuses: 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) / change by / 10% bonus to all Armor hitpoints
Claymore: Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire (was MPT RoF) 7.5% bonus to shield boosting amount Command Ships skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire (was link bonus) 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile explosion velocity (was MPT tracking) / change by / 10% bonus to all Shield hitpoints |
Valterra Craven
75
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:48:00 -
[607] - Quote
Sigras wrote: seriously, why do people keep making such a big deal out of a selectable (or non selectable) damage type?!
Because the whole frickin point of the missle system is that you can choose your damage type.
Having a bonus to only one type of damage negates one of the huge over arching benefits of the platform. |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
520
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:50:00 -
[608] - Quote
I was comparing the Nighthawk and the Claymore, clearly the Nighthawk is left on the side of the road for this update !
Let's make a quick checklist :
- Same DPS, but Nighthawk is Kinetic only while Claymore is omnidamage... Drop the kinetic only, or buff it so that being stuck with one damage type has its bonuses ! - More mids for the Claymore, meaning more E-war or more tank. (Now Matarr have more mids than Caldari ? Wow) - 275 more PW Claymore side, for the same number of launchers o_O ? Even if you count the bonus midslot that's a LOT of PW, 275 PW, for one midslot. - 25 more CPU for the Nighthawk. Great.... I'd trade 25 CPU for 275 PW without hesitation. - 800 more shield for the nighthawk, but what is shield without resists ?... - a total of 200 % resists for the nighthawk and 225 % resists for the Claymore, AND the Claymore has no hole in EM. - 21 % more velocity for the Claymore and 10% more agility. - 100% more brandwidth for the Claymore, and a whooping 200% more dronebay ! - More targeting range for the nighthawk, but better targeting speed for the Claymore. Obviously we know the best choice, even more for a missile boat because you don't snipe with missiles anyway. - 2pts of sensor strength for the Nighthawk. Doesn't change my life anyway. - 45 less points of Sig radius for the Claymore. Stacking with the higher speed, this adds a significant tank.
So, really, the Claymore has more tanking, more speed, more agility, technically more dps with omnidamage + better brandwith, more dronebay... And the Nighthawk do all the rest better, and... there is not much left. G££ <= Me |
Nedisu
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:53:00 -
[609] - Quote
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.
This cant be quoted enough
|
Aglais
Liberation Army
316
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:53:00 -
[610] - Quote
Sigras wrote:seriously, why do people keep making such a big deal out of a selectable (or non selectable) damage type?! It's not like people omni-tank or anything . . . In fact if youre going to be stuck to one damage type, Kinetic isnt a bad way to go, it only makes you suck against T2 gallente ships which ATM are lulz terrible. Also, the nighthawk is fine, extra shield HP, extra resists, same DPS better lock range, more PG, higher sensor strength.
One of the biggest points about the missile weapon system in general is selectable damage types. That's one of their maybe two advantages over (most) guns. Take that away, and they're not nearly as good.
The nighthawk is NOT fine, either, because it's slot layout is... Why? Why does it have only five medslots? Claymore has more PG than the NH, too, as a note. |
|
Blastil
The Reblier Alliance
93
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:17:00 -
[611] - Quote
Aglais wrote:So are we going to be doing anything about the Nighthawk, or will it be re-released as actually worse than it is now once Odyssey 1.1 hits? Seriously, please reconsider the garbage slot layout and that awful kinetic only damage bonus.
Either that, or alter the Claymore so that it ends up with an explosive only damage bonus, and make it so that the Sleipnir only gets a bonus to the explosive damage in certain ammo types. Damnation, Sacrilege and Vengeance only get bonuses to EM missile damage too. Then you see how much sense something like this makes. (Hint: it's none. It makes no sense. Change it. For the Cerberus too. This isn't 'specialization', this is 'crippling them while trying to make it look like they're good at something'.)
Seriously? your biggest complaint about the nighthawk is that your super tanky, ganglinking command ship (note not heavy assault command ship) doesn't do a lot of DPS because of a kinetic missile bonus?
Dude, screw your head on straight. We're trying to NOT turn command ships into ownmobiles, we're trying to make them viable field ships when you do decide to bring them. |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
986
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:19:00 -
[612] - Quote
Aglais wrote: Claymore has more PG than the NH, too, as a note.
That pretty much comes down to the NH not being originally intended for a shield/cap booster combo like the Cyclone and its resultant Claymore/Sleipnir hulls. Because, you know, Winmatar.
That said, I agree that it's incredibly anemic on PG. Rifterlings Corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang PvP. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
183
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:27:00 -
[613] - 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.
I dont think most of us are asking for it on all. Just make the old fleet command ships have the resist bonus and then the field ones can have a rep bonus. A rep bonus isnt really that good in a large fleet, you been in enough fleets fozzie to know that |
Leskit
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
40
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:28:00 -
[614] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
HACs are being shepherded by CCP Rise.
Very appropriate terminology, as they are still weak and unable to protect themselves (except the new ishtar and cerb it looks like). |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
227
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:31:00 -
[615] - Quote
I like how this is going. I don't like the nerf to damage potential of some of them however.
There remains one big and itching problem that everyone has been talking about:
The Armor repair bonuses on Gallente Command Ships.
Cmon CCP Gallente does not have the speed of Minmatar and it is made worse by slow down of armor tanking.
Armor Local Reps in a fleet is Laughable even if you buff it by 15%.
A Fleet Relies on RR, local armor reps are simply too weak.
Shield boosting Bonus on Minmatar is fine due to their ship design and philosophy. |
Aglais
Liberation Army
320
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:31:00 -
[616] - Quote
Blastil wrote:
Seriously? your biggest complaint about the nighthawk is that your super tanky, ganglinking command ship (note not heavy assault command ship) doesn't do a lot of DPS because of a kinetic missile bonus?
Dude, screw your head on straight. We're trying to NOT turn command ships into ownmobiles, we're trying to make them viable field ships when you do decide to bring them.
Ok then. Let's completely ignore damage output forever and focus on other things.
Slot layout. That's a big thing that seems to put the NH at a disadvantage. Both the Claymore and Vulture have more medslots than the Nighthawk, and it only has 200 more shields than the Vulture. They've got the exact same resist profiles. So if you can put more defense modules on the Vulture than on the Nighthawk, and there aren't really any other major differences, then...?
Oh look, you have a less useful ship. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1621
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:32:00 -
[617] - Quote
I have a feeling the caldari ships have a bonus to kinetic missiles due to RP/PVE reasons, as gurista is the RP enemy of Caldari and most of the non-account plexing playerbase are lone, lurking high sec mission runners.
...and the kinetic damage bonus was intended for them. to give a damage bonus to all damage types to solve the issue for non-pve pilots would make them OP/encroaches on ROF, range, and explosion velocity bonuses.
I think it's a valid point that all the command ships should be somewhat varied.. and a lot of people wouldn't like the thought of a nighthawk that is basically a vulture with missiles and identical slot layout. however. if you want me to use the nighthawk i need it to look like a vulture with missiles.
(another consideration for making that request is according to you, you've done away with fleet and field command distinctions, and so I don't see why the nighthawk can't look like a vulture that shoots missiles) Rainf1337 on Twitch |
sXyphos
The Scope Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:35:00 -
[618] - Quote
My only disappointment is that the nighthawk fells like it got the short end of the stick out of all of them, tight PG for starters and that horrendous kinetic dmg bonus(relics of the past yay ) which brings its dmg potential on the same level as the others, except those can do omni . Furthermore this is on a ship that takes 1 year to train , i can live with the kinetic dmg on the drake but i just feel a T2 BC should not be so "restrained" when it comes to damage type. |
Sigras
Conglomo
479
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:41:00 -
[619] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Sigras wrote:seriously, why do people keep making such a big deal out of a selectable (or non selectable) damage type?! It's not like people omni-tank or anything . . . In fact if youre going to be stuck to one damage type, Kinetic isnt a bad way to go, it only makes you suck against T2 gallente ships which ATM are lulz terrible. Also, the nighthawk is fine, extra shield HP, extra resists, same DPS better lock range, more PG, higher sensor strength. One of the biggest points about the missile weapon system in general is selectable damage types. That's one of their maybe two advantages over (most) guns. Take that away, and they're not nearly as good. The nighthawk is NOT fine, either, because it's slot layout is... Why? Why does it have only five medslots? Claymore has more PG than the NH, too, as a note. My point is that selectable damage isnt an advantage, it makes no difference in 99% of PvP situations because even if you do find that they have a hole in a particular damage type, the extra DPS you might gain by switching to that damage type is negated by the 10 second reload time where you were doing no damage at all.
The one case where this may not be true is in large cap ship fights where the cap ships can simply refit to resist the damage type youre doing, but like I said, thats an edge case and really, if your up against that tactic, you'd better have an ace in the hole anyway.
Edit: All that being said, yes, i agree its weird for a matari ship to have more mids than a caldari ship of the same class. |
Sigras
Conglomo
479
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:43:00 -
[620] - Quote
sXyphos wrote:My only disappointment is that the nighthawk fells like it got the short end of the stick out of all of them, tight PG for starters and that horrendous kinetic dmg bonus(relics of the past yay ) which brings its dmg potential on the same level as the others, except those can do omni . Furthermore this is on a ship that takes 1 year to train , i can live with the kinetic dmg on the drake but i just feel a T2 BC should not be so "restrained" when it comes to damage type. WTB Absolution, Astarte, Vulture with selectable damage types |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
408
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:47:00 -
[621] - 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. |
Diivil
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:54:00 -
[622] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.
For as long as off grid boosting stays in the game (and I think it most definitely should stay in the game because it allows us to have more interesting fights) wing commanders will not be on grid in these big fights. Even if you get the bonuses fixed AND give the ships resist bonuses it might not be enough EHP to survive the first minutes of a 250v250 fight let alone anything bigger than that. Fleet bonuses are simply too powerful and they are concentrated on too few ships that they are the most important targets every single time. Some of the things you have recently rebalanced also work against putting boosters on grid. Like the Armageddon for example, increased neut range against on grid boosters? Have fun trying to use your new DPS bonuses when all you can do is run away and die trying.
The bottom line is that having boosters on grid will make the fights less fun. They will always be primaried first. They will always be locked down 24/7 so you can't reposition at all. They will be neuted, or they will be webbed long enough until the battle evolves to a point where you can neut them without dying. If the fleet moves (not warp, just moves around with their prop mod) the boosters will be left behind. All these things make the fights become less fun because you can sacrifice a few DPS ships to reposition, you can't sacrifice a boosting ship. So instead we will have everyone sitting still not even trying to maneuver.
So when the choice is having low-ish EHP wing commanders on grid VS having slightly less strong boosters in safes you don't even need to think about it. You can't keep 6 boosting ships locked all the time because it takes too many targets. Ask a logistics pilot to devote 6 target slots for all the boosters and only use 2 or 4 targets, depending on skills and ship, to manage reps on the rest of the 250 people. They will be forming a suicide cult within a week.
From what I understand the big point of this rebalance is that you want to put the boosters on grid and you want to make them feel useful and/or fun. To even consider putting wing commanders on grid they must have Damnation-level EHP. There simply is no other answer. They absolutely must to have that EHP and my prediction is that in the end it won't change much. Wing commanders will always be the weakest link and easy to kill so the only realistic option is to use off grid t3 boosters for serious business fleets. But if they have enough EHP then people might at least consider using them especially for smaller scale fights.
But even if you had the boosters on grid they would be anchoring on the logi anchor and be as far away from the fight as they can so how could they even provide any meaningful DPS to begin with?
There is no perfect solution because the fleet boosting system itself is horribly bad design. You can't redesign the ships to fix the problems with the boosting system itself.
So in my view there's only one thing you can do and it has already been suggested probably dozens of times in this thread. You need to split the command ships back to fleet and field command ship design. Fleet command ships are to have double tanking bonuses with miniscule or totally non-existing damage bonuses. In fact I would like them to have utility bonuses instead of any DPS. But their job is to give out their bonuses (which itself is one of the most important jobs you can have in a fleet) and survive. For this to work the wing commanders need to receive fleet commander's bonuses or you have to otherwise design around the bug to help them reach the required EHP. If you want to go totally crazy and have to have them be more useful and fun (or engaging) you could maybe introduce some module that is restricted to command ships only. The highslot target painter that was accidentally introduced to Sisi long time ago could be just the thing. Unique, "fun" as in something to do and useful. That's just a random idea and I don't personally believe it is something the ships actually need but if you have to have them have something, then make that something be something other than DPS. The options are of course quite limited since it can't be a rig, low slot or mid slot because any of those would mean sacrificing tank or another shield/armor imbalance thing introduced to the game.
And then you can have the field command ships with their DPS bonuses and no resist bonuses. These can be your plex/mission runners or tech2 BCs or whatever you want. Just don't ruin all four of them by putting active tank bonuses on every single one of them.
It's not a perfect solution and it most definitely isn't an exciting one but at least it would give the option of putting wing commanders on grid if people really want to do that. Some might even do it.
|
sXyphos
The Scope Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:55:00 -
[623] - Quote
Sigras wrote:WTB Absolution, Astarte, Vulture with selectable damage types My mystake , should've put "the other missile ones can do omni" Also don't mention the absolution in a negative way, you might sound like you mean it's bad |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
394
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:25:00 -
[624] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Sigras wrote: seriously, why do people keep making such a big deal out of a selectable (or non selectable) damage type?!
Because the whole frickin point of the missle system is that you can choose your damage type. Having a bonus to only one type of damage negates one of the huge over arching benefits of the platform. Yeah, bit it's unrealistic to expect to be able to hit *every* resistance hole perfectly, which is what an omni-damage bonus (meaning no damage bonus to a specific type) would be.
Every race has to fire a damage type, with most of them being mixed damage types as it is. Asking for all Caldari missile systems to do bonused damage to any missile would be broken. But Minmatar can! Yes and no. Their primary weapon system, projectiles, fires a mixed damage round that you can distribute to more reflect one damage type or another but its never a perfect, 100% one-damage-type. The missile turreted ships that they use typically have bonuses to omni, yes, but the damage from these ships is augmented by drones or some of the missile ships just have bonuses to explosive damage.
Firing all missiles, from long range (HML and others) or short range, high damage (HAMs and others) perfectly into a resist hole would be broken. Caldari favor kinetic damage. That's the way it is, just as much as Amarr favor EM, Gallente Thermal, and Minmatar Explosive.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4434
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:28:00 -
[625] - Quote
Quote:The bottom line is that having boosters on grid will make the fights less fun. They will always be primaried first. They will always be locked down 24/7 so you can't reposition at all. They will be neuted, or they will be webbed long enough until the battle evolves to a point where you can neut them without dying. If the fleet moves (not warp, just moves around with their prop mod) the boosters will be left behind. All these things make the fights become less fun because you can sacrifice a few DPS ships to reposition, you can't sacrifice a boosting ship. So instead we will have everyone sitting still not even trying to maneuver.
Serious question. Why would your fleet allow a webbing ship close enough to the fleet (let alone your CS) without vaporizing it?
And if the enemy does somehow have the ability to keep a webbing ship in close proximity to your fleet, wouldn't your logistics ships actually be the better choice as they are far easier to pop when webbed? To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
278
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:38:00 -
[626] - Quote
CCP Fozzie 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. 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. Wing command bonuses from fleet is something that I 100% want to get fixed, although there are a few complications that mean I can't promise a specific timeline for it yet. Command processors are also something that I agree have a lot of problems, not least of which is the big imbalance it created between armor and shield booster ships.
I agree with the active rep bonuses not being on the command ships. Or if they are going to appear on command ships, each race needs one resist/buffer and one active rep.
For the Gal/Min I would suggest dropping the active rep bonus and giving them an HP bonus just to make them different from the Amarr/Cal. I would also drop the HP bonus on the Damnation and up the DPS to bring it inline with the other ships. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4434
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:50:00 -
[627] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:CCP Fozzie 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. 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. Wing command bonuses from fleet is something that I 100% want to get fixed, although there are a few complications that mean I can't promise a specific timeline for it yet. Command processors are also something that I agree have a lot of problems, not least of which is the big imbalance it created between armor and shield booster ships. I agree with the active rep bonuses not being on the command ships. Or if they are going to appear on command ships, each race needs one resist/buffer and one active rep. For the Gal/Min I would suggest dropping the active rep bonus and giving them an HP bonus just to make them different from the Amarr/Cal. I would also drop the HP bonus on the Damnation and up the DPS to bring it inline with the other ships. Or if you are going in that direction 1 CS gets a resist bonus, the other CS gets a HP bonus, and Tier 3's in a boosting configuration get the repping bonus (as they will primarily be used for small gang only).
The one with the resist bonus will spend their slots on extra armor/shield buffer (in the case of armor this slows them down). The one with the HP bonus will focus on upping their resists (which allows them to remain more mobile). And the Tier 3 Cruisers fit will vary wildly depending on a number of factors, but aimed at supporting an active repairer. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Valterra Craven
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:52:00 -
[628] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Yeah, bit it's unrealistic to expect to be able to hit *every* resistance hole perfectly, which is what an omni-damage bonus (meaning no damage bonus to a specific type) would be.
There's a difference between saying we shouldn't have a kinetic damage bonus and saying we should be able to hit every resistance hole perfectly.
For starters missiles do only one type of damage (unless your crazy and have different launchers with different missiles, but whatever)
Second, being able to choose your damage type is not the same as being able to hit every resistance hole perfectly.
Third, if ships like the raven can do omni dps are not considered OP by any means, then why would having a nighthawk with the same bonuses be OP?
Maximus Andendare wrote: Every race has to fire a damage type, with most of them being mixed damage types as it is. Asking for all Caldari missile systems to do bonused damage to any missile would be broken. But Minmatar can! Yes and no. Their primary weapon system, projectiles, fires a mixed damage round that you can distribute to more reflect one damage type or another but its never a perfect, 100% one-damage-type. The missile turreted ships that they use typically have bonuses to omni, yes, but the damage from these ships is augmented by drones or some of the missile ships just have bonuses to explosive damage.
Again your word choice is doing you no favors here. We are not asking for all Caldari missile system to do bonused damage to any missle (what you are effectively saying here is that we want the nighthawk to be able to fire Lights, heavies, heavy assaults, cruise, and torpedoes all bonused) What we are asking is that Caldari ships get similar bonuses on ships like the raven.
The point of this discussion was never about arties, etc of the winmater, it was about them having better missile bonuses than even caldari get in the same class of ships. Why does it make sense for them to have the better missile bonuses over the people that invented the system in the first place?
As to drone damage, drones are never up 100% and are unreliable for dps calculations because of that. Not only that but they are easily destroyed and countered. In any case winmater do more damage with caldari systems then even the caldari do themselves WHILE getting more drone bay... tell me that makes sense...
Maximus Andendare wrote: Firing all missiles, from long range (HML and others) or short range, high damage (HAMs and others) perfectly into a resist hole would be broken. Caldari favor kinetic damage. That's the way it is, just as much as Amarr favor EM, Gallente Thermal, and Minmatar Explosive.
The raven is not broken. Missiles are already used less in PVP do to a number of other drawbacks, making them favor kinetic not only takes away one of the primary points to using the platform, it also means they get used even less in combat. |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:00:00 -
[629] - Quote
How about rolling cap bonus on Absolution somehow into special bonus and adding another small tracking bonus or neut range/amount /nos bonus, something?. It's pretty lame that amarr always have 1 bonus less then other ships cuz of lazors, and let's be honest, you cant really kite with amarr hulls to use range and instant crystal change. Any thoughts? |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
59
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:01:00 -
[630] - Quote
Just to suport the HP bonus crowed, the Eos, Vulture, and Claymore need HP bonuses added to their ships. need one tanky mid range command ship (damnation like) and one in your face command ship (Slepnir like)
Heck give all the in your face ones a active tank bonus just to get your active tank jollys off. |
|
Red Woodson
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:01:00 -
[631] - Quote
Has any consideration been given to a noticeable mass reduction on these ships? I know I asked the same thing about hacs, and the same reasoning applies here. Specifically, making them easier to move around in wspace. Of course, i realize mass also has effects on navigation performance, so other stats might have to be adjusted to keep the performance similar. |
Sol Mortis
An Heroes
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:03:00 -
[632] - Quote
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.
Wing command bonuses from fleet is something that I 100% want to get fixed, although there are a few complications that mean I can't promise a specific timeline for it yet.
Command processors are also something that I agree have a lot of problems, not least of which is the big imbalance it created between armor and shield booster ships.
I would just like to point out that:
A) It is completely inappropriate for a dev to publicly identify a player's character as being an alt or a main. It smacks of intimidation and petty condescension based on nothing more than the dev's position of authority and access to information.
B) Dvla made many extremely salient points, and it shouldn't matter what character or player posts them. It is sad to think that you wouldn't be able to recognize good ideas unless they are posted by a familiar name.
C) The new commands ships are worse than the old ones, except for the Eos and Claymore. Nobody wants to fly command ships with the same number of turrets as a cruiser, even if they do have stronger bonuses.
D) The Fozzie knows that the command ship changes are a big nerf to the class as a whole and don't even address the most glaring issues with the ships. He has no valid arguments to support these changes, so he has resorted to personal attacks on people for posting with alts while ignoring their valid points. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
497
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:09:00 -
[633] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Just to suport the HP bonus crowed, the Eos, Vulture, and Claymore need HP bonuses added to their ships. need one tanky mid range command ship (damnation like) and one in your face command ship (Slepnir like)
Heck give all the in your face ones a active tank bonus just to get your active tank jollys off.
Pretty much this.
|
Sal Awat
Emphatically Unaffiliated Industries
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:09:00 -
[634] - Quote
Sigras wrote:seriously, why do people keep making such a big deal out of a selectable (or non selectable) damage type?! It's not like people omni-tank or anything . . . In fact if youre going to be stuck to one damage type, Kinetic isnt a bad way to go, it only makes you suck against T2 gallente ships which ATM are lulz terrible. Also, the nighthawk is fine, extra shield HP, extra resists, same DPS better lock range, more PG, higher sensor strength.
One of the biggest points about the missile weapon system in general is selectable damage types. That's one of their maybe two advantages over (most) guns. Take that away, and they're not nearly as good.
The nighthawk is NOT fine, either, because it's slot layout is... Why? Why does it have only five medslots? Claymore has more PG than the NH, too, as a note.[/quote] My point is that selectable damage isnt an advantage, it makes no difference in 99% of PvP situations because even if you do find that they have a hole in a particular damage type, the extra DPS you might gain by switching to that damage type is negated by the 10 second reload time where you were doing no damage at all.
The one case where this may not be true is in large cap ship fights where the cap ships can simply refit to resist the damage type youre doing, but like I said, thats an edge case and really, if your up against that tactic, you'd better have an ace in the hole anyway.
Edit: All that being said, yes, i agree its weird for a matari ship to have more mids than a caldari ship of the same class.[/quote]
That's a hell of an edge case mate. Especially since in that case, any sub-cap can too.
Furthermore, if its the case that there's no ADVANTAGE to selectable damage type (due to the prevalence of "Omni-tanking"), then clearly there's no harm in leaving the option open with a selectable damage friendly bonus, right?
This is a sandbox. Its a game about choices. Just because the choice "Do I change ammo types for better damage in the long run?" always comes out one way right now for some people, doesn't mean that its fine to take away or unduly penalize making that decision in the affirmative any more in one case, than another. THAT's contrary to the very essence of the sandbox.
Furthermore:
If there is no advantage to the player having a general missile damage buff for all missiles, then would it not be the case that there would be no compelling reason for unduly limiting the ammo choice of a missile boat into a single damage type vs. letting them use any?
Or if there is an advantage, and this advantage is reserved for every missile hull EXCEPT the hulls that have the greatest claim to it; then it seems there is some sort of schizophrenic design principal application going on here?
There has been a shift at lower tiers of at least loosening the restriction on selectable [damage] on the more expensive ship hulls; i'm looking at you Hookbill, and you Navy Osprey. I'm looking at the Caracal as well.
The Cerberus at least had a shade of a justification for (not that I think its terribly valid) of being too fast. I'm pretty sure the Nighthawk isn't going to zipping around the battlefield like a ninny. Which is apparently problematic with missile ships. Seems like a poorly thought out Band-Aid fix; but I'm not there to take into account all of the factors that go into the implementation decision, so I'll let that one slip by.
But this one seems Ridiculous(TM). Its a brick. The Amarr have a brick, and its fully Unpenalized Selectable OmniDamage(USOD) compatible. The Minmatar have an explosion in a girder factory, which is, alas, also USOD compatible! What's is so threatening in a line of ships with signature radii that are approaching that of a relative small moon that deserves to be consistently denied this privelege, whilst others have, to my recollection, never been restricted into a damage type in their missile use by hull bonuses? Gentlemen? Anything? Why is there not an equivalence of applied principles across the board?
I'm not trying to make personal attacks, I'm trying to get my mind around the fact the inconsistency exists. There are two contradictory lines of thought going on here, and they only seem to be getting stumbled across at certain historical times.
For Amarr/Minnie Missile boats: Selectable damage is a splendid thing! This hull needs to be USOD friendly!
For Caldari: Selectable damage is bad! Your enemy knowing what you will use Compelling Gameplay(TM).
I'm not so annoyed that its happening to just the Caldari either. Its the fact that two contradictory principles are being applied in two instances of the same general implementation decision, which in the end leads to making a decision FOR THE PLAYER, right in the hull.
The continued prevalence of Phoenix Syndrome is just.... irritating. Please, really THINK about this. Its a bur in the side of ALOT of quite a few people, even just going from those that actually post on the forums. Having choices is good. Having choices essentially made for you by game mechanics where precedent exists elsewhere for the type of restriction not to apply, is not so good. And I think trying to lend credence to it to the degree you are with the HAC and Command Ship rebalances while maintaining the inconsistency of application across the board does not bode well.
And +1 to where's my Eagle tracking bonus? WTB ability to hit things that are moving thank you.
Edit: Hate it when the forums eat a post. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Tribal Band
327
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:19:00 -
[635] - Quote
After some consideration, I feel that these changes are somewhat positive. But they are not going to change anything as is.
I whole-heartedly approve of the armor/shield split with each having an info warfare link boosting CS option. The racial pidgeon-holing of EWAR link bonuses on Gallente hulls was terrible. EWAR bros deserve love, too.
Due to the overall weakness of shield doctrine in the current meta, I doubt we'll see Caldari CS being used more, except for those brave enough to field Rohktrine, Tengu-fleet, or Caralols. They will still continue to get bombed into oblivion so long as extenders and CDFEs have a sigRad bloom. A skill to reduce this penalty for shield extenders would be great. There already is one for rigs.
Meanwhile, the Damnation will most definitely see an increase in use since it can now be used as a booster for EWAR wings. The Absolution will continue to sit in hangers and shipyards gathering dust. Damnation still does it better because of it's double-tank bonuses.
With Gallente having access to Skirmish link bonuses, I think we will see the Astarte and Eos being used more in armor fleets at first. But once people realize that they die a lot faster due to no EHP bonus at all, they may just go back to the Damnation and say "F-it, I'll take the weaker skirmish links and better tank." A dead CS boosts no one.
I also would have liked to have seen each race with a resist bonused CS, and a local rep bonused CS. Then there would have been something for both large fleets and skirmish gangs. Nothing says you can't use the resist bonused CS for skirmish fleet. But taking the local rep-bonused CS puts that pilot at a significant disadvantage when you have to survive high alpha conditions.
Overall, while I like the changes and see them as a good step forward, I think they will mostly reinforce the current meta. Shield doctrine is still lost and Gallente are inferior to Amarr in every way. Minmatar are the shield equivalent of Gallente, and are overshadowed by Caldari for the same reasons. Simply swapping the active tanking and resist bonuses so that each race has a resist bonused CS and a local rep bonused CS would go a long way towards fixing these issues.
I also approve of the efforts to get boosting links out of POSes. Sure they can roll right back in there. But then links go off. You want links, get out of your POS and take some risks.
Free Ripley Weaver! |
Diivil
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:22:00 -
[636] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:The bottom line is that having boosters on grid will make the fights less fun. They will always be primaried first. They will always be locked down 24/7 so you can't reposition at all. They will be neuted, or they will be webbed long enough until the battle evolves to a point where you can neut them without dying. If the fleet moves (not warp, just moves around with their prop mod) the boosters will be left behind. All these things make the fights become less fun because you can sacrifice a few DPS ships to reposition, you can't sacrifice a boosting ship. So instead we will have everyone sitting still not even trying to maneuver. Serious question. Why would your fleet allow a webbing ship close enough to the fleet (let alone your CS) without vaporizing it? And if the enemy does somehow have the ability to keep a webbing ship in close proximity to your fleet, wouldn't your logistics ships actually be the better choice as they are far easier to pop when webbed?
Have you ever been in a 500v500 fight? 1000v1000? It is impossible to kill every single thing with a web if there are enough of them on grid and all it needs is one or two webs to stay on one command ship and you have to stop moving your fleet to stay in range of it. The max web range before these nerfs was just under 108km. I haven't calculated how much it will go down with the nerfs but I suspect it will still be over 80km for the longest range ships. Luckily they are not used as often since shield doctrines are pretty much dead in these big fights and armor fleets use lower range Lokis instead but the whole thing still is such a massive limitation on fleet movements that it just isn't good for the game PvP tactics wise. But there are also many doctrines that don't even have an 80km engagement range. Are you suggesting that all those should get ****** and fly something that can shoot farther away?
If your wing commanders are on grid and even just one of them gets webbed you are pretty much 100% committed. You can't reposition if it costs you a wing commander because the bonuses are too important. If they get webbed, they will most likely eventually get neuted too. So now you are not even running links. Sure it's great for the more aggressive fleet doctrines or those that don't move at all but I feel it will take too much away from the actual tactics used in these fights. So in the end we are stuck with the most obvious question, why would you put wing commanders on grid when you can use off grid boosters?
I am not understanding your second point. Logistic ships are good targets in smaller scale fights. They are horrible targets in big fights because you have enough DPS to kill most things that are not pre-locked by the logis. Killing logistics generally won't speed up your killing rate that much because most of the time stuff is not catching reps anyway especially if they are armor. Killing boosters would increase your killing rate much more. Or killing DPS would decrease the rate of your own ships dying.
Sol Mortis wrote: I would just like to point out that:
A) It is completely inappropriate for a dev to publicly identify a player's character as being an alt or a main. It smacks of intimidation and petty condescension based on nothing more than the dev's position of authority and access to information.
B) Dvla made many extremely salient points, and it shouldn't matter what character or player posts them. It is sad to think that you wouldn't be able to recognize good ideas unless they are posted by a familiar name.
C) The new commands ships are worse than the old ones, except for the Eos and Claymore. Nobody wants to fly command ships with the same number of turrets as a cruiser, even if they do have stronger bonuses.
D) The Fozzie knows that the command ship changes are a big nerf to the class as a whole and don't even address the most glaring issues with the ships. He has no valid arguments to support these changes, so he has resorted to personal attacks on people for posting with alts while ignoring their valid points.
There is no reason to white knight me here. It's not like my identity was secret anyway when the post and my name was broadcasted in jabber to a few thousand CFC members. Fozzie simply thought I was someone else. Now why did I post on an alt in the first place? Because I didn't want to get dragged in to a posting campaign as someone would call this. I just wanted to get my opinion heard and GTFO of this thread. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4436
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:27:00 -
[637] - Quote
Sol Mortis 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.
Wing command bonuses from fleet is something that I 100% want to get fixed, although there are a few complications that mean I can't promise a specific timeline for it yet.
Command processors are also something that I agree have a lot of problems, not least of which is the big imbalance it created between armor and shield booster ships.
I would just like to point out that: A) It is completely inappropriate for a dev to publicly identify a player's character as being an alt or a main. It smacks of intimidation and petty condescension based on nothing more than the dev's position of authority and access to information. B) Dvla made many extremely salient points, and it shouldn't matter what character or player posts them. It is sad to think that you wouldn't be able to recognize good ideas unless they are posted by a familiar name. C) The new commands ships are worse than the old ones, except for the Eos and Claymore. Nobody wants to fly command ships with the same number of turrets as a cruiser, even if they do have stronger bonuses. D) The Fozzie knows that the command ship changes are a big nerf to the class as a whole and don't even address the most glaring issues with the ships. He has no valid arguments to support these changes, so he has resorted to personal attacks on people for posting with alts while ignoring their valid points.
A) There is nothing inappropriate about his observation, he obviously knows (or thinks he knows) this person. How could identifying the poster as an alt be considered intimidating or condescending in any way? Nobody gives a damn, at least not in a negative way, except possibly you.
B) Since Fozzie knows this persons main he felt that the points would carry even more weight with US if it came from a source that was known and respected. You are a very confused person.
C) You have completely missed the point of what people are complaining about.
D) There were no personal attacks made except within your fevered paranoid imagination. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Ayatsuji
Gensokyo Productions Spaceship Samurai
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:49:00 -
[638] - Quote
Is it a typo that the Eos and AStarte not getting information Warfare Links? |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1621
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:10:00 -
[639] - Quote
if you're referring to the dev blog about it, which listed gallente and amarr with opposite not-armor links, http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/73530 then it might be, and it might not.
"inconsequential" troll or change is possible in the way CCP will do with these things. Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Tsai Ashitaka
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:16:00 -
[640] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Sigras wrote: seriously, why do people keep making such a big deal out of a selectable (or non selectable) damage type?!
Because the whole frickin point of the missle system is that you can choose your damage type. Having a bonus to only one type of damage negates one of the huge over arching benefits of the platform. Yeah, bit it's unrealistic to expect to be able to hit *every* resistance hole perfectly, which is what an omni-damage bonus (meaning no damage bonus to a specific type) would be. Every race has to fire a damage type, with most of them being mixed damage types as it is. Asking for all Caldari missile systems to do bonused damage to any missile would be broken. But Minmatar can! Yes and no. Their primary weapon system, projectiles, fires a mixed damage round that you can distribute to more reflect one damage type or another but its never a perfect, 100% one-damage-type. The missile turreted ships that they use typically have bonuses to omni, yes, but the damage from these ships is augmented by drones or some of the missile ships just have bonuses to explosive damage. Firing all missiles, from long range (HML and others) or short range, high damage (HAMs and others) perfectly into a resist hole would be broken. Caldari favor kinetic damage. That's the way it is, just as much as Amarr favor EM, Gallente Thermal, and Minmatar Explosive.
Who cares if the Minmatar damage isn't perfectly distributed? They can still overwhelmingly hit resistance holes with full damage bonuses. Honestly, I'd rather hit a spread of multiple damage types, anyway. EMP ammo is the only ammo that can cover the unusual spread of EM/Explosive, and projectiles are the only turret whose LONG RANGE ammo gets INCREASED tracking. Let's not forget that Minmatar have 3 tiers of ammo range with damage type selection within each, while hybrids and lasers are forced on a useless 7-tier continuum of inversely proportional range and damage (you only want short range and T2 long range. Period).
Minmatar missile ships all have omni-damage bonuses, while the comparable Caldari ship only has kinetic, with the caveat of an extra hardpoint, sometimes. Same goes for Amarr missile ships.
If you don't want to compare projectiles to missiles, then AT LEAST give amarr missile ships bonuses to only EM missiles and Minmatar ships bonuses to only explosive missiles.
I mean, hitting every resistance hole is unrealistic, right?
|
|
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:27:00 -
[641] - Quote
Can you please stop giving Amarr ships bonuses to Energy turret cap use AND Rate of Fire? They basically cancel each other out. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
395
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:28:00 -
[642] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:snip. Explain how bonused damage to any damage type (which is what you're suggesting, removing the kinetic damage bonus) and loading the launcher with missiles that fire 100% of one damage type WOULDN'T hit a resist hole perfectly??? Maybe you don't understand what hitting a resist hole perfectly means, so here goes: if, for example, I am weakest to EM--my resist hole--and you can lob bonused-damage-EM missiles into that hole, then, wowie-zowie! you're hitting into that resist hole perfectly, since none of your damage is being mitigated by my higher resistances in therm/kin/explosive. Minmatar, for example, fire EM-biased EMP rounds that have some kinetic and explosive damage as well. So, although I may be weakest to EM, some of the damage from that round is being mitigated by my higher kinetic and explosive resistances.
As far as the other point, I'm sorry if you didn't realize this was a command ship thread about command ships that use medium weapons and get bonuses to medium weapons, so obviously, any comments made in this command ship thread about command ships that get bonuses to medium weapons would apply to medium weapons. Obviously, I never suggested that you'd have bonuses on a MEDIUM hull to ALL LAUNCHERS (although, I could argue that the Caracal does, in fact, get bonuses to light missiles as well with RLMLs). "Any missile" requires some ability to comprehend the overall topic, which in this case is Command ships, which incidentally use Medium-sized launchers.
Your argument about the Raven not "being broken" falls short, considering that it is one of the least used Battleships in large operations. The fact is that the issue isn't the kinetic damage bonus or lack thereof--the Raven's woes stem from the missile system itself. In fact, these woes and drawbacks caused by the Battleship hull are why the Raven "isn't broken." Adding to that, Battleships are slow and any damage that you could potentially receive from them can be mitigated by leaving the field before the missiles arrive and cause damage. Not counting issues like firewalls, missile tracking, target painting, tracking disruption-immune, etc., a Raven comparison is wholly dissimilar to a Command Ship that is faster, smaller sig, fires faster missiles, closer range, etc. You're asking for volleys and volleys of 100% damage-type missiles to shoot into a resist hole that can't be mitigated by tracking disruption or similar. No matter how badly you want it, it'd be broken in this class.
Also, comparing class ships similarly, a Minmatari ship will compensate its raw damage via drones. A Caldari ship vs a Minmatar ship, all things being equal with no drones taken into account, the Caldari ship is going to do more damage, despite the fact that it'd be kinetic-bonused. Just look at the Drake with its 6 launchers vs the Cyclone with 5. This same sort of comparison plays out whether we're talking about frigs (Breacher vs Condor/Kestrel), Cruisers (Bellicose (which actually is a disruption cruiser) vs Caracal or the aforementioned Drake and Cyclone comparison for Battlecruisers. The Battleships are in a different class (using large weapons) and have other drawbacks that smaller ships--medium-sized ships--simply don't share. Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4439
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:29:00 -
[643] - Quote
Phaade wrote:Can you please stop giving Amarr ships bonuses to Energy turret cap use AND Rate of Fire? They basically cancel each other out. Actually one enables the other (theoretically). To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:39:00 -
[644] - Quote
Sometimes it looks like the Alpha and the Logis are the Problem not the Command Ships. |
Telios Madronin
Concordiat Spaceship Samurai
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:40:00 -
[645] - Quote
Okay, enough about mechanics of the Command Ships changes. We will adjust to them like we do to every other change that CCP gives us.
Lets hear more about what really matters...the "Command Ship model changes"
|
Rain6637
Team Evil
1621
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:44:00 -
[646] - Quote
just want to say, Multitasking V is relevant for logi with a signal amplifier. Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Kelarc Keld
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:52:00 -
[647] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:[quote=Xequecal] 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. But unlike other ships you have to train completely unrelated stuff. It would be better to switch out the Warfare lv5s with a racial Battlecruiser V skill. For example the vulturepilot will hardly ever use the skirmish or armoured Warfare stuff. |
|
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
144
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 22:09:00 -
[648] - Quote
A post with multiple forum rule violations has been removed.
ISD Tyrozan Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
William Darkk
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 22:44:00 -
[649] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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. I'm curious what you think is the right way, because a local rep bonus is clearly not the way to go either. It's absolutely useless in a large fight (a 256 man fleet will usually have more than 20 logi, unless you let DBRB form it or something).
Rain6637 wrote:just want to say, Multitasking V is relevant for logi with a signal amplifier. I thought that was bugged to hardcap at 10 targets. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
205
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 22:48:00 -
[650] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Aglais wrote:Sigras wrote:seriously, why do people keep making such a big deal out of a selectable (or non selectable) damage type?! It's not like people omni-tank or anything . . . In fact if youre going to be stuck to one damage type, Kinetic isnt a bad way to go, it only makes you suck against T2 gallente ships which ATM are lulz terrible. Also, the nighthawk is fine, extra shield HP, extra resists, same DPS better lock range, more PG, higher sensor strength. One of the biggest points about the missile weapon system in general is selectable damage types. That's one of their maybe two advantages over (most) guns. Take that away, and they're not nearly as good. The nighthawk is NOT fine, either, because it's slot layout is... Why? Why does it have only five medslots? Claymore has more PG than the NH, too, as a note. My point is that selectable damage isnt an advantage, it makes no difference in 99% of PvP situations because even if you do find that they have a hole in a particular damage type, the extra DPS you might gain by switching to that damage type is negated by the 10 second reload time where you were doing no damage at all. The one case where this may not be true is in large cap ship fights where the cap ships can simply refit to resist the damage type youre doing, but like I said, thats an edge case and really, if your up against that tactic, you'd better have an ace in the hole anyway. Edit: All that being said, yes, i agree its weird for a matari ship to have more mids than a caldari ship of the same class.
Good pilots know how to select their damage type long before they ever even start the fight... saying it's not valid in 99% of pvp fights is not a statement of truth, it's a statement of your lack of PvP abilities and only demonstrates your shortcomings.
Nighthawk is horrid as it stands. There is absolutely no reason any sound mind PvP'er would ever select it over the claymore.
|
|
Otto Schultzky
Steller Exiles Inc Carthage Empires
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 22:52:00 -
[651] - Quote
Any chance that Eos will be receiving +10% to Armor Hit Points per Level instead of their current bonus to repair amount ?
Considering reductions to power grid and a lack of a resist bonus, Eos will not be capable of a Damnation level tank with a 10% armor HP bonus.
|
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
301
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 23:11:00 -
[652] - Quote
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.
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.
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 right.
|
Rain6637
Team Evil
1621
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 23:17:00 -
[653] - Quote
not limited to 10--likely something people who don't train multitasking V tell each other Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
408
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 23:32:00 -
[654] - 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. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 00:50:00 -
[655] - Quote
Telios Madronin wrote:Okay, enough about mechanics of the Command Ships changes. We will adjust to them like we do to every other change that CCP gives us.
Lets hear more about what really matters...the "Command Ship model changes"
hes teasing us like he did with the marauder changes. he enjoys our pain |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1621
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 01:04:00 -
[656] - Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m8bZ7ThlRY ship change model video
Quote:This is something I've been thinking about during my predesign for the command ships.
I'll start with this disclaimer, we will never feel that we need to make hull designs match the function of every ship. So there's no NEED to switch the hulls on any command ships. This is not something we've decided to do, but it is something we could do and would like your opinions on.
It might be interesting to convert half the command ships into the other BC hull, picking the one that matches their weapon type at the T1 level.
That would (potentially) mean:
Eos would use the Myrm hull Sleipnir would use the Hurricane hull Abso would use the Harb hull Nighthawk would use the Drake hull
This is the kind of thing that we'd expect many people would have strong opinions about, and since it wouldn't have direct gameplay effects we wouldn't consider it worth doing unless there was some significant community support for the idea that overwhelms the opposition.
So, hypothetically, what do you guys think? Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Alyssa Haginen
State War Academy Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 01:34:00 -
[657] - Quote
I can't wait to fly the new damnation. This kind of damage upgrade makes me feel better after seeing the repair changes. All the new command ships look great. |
Leskit
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
40
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 01:55:00 -
[658] - Quote
Make a rig that changes an active rep bonus to a resistance bonus, and a resistance bonus to an active rep bonus.
POW
Problem (theoretically) solved! |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
3943
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 02:00:00 -
[659] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Defensive links are going down in effectiveness, but reppers are going up ineffectiveness. This does not balance out in all cases, only cases where repping is viable. That is it will not help vs:
Alpha strikes. High sec ganks. Blob fleets where the primary gets so much DPS it dies fast. It might help small scale PvP by making repper fits viable. I guess thats something.
The faster you can wipe fleet ships off the field, the faster you can recover from TiDi, the less time the enemy has to ship in reinforcements. Removing resist bonuses is a good thing for fleet fights. Improving local tank bonuses is a good thing for small fights where you might actually want time to get reinforcements on the field and don't have the advantage of simply bringing enough people to the system to roll TiDi back to 10%.
Now we need a Guristas variant so we can have a shield tanking, drone wielding command ship and a Sanshas command ship so we can have a shield tanking laser shooting command ship.
The Eos is (almost) the command ship I have been wishing for ever since my drone pilot started training leadership skills. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
234
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 02:18:00 -
[660] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:Defensive links are going down in effectiveness, but reppers are going up ineffectiveness. This does not balance out in all cases, only cases where repping is viable. That is it will not help vs:
Alpha strikes. High sec ganks. Blob fleets where the primary gets so much DPS it dies fast. It might help small scale PvP by making repper fits viable. I guess thats something. The faster you can wipe fleet ships off the field, the faster you can recover from TiDi, the less time the enemy has to ship in reinforcements. Removing resist bonuses is a good thing for fleet fights. Improving local tank bonuses is a good thing for small fights where you might actually want time to get reinforcements on the field and don't have the advantage of simply bringing enough people to the system to roll TiDi back to 10%. Now we need a Guristas variant so we can have a shield tanking, drone wielding command ship and a Sanshas command ship so we can have a shield tanking laser shooting command ship. The Eos is (almost) the command ship I have been wishing for ever since my drone pilot started training leadership skills.
What about everything between a five man gang and a two hundred man fleet? Those don't deserve to double dip maxed armor/skirmish links? |
|
Gorn Arming
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
225
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 02:34:00 -
[661] - Quote
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. I think this might be the first time I've agreed with a non-trivial opinion posted by an NPC alt. |
Valterra Craven
79
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 02:57:00 -
[662] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote: Explain how bonused damage to any damage type (which is what you're suggesting, removing the kinetic damage bonus) and loading the launcher with missiles that fire 100% of one damage type WOULDN'T hit a resist hole perfectly??? Maybe you don't understand what hitting a resist hole perfectly means, so here goes: if, for example, I am weakest to EM--my resist hole--and you can lob bonused-damage-EM missiles into that hole, then, wowie-zowie! you're hitting into that resist hole perfectly, since none of your damage is being mitigated by my higher resistances in therm/kin/explosive. Minmatar, for example, fire EM-biased EMP rounds that have some kinetic and explosive damage as well. So, although I may be weakest to EM, some of the damage from that round is being mitigated by my higher kinetic and explosive resistances.
Sure, but only if you explain to me how your command of the English language is so poor. One of the biggest problems with your post is that you donGÇÖt say what you mean. Just because I have the capability to guess at your meaning doesnGÇÖt mean I should have to. And while IGÇÖm on the topic of language, it might be better if you actually did quote what I said, because it seems you are interpreting what IGÇÖm saying just as poorly as you are communicating what you are trying to say.
With that out of the way, there is a difference between hitting GÇ£a resist holeGÇ¥ all the time and hitting GÇ£all resist holesGÇ¥ all the time. I was merely correcting you on what missiles are actually capable of.
Maximus Andendare wrote: As far as the other point, I'm sorry if you didn't realize this was a command ship thread about command ships that use medium weapons and get bonuses to medium weapons, so obviously, any comments made in this command ship thread about command ships that get bonuses to medium weapons would apply to medium weapons. Obviously, I never suggested that you'd have bonuses on a MEDIUM hull to ALL LAUNCHERS (although, I could argue that the Caracal does, in fact, get bonuses to light missiles as well with RLMLs). "Any missile" requires some ability to comprehend the overall topic, which in this case is Command ships, which incidentally use Medium-sized launchers.
I understand the topic perfectly, itGÇÖs not my fault you have issue properly communicating things.
Maximus Andendare wrote: Your argument about the Raven not "being broken" falls short, considering that it is one of the least used Battleships in large operations. The fact is that the issue isn't the kinetic damage bonus or lack thereof--the Raven's woes stem from the missile system itself. In fact, these woes and drawbacks caused by the Battleship hull are why the Raven "isn't broken." Adding to that, Battleships are slow and any damage that you could potentially receive from them can be mitigated by leaving the field before the missiles arrive and cause damage. Not counting issues like firewalls, missile tracking, target painting, tracking disruption-immune, etc., a Raven comparison is wholly dissimilar to a Command Ship that is faster, smaller sig, fires faster missiles, closer range, etc. You're asking for volleys and volleys of 100% damage-type missiles to shoot into a resist hole that can't be mitigated by tracking disruption or similar. No matter how badly you want it, it'd be broken in this class.
And finally we are back to the ravenGǪ here again communication issues are making this more difficult than it needs to be.
So I will simplify this you.
Your argument is that omni damage bonuses for these hulls would be OP
I said that the raven gets bonuses to all its missiles and missile types (aka all 4 cruise and torps types). Now what I said, and I quote, is that despite this GÇ£the raven [GǪ] not considered OP by any meansGÇ¥ Word choice is important here. My point is that omni damage for missiles is not OP. There is difference between saying something isnGÇÖt broken and isnGÇÖt OP. Therefore my counter to your argument is that some missile boats already have this and as you so kindly pointed out almost NO ONE flys the raven in PVP despite getting omni damage bonus. So if the raven already sees little action with omni bonuses then why the frack would a hull thatGÇÖs gimped with kinetic bonuses see any more action?!
Maximus Andendare wrote: Also, comparing class ships similarly, a Minmatari ship will compensate its raw damage via drones. A Caldari ship vs a Minmatar ship, all things being equal with no drones taken into account, the Caldari ship is going to do more damage, despite the fact that it'd be kinetic-bonused. Just look at the Drake with its 6 launchers vs the Cyclone with 5. This same sort of comparison plays out whether we're talking about frigs (Breacher vs Condor/Kestrel), Cruisers (Bellicose (which actually is a disruption cruiser) vs Caracal or the aforementioned Drake and Cyclone comparison for Battlecruisers. The Battleships are in a different class (using large weapons) and have other drawbacks that smaller ships--medium-sized ships--simply don't share.
*Sigh* except that as others have pointed out the caldari CSGÇÖs are outclassed in almost every way by the winmater WITH this change. See the thing is you are comparing the ships pre balance when what we are discussing is post balance ships. So for the last time, let me break it down for you.
Nighthawk 5 launchers
Claymore 5 launchers
Nighthawk 10% bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage 5% bonus to Heavy Assault and Heavy missile launcher rate of fire 5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius
Claymore 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile explosion velocity
Now, which one of this ships looks better to you?! *Hint, the answer isnGÇÖt nighthawk.
|
Vegine
Sphere Foundation
23
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 03:08:00 -
[663] - Quote
For Eos
Can't we have the sentry drone bonus instead of heavy drones?
I think Ishtar should have more focused heavy drone bonus, no sentry bonus, while Eos has sentry but no heavy drone bonus... |
Valterra Craven
79
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 03:13:00 -
[664] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Entity wrote:So, Astarte getting a massive damage nerf?
The damage/rof changes do not offset the 29% reduced damage from losing 2 turrets, and adding 2 completely unbonused launchers isn't that particularly appealing.
It's going from 10.9 effective turrets to 10. However I expect the two utility highs, lower mass and extra resists to more than compensate.
Except that the things you want us to fit in the utility highs take more cpu than the guns you took away did, meaning this ship is now short on CPU.
You should compensate the loss of grid on these ships with extra CPU! |
keuel
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 03:37:00 -
[665] - Quote
for Absol, just remove 1 hi slot and put a 4th mid slot and I wil be happy :) |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1621
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 03:49:00 -
[666] - Quote
keuel wrote:for Absol, just remove 1 hi slot and put a 4th mid slot and I wil be happy :) do this with the nighthawk as well plz. reduce to 1 utility high so mission runners can boost their mates with a resist link, and I can have my command ship.
6 H, 6 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1) 1150 PG 550 CPU Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Justin Cody
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 03:54:00 -
[667] - Quote
Kenhi sama wrote:why does the eos only have 16 slots while all others have 17?
because drones
|
Hatsumi Kobayashi
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
259
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 04:03:00 -
[668] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:This isn't really a thing you can skip, getting bonus's alpha'd off the field because you're trying to make CS some small gang capable thing sucks, its always sucked and the first step you need to address in the whole "Bonuses on Grid" deal is having bonuses able to survive being on grid.
I'll be fine with command ships being able to get volleyed off the fields if fleets can also start fielding 20-30 of them that contribute more than probe and give bonuses (as in, can contribute deeps or ewar) and when one ship in a booster position gets dusted others can get automatically put into a booster position without the fleet boss needing the shuffle through names in a 250man fleet to put a backup vulture into the position of the vulture that just got alphaed.
A man can dream STANDING ON THE VERGE OF PROLAPSE |
Cayden Til
DEFCON. The Initiative.
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 05:03:00 -
[669] - Quote
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.
So true! +1 |
Sigras
Conglomo
483
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 05:17:00 -
[670] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Sigras wrote:My point is that selectable damage isnt an advantage, it makes no difference in 99% of PvP situations because even if you do find that they have a hole in a particular damage type, the extra DPS you might gain by switching to that damage type is negated by the 10 second reload time where you were doing no damage at all.
The one case where this may not be true is in large cap ship fights where the cap ships can simply refit to resist the damage type youre doing, but like I said, thats an edge case and really, if your up against that tactic, you'd better have an ace in the hole anyway.
Edit: All that being said, yes, i agree its weird for a matari ship to have more mids than a caldari ship of the same class. Good pilots know how to select their damage type long before they ever even start the fight... saying it's not valid in 99% of pvp fights is not a statement of truth, it's a statement of your lack of PvP abilities and only demonstrates your shortcomings. Nighthawk is horrid as it stands. There is absolutely no reason any sound mind PvP'er would ever select it over the claymore. Oh wise PvP guru, perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us plebes as to the wisdom of choosing a damage type against . . . say a dominix coming to attack you. |
|
Rain6637
Team Evil
1621
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 06:16:00 -
[671] - Quote
drop the missile thing/get a thread. the kinetic damage bonus is for caldari mission runners shooting gurista NPCs. just discount it when you're factoring whether ship bonuses are fair. Rainf1337 on Twitch |
To mare
Advanced Technology
227
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 06:18:00 -
[672] - Quote
thanks for making the minmatar ship slower again and less agile plus all the other nerf combined on the sleipnir |
Jack Miton
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
2215
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 06:38:00 -
[673] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Entity wrote:So, Astarte getting a massive damage nerf?
The damage/rof changes do not offset the 29% reduced damage from losing 2 turrets, and adding 2 completely unbonused launchers isn't that particularly appealing.
It's going from 10.9 effective turrets to 10. However I expect the two utility highs, lower mass and extra resists to more than compensate. Except that the things you want us to fit in the utility highs take more cpu than the guns you took away did, meaning this ship is now short on CPU. You should compensate the loss of grid on these ships with extra CPU! neuts use very little cpu. 1200dps + dual neut astarte with a viable armour tank? seems good. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 06:41:00 -
[674] - Quote
Give them the ability to reduce the damage application speed from Alpha damage.
Just lets say if it got hit by 100000 damage it takes about 5 seconds for the damage to expand. (Or connect this Bonus to a skill or the amount of fleet members he is controlling i dunno)
So if the fire will concentrate the logis do have the time to react and the Command Ship lost his priority, now you need some advance tactics (ECM or something) to kill a Command Ship.
I know its insane but i dont care. ^^ |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
886
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 07:02:00 -
[675] - Quote
Good work. The Tears Must Flow |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
217
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 07:11:00 -
[676] - Quote
Hey, all you people quoting Dvla? You do know there's this great thing you can do that doesn't involve spamming a huge wall of text right? You can make it a lot easier on everyone by following these simple steps.
1: like his post. I get it, we all like his post, that's great. Doesn't mean it has to be on every page multiple times in its entirity.
2: Quote him. Seems like you all have this part down pat.
3: trim the quote. Find something in particular you really like out of his post. Perhaps write a TL;DR.
4: Right click the post number. Click on "Copy link location". From here, hyperlink something in your thread.
Here, I'll make an example so that none of you have to actually bother on your own.
Here's a post by Dvla that really conveys a lot of my opinions on this matter:
TL;DR: Add buffer bonuses to more CS's to provide racial choice for tanky command, remove Command Processors, make at least one CS per race approximately as tanky as the Damnation.
There, and it only takes about 4 or 5 extra lines per page, as opposed to 6 paragraphs.
Also, I disagree with one point of Dvla's. This in particular:
Dvla wrote: 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?
I agree that every race should have a choice of at least one for fleet work. But I do also think one should be viable for squad-wing sized gang warfare. That doesn't just mean brick tanking it to have 1m EHP and tons of sustain against a large hostile fleet. It means running with sometimes only even 1 logi, perhaps having to take some of the tank on itself, and having to contribute to the fight as well. Sometimes only bringing 2 or 3 links so it can at least pull its weight and apply some much needed damage at the small scale.
It really must be remembered that not everything is null blob warfare. Some people just want to get together a group of friends and go for a roam, and in this present iteration these are at least ships that are effective at this sort of thing. Now all they need to do is specialize one per race for massive blob warfare, because I will freely admit that only the Damnation really holds out against headshots. |
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
241
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 07:19:00 -
[677] - Quote
I literally just finished training command ships V on my booster...and it's a role bonus now -_-
Can't complain overall though, good stuff. Kinda worried about the dual-action mindlinks though, especially in null blobs which will now get a full (albeit less so than now) bonus to everything. thhief ghabmoef |
Resgo
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 07:29:00 -
[678] - Quote
If you want to do something other than cookie cutter for the tanking bonuses. Why not swap some of those local booster bonuses to bonuses to remote reps received?
I understand a lot of folks are complaining about how they use the command ships trying to protect them for that role. IE mission runners and the like, but they're just using those ships in that role because they go the most dps or tank or whatever. I'd really like to see the command ships be viable as both small or large fleet command ships. Able to power their links, call targets, and maneuver plus survive. If that means nerfing the dps to the ground, do it.. the role of the command ship is not to have the best dps on the field. |
uyguhb
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 07:40:00 -
[679] - Quote
Changes look really nice. until i remember half of the "fleet command" ships are still active tanked and cant stop shaking my head. No chance of seeing them in a fleet with more than 10 guys still :(
When OGB is gone damnations and vultures will continue to do well in fleets while the other 2 are just out of place.
Why ccp ? why ?? |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 07:52:00 -
[680] - Quote
Going through proposed changes again I see where CCP is going to. They like the idea of combat command ships like Sleipnir, Astarte etc., but they also feel that other CS must be boosted as well. So general idea is to have TWO similar platforms for each race but with different damage mods. They are trying to balance DPS/TANK on those ships by Increasing DPS on Claymore for example and Increasing tank on Sleipnir but slightly nerfing it's DPS. I have to say that no matter how you buff it, Claymore will never reach same level in PVP and DPS projection as Sleipnir does, nor will Damnation do.
My assumption is that DPS coming from Sleipnir after patch will more or less be around 600 at best, but it's tanking will be booster for around 25%. I have to admit that I am not fan of such approach. Currently combat command ships are very useful in small scale/solo PVP. They have outstanding DPS and decent tank which allows small group of people brawl with a larger one. I am afraid that in attempt to fix damnation CCP will screw absolution and it's role in PVP now, same will happen to other ships. If you will take a close look at Astarte/EOS you will see that EOS will be very nice solo brawler is it used to be back in the days, but Astarte will become a former shadow if itself. Close-range-in-your-face high dps brawler will be gone :( I would not say anything about NH/Vulture. After many attempts I was unable to make NH a decent solo boat. Fitting issues on that ship are huge. NH is the one which suffers most from fitting point of view.
As I already mentioned in my post before, why cannot we split roles on these ships? For example Thorax hull has 2 T2 versions that have completely different roles, price for those modifications are different as well. Why cannot we apply same formula to Command ships? Let's take Prophecy hull and split T2 version of it for different roles: - Damnation - Command Ship with gang links - Absolution - Heavy Assault Battlecruiser or whatever you prefer. Tweak production cost for those T2 hulls. They will be expensive but both will justify that price tag. This will create even wider variety of fleet comps for small gangs and large fleets (wonder how it will look like to field 100 Sleipnirs or Absos). |
|
uyguhb
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 07:59:00 -
[681] - Quote
My opinion is "field command ships" should be very nasty brawlers. But "fleet command" ships should focus on tank to survive while filling their role properly something that will be even more important when OGB is gone. Please give the eos and claymore hp bonuses rather than active tanks!
|
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
227
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 08:27:00 -
[682] - Quote
Despite the fact you are buffing local armor reps, I still stand by my position that Gallente Command ships should not have this bonus.
1. Gallente has less low slots 2. A small gang is more than enough to burn through local armor RR, even with drugs and boosts. 3. Gallente does not have the speed nor the weaponry to maintain range. 4. A bonus that is much less useful than Resists, even with resist reduction. I would take a 4% resist bonus over a 7.5-10% bonus to Local Reps Any Day for Armor.
Also Astarte and Sleipnir should maintain the same DPS they have now, I see no reason why they should be less than Navy BC's.
After all T2 is supposed to be superior to regular faction navy ships.
The Nighthawk still has that ******** 5 midslot setup and still lacks powergrid. You got rid of the kinetic damage for an all damage type bonus for the drake, so make it the same for the Nighthawk. FIX IT! ! |
Randy Wray
Pathfinders. The Marmite Collective
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 08:33:00 -
[683] - Quote
Make NH's bonuses work on rapid light missiles and that ship is done. Solo Pvper in all areas of space including wormhole space. Check out my youtube channel @-áhttp://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd6M3xV43Af-3E1ds0tTyew/feed for mostly small scale pvp in lowsec/nullsec |
Arec Bardwin
1016
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 08:48:00 -
[684] - Quote
Still local rep bonus |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3223
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 09:07:00 -
[685] - Quote
On ships using weapons like heavy drones and blasters, local rep bonuses fit the bill. Gallente CSes are not meant for sov blobs.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
128
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 09:26:00 -
[686] - Quote
Dvla wrote: 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.
I've never flown in a big fleet so far, but even i can see a lot of truth in that. So why can't the devs, who should easily be able to see the big picture?
Why do ALL of the command ships have to be viable for solo (orsmall scale) activity? The orca isn't and I've seen noone complaining about the mining command ship not being a solo miner.
Likewise if the big fleet command ships could only do two things, survive and give good bonuses, I doubt you would see people complaining heavily - as long as there is an alternative for small scale command, which shouldn't be that hard to accomplish with TWO command ships per race.
Soon Shin wrote: After all T2 is supposed to be superior to regular faction navy ships.
Better at their special role. I find it hard to understand that there are still people who don't get this.
There can be no doubt that even the worst command ship is better at giving link bonuses than any navy BC. All it needs now is for the devs to realize that part of giving bonuses is staying alive to give those bonuses. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
140
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 09:31:00 -
[687] - Quote
Roime wrote:On ships using weapons like heavy drones and blasters, local rep bonuses fit the bill. Gallente CSes are not meant for sov blobs.
Thanks. I only correct my own spelling. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 09:46:00 -
[688] - Quote
Failgokker wrote:Granted, I'm not the biggest EFT wizard out there, so I'm not going to debate the individual buffs/nerfs.
CCP Fozzie you want boosting ships to be on grid with the fleets. I follow that quite fine. However, what role does the command ship expect to take in the fleet? I get that they are important fleet booster, but it's about the most boring thing to do in a fleet, while requiring a terrible long training time (Fleet Command V was hell).
The usage of using POS's or a t3 in a safespot was a way for those of us in fleet boosting ships to be able to fly 2 chars in large scale combat. With the new changes I'm not sure that'll be the case, and i'm finding it difficult to figure out if the new command ships in large battles will be anything other than flying bricks without anything active to do during combat? Seeing as bonuses are a really essential part of large fleets that's the choice you have to make: am I a combative or am I a fleet assister. And with the changes in obtaining T2 mind links it makes it easier to get (and risk) the ships/clones on grid with the fleet. You can still fight in your CS even though you may not be as strong in the dps category as you want to be but that's the whole point of making these choices. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 09:52:00 -
[689] - Quote
Resgo wrote:the role of the command ship is not to have the best dps on the field. A lot of people don't seem to understand this enough sadly |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
128
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 09:53:00 -
[690] - Quote
Cyaron wars wrote: [command ships used like super- HACs]
And why do we need COMMAND ships for that? Even in a bigger small scale roaming gang, we're probably looking at 3 command ships for bonuses (wing + 2 squads?).
In order to not lose DPS for bringing command ships in their respective roles, they need somewhat competitive DPS and of course they need a bit better survivability to not be no-brains primary.
Somewhat competitive does NOT mean that it should be the best option to replace all regular DPS (i.e. in their size BCs and even navy BCs) with COMMAND ships. An all-command fleet should ideally perform significantly worse than a mixed fleet with only the required number of command ships.
Anything else would clearly signal that the command ship is not a T2 ship (a.k.a. tailored towards a special role) but simply an improvement over the regular BC - which is what navy or pirate are for, not T2 specialisations. |
|
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
40
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 10:01:00 -
[691] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Cyaron wars wrote: [command ships used like super- HACs]
And why do we need COMMAND ships for that? Even in a bigger small scale roaming gang, we're probably looking at 3 command ships for bonuses (wing + 2 squads?). In order to not lose DPS for bringing command ships in their respective roles, they need somewhat competitive DPS and of course they need a bit better survivability to not be no-brains primary. Somewhat competitive does NOT mean that it should be the best option to replace all regular DPS (i.e. in their size BCs and even navy BCs) with COMMAND ships. An all-command fleet should ideally perform significantly worse than a mixed fleet with only the required number of command ships. Anything else would clearly signal that the command ship is not a T2 ship (a.k.a. tailored towards a special role) but simply an improvement over the regular BC - which is what navy or pirate are for, not T2 specialisations.
You don't really know how CS work on field. Your Bring Wing Commander and Fleet Commander. Squad comms are filled by members with leadership 5 and that's it. But having 2 ships in same class doing same thing is ********. CCP are trying to make 2 command ships equal which I find plain stupid. Why do we need 2 ships doing same stuff? All I suggested is to leave one as command ship and boost it's tank and remove another one from CS role and make it a T2 brawler. Basically my suggestion was to leave CS as they are now :D |
Zamyslinski
Kill at Will
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 10:02:00 -
[692] - Quote
All changes are acceptable,
but theres one thing that doesnt allow me to sleep,
the CS ship models,
PLEASE either make NEW ONES (dont be lazy bastards as with new pretty 3d login screens for each expansion) or keep them like now. Sleipnir in a cane hull would make me puke, |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
40
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 10:09:00 -
[693] - Quote
Zamyslinski wrote:All changes are acceptable,
but theres one thing that doesnt allow me to sleep,
the CS ship models,
PLEASE either make NEW ONES (dont be lazy bastards as with new pretty 3d login screens for each expansion) or keep them like now. Sleipnir in a cane hull would make me puke, That!!! |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
96
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 10:18:00 -
[694] - Quote
Gallente command ships will never find their way into a fleet until:
1. the ridiculous local repair bonus is replaced with a resistance bonus 2. the (again ridiculous) explosive hole is filled.
In comparison with a resistance bonus, a local repair bonus is *always* a nerf. If you are insistent on keeping it (in the face of the entire player base), the ships with a local rep bonus should have some other compensating strength, like extra speed or significantly higher damage output, or (say) double the hull hit points.
Here is a list of situations where resistance bonuses are better: 1. fleet combat 2. small gangs 3. solo combat 4. when you're being neuted 5. when you're buffer fitted 6. When you're being alpha'd 7. when you don't have enough mid slots to fit 2 cap boosters in order to keep up with dual/triple repairers required to stay alive (i.e. both Gallente command ships)
Here is a list of situations where a local repair bonus is better: 0. none at all
The local repair mechanic is broken and unfixable. This is acceptable in (say) a hyperion because it's fun to chuck it into a gatecamp and see how long it lasts. It's completely unacceptable on a command ship.
Please, finally, concede the point - allow us to actually use the astarte and the Eos.
|
S1dy
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 10:44:00 -
[695] - Quote
In generell there's nothing to complain about the link changes, they are going into the right direction so far.
But i'm a little bit disappointed by the uninspiring ideas CCP Fozzie and CCP Rise coming up with in the last weaks. The proposed changes to HAC's were already dissatisfying, now Fozzie annouces halfhearted changes to Command Ships. They are not resolving a few issues that were the main cause for their different using numbers.
1. Damnation vs. Vulture The Damnation will get 2 bonuses to tank (4% resists and 10% armor HP) while the Vulture will just stay with 1 bonus (4% resists). The Vulture is for shield what Damnation is for armor, so they need comparable EHP, but you'll give them different bonuses. That's not what it should be; it will make the Vulture much more weaker than the Damnation (around 30 - 40%, depending on fitting) and so much more unattractive. In greater medium- und largescale Command Ships need a huge EHP to survive the first alpha volley and that logistics have a chance to catch up. While the Damnation already has nearly enough tank for this, the Vulture is too weak. In the greater picture this differences make shieldtanking in generell unattractive and will be one of the reasons why the largescale doctrines will shift further to armortanking in the future.
2. Active bonuses The Sleipnir (btw. WHY DO YOU CHANGE THEIR HULL TO HURRICANE, WTF?!) was always interesting for their superior active tank and dealing with 600 - 700 DPS. It made the Sleipnir very attractive for solo and smallscale. But in my opinion that's not what their specialization should look like. They should be dedicated fleet booster - maybe with little bit DPS, but the focus should be especially in tanking (to survive) and boosting (their specialization). The problem here is that active tanks don't survive in medium- to largescale. They don't have the needed EHP to do that. Buffer is FOTM and here should be the main focus; they need resists and HP for shield or armor. But you'll give Eos, Astarte, Sleipnir and Claymore an active tank bonus without any alternatives. You'll never see them on the battlefield in the future, because Proteus/Loki are still better for this job despite their 1/3 lower bonus because they can be fit with buffer tank and survive much longer.
3. Command Processor It's already said a few times in this thread: Their's nothing worse than Command Processors needing medium slots to fit. The same slots shield tanking ships need for their tank while armor tanking ships won't have problems with fitting them besides their already superior cpu/pg availability. It won't hurt Command Ships that much with this proposed changes, but tech 3, now with 3 dedicated bonuses, will still be affected by this.
As Grath said, maybe take them out of the game and give any important leadership skill the ability to fit one more link for every skill level. That would make perfect sense since there's already nearly no ship able to fit more than 5 links (right now i only have one ship in mind that's able to fit 6 links).
4. Wingbooster It's already said a few times, too: Give wing boosters they bonuses. At the moment they are the only ones in fleet never getting bonuses.
5. Diversity In my opinion CCP is wasting the chance to get 2 different roles for their Command Ships. While you tried it per race, do it by splitting Fleet Command and Field Command, so every race has 2 ships with different roles. And besides this you now have a tanking ship and a DPS ship but with overall the same stats in every race - guess what will be used more in the future...
As said DPS shouldn't be the focus for Command Ships - their role is to give bonus and survive as long as possible and not to make damage. So while you don't need to change anything to the role bonus (they are perfect in the proposed changes), you should change the tanking bonuses and take a look at the other 2 bonuses available. This 2 should define which role the Command Ship fits in.
An idea would be to make Fleet Command the dedicated medium- to largescale Command Ships with brick tank (like the Damnation) and changethe weapon bonuses to something useful for fleet commanders and bonus ship pilots.
Don't take the numbers to seriously, they are only examples, as the 2 other bonuses are as well:
Quote:Race Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all tank resistances 10% bonus to sensor strenght
Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to all tank hitpoints 10% bonus to scan strength of probes
Fixed Bonus: 15% to the race defined warfare links
This pilots don't need DPS, they need useful tools helping to command the fleet (like probing for example) and resistances to ewar. That would perfectly define in which situations they will used more.
Compared to this Field Command would be dedicated to PvE, solo, small- and maybe to the smaller mediumscale in which the risks to get alphad by the first volley is unusual. Their primary focus isn't just surviving but also to give some DPS, because that's what's needed more and more the smaller the group gets. Here you can change the ewar- and probing bonus to weapon bonuses and (if you really want active tank bonuses - something i already said wouldn't support) change one tank bonus - best would be the HP bonus - to an active tank bonus:
Quote:Race Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all tank resistances 10% bonus to weapon/drone damage
Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to active tanke 10% bonus to rate of fire/tracking/falloff/etc.
Fixed Bonus: 15% to the race defined warfare links
While this are all just examples, now you have dedicated Command Ships fitting into different roles and make them both useful, depending on what fleet you're forming with them.
EDIT: Sorry for my simple and bad english, it's not my native language and i was always bad in it :) |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1066
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:07:00 -
[696] - Quote
Dvla/Diivll got it right again.
Despite my self being against OGB he makes a lot of good points to keep it because CS are not being revamp correctly and he made also a good explanation on what and why.
Command ships point on EHP and survivability is an important point, the main one after % boosting bonus on top of wing fixes. Right now with proposed changes there's not much of a choice than boosting golden chickens legions brick Proteus because everything else will simply die in a fire far too easily, still better to have ogb T3s providing smaller boosts almost totally safe than bring them to the field for same reasons he explained. Removing OGB in this case will not make command ships other than golden chicken any better on grid but easy targets.
-2 Rep bonus chips for Gallente for ex is silly, all races need at least one command ship able to push Damnation EHP so they are ok on grid, it has been said before and needs to be said again.
About OGB I still think this needs to be completely removed from the game because as it stands right now several issues are not being solved but delayed. If OGB goes away everything that isn't a golden chicken command ship can't survive long enough, so can we expect another CS revamp after that? -or the right way is to do it ASAP instead making future OGB removal or important changes easier?
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Jessica Danikov
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
104
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:16:00 -
[697] - Quote
I'd say the primary feature of Command Ships should always be their survivability. No matter what else they're doing, choosing to primary one should be a difficult choice, as there will always be some pressure to do so because of the links.
As demonstrated by the T1 industrial imbalance, people love diversity. Even RPers like it- RP isn't about homogenizing the races so that everyone has a viable option. It's about having to make do without, because you chose to only fly Caldari.
Command Ships need more diversity. Other niches the Command Ships could have instead of 'oh, they can shoot stuff too':
- EWAR. Make them tanky Recons. They lose the mobility, the subterfuge, the range of the Recons, perhaps are even limited to only having one target, but in exchange they get strong EWAR bonuses and can act as an EWAR scalpel (rather than a force multiplier). The Heavy Neut Curse is stupid, but it'd be interesting to see an EWAR CS that can do it. - Utility. As has been mentioned, FCs may take on probing roles, so a CS with bonuses to probing could be useful. - Ship Scanning. This is probably one of the most under-utilised things in EVE. Why not have a CS with bonuses to scan accuracy and the ability to target 10+ ships- they can probe for weaknesss, monitor cap, provide intelligence. - Anchoring. Somewhat eclipsed by the fact that they should be tanky enough as they are, but you could designate the Prophecy the 'anchor' CS and justify the sky-high tank compared to the other CSs in other niches (I suspect the Vulture would be the shield variant). - Warp-ins. Yeah, make a CS that's tanky and fast (hello mr. Slepnir?). If it can shoot frigates better than a Cruiser, you're doing it wrong, but if it can charge around the battlefield soaking up fire and giving the fleet a nice warp-in without popping like an interceptor with a moment of bad transversal... that seems like an interesting niche role.
|
Mr Doctor
Los Polos Hermanos. Happy Cartel
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:25:00 -
[698] - Quote
So you want battleship tank and Vaga speed? Sounds balanced. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
855
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:33:00 -
[699] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:It's not being changed. Given up on trying to justify the Astarte nerf? Astarte is fine l2p
Kinda hating these changes.
l2dev. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
856
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:37:00 -
[700] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: About OGB I still think this needs to be completely removed from the game because as it stands right now several issues are not being solved but delayed.
I don't see why OGB needs to be removed and don't say because of "boosting from a POS shield" that is BS reason and you know it. Can easily be fixed in other ways. |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1423
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:40:00 -
[701] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:It's not being changed. Given up on trying to justify the Astarte nerf? Astarte is fine l2p Kinda hating these changes. l2dev. The saddest part about this quote monstrosity is CCP Fozzie completely played into the troll.
CCP Fozzie wrote:It's not being changed. This was part of a discussion regarding the rorqual deployed mining bonus. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
29
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:43:00 -
[702] - Quote
I can sort of see why you wouldn't want to give CS another hi-slot, but being able to fit all 3 links and a full rack of weapons would be rather awesome,
This is kinda why people are very happy about the Eos me thinks, it doesn't have to sacrifice it's main damage source to fit 3 links
3 utility hi's would be abit much, but I'd be so happy to fly a 3 link ship while still fielding a full rack on guns/launchers!
Also, please do look at changing the Astarte and Nighthawk in some way or form, Eos is sort of good but both Astarte and Eos are low on EHP.
Nighthawk is just really bad in general. |
Alsyth
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:54:00 -
[703] - Quote
Ok, so after some EFT testing, general thoughts:
Put the resistance bonus as a role bonus for all of them. Just like HIC, that's the way to go to make the class balanced.
-capacitor would benefit from a buff to at least HAC level -active bonus on Gallente/Matar makes them OP for really small gang action while making them almost useless in fleet situation. Except for Claymore which is definitely better for fleet than the Nighthawk thanks to better native resists and slot layout. -damnation still the only one with a buffer tank worthy of very big fleets, all the others are lacking. Absolution gets closer though. -comparison with the gank/tank T3 still bad for many of them. I know you intend to nerf T3 somehow, doesn't mean CS shouldn't be good at that. -fix heavy missiles or no HML ship will ever be balanced. Tengu/Drake needed a mild nerf, HML did not need the gigantic nerf they had.
Another thing you need to realize: 5% explosion radius bonus is weak 10% explosion velocity bonus is not good enough to make HAM/HML hit their intended targets (cruisers) properly 7.5% tracking is much stronger than both of the above
Absolution: +the tank buff is quite huge and most welcome. +the fitting is rather good. -feels useless with beams, lacks damage projection
Better than Legion for tank/gank (mostly because Legion lacks a lowslot though), and brings two links. Sensor and fitting is still bad compared to Legion (why?) and speed/signature/agility too (but that's normal!).
-> Add a damage projection bonus (Tracking probably the best, optimal would do)
Damnation: -lacks dps, will only be a link boat when you promised us all CS will be able to either provide full links or some link & good dps -tank is over the top and makes every other CS virtually useless for fleet situation.
-> remove HP bonus for another damage bonus (drone damage! like Curse) -> add another damage bonus (drone speed/tracking to every drone? or a second missile bonus to get good damage?) -> make missile bonus apply to Rapid Light
Astarte -the PG is a bit tight, impossible to plate+neutron without fitting mods... -tank/gank nowhere near Proteus (you win like 50dps, and lose 45% EHP, lots of fitting, speed, agility) -will never get used in fleet for lack of EHP/resistances ~rails seem funny, good dps with some range ---self active-rep is way over the top...
-> get rid of the active rep bonus for... a tracking bonus?
EOS -self boosted active tank way over the top, will be a solo monster... What's the point for a CS? -feels really OP dps-wise compared to most others. Only with Ogre, true, but still... -tracking bonus really feels out of place.
-> no idea what to do with it, but it feels both lacking for big fights (heavy drones suboptimal weapon system, not enough resists/EHP) and violently OP for solo or 2/3 men gangs (over the top active reps, drone damage, and anti-frigate tracking)
Vulture +some rail damage at 70~100km. Not sure if useful. -EHP/resistance nowhere near what Damnation or Absolution can achieve with much cheaper fits (even without slave).. -cannot be fitted with active tank properly -big capacitor problems (rails and link -> barely stable, add two hardeners and you will never last a fight). If you use a cap booster your tank is even worse
-> feels like a bigger/slower railTengu/Eagle with 2 links. Don't know if it's good or not. Will only be used for links, Tengu is better for everything. -> add more damage, so with 3 links you fall below Tengu dps, with 2 links you are better?
Nighthawk +tank improvement is quite good -still lack PG and now CPU too! Impossible to active-tank for pvp. -still horrible slot layout -worse than Tengu in every single way except the two links -dps lacking
-> need another damage bonus -> more fitting (not much, +30/+50?) -> the usual 7/6/4 slot layout. -> make bonus apply to rapid light
Claymore +dronebay useful +can achieve better buffer tank than nighthawk thanks to better slot layout and base resists... -HML so bad it's no use even with the explosion velocity bonus -lacks dps even with HAM, and cannot reliably overload -self-rep absurdly OP (hard to fit but still)
-> remove self rep bonus replace with another damage -> make bonus apply to rapid light
Sleipnir +the small resistance buff is good +2 utility hi will be useful for passive fits +arty/buffer fits might be really interesting
-the speed, agility, CPU, drone, dps nerf are a bit extreme when you add them all together -still not enough EHP for fleet fights (half what an Absolution can bring with the same dps) -do not really compare with loki, but feel lacking compared to RF Hurricane. Not enough of an improvement. -hard to active tank properly (but when you do with 5 fitting mods it becomes totally OP...)
-> remove the active tanking bonus, replace with... Tracking? -> add some CPU -> dronebay to 50 like Claymore? Will make up for the gun damage loss.
|
Alsyth
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:55:00 -
[704] - Quote
You promised us back in 2012: All Command Ships to have a combat role on the field on top of having the possibility to be fit for a pure fleet commanding platform.
The combat role part: True for Absolution. Thanks. True for Astarte, EOS, Claymore & Sleipnir in very small gang situation because of their totally OP active tank. Is it a good thing? I don't think so. Mildly true for buffer-fit EOS, Sleipnir in medium sized gangs. Not true for other situations. Because T3s plain better, or lack of EHP for the price, or lack of dps/application. And because you have yet to fix missiles.
The pure fleet commanding platform Damnation is still the only one really good at that in a big fleet scenario, and can even bring 5 links easily! Absolution is close. Vulture could get close but has cap problems and 3 links no more. EOS/Astarte/Sleipnir/Nighthawk/Claymore: no resists bonus and/or poor slot layout. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
163
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 13:02:00 -
[705] - Quote
Changes look Good
Astarte is a linked brawling monster. Perfect for small gangs.
Eos
Bay is buffed but still only two flights of heavies, would like 300bay at least.
I still feel a sentry bonus would be more appropriate here than the Ishtar, this would enable the Eos to sit off a fight, if it got the optimal/tracking bonus a domi has it would sit well with those fleets and brawling Eos heavies would still benefit from tracking. This would give Gallente a brawler and a more stand offish command ship.
I do feel given the feeling that command ships should be encouraged to be on grid and their general near battleship level mobility and sigs that they could be given microjump drive options. This is the one sub battleship class where I feel it is appropriate. My other suggestion would perhaps to vary the link bonuses within each race with different combos between the command ships.
|
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 13:03:00 -
[706] - Quote
After reviewing ships with proposed PG/CPU I do not understand what is the best way to fit these ships. Sleipnir having active shield tank bonus tanks less then current one. There are some HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE fitting issues. |
Threap
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 13:06:00 -
[707] - Quote
You are giving ships that are meant for fleets bonus to local boosts, nobody uses a local booster in a fleet. its a pointless bonus, and makes no sense. You need to give at least one of the Mimi and Gal a local resist bonus. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
66
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 14:32:00 -
[708] - Quote
Alsyth wrote: Nighthawk +tank improvement is quite good -still lack PG and now CPU too! Impossible to active-tank for pvp. -still horrible slot layout -worse than Tengu in every single way except the two links -dps lacking
-> need another damage bonus -> more fitting (not much, +30/+50?) -> the usual 7/6/4 slot layout. -> make bonus apply to rapid light
i mostly agree on this one but what i mislike the most is the agility nerf while it had little use in pvp there was a nice fit (before hm nerf) where it was used to kite i hope fozzie replies to my question regarding why he nerfed agility.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
499
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 14:55:00 -
[709] - Quote
Threap wrote:You are giving ships that are meant for fleets bonus to local boosts, nobody uses a local booster in a fleet. its a pointless bonus, and makes no sense. You need to give at least one of the Mimi and Gal a local resist bonus.
Aye, this should be pretty much mandatory at this point...
One ship of each race should have 1 tanking bonus and 3 offensive bonuses, the other one of each race should have 1 tank bonuses of various racial flavors, 1 hp bonus, and 2 offensive bonuses. As an example, they should drop the teribad tracking bonus on the EOS and slap a 10% hp per level bonus on it.
|
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 14:59:00 -
[710] - Quote
I do not understand purpose of Sleipnir after patch. It's meant to be booster ship but has local tank and damage bonus, but have an issue of fitting those mods. If it's meant for 1v1 then there are other ships that cost twice cheaper, need less training and do same.
Why on earth we need 2 booster ships with same bonuses per race? WHY? |
|
Wolf Ryski
0utlanders 0utlanders.
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 15:10:00 -
[711] - Quote
I'll go ahead and throw my opinion out there. As far as I'm concerned all of these "you're ruining fleet ships" people can keep crying. as a solo/small gang pilot my initial reactions to these command ship changes were "HELL YEA BABY!" but after loading the new changes into EFT to start making beast fits...this is just utter crap.
http://i.imgur.com/lsS3OPC.png - Old Claymore
http://i.imgur.com/BcZlMx9.png - New Claymore that a change in t2 rigs can't even touch
give me my damn neuts back. The 490 dps is irrelevant and the tank/neuts more than made up for it. But now no amount of isk can make that fit work like it used to.
http://i.imgur.com/jp2EMvq.png - You seriously intended the fit to look like this? or worse? 2 powers and a cpu rig to make something work that worked before without even a fitting implant.
I'll take my SIGNIFICANTLY LESS DPS yet UNDENIABLY BETTER FITTING POTENTIAL old claymore over this ****. You turned the underdog into a gimped freak that thinks it can play with the big boys.
and I haven't even looked at the others yet.
I won't be looking for responses to this as I don't usually post on the forums, I just read the main topics and form my own opinions about what's new (which btw, again coming from a full time solo/small gang pilot, seriously thank you for the much needed buff to active tanks, much appreciated). just wanted to let you fine devs know what an amazing ship with great potential you screwed up. |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 16:23:00 -
[712] - Quote
Wolf Ryski wrote:I'll go ahead and throw my opinion out there. As far as I'm concerned all of these "you're ruining fleet ships" people can keep crying. as a solo/small gang pilot my initial reactions to these command ship changes were "HELL YEA BABY!" but after loading the new changes into EFT to start making beast fits...this is just utter crap. http://i.imgur.com/lsS3OPC.png - Old Claymore http://i.imgur.com/BcZlMx9.png - New Claymore that a change in t2 rigs can't even touch give me my damn neuts back. The 490 dps is irrelevant and the tank/neuts more than made up for it. But now no amount of isk can make that fit work like it used to. http://i.imgur.com/jp2EMvq.png - You seriously intended the fit to look like this? or worse? 2 powers and a cpu rig to make something work that worked before without even a fitting implant. I'll take my SIGNIFICANTLY LESS DPS yet UNDENIABLY BETTER FITTING POTENTIAL old claymore over this ****. You turned the underdog into a gimped freak that thinks it can play with the big boys. and I haven't even looked at the others yet. I won't be looking for responses to this as I don't usually post on the forums, I just read the main topics and form my own opinions about what's new (which btw, again coming from a full time solo/small gang pilot, seriously thank you for the much needed buff to active tanks, much appreciated). just wanted to let you fine devs know what an amazing ship with great potential you screwed up.
Same goes for Sleipnir. Fitting issues on that ship after patch are making me very sad. Common Foz, u can do better then this. Do not touch Combat CS plz, they are good atm. After armor/shield rep patch they will become even better. |
Valterra Craven
80
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 16:43:00 -
[713] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Entity wrote:So, Astarte getting a massive damage nerf?
The damage/rof changes do not offset the 29% reduced damage from losing 2 turrets, and adding 2 completely unbonused launchers isn't that particularly appealing.
It's going from 10.9 effective turrets to 10. However I expect the two utility highs, lower mass and extra resists to more than compensate. Except that the things you want us to fit in the utility highs take more cpu than the guns you took away did, meaning this ship is now short on CPU. You should compensate the loss of grid on these ships with extra CPU! neuts use very little cpu. 1200dps + dual neut astarte with a viable armour tank? seems good.
Post that loadout pls. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
499
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 16:49:00 -
[714] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote: neuts use very little cpu. 1200dps + dual neut astarte with a viable armour tank? seems good.
Pretty sure you have to do 3xmag stabs, or 2x mag stabs and 2x launchers to get that. Either way, a 4 or 3 slot armor tank is not known as a "viable" armor tank, especially on a Gallente command ship that is probably going to be primary anyway.
|
Valterra Craven
80
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 16:57:00 -
[715] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Jack Miton wrote: neuts use very little cpu. 1200dps + dual neut astarte with a viable armour tank? seems good.
Pretty sure you have to do 3xmag stabs, or 2x mag stabs and 2x launchers to get that. Either way, a 4 or 3 slot armor tank is not known as a "viable" armor tank, especially on a Gallente command ship with a giant explosive hole and low ehp that is probably going to be primary anyway.
Yeah thats kinda what I was getting at, I wanted to see what he was deeming as "viable". |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
235
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 17:01:00 -
[716] - Quote
I am not a violent person, an outlier in the EVE community. I don't enjoy PvP as it currently exists within EVE. However, if this suggestion were to ever happen to my Damnation:
Quote: Race Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all tank resistances 10% bonus to sensor strenght
Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to all tank hitpoints 10% bonus to scan strength of probes
Fixed Bonus: 15% to the race defined warfare links
I will quit my job and hunt anyone down that supported that idea, making your explosions the reason for my existence.
Just saying. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
499
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 17:04:00 -
[717] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Yeah thats kinda what I was getting at, I wanted to see what he was deeming as "viable".
Aye, I figured as much
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
129
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 18:58:00 -
[718] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:I am not a violent person, an outlier in the EVE community. I don't enjoy PvP as it currently exists within EVE. However, if this suggestion were to ever happen to my Damnation: Quote: Race Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all tank resistances 10% bonus to sensor strenght
Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to all tank hitpoints 10% bonus to scan strength of probes
Fixed Bonus: 15% to the race defined warfare links
I will quit my job and hunt anyone down that supported that idea, making your explosions the reason for my existence. Just saying.
Seems to be a pretty fitting bonus set for something called COMMAND ship, no?
Are you among the crowd that seems to spell command like this: SOLO ? |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
219
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 19:29:00 -
[719] - Quote
Wolf Ryski wrote:I'll go ahead and throw my opinion out there. As far as I'm concerned all of these "you're ruining fleet ships" people can keep crying. as a solo/small gang pilot my initial reactions to these command ship changes were "HELL YEA BABY!" but after loading the new changes into EFT to start making beast fits...this is just utter crap. http://i.imgur.com/lsS3OPC.png - Old Claymore http://i.imgur.com/BcZlMx9.png - New Claymore that a change in t2 rigs can't even touch give me my damn neuts back. The 490 dps is irrelevant and the tank/neuts more than made up for it. But now no amount of isk can make that fit work like it used to. http://i.imgur.com/jp2EMvq.png - You seriously intended the fit to look like this? or worse? 2 powers and a cpu rig to make something work that worked before without even a fitting implant. I'll take my SIGNIFICANTLY LESS DPS yet UNDENIABLY BETTER FITTING POTENTIAL old claymore over this ****. You turned the underdog into a gimped freak that thinks it can play with the big boys. and I haven't even looked at the others yet. I won't be looking for responses to this as I don't usually post on the forums, I just read the main topics and form my own opinions about what's new (which btw, again coming from a full time solo/small gang pilot, seriously thank you for the much needed buff to active tanks, much appreciated). just wanted to let you fine devs know what an amazing ship with great potential you screwed up.
... Battleship shield booster...? Medium cap booster, MWD, Battleship sized booster full rack of guns AND 2 medium neuts? I'd say it might have needed the nerf, considering you were fitting that with only one rig. Because it seems that you're building a solopwnmobile, and I don't see why it should be capable of all that without taking up some fitting mods. |
Mariner6
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
175
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 19:55:00 -
[720] - Quote
One of two Gal boats needs an HP bonus, both with the armor rep bonus makes no sense. You eventually want to put these things on grid as an FC boat? Well if it can't survive then what's the point? Leave one for small gang work and make one for bigger fleets. |
|
isqander
Unleashed Pestilence
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 19:57:00 -
[721] - Quote
Fozzie for president |
Naoru Kozan
The humbleless Crew
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 20:08:00 -
[722] - Quote
Roime wrote:On ships using weapons like heavy drones and blasters, local rep bonuses fit the bill. Gallente CSes are not meant for sov blobs.
+1
Not everyone wants to fly in a biggass blob and get vollied off the field. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
499
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 20:14:00 -
[723] - Quote
Naoru Kozan wrote:Roime wrote:On ships using weapons like heavy drones and blasters, local rep bonuses fit the bill. Gallente CSes are not meant for sov blobs. +1 Not everyone wants to fly in a biggass blob and get vollied off the field.
This is exactly the reason why each race should have 1 Buffer brick for fleet work, and 1 active tanked ganker for solo/small gang...
|
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
233
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 20:20:00 -
[724] - Quote
A resistance bonus better 9/10 times than a active rep bonus for armor PERIOD.
I would take a 4% resist bonus over a 7.5% active armor rep bonus anyday.
Shield boost bonus works for minmatar due to ASB and mobility to avoid taking damage. |
Anything For ISK
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 20:47:00 -
[725] - Quote
Diivil wrote: If you want to go totally crazy and have to have them be more useful and fun (or engaging) you could maybe introduce some module that is restricted to command ships only. The highslot target painter that was accidentally introduced to Sisi long time ago could be just the thing. Unique, "fun" as in something to do and useful.
Like: Command Target Painter (for Minmatar) Optimal Range: 60 km Signature Radius Bonus: 300%
Command Warp Disruptor (for Gallente) Optimal Range 60 km Warp Scramble Strength 10
Command Energy Neutralizer (for Amarr) Optimal Range 60 km Energy neutralized 6000 GJ
Command ECM - Multispectral Jammer (for Caldari) Optimal Range 60 km Gravimetric Strength 24 LADAR StrengthLADAR Strength 24 Magnetometric StrengthMagnetometric Strength 24 RADAR StrengthRADAR Strength 24
Be able to fit +1 per skill level of command ship? Activation times could be like, once per 60 seconds or something? But NO DPS (remove their turrets and/or launchers)? |
MrDiao
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 21:05:00 -
[726] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:Ok, so after some EFT testing, general thoughts:
Put the resistance bonus as a role bonus for all of them. Just like HIC, that's the way to go to make the class balanced.
tbh, your suggestions are quite ****. The moment you change almost everything, you get incredibly high chance to introduce new problems, and you just made a classical bad example.
Though your thoughts are quite right.
S1dy wrote:
1. Damnation vs. Vulture
2. Active bonuses
I like the most of what you say. But I also like the initial idea from ccp that making commander ships either capable for fleet or gang. Reintroduce "field","fleet" commander ship seems like a drawback.
1, If ccp fix the BROKEN fleet bonus mechanism, then we can have multiple commander ships in a wing to replace with, and then the need of survivability may not be that urgent.
2, I see lots of ppl mentioned "commander ship for solo", to my opinion this is just a stupid historical mistake. Commander ships are for commanders, either fleet or gang. The ships that designed for group pvp, like HIC, logi ,bomber, may be used for solo, but it should not be a feature that put into design consideration. |
Mariner6
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
177
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 21:05:00 -
[727] - Quote
Naoru Kozan wrote:Roime wrote:On ships using weapons like heavy drones and blasters, local rep bonuses fit the bill. Gallente CSes are not meant for sov blobs. +1 Not everyone wants to fly in a biggass blob and get vollied off the field.
Agreed. So have one for the small gang stuff and one for the big stuff. Having both skirmish/armor ships plugged into active rep reduces flexibility and is thus very sad. Its like the Brutix and the Mrym both having the same armor rep bonus...simply unnecessary.
|
Large Collidable Object
morons.
2172
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 22:45:00 -
[728] - Quote
It's interesting how these numbers actually are reflected in market data. Speculations aside, the hull making the biggest price-jump is the EOS atm.
Yeah, I already had a Claymore, multiple Damnations and Sleipnirs in my Hangar, however, considering the vector of change, apparently, the EOS is this expansions winner with the blight of information warfare moved over to Calamari.
So why didn't the Abso increae in price at all?
Maybe i's because it was **** before the patch and will remain **** after the patch. Probabaly, that's just because i can fly them at V for longer than most devs are around, I considered them to be **** before the patch and chuckle at them after it. You know... morons. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
56
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 23:58:00 -
[729] - Quote
MrDiao wrote:2, I see lots of ppl mentioned "commander ship for solo", to my opinion this is just a stupid historical mistake. Commander ships are for commanders, either fleet or gang. The ships that designed for group pvp, like HIC, logi ,bomber, may be used for solo, but it should not be a feature that put into design consideration. well that's just, like, your opinion man |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 01:16:00 -
[730] - Quote
Quote:Eos: Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints (was 5% MHT damage) Command Ships skill bonuses: 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) a turret tracking bonus for a drone CS with 4 guns? :S seems a little silly, surely something better could be in there? 10% armor amount? something for drones? 10% gun damage? <--op maybe? and why not change the 7.5% armor rep to 10% like T3's ? overall +1 for a usable eos =] |
|
Com Evestess
Blue Lunar Horizons
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 01:48:00 -
[731] - Quote
I think the loss of PWG on the Damnation will not be effectively offset by the links losing PWG need. My running fit has a deficiency of ~50 PWG. Meaning I have to effectively make my ship lose tank to get a pg upgrade somewhere. For most ships/fits not a problem but I run with X-type mods. So making my ship easier to kill is not something I am overly willing to do. I also see no point for the drones. It's a bait tank, not a drone boat. Besides that its a ranged warfare vessel. Two sentries simply won't be enough to offset all the negatives of this change. |
Ong
Born-2-Kill
86
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 03:14:00 -
[732] - Quote
heh things & stuff |
FleetAdmiralHarper
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 03:24:00 -
[733] - Quote
Nighthawk: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)[/b] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NOOOOOO just ******* NO, IT NEEDS TO BE EXPLOSION VELOCITY to counter the god ******* awful useless velocity of the t2 heavy missiles. t2 heavy missiles are so bad, because they cant apply any damage AT ALL, because of the nonexistent explosion velocity.. if you do this they will be EVEN WORSE. which is ******* unfathomable. as is they already do HALF the damage of t1 missiles to anything thats moving.. regardless of what the dps counter says.
Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), ----->5 Launchers (-1)<---- NOOOO its a ******* NIGHTHAWK NOT A VULTURE OR CRAPOX you already raped heavy missiles to oblivion, DO NOT REMOVE MISSILE SLOTS. i threw a ******* fit when u removed them from the ferox. now that ship is useless. and so are hybrids on caldari vessles.
EVERY GOD DAMN TIME i get close to something fun ccp you either DESTROY it, or you move it another 3 months away. like you did to my carrier, t2 cruisers, and nighthawk, and missile ferox. your not going to get any more money out of me, **** YOU ALL I QUIT!!!
my plex runs out soon and ill never renew. im so sick of getting totally jewed by you every time i find something fun to use.
its bad enough your raping the command modules too now. i cant freaking take it anymore. words can not even describe how pissed off i am. gahhh **** this game. infact ill phucking delete my account if you do this in the update.
PS:who ever decided to do this to command ships needs to be ******* shot.
oh and ITS A BATTLECRUSIER NOT A CRUISER, NO 5 slot weapons bull crap. |
xpaulx
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 03:33:00 -
[734] - Quote
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:Nighthawk: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)[/b] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NOOOOOO just ******* NO, IT NEEDS TO BE EXPLOSION VELOCITY to counter the god ******* awful useless velocity of the t2 heavy missiles. t2 heavy missiles are so bad, because they cant apply any damage AT ALL, because of the nonexistent explosion velocity.. if you do this they will be EVEN WORSE. which is ******* unfathomable. as is they already do HALF the damage of t1 missiles to anything thats moving.. regardless of what the dps counter says.
Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), ----->5 Launchers (-1)<---- NOOOO its a ******* NIGHTHAWK NOT A VULTURE OR CRAPOX you already raped heavy missiles to oblivion, DO NOT REMOVE MISSILE SLOTS. i threw a ******* fit when u removed them from the ferox. now that ship is useless. and so are hybrids on caldari vessles.
EVERY GOD DAMN TIME i get close to something fun ccp you either DESTROY it, or you move it another 3 months away. like you did to my carrier, t2 cruisers, and nighthawk, and missile ferox. your not going to get any more money out of me, **** YOU ALL I QUIT!!!
my plex runs out soon and ill never renew. im so sick of getting totally jewed by you every time i find something fun to use.
its bad enough your raping the command modules too now. i cant freaking take it anymore. words can not even describe how pissed off i am. gahhh **** this game. infact ill phucking delete my account if you do this in the update.
PS:who ever decided to do this to command ships needs to be ******* shot.
oh and ITS A BATTLECRUSIER NOT A CRUISER, NO 5 slot weapons bull crap.
|
Darkett
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 03:33:00 -
[735] - Quote
xpaulx wrote:FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:Nighthawk: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)[/b] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NOOOOOO just ******* NO, IT NEEDS TO BE EXPLOSION VELOCITY to counter the god ******* awful useless velocity of the t2 heavy missiles. t2 heavy missiles are so bad, because they cant apply any damage AT ALL, because of the nonexistent explosion velocity.. if you do this they will be EVEN WORSE. which is ******* unfathomable. as is they already do HALF the damage of t1 missiles to anything thats moving.. regardless of what the dps counter says.
Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), ----->5 Launchers (-1)<---- NOOOO its a ******* NIGHTHAWK NOT A VULTURE OR CRAPOX you already raped heavy missiles to oblivion, DO NOT REMOVE MISSILE SLOTS. i threw a ******* fit when u removed them from the ferox. now that ship is useless. and so are hybrids on caldari vessles.
EVERY GOD DAMN TIME i get close to something fun ccp you either DESTROY it, or you move it another 3 months away. like you did to my carrier, t2 cruisers, and nighthawk, and missile ferox. your not going to get any more money out of me, **** YOU ALL I QUIT!!!
my plex runs out soon and ill never renew. im so sick of getting totally jewed by you every time i find something fun to use.
its bad enough your raping the command modules too now. i cant freaking take it anymore. words can not even describe how pissed off i am. gahhh **** this game. infact ill phucking delete my account if you do this in the update.
PS:who ever decided to do this to command ships needs to be ******* shot.
oh and ITS A BATTLECRUSIER NOT A CRUISER, NO 5 slot weapons bull crap.
agreed, they should just not touch the commandships for right now because ccp is obviously drunk, or fire who ever proposed these changes! xD |
ERDesertFox
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 03:46:00 -
[736] - Quote
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:Nighthawk: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)[/b] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NOOOOOO just ******* NO, IT NEEDS TO BE EXPLOSION VELOCITY to counter the god ******* awful useless velocity of the t2 heavy missiles. t2 heavy missiles are so bad, because they cant apply any damage AT ALL, because of the nonexistent explosion velocity.. if you do this they will be EVEN WORSE. which is ******* unfathomable. as is they already do HALF the damage of t1 missiles to anything thats moving.. regardless of what the dps counter says.
Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), ----->5 Launchers (-1)<---- NOOOO its a ******* NIGHTHAWK NOT A VULTURE OR CRAPOX you already raped heavy missiles to oblivion, DO NOT REMOVE MISSILE SLOTS. i threw a ******* fit when u removed them from the ferox. now that ship is useless. and so are hybrids on caldari vessles.
EVERY GOD DAMN TIME i get close to something fun ccp you either DESTROY it, or you move it another 3 months away. like you did to my carrier, t2 cruisers, and nighthawk, and missile ferox. your not going to get any more money out of me, **** YOU ALL I QUIT!!!
my plex runs out soon and ill never renew. im so sick of getting totally jewed by you every time i find something fun to use.
its bad enough your raping the command modules too now. i cant freaking take it anymore. words can not even describe how pissed off i am. gahhh **** this game. infact ill phucking delete my account if you do this in the update.
PS:who ever decided to do this to command ships needs to be ******* shot.
oh and ITS A BATTLECRUSIER NOT A CRUISER, NO 5 slot weapons bull crap.
^What he said......only nicer lol. And yea, railguns are crap. What's the point in even having them if all I'm gonna do is tickle the guy?
|
Khoul Ay'd
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
83
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 03:55:00 -
[737] - Quote
ERDesertFox wrote:
^What he said......only nicer lol. And yea, railguns are crap. What's the point in even having them if all I'm gonna do is tickle the guy?
Umm, have you read CCP Rise's Medium Rails, Bbeam and Artillery rebalance yet? The things we do today we must live with forever.... Think about it |
FleetAdmiralHarper
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 03:59:00 -
[738] - Quote
Khoul Ay'd wrote:ERDesertFox wrote:
^What he said......only nicer lol. And yea, railguns are crap. What's the point in even having them if all I'm gonna do is tickle the guy?
Umm, have you read CCP Rise's Medium Rails, Bbeam and Artillery rebalance yet?
yeah we have, but +30% of useless is still useless,
just like range bonuses, useless is still useless at long range XD.
@ corpies thanks guys, <3 no homo =P |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
221
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 04:25:00 -
[739] - Quote
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:Nighthawk: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)[/b] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NOOOOOO just ******* NO, IT NEEDS TO BE EXPLOSION VELOCITY to counter the god ******* awful useless velocity of the t2 heavy missiles. t2 heavy missiles are so bad, because they cant apply any damage AT ALL, because of the nonexistent explosion velocity.. if you do this they will be EVEN WORSE. which is ******* unfathomable. as is they already do HALF the damage of t1 missiles to anything thats moving.. regardless of what the dps counter says.
Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), ----->5 Launchers (-1)<---- NOOOO its a ******* NIGHTHAWK NOT A VULTURE OR CRAPOX you already raped heavy missiles to oblivion, DO NOT REMOVE MISSILE SLOTS. i threw a ******* fit when u removed them from the ferox. now that ship is useless. and so are hybrids on caldari vessles.
EVERY GOD DAMN TIME i get close to something fun ccp you either DESTROY it, or you move it another 3 months away. like you did to my carrier, t2 cruisers, and nighthawk, and missile ferox. your not going to get any more money out of me, **** YOU ALL I QUIT!!!
my plex runs out soon and ill never renew. im so sick of getting totally jewed by you every time i find something fun to use.
its bad enough your raping the command modules too now. i cant freaking take it anymore. words can not even describe how pissed off i am. gahhh **** this game. infact ill phucking delete my account if you do this in the update.
PS:who ever decided to do this to command ships needs to be ******* shot.
oh and ITS A BATTLECRUSIER NOT A CRUISER, NO 5 slot weapons bull crap.
You... do know that based on the missile damage formula missile explosion radius and explosion velocity are interchangeable, except that explosion radius has an even larger effect on damage application, determines what you can hit for full, and is better in every way imaginable.
That bonus is better now.
Edit: I mean ththat the bonuses are interchangeable, not the actual values. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 04:41:00 -
[740] - Quote
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:Nighthawk: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)[/b] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NOOOOOO just ******* NO, IT NEEDS TO BE EXPLOSION VELOCITY to counter the god ******* awful useless velocity of the t2 heavy missiles. t2 heavy missiles are so bad, because they cant apply any damage AT ALL, because of the nonexistent explosion velocity.. if you do this they will be EVEN WORSE. which is ******* unfathomable. as is they already do HALF the damage of t1 missiles to anything thats moving.. regardless of what the dps counter says.
Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), ----->5 Launchers (-1)<---- NOOOO its a ******* NIGHTHAWK NOT A VULTURE OR CRAPOX you already raped heavy missiles to oblivion, DO NOT REMOVE MISSILE SLOTS. i threw a ******* fit when u removed them from the ferox. now that ship is useless. and so are hybrids on caldari vessles.
EVERY GOD DAMN TIME i get close to something fun ccp you either DESTROY it, or you move it another 3 months away. like you did to my carrier, t2 cruisers, and nighthawk, and missile ferox. your not going to get any more money out of me, **** YOU ALL I QUIT!!!
my plex runs out soon and ill never renew. im so sick of getting totally jewed by you every time i find something fun to use.
its bad enough your raping the command modules too now. i cant freaking take it anymore. words can not even describe how pissed off i am. gahhh **** this game. infact ill phucking delete my account if you do this in the update.
PS:who ever decided to do this to command ships needs to be ******* shot.
oh and ITS A BATTLECRUSIER NOT A CRUISER, NO 5 slot weapons bull crap. Aaaawww does someone need a nap? |
|
Uskaanax
InterSun Freelance Moon Warriors
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 05:36:00 -
[741] - Quote
Missile bonuses on a Minmatar ship? Really? I'm not entirely sure that's in line with the whole "big guns" theory of the race. How about artillery instead? |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1425
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 05:46:00 -
[742] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Naoru Kozan wrote:Roime wrote:On ships using weapons like heavy drones and blasters, local rep bonuses fit the bill. Gallente CSes are not meant for sov blobs. +1 Not everyone wants to fly in a biggass blob and get vollied off the field. Not everyone wants to fly ships that are only good for station games and high sec duels either... This is exactly the reason why each race should have 1 Buffer brick for fleet work, and 1 active tanked ganker for solo/small gang...
Skirmish wrote:
Noun An episode of irregular or unpremeditated fighting, esp. between small or outlying parts of armies or fleets.
I think this describes Gallente and Minmatar combat styles quite well, and with that active rep bonuses are fine. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 06:26:00 -
[743] - Quote
Uskaanax wrote:Missile bonuses on a Minmatar ship? Really? I'm not entirely sure that's in line with the whole "big guns" theory of the race. How about artillery instead? Do you miss the dual 10% damage bonus on the sleip? We already have it. |
TravelBuoy
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
95
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 07:34:00 -
[744] - Quote
Get the fck out from the game crapy CCP Fozzy with your nerfbats.
"Moving on to Gallente, the Astarte sheds two turrets, but one of the damage bonuses is being doubled, while the other will be replaced with a rate of fire bonus. That's actually a slight nerf to its damage output, though at 10 effective turrets it'll still be on par with any other ship. The Eos, on the other hand, is getting turned into a more focused drone based ship. The Hybrid Turret bonus is replaced with the typical 10% drone damage and hitpoint bonus, while the drone bay bonus is getting scrapped for the Heavy Drone tracking and MWD bonus featured on the new Ishtar. A buff to the drone bay and a somewhat out of place looking turret tracking bonus round off the changes.
Finally, the Minmatar Command Ships. The Sleipnir will get its turret damage bonus doubled, but bucking previous trends, the rate of fire bonus will be replaced with a second 10% damage bonus. It's a slight DPS nerf just like the Astarte, though the ship is left with more effective turrets than any other command ship, and the double damage bonus makes for a potentially very mean alpha strike, as far as such things go for medium artillery. The Claymore, on the other hand, is taking after the Cyclone and will be reimagined as a missile ship, with double bonuses to rate of fire and a bonus to explosion velocity. When and if Command Ships ever get reskinned, you can guess which one will stick with the Cyclone hull, and which will change to the Hurricane!" |
Luscius Uta
Unleashed' Fury Forsaken Federation
53
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 08:14:00 -
[745] - Quote
While I agree with those people who think that local reps bonuses on ships that are designed for fleet warfare isn't going to be much useful, if CCP would share such thinking, they would replace them with resist bonuses by now. Therefore I propose that those 7.5%/level bonuses to armour repair/shield boosting should affect remote reps as well so logis have a better chance of saving your Command ship when it gets primaried. Of course, this goes for Command ships only , not for ships like Cyclone. |
Mr Doctor
Los Polos Hermanos. Happy Cartel
39
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 08:43:00 -
[746] - Quote
People that think this is a nerf because they lose a little DPS are mental in the brain pan. |
Rain6637
The Kissaki Syndicate
1627
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 08:48:00 -
[747] - Quote
reimagined claymore missile hurricane Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Yongtau Naskingar
Yongtau Naskingar Corporation
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 09:13:00 -
[748] - Quote
If boosters get targeted like mad in big fights, shouldn't they be a bigger class? Like, keep these CSs for small gangs, and introduce booster ships of a larger class (BS, cap maybe?). They'll then definitely be targeted like mad, but then at least they can survive the warp in?
Just throwing out a suggestion, not sure if it makes sense. |
S1dy
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 09:34:00 -
[749] - Quote
Yongtau Naskingar wrote:If boosters get targeted like mad in big fights, shouldn't they be a bigger class? Like, keep these CSs for small gangs, and introduce booster ships of a larger class (BS, cap maybe?). They'll then definitely be targeted like mad, but then at least they can survive the warp in?
Just throwing out a suggestion, not sure if it makes sense.
It should be the opposite direction then. The smaller the ship and the heavier the tank, the more it will survive. That's because of mobility and signature, both important in every weapon tracking formulars. Just take a look at tech 3. If you fit them with tank fit they tank more then every battleship right now.
But no, i don't think that would be a good idea. As i said in my previous entries, the damnation does a good job in tanking and providing boosts to a fleet right now. And it gets a small buff to EHP with this changes so it will be well enough in the future. It's just that all the other races won't have a comparable ship in this class - they all lack a brick tanker that's viable for large fleets. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
106
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 09:46:00 -
[750] - Quote
Sooooo glad I didn't waste my time training for these. Can't wait to see what they do with Strategic Cruisers, Pirates, Black Ops and Marauders... |
|
Sigras
Conglomo
486
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 10:01:00 -
[751] - Quote
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:Nighthawk: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)[/b] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NOOOOOO just ******* NO, IT NEEDS TO BE EXPLOSION VELOCITY to counter the god ******* awful useless velocity of the t2 heavy missiles. t2 heavy missiles are so bad, because they cant apply any damage AT ALL, because of the nonexistent explosion velocity.. if you do this they will be EVEN WORSE. which is ******* unfathomable. as is they already do HALF the damage of t1 missiles to anything thats moving.. regardless of what the dps counter says. Ok, your English (or lack thereof) tells me that youre an idiot, and your complaint tells me that you know nothing about how missiles work.
An explosion radius buff is better than an explosion velocity buff in basically every way. This is the missile damage formula as far as we know. Allow me to do the math for you since you obviously cant.
Right now faction HAMs with perfect skills: Explosion Velocity 151.5 Explosion Radius 93.75 Damage Reduction Factor 4.5
Now lets say youre fighting an afterburning sacrilege: Signature Radius 140 Top Speed 543
With no bonuses you'd be doing 46.18% of your normal damage With an explosion velocity bonus the explosion velocity increases to 189.375 increasing your damage to 56.24% of normal With an explosion radius bonus the radius decreases to 70.3125 increasing your damage to 59.53% of normal
This is a straight buff in all situations because of the way the formula works. Not to mention when the target's velocity is near 0 the only thing that factors into the damage reduction is signature radius vs explosion radius which was not helped by the old bonus.
Think first post second.
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), ----->5 Launchers (-1)<---- NOOOO its a ******* NIGHTHAWK NOT A VULTURE OR CRAPOX you already raped heavy missiles to oblivion, DO NOT REMOVE MISSILE SLOTS. i threw a ******* fit when u removed them from the ferox. now that ship is useless. and so are hybrids on caldari vessles. This exceeds the idiocy of your first post because the math on this one is much more simple.
The old NH got 6 turrets a 5% damage bonus and a 5% ROF bonus
6 * 1.25 / .75 = 10 effective launchers
The new NH gets 5 turrets a 10% damage bonus and a 5% ROF bonus
5 * 1.5 / .75 = 10 effective launchers
You, and everyone agreeing with you are idiots.
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:EVERY GOD DAMN TIME i get close to something fun ccp you either DESTROY it, or you move it another 3 months away. like you did to my carrier, t2 cruisers, and nighthawk, and missile ferox. your not going to get any more money out of me, **** YOU ALL I QUIT!!!
my plex runs out soon and ill never renew. im so sick of getting totally jewed by you every time i find something fun to use.
its bad enough your raping the command modules too now. i cant freaking take it anymore. words can not even describe how pissed off i am. gahhh **** this game. infact ill phucking delete my account if you do this in the update.
PS:who ever decided to do this to command ships needs to be ******* shot.
oh and ITS A BATTLECRUSIER NOT A CRUISER, NO 5 slot weapons bull crap. With an attitude like that you are lowering the average intelligence of the playerbase and adding nothing to it; i hope you leave and never come back. |
Alsyth
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 10:25:00 -
[752] - Quote
Nighthawk is still crap because of heavy missiles having been nerfed to Oblivion when the actual problem was not heavy missiles but the Drake and the Tengu.
5% explosion radius is a very weak bonus compared to 10% explosion velocity, 7,5% tracking, 10% missile speed, 10% optimal or even 10% falloff (except on lasers). Nighthawk already being a failure by design (cf: slot layout, fitting, and use of HML) also got the worst bonus. |
FleetAdmiralHarper
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 10:56:00 -
[753] - Quote
@ Sigras i dont care about +10% damage to 1 damn missile type. everyone knows that in actual combat there are times where you need to fire the other types of missiles. so boosting the specific faction is pointless. it makes the ship weaker, as does taking away a launcher, are you going to fire kinetic at someone with a 85% resist??? or are you going to hit their hole be it, em, explosive or thermal at say 45%?
well you're obviously ********, so you probably will try to make the square fit through the circle hole, and hit kin... but the rest of us arent like you.
this is HURTING the ship and dps,. NOT HELPING.
also the nighthawk doesn't get bonuses to hams for velocity.. at-least not at the moment. besides i wouldn't use them because im a range *****.
removing a launcher is just a huge freaking (NO), especially for a ship who's weapons are **** already because of over nerfing..
and added damage for a single missile type is ********. because people will either tank that on you, or you're stuck with a **** ship that can only do damage to 1 npc faction. (if that's your cup of tea) the beauty of missiles was versatility, and they are killing that.
lastly i have no problem leaving, ill be playing x3 or star citizen,. they are much better games then eve. i hope ccp goes bankrupt and they die XD, will be a fitting end to a game like this. i can already see their numbers shrinking XD. |
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
55
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 11:16:00 -
[754] - Quote
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:@ Sigras i dont care about +10% damage to 1 damn missile type. everyone knows that in actual combat there are times where you need to fire the other types of missiles. so boosting the specific faction is pointless. it makes the ship weaker, as does taking away a launcher, are you going to fire kinetic at someone with a 85% resist??? or are you going to hit their hole be it, em, explosive or thermal at say 45%?
well you're obviously ********, so you probably will try to make the square fit through the circle hole, and hit kin... but the rest of us arent like you.
this is HURTING the ship and dps,. NOT HELPING.
also the nighthawk doesn't get bonuses to hams for velocity.. at-least not at the moment. besides i wouldn't use them because im a range *****.
removing a launcher is just a huge freaking (NO), especially for a ship who's weapons are **** already because of over nerfing..
and added damage for a single missile type is ********. because people will either tank that on you, or you're stuck with a **** ship that can only do damage to 1 npc faction. (if that's your cup of tea) the beauty of missiles was versatility, and they are killing that.
lastly i have no problem leaving, ill be playing x3 or star citizen,. they are much better games then eve. i hope ccp goes bankrupt and they die XD, will be a fitting end to a game like this. i can already see their numbers shrinking XD.
lol hell when i really want a good combat experience i play nexus the Jupiter incident for a serious, and militaristic space combat sim.
eve is the faggoty wow, cod or world of tanks of space games XD. its to easy, slow, takes to long to do anything fun, and the worst offense of all is its boring.
well scratch that the worst is ccp raping **** every time your 14 hours from the ship, the moving it back a month, then saying 2 weeks later.. oh yeah were raping your ship again.
the worst part, this is like the 19th time this has happened to me in the last year. if this launcher change is made to the nighthawk im done with you ccp.
Are you twelve? Would you like a lollipop to ease your temper tantrum? |
Serenity Zipher
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 11:19:00 -
[755] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:Nighthawk is still crap because of heavy missiles having been nerfed to Oblivion when the actual problem was not heavy missiles but the Drake and the Tengu.
5% explosion radius is a very weak bonus compared to , 7,5% tracking, 10% missile speed, 10% optimal or even 10% falloff (except on lasers). Nighthawk already being a failure by design (cf: slot layout, fitting, and use of HML) also got the worst bonus.
I somewhat agree with you, the only thing that made the NH viable was its 10% explosion velocity bonus. It was the only real ship that could utilise heavy missiles decently. Now, very few ships can utilise HM's effectively. HM damage application is terrible, even with rigs, and there's no point using webs with it as its a long range weapon, leaving you with one real module to increase damage (target painters). |
Kane Fenris
NWP
66
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 11:24:00 -
[756] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:Nighthawk is still crap because of heavy missiles having been nerfed to Oblivion when the actual problem was not heavy missiles but the Drake and the Tengu. .
i agree on this one
while is dont mislike its slot layout and dont mislike that the boni is now exp radius i agree that on a command ship a single dmg bonus is some kind of fail.
it lost dmg when not useing kin dmg compared to ist current version what makes it even worse (cause less launcher and bigger kin bonus to compare)
- undo agility nerf - give it rainbow dmg - a little more fitting plz
i could follow their arguments regarding the cerberus but imho commandships are to advanced for not beeing able to choose their dmg type (problem is blaster rails and laser do 2x dmg types while they have a similar problem they can vary their optimal/fallof and partly dmg composition and do 2 diffrent dmg types at once) |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
141
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 11:30:00 -
[757] - Quote
Serenity Zipher wrote:Alsyth wrote:Nighthawk is still crap because of heavy missiles having been nerfed to Oblivion when the actual problem was not heavy missiles but the Drake and the Tengu.
5% explosion radius is a very weak bonus compared to , 7,5% tracking, 10% missile speed, 10% optimal or even 10% falloff (except on lasers). Nighthawk already being a failure by design (cf: slot layout, fitting, and use of HML) also got the worst bonus. I somewhat agree with you, the only thing that made the NH viable was its 10% explosion velocity bonus. It was the only real ship that could utilise heavy missiles decently. Now, very few ships can utilise HM's effectively. HM damage application is terrible, even with rigs, and there's no point using webs with it as its a long range weapon, leaving you with one real module to increase damage (target painters).
I got myself the new EFT-files to toy around a little with fits, and damn.... Those are all tight like ****. Highlights I found: 110k EHP Eos with 700dps and capstable triple-med-neut. HAM-Nighthawk as FC-Brick with 600dps and 180k EHP boosting itself. Claymore to roam with Deimos/Vagas/Dramiels, making 2km/s boosting itself. If CCPs goal was to make ongrid boosting viable, they miht have done it really fine - just from looking at the stats.
Currently Eos, Nighthawk and laymore are awaiting the rebalance to roll out in full pimp. T2 ACR counts as full pimp.
Edit: I should add that I'm mostly practicing the hugging of wormholes and ganks/escalations around that spot. So having links that jump along with your fleet is really a crucial advantage. I only correct my own spelling. |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
221
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 11:33:00 -
[758] - Quote
Sigras wrote:An explosion radius buff is better than an explosion velocity buff in basically every way. This is the missile damage formula as far as we know. Allow me to do the math for you since you obviously cant. Right now faction HAMs with perfect skills: Explosion Velocity 151.5 Explosion Radius 93.75 Damage Reduction Factor 4.5 Now lets say youre fighting an afterburning sacrilege: Signature Radius 140 Top Speed 543 With no bonuses you'd be doing 46.18% of your normal damage With an explosion velocity bonus the explosion velocity increases to 189.375 increasing your damage to 56.24% of normal With an explosion radius bonus the radius decreases to 70.3125 increasing your damage to 59.53% of normal This is a straight buff in all situations because of the way the formula works. Not to mention when the target's velocity is near 0 the only thing that factors into the damage reduction is signature radius vs explosion radius which was not helped by the old bonus. Think first post second. Expanding on this, the missile damage formula is first of all limited at 100% damage, then limited by signature radius/explosion radius. After that we come to a bit of a whacky formula involving a couple logarithmic functions, but the important stuff is in the brackets.
(Sig/Explosionrad * ExplosionV/TargetV)
Another way to put this is: Sig*explosionV / explosionrad*TargetV
Now a bonus to explosionV would look like this:
Sig*explosionV*1.25 / explosionrad*targetV
Or in essence you're multiplying the result by 1.25
(sig*explosionV / explosionrad*target V) *1.25
A bonus to explosionrad looks like this:
sig*explosionV / (explosionrad*.75)*targetV
It's times .75 because the explosion radius is reduced by 25%, or is only 75% of what it used to be.
Or another way of putting it is:
(Sig*explosionV / explosionrad*targetV) * 1/.75 Or in other words, you're multiplying the result by 1/.75 Which can also be stated as 1.3333
So an explosion velocity bonus multiplies damage by 1.25. Explosion radius modifies it by 1.3333.
Higher is better, by the way.
And no, Sigras, this isn't for your benefit. I know you already understand it, I'm just explaining it for FleetAdmiralHarper. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
227
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 11:37:00 -
[759] - Quote
i have the feeling that the claymore will be a better combat ship than the sleipnir which is kind of sad if you look at ship descriptions. poor brutor tribe. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
858
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 11:53:00 -
[760] - Quote
CCP Fozzie go work for EA or something pls. |
|
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
97
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 11:55:00 -
[761] - Quote
My previous reply seems to have been missed by several of the people talking about the Nighthawk changes. I'm not sure if it's because they thought the suggestions were stupid/overpowered/underpowered, but still might be worth reading. Linky
tl:dr;
1.) Add powergrid so it can run ganglinks Benefit: Self-explanatory Drawbacks: None.
2.) Set kinetic damage bonus back to 5%. Remove RoF bonus and replace it with a 12% universal HAM/HML damage bonus (compensates for the differences between RoF and damage bonuses and also rolls in the extra 5% damage bonus that was applied to kinetic in Fozzie's post). End result: 10 effective turrets. Benefit: Still more effective to use kinetic missiles, but now the NH is viable with non-kinetic missile types. Possible drawback (from a game balance perspective): huge alpha.
3.) Swap a lowslot for a midslot. Benefit: The nighthawk can now fit a disruptor while still having a survivable tank. Drawback: None that I can think of. |
FleetAdmiralHarper
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 12:00:00 -
[762] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Sigras wrote:An explosion radius buff is better than an explosion velocity buff in basically every way. This is the missile damage formula as far as we know. Allow me to do the math for you since you obviously cant. Right now faction HAMs with perfect skills: Explosion Velocity 151.5 Explosion Radius 93.75 Damage Reduction Factor 4.5 Now lets say youre fighting an afterburning sacrilege: Signature Radius 140 Top Speed 543 With no bonuses you'd be doing 46.18% of your normal damage With an explosion velocity bonus the explosion velocity increases to 189.375 increasing your damage to 56.24% of normal With an explosion radius bonus the radius decreases to 70.3125 increasing your damage to 59.53% of normal This is a straight buff in all situations because of the way the formula works. Not to mention when the target's velocity is near 0 the only thing that factors into the damage reduction is signature radius vs explosion radius which was not helped by the old bonus. Think first post second. Expanding on this, the missile damage formula is first of all limited at 100% damage, then limited by signature radius/explosion radius. After that we come to a bit of a whacky formula involving a couple logarithmic functions, but the important stuff is in the brackets. (Sig/Explosionrad * ExplosionV/TargetV) Another way to put this is: Sig*explosionV / explosionrad*TargetV Now a bonus to explosionV would look like this: Sig*explosionV*1.25 / explosionrad*targetV Or in essence you're multiplying the result by 1.25 (sig*explosionV / explosionrad*target V) *1.25 A bonus to explosionrad looks like this: sig*explosionV / (explosionrad*.75)*targetV It's times .75 because the explosion radius is reduced by 25%, or is only 75% of what it used to be. Or another way of putting it is: (Sig*explosionV / explosionrad*targetV) * 1/.75 Or in other words, you're multiplying the result by 1/.75 Which can also be stated as 1.3333 So an explosion velocity bonus multiplies damage by 1.25. Explosion radius modifies it by 1.3333. Higher is better, by the way. And no, Sigras, this isn't for your benefit. I know you already understand it, I'm just explaining it for FleetAdmiralHarper.
ok so the radius is better, (+10% would be even better.), but they do not need to remove a missile slot on a ship with so few anyway... if anything they need to add 1 and a high. also change the kin damage bonus to a generic damage bonus..
better yet just dont touch the command ships. NERFING THEM IS NOT what needs to be done right now. or ever.. especially considering it takes 3 months just to use the stupid things...
ied rather see tech 2 missiles get buffed with their damage application by 20% to both radius and velocity...
Diesel47 wrote:CCP Fozzie go work for EA or something pls. ha ha ha seriously.. i know man, my thoughts exactly.. this guy is like eves cancer, so he would be perfect for ea, sense they are gaming industry cancer XD |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
859
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 12:14:00 -
[763] - Quote
These are the most unimaginative changes I've ever seen. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
141
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 12:35:00 -
[764] - Quote
Wrayeth wrote:My previous reply seems to have been missed by several of the people talking about the Nighthawk changes. I'm not sure if it's because they thought the suggestions were stupid/overpowered/underpowered, but still might be worth reading. Linkytl:dr; 1.) Add powergrid so it can run ganglinks Benefit: Self-explanatory Drawbacks: None.
http://i.imgur.com/j9HG5EX.png - even going for HAMs with damage augmentors and stuff. It looks quite useful to me. As a flavor also avaiable with two extender rigs, invul + em-ward for some 10k EHP more against omni or good bit less against blasters.
Edit: downgrade one LSE to meta-4, and you can run complete siege with ~155k EHP. Or you could run all three infolinks. I only correct my own spelling. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
414
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 13:28:00 -
[765] - 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. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
141
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 13:40:00 -
[766] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: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
But you can get a bro to fly a claymore/sleipnir and be content about 14km optimal using null, matching webrange. I only correct my own spelling. |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
98
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 14:30:00 -
[767] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:http://i.imgur.com/j9HG5EX.png - even going for HAMs with damage augmentors and stuff. It looks quite useful to me. As a flavor also avaiable with two extender rigs, invul + em-ward for some 10k EHP more against omni or good bit less against blasters. Edit: downgrade one LSE to meta-4, and you can run complete siege with ~155k EHP. Or you could run all three infolinks.
That fit has some nice defenses. Unfortunately, the EHP drops massively when you remove even a single extender, which it will need to do if you want to run a warp disruptor or a scrambler. As such, it needs another mid. If you add one, however, it needs to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is your lows. This will either make it unable to run the second extender due to removal of a PDS, or gimp its damage by removing a damage mod. Since the goal of these changes, as I understand it, is to put these ships onto the PvP battlefield in a combat role, Fozzie's initial version just does not work.
EDIT: As a caveat, it may work on a larger battlefield with dozens or hundreds of people fighting where a disruptor is not required, but if that's the only vision for the ship's use then it's already dead to me. |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 15:58:00 -
[768] - Quote
So what's up with people calling the Foz cancer and telling him to kill himself? Is that what this thread is about?
For the rest of those whining and crying, change is usually good, and most of these ships suck **** right now. They may need fixing later and the way they get used may change, but for christs sake, calm down. 90% of these changes are good and warranted; at least things are happening.
Good god.
Also, looking forward to ratting in my Eos, and owning an Absolution but never flying it. |
FleetAdmiralHarper
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 16:11:00 -
[769] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:So what's up with people calling the Foz cancer and telling him to kill himself? Is that what this thread is about?
For the rest of those whining and crying, change is usually good, and most of these ships suck **** right now. They may need fixing later and the way they get used may change, but for christs sake, calm down. 90% of these changes are good and warranted; at least things are happening.
Good god.
Also, looking forward to ratting in my Eos, and owning an Absolution but never flying it.
get out of here obvious troll. these are BAD changes. or do you think people rage on forums for just the fun of it?.... actually don't answer that.. but i can assure you THIS ISNT ONE OF THOSE TIMES.
|
Kane Fenris
NWP
68
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 16:50:00 -
[770] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:CCP Fozzie go work for EA or something pls.
Fozzie >> Rise
fozzies rebalances are great every time except 1-2 ships (nobodys perfect )
this time it seems to be the nighthawk which is off... (and maybe a little fitting but since thats on all command ships i think its supposed to be that tight) |
|
Hulk Miner
SKOOKUM TUMTUM Internet Spaceship Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 17:05:00 -
[771] - Quote
Welcome back EOS drone bandwidth. I missed you.
|
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 17:32:00 -
[772] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:every time i think of a new angle that might explain the nighthawk, i'm reminded no, it's a drake that saves on ammo with a gimped tank. I don't see even mission runners using it
also the new cerb does the same dps at much longer ranges Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
FleetAdmiralHarper
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 17:47:00 -
[773] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:every time i think of a new angle that might explain the nighthawk, i'm reminded no, it's a drake that saves on ammo with a gimped tank. I don't see even mission runners using it
yeah i was gonna get 2, 1 for missions/incursions and 1 for the c4 pulsar fleets.
they killed me with the command ship skill change. was 14 hours from it.. now 1 month. well its 14 days now.. but THEN THIS TOO???
i just cant handle it, i honestly will quit because this is the 10th thing they have nerfed on me in 1 year as i either got close or fell in love with something, lol. if they do this ill quit. the nighthawk is my favorite looking ship. and i love missiles. but i NEED those 6 missile slots in fact because they raped missiles they should ADD a slot and the cpu/pg to go with it.
no lows or mediums should be messed with either... or add another rig slot and leave as is.. if they MUST change somthing. change the explosion velocity to radius and make that a 10%.
nighthawk fixed FINALLY. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
142
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 17:52:00 -
[774] - Quote
Wrayeth wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote:http://i.imgur.com/j9HG5EX.png - even going for HAMs with damage augmentors and stuff. It looks quite useful to me. As a flavor also avaiable with two extender rigs, invul + em-ward for some 10k EHP more against omni or good bit less against blasters. Edit: downgrade one LSE to meta-4, and you can run complete siege with ~155k EHP. Or you could run all three infolinks. That fit has some nice defenses. Unfortunately, the EHP drops massively when you remove even a single extender, which it will need to do if you want to run a warp disruptor or a scrambler. As such, it needs another mid. If you add one, however, it needs to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is your lows. This will either make it unable to run the second extender due to removal of a PDS, or gimp its damage by removing a damage mod. Since the goal of these changes, as I understand it, is to put these ships onto the PvP battlefield in a combat role, Fozzie's initial version just does not work. EDIT: As a caveat, it may work on a larger battlefield with dozens or hundreds of people fighting where a disruptor is not required, but if that's the only vision for the ship's use then it's already dead to me.
I do not the see a point for that ship. In null, you got a bubble (sabres and Hics) - and for lowsec... mates. I would not compromise the buffer any further, there is simply no need to jeopardize the fit by adding 'tackles' to the existing traits of 'brick' and 'hurts'. I only correct my own spelling. |
Rain6637
The Kissaki Syndicate
1632
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 17:53:00 -
[775] - Quote
i bought two just now. 1 to keep to look at, and the other to resell when the hull change happens and they go up like the Eos, albeit temporarily.
the only ship that could be more beautiful and closer to my heart would be a kaalakiota merlin. I already have the kaalakiota cormorant and love it very much :-3 Rainf1337 on Twitch |
FleetAdmiralHarper
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 17:56:00 -
[776] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:i bought two just now. 1 to keep to look at, and the other to resell when the hull change happens and they go up like the Eos, albeit temporarily.
the only ship that could be more beautiful and closer to my heart would be a kaalakiota merlin. I already have the kaalakiota cormorant and love it very much :-3
i like the hookbill, they say its the ugly duckling of the caldari, but the IRONY of it being one of the few good looking ships, that actually looks like a ship, psychically hurts me XD |
Scuzzy Logic
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 19:02:00 -
[777] - Quote
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:Rain6637 wrote:i bought two just now. 1 to keep to look at, and the other to resell when the hull change happens and they go up like the Eos, albeit temporarily.
the only ship that could be more beautiful and closer to my heart would be a kaalakiota merlin. I already have the kaalakiota cormorant and love it very much :-3 i like the hookbill, they say its the ugly duckling of the caldari, but the IRONY of it being one of the few good looking ships, that actually looks like a ship, psychically hurts me XD
I know, right? Especially when you take a look at the Eagle... *barf* |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
414
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 19:11:00 -
[778] - 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. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
140
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 19:25:00 -
[779] - Quote
Why are Target Spectrum Breakers only allowed on BS hulls? I can't think of a better use for them than on command ships. |
Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
331
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 19:37:00 -
[780] - Quote
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. http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing -á-á < Unified Inventory is NOT ready... |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
415
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 19:42:00 -
[781] - 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. |
Swiftus Mahyisti
Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 20:05:00 -
[782] - Quote
Well the changes look great to me!! For fleet boosts its pretty clear that the damnation will till rein king, but I think people are under estimating the use of info links in a large scale fleet battle, just a thought though...
On the flip side two the Eos and Astarte, I really like the changes, but to compensate for the new brutix, and removal of the turrets from the astarte, and the lack of a gun damage bonus on the eos, I would love to see a +1 low added, will make them be able to field a respectable tank in a fleet environment and still be able to do considerable dps. The t2 version of the brutix, should at least share a similar slot layout.. Just a thought!
(Perhaps a bigger drone bay as well, 325m3 would allow two flights of heavy drones and them utility lights and what not) |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 20:13:00 -
[783] - Quote
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:Sarkelias Anophius wrote:So what's up with people calling the Foz cancer and telling him to kill himself? Is that what this thread is about?
For the rest of those whining and crying, change is usually good, and most of these ships suck **** right now. They may need fixing later and the way they get used may change, but for christs sake, calm down. 90% of these changes are good and warranted; at least things are happening.
Good god.
Also, looking forward to ratting in my Eos, and owning an Absolution but never flying it. get out of here obvious troll. these are BAD changes. or do you think people rage on forums for just the fun of it?.... actually don't answer that.. but i can assure you THIS ISNT ONE OF THOSE TIMES.
I'm not inclined to believe you have the slightest clue what you're talking about, since you don't state facts and don't use grammar. So I'm an incidental troll at best, legitimately confused by the ramblings of what for all intents and purposes appear to be people that fly around in hisec and have never done anything interesting.
Also I think people rage on forums because they're incapable of calm, intelligent discourse. I am continually confirmed in this belief.
As a final point, these changes did not break further anything that was already broken, and in fact improved a large number of things; so these are good changes. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
504
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 20:14:00 -
[784] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:
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.
Well if we are being honest here, the Navy BCs actually have 2 more slots than the commands. Rigs are most certainly considered slots
But I do agree, command total slot number should be normalized with their parent t1.
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
206
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 20:16:00 -
[785] - Quote
You guys need to understand, the devs have absolutely no clear vision of what is needed, nor what they want to do about it. Instead, they want to rush through changes that make little to no sense (hacs & commands) and promise us they'll watch them perform terribly and tweak later just so they can provide maximum "content" every patch. It's literally the Obama Care of Eve they way the push through this crap without any thought.
What's most amazing is that they explicitly said Commands need a lot more survivability last year.... and look at the total fail they provided.
Commands should be one of the few ship classes in game that are pretty easy to fit however desired, have silly tank, and some sort of legitimate role outside of bonuses so that more than 5 of them in fleet doesn't somehow defeat the purpose of having them in the first place.
I'd actually be totally fine with the damage they project not changing (with the exception of the NH) if they would just add some constructive ways to make these ship actually useful.
What's hilarious is that they could do some unique defensive things for the active tankers like a role bonus to fit larger repairers with reduced capacitor and fitting needs... thus making them super strong local tanks. People might actually care about the local repairs much more if they would do such a thing.
They could also inflate their actual HP bases significantly so that these things would be solid bricks...and they could easily do t with an active module that boost resist and regen effects while turning off logistics support (a mechanic they already have in game with HICs) Personally, I think a 1-2 minute timer with an non-stacking big resist boosting modifier could be the ke... It basically becomes a mini siege style platform where the ship gains massive defense, but loses all support abilities from a fleet. If they had to take it further, It could also prevent any ECM effects meaning the ship would lose the ability to tackle, web, etc... allowing the opponents free movement and attack for the duration..
Something so simple like that would help to fix the majority of issues with commands. |
Sigras
Conglomo
487
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 20:16:00 -
[786] - Quote
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:@ Sigras i dont care about +10% damage to 1 damn missile type. everyone knows that in actual combat there are times where you need to fire the other types of missiles. so boosting the specific faction is pointless. it makes the ship weaker, as does taking away a launcher, are you going to fire kinetic at someone with a 85% resist??? or are you going to hit their hole be it, em, explosive or thermal at say 45%?
well you're obviously ********, so you probably will try to make the square fit through the circle hole, and hit kin... but the rest of us arent like you.
this is HURTING the ship and dps,. NOT HELPING. Please show me the idiots you are fighting that leave such a massive disparity in resists, or are you just assuming everyone fits ships like you do?
The only ships you might be gimped against are T2 gallente ships . . . because so many of those are awesome. |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 20:19:00 -
[787] - Quote
Sigras wrote:FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:@ Sigras i dont care about +10% damage to 1 damn missile type. everyone knows that in actual combat there are times where you need to fire the other types of missiles. so boosting the specific faction is pointless. it makes the ship weaker, as does taking away a launcher, are you going to fire kinetic at someone with a 85% resist??? or are you going to hit their hole be it, em, explosive or thermal at say 45%?
well you're obviously ********, so you probably will try to make the square fit through the circle hole, and hit kin... but the rest of us arent like you.
this is HURTING the ship and dps,. NOT HELPING. Please show me the idiots you are fighting that leave such a massive disparity in resists, or are you just assuming everyone fits ships like you do? The only ships you might be gimped against are T2 gallente ships . . . because so many of those are awesome.
I know, it's so funny that t2 minmatar has a giant kin hole. Shame no one flies them. Oh wait... |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
206
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 20:20:00 -
[788] - Quote
It would also be really cool if command ships were the primary link for communications within a fleet. In other words, if you were missing a squad command ship... your squad would have diminished broadcasting abilities for targets and repairs...
This way, attacking enemies command ships could actually cripple fleet communications. |
Swiftus Mahyisti
Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 20:23:00 -
[789] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:It would also be really cool if command ships were the primary link for communications within a fleet. In other words, if you were missing a squad command ship... your squad would have diminished broadcasting abilities for targets and repairs...
This way, attacking enemies command ships could actually cripple fleet communications.
But this wont happen sooo, yeah would be cool, would change everything to do with fleets, so cool sure, likely to changes, no. |
Sigras
Conglomo
487
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 20:35:00 -
[790] - Quote
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:eve is the faggoty wow, cod or world of tanks of space games XD. its to easy, slow, takes to long to do anything fun, and the worst offense of all is its boring.
well scratch that the worst is ccp raping **** every time your 14 hours from the ship, then moving it back a month, then saying 2 weeks later.. oh yeah were raping your ship again.
the worst part, this is like the 19th time this has happened to me in the last year. if this launcher change is made to the nighthawk im done with you ccp. TL;DR WAH WAH WAH I WANT INSTANT GRATIFICATION, AND I DONT READ DEV BLOGS OR WARNINGS IN ADVANCE THAT CHANGES ARE COMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111ONEONE
CCP is the most forthcoming about future changes of any game development company out there. It isnt THEIR fault that YOU fail to read the information they provide. |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
504
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 20:39:00 -
[791] - Quote
Sigras wrote:
CCP is the most forthcoming about future changes of any game development company out there.
Yeah, well, youn++ know, thatGÇÖs just, like, your opinion, man.
|
Izi55IzI
TunDraGon
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 20:57:00 -
[792] - Quote
-50 cpu on the sleipnir is way too much
Also why are you making both ships do the same thing? Clearly you need a different set of skills to fly field command or fleet command ships |
Gallurtha
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 20:58:00 -
[793] - Quote
The dronebay on Eos is ******** small. It should have WAY bigger bay, or ishtarlike bonus to it. |
Perihelion Olenard
174
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 21:05:00 -
[794] - Quote
Izi55IzI wrote:Also why are you making both ships do the same thing? Clearly you need a different set of skills to fly field command or fleet command ships There will be no field or fleet command ship anymore. Their skill requirements are now the same. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Battlingbean
Star Frontiers Dirt Nap Squad.
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 21:37:00 -
[795] - Quote
I like the changes more or less. However, the nighthawk's slot layout is strange for a Caldari missile ship. Should be more like 7/6/4 or even 7/7/3 to make it more in line with ships like Hawk or Raven. |
Sigras
Conglomo
488
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 21:48:00 -
[796] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:It would also be really cool if command ships were the primary link for communications within a fleet. In other words, if you were missing a squad command ship... your squad would have diminished broadcasting abilities for targets and repairs...
This way, attacking enemies command ships could actually cripple fleet communications. This goes along with my idea of a specialized fleet command ship that would be ideal for fleet commanders to fly. Something with a massive tank and a bonus to targeting range / being unjammable / number of targets locked, so he can broadcast targets and keep tabs on people everywhere on grid. At the cost of all damage output. This ship would have no damage output and very few utility slots making it only attractive to fleet commanders.
It occurs to me that this ship might not be very fun to fly, but fleet commanders already have enough to do, so that doesnt really matter.
My Earlier Suggestion
Damnation: Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances +5 max locked targets per level Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to all Armor hitpoints 3% bonus to effectiveness of Armored and Information Warfare Links per level
Role Bonus: Immune to Electronic Sensor Effects (E-war, Sensor Dampening, remote sensor boosting), Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 6 H (-1), 3 M (-1), 8 L (+2) , 0 turrets (-4), 0 Launchers (-5) Fittings: 1200(-390) PWG, 500(+25) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(+37) / 6000(+1395) / 4300(-24) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 70 / 87.5 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 62.5 / 80 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3375 / 750s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 (-30) / 0.7(-0.004) / 11500000 (+1000000) / 18.18s(+5.0) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 (-25) / 0 (-25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 150km (+100) / 210 / 7(+1) Sensor strength: 22 Radar (+6) Signature radius: 265 Cargo capacity: 645
The bonuses on the EOS would look similar: EOS: Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances +5 max locked targets per level Command Ships skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Repair Effects (both incoming and local) 3% bonus to effectiveness of Armored and Skirmish Warfare Links per level
Role Bonus: Immune to Electronic Sensor Effects (E-war, Sensor Dampening, remote sensor boosting), Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules
Thoughts? |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
62
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 22:22:00 -
[797] - Quote
Sigras wrote:I'm Down wrote:It would also be really cool if command ships were the primary link for communications within a fleet. In other words, if you were missing a squad command ship... your squad would have diminished broadcasting abilities for targets and repairs...
This way, attacking enemies command ships could actually cripple fleet communications. This goes along with my idea of a specialized fleet command ship that would be ideal for fleet commanders to fly. Something with a massive tank and a bonus to targeting range / being unjammable / number of targets locked, so he can broadcast targets and keep tabs on people everywhere on grid. At the cost of all damage output. This ship would have no damage output and very few utility slots making it only attractive to fleet commanders. It occurs to me that this ship might not be very fun to fly, but fleet commanders already have enough to do, so that doesnt really matter. My Earlier SuggestionStuff
No, just no |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
29
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 22:29:00 -
[798] - Quote
Sigras wrote:I'm Down wrote:It would also be really cool if command ships were the primary link for communications within a fleet. In other words, if you were missing a squad command ship... your squad would have diminished broadcasting abilities for targets and repairs...
This way, attacking enemies command ships could actually cripple fleet communications. This goes along with my idea of a specialized fleet command ship that would be ideal for fleet commanders to fly. Something with a massive tank and a bonus to targeting range / being unjammable / number of targets locked, so he can broadcast targets and keep tabs on people everywhere on grid. At the cost of all damage output. This ship would have no damage output and very few utility slots making it only attractive to fleet commanders. It occurs to me that this ship might not be very fun to fly, but fleet commanders already have enough to do, so that doesnt really matter. My Earlier SuggestionDamnation: Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances +5 max locked targets per level Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to all Armor hitpoints 3% bonus to effectiveness of Armored and Information Warfare Links per level Role Bonus: Immune to Electronic Sensor Effects (E-war, Sensor Dampening, remote sensor boosting), Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 6 H (-1), 3 M (-1), 8 L (+2) , 0 turrets (-4), 0 Launchers (-5) Fittings: 1200(-390) PWG, 500(+25) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(+37) / 6000(+1395) / 4300(-24) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 70 / 87.5 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 62.5 / 80 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3375 / 750s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 (-30) / 0.7(-0.004) / 11500000 (+1000000) / 18.18s(+5.0) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 (-25) / 0 (-25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 150km (+100) / 210 / 7(+1) Sensor strength: 22 Radar (+6) Signature radius: 265 Cargo capacity: 645 The bonuses on the EOS would look similar: EOS: Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances +5 max locked targets per level Command Ships skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Repair Effects (both incoming and local) 3% bonus to effectiveness of Armored and Skirmish Warfare Links per level Role Bonus: Immune to Electronic Sensor Effects (E-war, Sensor Dampening, remote sensor boosting), Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules Thoughts?
This is amog the worst ideas I've ever seen on these forums, sorry.
|
Rain6637
The Kissaki Syndicate
1632
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 22:57:00 -
[799] - Quote
fozzie just tell us what the Nighthawk is for?
it will be beautiful, but what does it mean?? (ooo double rainbow!) Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Sigras
Conglomo
488
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 23:00:00 -
[800] - Quote
Doed wrote:This is amog the worst ideas I've ever seen on these forums, sorry. Its helpful to give your opinion, its more helpful to say why that is your opinion |
|
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
63
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 23:11:00 -
[801] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Doed wrote:This is amog the worst ideas I've ever seen on these forums, sorry. Its helpful to give your opinion, its more helpful to say why that is your opinion
There is Rolls, there is specilization, and then there is over specilization. This is eve where i can take a Exploration ship (heron) and pown in pvp with it. What we want is a ship that can do its intended roll well, but not be so locked into it that it can never escape. Oh and imune to ewar Is a terible idea, and needs to never be put on another ship besides the ones its already on.
What most people are arguing for is for each race to have at least one comand ship that can be fit "Alittle" over tanked so its a bad instant primary for the oposing fleet, at the cost of some dps potential, but not for it to not have any other options open to it liek your sugestion. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
268
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 23:43:00 -
[802] - Quote
I don't understand why the extremely specialized (T2 Command Ships) get worse bonuses in the area they were created for (Gang links) than the supposedly generalized T3 Cruisers? |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
262
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 23:52:00 -
[803] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote:I don't understand why the extremely specialized (T2 Command Ships) get worse bonuses in the area they were created for (Gang links) than the supposedly generalized T3 Cruisers?
T3 cruisers are getting nerfed to 2% per level, but that bonus will apply to 3 kinds of links. When they're done the command ships will give stronger fleet boosts. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
268
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 23:58:00 -
[804] - Quote
Another question if I may... why are there so many T2 ships which have the first skill bonuses that affect ship stats? I mean you need those skills to level 5 to be able to fly the bloody thing, so what is the point of adding say.. "4% bonus to all Armor Resistances" per Amarr Battlecruiser skill? Just incorporate it into the ship stats and give it another bonus, or swap it with a command ships skills bonus? There's dozens of ships with these kind of bonuses and it's annoying as hell. Basically it's a wasted bonus "slot".
The only time it would make sense is if you got podded without upgrading your clone and lost that specific skill, and then wonder if you should retrain Amarr BC5 for those extra bonuses. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
63
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 00:03:00 -
[805] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Niko Lorenzio wrote:I don't understand why the extremely specialized (T2 Command Ships) get worse bonuses in the area they were created for (Gang links) than the supposedly generalized T3 Cruisers? T3 cruisers are getting nerfed to 2% per level, but that bonus will apply to 3 kinds of links. When they're done the command ships will give stronger fleet boosts.
This, CCP wanted T3s to be able to do more things at once but be worse at it, like a Swis army knife. They rep more than normal logi but dont have the range, They Can give more links but not as strong of links, They have Ewar subsystems but not as good as recons, and so on. But they went alittle to far and gave them all a HP + amount sub system and a gank sub system that could be paired with it, combined with a over the top fitting sub system, they where able to fit far mor tank and gank on one ship than i think was really intended.
They should have made certain sub systems not able to be paired on the same fit, like the tanky one with the ganky one, or the cloaky one with the interdiction nullifyed one. Force them in to slightly more generalized loadouts and less into the uber specialty ones. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
263
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 00:03:00 -
[806] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote:Another question if I may... why are there so many T2 ships which have the first skill bonuses that affect ship stats? I mean you need those skills to level 5 to be able to fly the bloody thing, so what is the point of adding say.. "4% bonus to all Armor Resistances" per Amarr Battlecruiser skill? Just incorporate it into the ship stats and give it another bonus, or swap it with a command ships skills bonus? There's dozens of ships with these kind of bonuses and it's annoying as hell. Basically it's a wasted bonus "slot".
The only time it would make sense is if you got podded without upgrading your clone and lost that specific skill, and then wonder if you should retrain Amarr BC5 for those extra bonuses.
For consistance? Many ships have stats that don't translate into hull stats, but affect modules instead. Shield boost, gun mods, etc would still have to be listed. And people would whine if it wasn't explicitly stated, because they would think they were getting less ship bonuses. |
FleetAdmiralHarper
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 00:07:00 -
[807] - Quote
Scuzzy Logic wrote:FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:Rain6637 wrote:i bought two just now. 1 to keep to look at, and the other to resell when the hull change happens and they go up like the Eos, albeit temporarily.
the only ship that could be more beautiful and closer to my heart would be a kaalakiota merlin. I already have the kaalakiota cormorant and love it very much :-3 i like the hookbill, they say its the ugly duckling of the caldari, but the IRONY of it being one of the few good looking ships, that actually looks like a ship, psychically hurts me XD I know, right? Especially when you take a look at the Eagle... *barf*
yeah, why does the moa class ship look like a r3tar-o-sarus-rex? |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
221
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 00:52:00 -
[808] - Quote
Sigras wrote:I'm Down wrote:It would also be really cool if command ships were the primary link for communications within a fleet. In other words, if you were missing a squad command ship... your squad would have diminished broadcasting abilities for targets and repairs...
This way, attacking enemies command ships could actually cripple fleet communications. This goes along with my idea of a specialized fleet command ship that would be ideal for fleet commanders to fly. Something with a massive tank and a bonus to targeting range / being unjammable / number of targets locked, so he can broadcast targets and keep tabs on people everywhere on grid. At the cost of all damage output. This ship would have no damage output and very few utility slots making it only attractive to fleet commanders. It occurs to me that this ship might not be very fun to fly, but fleet commanders already have enough to do, so that doesnt really matter. My Earlier SuggestionDamnation: Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances +5 max locked targets per level Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to all Armor hitpoints 3% bonus to effectiveness of Armored and Information Warfare Links per level Role Bonus: Immune to Electronic Sensor Effects (E-war, Sensor Dampening, remote sensor boosting), Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 6 H (-1), 3 M (-1), 8 L (+2) , 0 turrets (-4), 0 Launchers (-5) Fittings: 1200(-390) PWG, 500(+25) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(+37) / 6000(+1395) / 4300(-24) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 70 / 87.5 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 62.5 / 80 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3375 / 750s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 (-30) / 0.7(-0.004) / 11500000 (+1000000) / 18.18s(+5.0) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 (-25) / 0 (-25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 150km (+100) / 210 / 7(+1) Sensor strength: 22 Radar (+6) Signature radius: 265 Cargo capacity: 645 The bonuses on the EOS would look similar: EOS: Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances +5 max locked targets per level Command Ships skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Repair Effects (both incoming and local) 3% bonus to effectiveness of Armored and Skirmish Warfare Links per level Role Bonus: Immune to Electronic Sensor Effects (E-war, Sensor Dampening, remote sensor boosting), Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules Thoughts? You don't see whats wrong with a ship with almost Max locking range and is immune to EWar and can mount a painter and locks in a reasonable amount of time and has that good of electronics? Everybody just assign drones and leave it at that. You've made an unstoppable drone bunny. |
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
167
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 01:04:00 -
[809] - Quote
Cool changes. However as a certified elite pvper and one-time ATXI participant, I have ideas:
Amarr: The slot layout and tiny drone bay of the abso screams fleet dps ship, but with horrible mobility and no range bonus it kind of sucks at applying DPS. The damnation theoretically fills this role, but has the slot layout and drone bay of more of a brawling ship, and pretty bad DPS. It's great at its current roleGÇöan obligate link shipGÇöbut as DPS it can just be ignored because it doesn't do any damage compared to its massive tank. Ideally amarr would have one CS that's a good brawler and one that's a good mid-range fleet ship, but right now they have two that are mediocre at both. The abso should have an optimal bonus instead of a cap use bonus, and the damnation should get another damage bonus instead of the useless missile range bonus. Then you have a great fleet ship and a great brawling ship.
Caldari: It doesn't make sense that what is essentially the T2 drake has only 5 mids. As a HAM boat, it's an inferior Claymore because of its wonky slot layout and smaller drone bay, and as a HML boat it just sucks because HMLs got nerfed way too hard, and it's only going to suck more with the buffs to medium rails, arty, and beams. It needs HMLs to get un-nerfed and a 7/6/4 slot layout. No one is going to use the nighthawk in its current state.
Gallente: My problem with the Eos and Astarte is the same as my problem with the Myrm and the Brutix: they're basically the same ship, it's just that one is better than the other. If the Eos got a 5/5/6 layout and became a super Ishtar and the Astarte maybe got a tracking bonus or a mid moved down to a low they could be differentiated a bit and have their own strengths and weaknesses, instead of just being the same ship with the same tank and DPS.
Minmatar: as usual they get two decently powerful yet different ships that have good bonuses and slot layouts for their particular niches |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
59
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 02:15:00 -
[810] - Quote
Scuzzy Logic wrote:FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:Rain6637 wrote:i bought two just now. 1 to keep to look at, and the other to resell when the hull change happens and they go up like the Eos, albeit temporarily.
the only ship that could be more beautiful and closer to my heart would be a kaalakiota merlin. I already have the kaalakiota cormorant and love it very much :-3 i like the hookbill, they say its the ugly duckling of the caldari, but the IRONY of it being one of the few good looking ships, that actually looks like a ship, psychically hurts me XD I know, right? Especially when you take a look at the Eagle... *barf* That's why it has dual range bonuses. Don't want to get within viewing range |
|
Rain6637
The Kissaki Syndicate
1636
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 02:23:00 -
[811] - Quote
my buddy in IT tells me it's a "thing" to break something on the network, in a way that he knows exactly how to fix and will make people complain & seek him out. fozzie. Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Bullet Therapist
Fox Clan Imperial Consortium
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 03:54:00 -
[812] - Quote
I like most of the changes, though the nighthawk still seems like it needs to have a low slot changed to a mid to keep its tank in line with the other command ships |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
65
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 04:14:00 -
[813] - Quote
Bullet Therapist wrote:I like most of the changes, though the nighthawk still seems like it needs to have a low slot changed to a mid to keep its tank in line with the other command ships
I agree but then the claymore, Vulture and nighthawk would have the same slot layout, I wouldnt mind a 7-7-3 layout, it would kinda gimp its lows to make up for the crazy amount of mids.
5 lows on a missle ship is kinda waisted if its not fast enough to warent putting a nano on it |
Rain6637
The Kissaki Syndicate
1636
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 04:17:00 -
[814] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Bullet Therapist wrote:I like most of the changes, though the nighthawk still seems like it needs to have a low slot changed to a mid to keep its tank in line with the other command ships I agree but then the claymore, Vulture and nighthawk would have the same slot layout, I wouldnt mind a 7-7-3 layout, it would kinda gimp its lows to make up for the crazy amount of mids. 5 lows on a missle ship is kinda waisted if its not fast enough to warent putting a nano on it what's wrong with the same layout if they have the same job and weapon system
I think fozzie wants us to think the nighthawk's resist bonus compensates for -1 mid, still not sure about the PG. Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Bullet Therapist
Fox Clan Imperial Consortium
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 04:24:00 -
[815] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Bullet Therapist wrote:I like most of the changes, though the nighthawk still seems like it needs to have a low slot changed to a mid to keep its tank in line with the other command ships I agree but then the claymore, Vulture and nighthawk would have the same slot layout, I wouldnt mind a 7-7-3 layout, it would kinda gimp its lows to make up for the crazy amount of mids. 5 lows on a missle ship is kinda waisted if its not fast enough to warent putting a nano on it what's wrong with the same layout if they have the same job and weapon system I think fozzie wants us to think the nighthawk's resist bonus compensates for -1 mid, still not sure about the PG.
I dunno, maybe it does, I just feel like the extra low is kind of wasted. Very few people are going to use anything like a nano in that low slot, and the extra BCU that you can fit there is at such a low effectiveness given the stacking penalties. Compared to another mid slot, which would take a lot of heat off of a player trying to fit tackle, tank, mobility etc I just don't think its all that useful. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
66
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 04:24:00 -
[816] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Bullet Therapist wrote:I like most of the changes, though the nighthawk still seems like it needs to have a low slot changed to a mid to keep its tank in line with the other command ships I agree but then the claymore, Vulture and nighthawk would have the same slot layout, I wouldnt mind a 7-7-3 layout, it would kinda gimp its lows to make up for the crazy amount of mids. 5 lows on a missle ship is kinda waisted if its not fast enough to warent putting a nano on it what's wrong with the same layout if they have the same job and weapon system I think fozzie wants us to think the nighthawk's resist bonus compensates for -1 mid, still not sure about the PG.
In all honesty I think the night hawk was orininaly designed to be pasivly shield tanked and has more lows for more shield rechargers, but As times changed it became lost and confused. I personaly wouldnt want the same slot layout just because they would feel way to similar with only a resist bonus and active tank bonus setting them apart..... if Fozzie took away its damage aplication bonus on the claymore and gave it a doble tank bonus, then gave the Night hawk an active tank bonus it might feel like their rolls where more set apart.
Regaurdless 5 lows lends itself better to gun bloats so they can fit damage and trackign mods.
|
Battlingbean
Star Frontiers Dirt Nap Squad.
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 04:46:00 -
[817] - Quote
Caldari ships live and die by their medium modules. A 7/7/3 Nighthawk would be an inverse Absolution with 7/3/7 so it shouldn't be overpowered. Now that I think of it 6/6/3 Cerberus could be a thing. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
68
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 05:14:00 -
[818] - Quote
Battlingbean wrote:Caldari ships live and die by their medium modules. A 7/7/3 Nighthawk would be an inverse Absolution with 7/3/7 so it shouldn't be overpowered. Now that I think of it 6/6/3 Cerberus could be a thing.
why would anybody want less than 4 lows on the ship???? |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
30
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 05:16:00 -
[819] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Battlingbean wrote:Caldari ships live and die by their medium modules. A 7/7/3 Nighthawk would be an inverse Absolution with 7/3/7 so it shouldn't be overpowered. Now that I think of it 6/6/3 Cerberus could be a thing. why would anybody want less than 4 lows on the ship????
What this guy said, 3 lows on cruisers and up, esp hacs/CS is worse than having 3 mids in many cases. |
Rain6637
The Kissaki Syndicate
1636
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 06:01:00 -
[820] - Quote
I'm just saying 6 mids. not too interested in highs, I think it could do with just 1 utility
for shield gangs, however, I think I got it: you have two claymores, 1 vulture:
Claymore: Evasive Maneuvers Rapid Deployment Shield Harmonizing (so that it gets the resist and maneuverability bonuses)
Claymore: Interdiction Maneuvers Active Shielding Shield Efficiency
Vulture: Info links
so your sig/speed/resists start at the top, and the squads still have the bonuses to reps/logi
needs 2x navy mindlinks, 1 info mindlink
pick your engagements Rainf1337 on Twitch |
|
Battlingbean
Star Frontiers Dirt Nap Squad.
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 06:03:00 -
[821] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Battlingbean wrote:Caldari ships live and die by their medium modules. A 7/7/3 Nighthawk would be an inverse Absolution with 7/3/7 so it shouldn't be overpowered. Now that I think of it 6/6/3 Cerberus could be a thing. why would anybody want less than 4 lows on the ship????
Basically on a Caldari shield tanked missile ship medium slots are more valuable than lows. 3 slots still allows for DC, BCU and maybe fitting modules.
But this is my Opinion. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
143
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 06:05:00 -
[822] - Quote
Just from toying around, Abso can run with a plate, 2 hardeners, EANM and DCU, 2 heatsinks, scram, mwd, med cap booster, 5 HPL and 2 med neuts, one ancil rig and a trimark. It's nice with some 180k EHP linked, 680dps using conflag and dualmed-neut. :|
I only correct my own spelling. |
Rain6637
The Kissaki Syndicate
1636
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 06:12:00 -
[823] - Quote
how's 6 mids on a nighthawk overpowered compared to a claymore or vulture with 6 mids, or the rest of the command ships
post fit Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
167
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 06:35:00 -
[824] - Quote
A 6-mid nighthawk with full tackle would have around 90k ehp, hardly overpowered considering how slow and expensive it is. Way less than an absolution at least, and only about 10k more than a buffer-fit claymore.
Honestly even with 6 mids the nighthawk will still be mediocre as long as HMLs are garbage |
Silenciel
Penguins at school
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 09:10:00 -
[825] - Quote
So... the Nighthawk is going to do average 12,7% less DPS* than... a Cerberus ? HAS new specs
Cerberus wich is going to snipe at average 120km.
errrrrmmmm....
* Base 100 on one heavy launcher (ROF bonus is equal for the both ships) : Nighthawk - 5 launchers and 10 kin dmg bonus : 550 Cerberus - 6 launchers and 5 kin dmg bonus : 630 |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
143
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 09:13:00 -
[826] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:how's 6 mids on a nighthawk overpowered compared to a claymore or vulture with 6 mids, or the rest of the command ships
post fit
@work. however, 7 mids highly OP, 6 mids are borderline imo. Never said a word about 6 mids, full tackle and 160k EHP.
2 invulns, 2 LSE, CDFE and EM-rig II used to achieve 160k EHP selflinking w mindlink. In comparison, the claymore achieves 110k EHP with DCFE and kin-rig II.
So, while HMLs are crap (more or less), HAMs are not. And that still leaves you with 510 dps (navy scourge) on a boosting brickhawk. If you still want to break the nighthawk further apart in terms of fleettank, sure go ahead. Doubt it's the smart choice though.
I'll get back to EFT to make a comparison of gangboosters I guess. Would be helpful if people would look at fitted ships to draw conclusions instead of complaining about slots and bonus. I only correct my own spelling. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
753
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 09:19:00 -
[827] - Quote
Was away for the weekend and iPads are absolute crap as forum whoring tools!
Damnation: What happened to the idea of allowing them to either link or go face-melt-time? It has more EHP than badly fit carriers but less damage than the Sacrilege. Was kind of expecting it to be an upgrade to the drone based Prophecy, leaving Mims/Cald to wield the missile spamming secondary hulls but 'meh'. - All the other former triple link hulls got a massive damage/application boost but not the brick, why?
Absolution: Again, you want either links or face-melt, so what is with the 2 empty highs it is left with when fitting guns .. doesn't seem like much of a choice scenario to me when you practically force links in there (NOS = useless, Neuts = cap out). - Move a high to the mid slot. Make the choice a real one and give it far more options in regards to both fighting and linking .. mids make the world go around. ALternatively add the missile slots back or add a gun.
Caldari: No real comment, looks solid enough. Nighthawks will flood the hi-sec mission space and pose a very real threat to tackle elsewhere while Vulture has the potential to be a very nasty secondary dps boat in brawls.
Ass-tart: Looks good, maybe lower sig some as it is far too big for a ship that is presumably meant to armour rush or you could lower the mass to allow for DP fits that will allow active tank to catch up while staying under the guns. Eos: Finally found an excuse to push it back into OP-land with five heavies, good on you! Don't really see what ship that doesn't rely on heavy neuting will be able to beat these but then I don't really see a reasonable alternative so I'll hop on the "neuts on everything" train.. last person remaining on that particular platform as far as I know
Minmatar: With ASB's they will forever be broken, 'nuff said. Otherwise respectable tweaks, good to see you deemed missiles worth carrying over from the BC hull for them when you didn't think the Amarr drones were .. one out of two aint bad, not good either though
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
946
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:00:00 -
[828] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Eos: Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints (was 5% MHT damage) Command Ships skill bonuses: 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)
I really don't get this new style of bonus you're giving to drone boats all of a sudden. If you are going to do stuff like this then the Eos should get a tracking bonus to heavy AND sentry drones.
Personally i feel it should just have bonuses to drone damage and hit points. You should leave it up to players to improve drone tracking/speed through the use of drone upgrade mods. Putting work in since 2010. |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
663
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:14:00 -
[829] - Quote
so how are the new new cs's coming?
you know the ones that either brick for fleet work or dps/tank for small gang fun OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:14:00 -
[830] - Quote
Yeah Scout Drones and Heavy/Sentry should the only kind of Drones.
If you CCP start splitting the Drones like Missiles you have to revamp the Drones ASAP!! |
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:16:00 -
[831] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: Absolution: Again, you want either links or face-melt, so what is with the 2 empty highs it is left with when fitting guns .. doesn't seem like much of a choice scenario to me when you practically force links in there (NOS = useless, Neuts = cap out). - Move a high to the mid slot. Make the choice a real one and give it far more options in regards to both fighting and linking .. mids make the world go around. Alternatively add the missile slots back or add a gun.
Well, using links is the general idea of Command Ships. That's the entire reason they've changed the ships to have the utility highs and improved the damaged bonuses to compensate for less guns
I'd kinda like the Eos to have the sentry tracking bonus, but after seeing how deadly they can be with it in the Tourney I'm half worried about it - even though sentries are nowhere near as deadly on TQ.
I don't think the Nighthawk really needs a huge change, certainly not to it's bonuses or highslot layout. I'd not complain at a low being moved to a mid though. Would allow it to buffer very nicely providing it got some extra grid which would please anyone wanting to shield blob anywhere :)
I'm quite happy with Gallente and Minmatar not having any buffer bonuses on a second thought. You use the Caldari/Amarr ships for the big blobs and accept lower maneuverability and use the more mobile Gallente and Matari ships for smaller scale skirmishes. It fits the race characteristics fine, it's the same with the T2 logi cruisers.
Can the Damnation lose it's missile speed bonus and have another damage mod if it is struggling for raw dps? It's a big fleet ship with huge tank so I think it should be fine to get up close for a more brawly range and punch hard. |
Atrium Akvidus
Red's Swashbucklers Corp Nia Lando
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:28:00 -
[832] - Quote
Nighthawk Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1)
What a stupid change :( Why you removing laucher slot and adding turret slot for a rocket ship? I really cannot understand why.
|
To mare
Advanced Technology
227
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:37:00 -
[833] - Quote
Atrium Akvidus wrote:Nighthawk Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1)
What a stupid change :( Why you removing laucher slot and adding turret slot for a rocket ship? I really cannot understand why.
because all commands have 5 weapons now, thats why you get better bonuses. the extra turret its just CCP being funny |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:09:00 -
[834] - Quote
IDK if these are really supposed to be comamnd ships I think they should have ganglink slots or similar restrictions. At least a strong as a bias toward the role specific slot use as SB get toward torps and bomb launcher armament.
Maybe increase the fititng cost for using those utility slots for anything except ganglinks by a factor of x3.. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1078
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:13:00 -
[835] - Quote
In the end doesn't really matters/cares for me how much my opinion here is worth or not, I'll be flying the next OP one because I can.
2 active tank galletne SCs? no worries I will not be boosting fleet or gang anyway but ganking with tanky BC's *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:15:00 -
[836] - Quote
To mare wrote:Atrium Akvidus wrote:Nighthawk Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1)
What a stupid change :( Why you removing laucher slot and adding turret slot for a rocket ship? I really cannot understand why.
because all commands have 5 weapons now, thats why you get better bonuses. the extra turret its just CCP being funny
That or because Fozzie is an admitted strong Amarr fan...go armor! and slogans "no one should ever consider missiles as a weapon not even as 3rd palce or compromise." |
Kane Fenris
NWP
68
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:19:00 -
[837] - Quote
To mare wrote:Atrium Akvidus wrote:Nighthawk Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1)
What a stupid change :( Why you removing laucher slot and adding turret slot for a rocket ship? I really cannot understand why.
because all commands have 5 weapons now, thats why you get better bonuses. the extra turret its just CCP being funny
its because the most command ships were given enough slots to fill the 2 high slots with unbonused weapons if they want to |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
753
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:25:00 -
[838] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:its because the most command ships were given enough slots to fill the 2 high slots with unbonused weapons if they want to Good thing you remembered to put that "most" in there, otherwise the Absolution and Eos would come pay you a visit in the dead of night .. but then consistency was never one of CCP's virtues so I reckon leaving 1/4 of the hulls out of a new scheme makes 'CCP SenseGäó'
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:35:00 -
[839] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:IDK if these are really supposed to be comamnd ships I think they should have ganglink slots or similar restrictions. At least a strong as a bias toward the role specific slot use as SB get toward torps and bomb launcher armament.
Maybe increase the fititng cost for using those utility slots for anything except ganglinks by a factor of x3..
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4444
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 16:13:00 -
[840] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:its because the most command ships were given enough slots to fill the 2 high slots with unbonused weapons if they want to Good thing you remembered to put that "most" in there, otherwise the Absolution and Eos would come pay you a visit in the dead of night .. but then consistency was never one of CCP's virtues so I reckon leaving 1/4 of the hulls out of a new scheme makes 'CCP SenseGäó' Most likely the thinking is that those two be more geared towards putting in NOS or Neuts instead of extra damage, and balanced accordingly. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
Rain6637
The Kissaki Syndicate
1639
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 16:15:00 -
[841] - Quote
Nighthawk... is... a... trollship... http://i.imgur.com/OEJx3Oq.jpg Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3231
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 18:31:00 -
[842] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:its because the most command ships were given enough slots to fill the 2 high slots with unbonused weapons if they want to Good thing you remembered to put that "most" in there, otherwise the Absolution and Eos would come pay you a visit in the dead of night .. but then consistency was never one of CCP's virtues so I reckon leaving 1/4 of the hulls out of a new scheme makes 'CCP SenseGäó' Most likely the thinking is that those two be more geared towards putting in NOS or Neuts instead of extra damage, and balanced accordingly.
That, and the fact that Astarte actually has two launcher slots.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1200
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 18:47:00 -
[843] - Quote
i dunno if its just me but i kinda like the new astarte
[Astarte, blaster boost] Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste Medium Armor Repairer II Damage Control II Armor Explosive Hardener II Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
10MN Microwarpdrive II Stasis Webifier II Warp Scrambler II Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Small Energy Neutralizer II Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Hammerhead II x5 Warrior II x5 There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
170
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 18:49:00 -
[844] - Quote
why would you use a long point on a brawling blaster ship |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1200
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 18:50:00 -
[845] - Quote
good catch There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
504
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 19:10:00 -
[846] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:i dunno if its just me but i kinda like the new astarte
[Astarte, blaster boost] Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste Medium Armor Repairer II Damage Control II Armor Explosive Hardener II Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
10MN Microwarpdrive II Stasis Webifier II Warp Scrambler II Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Small Energy Neutralizer II Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Hammerhead II x5 Warrior II x5
What's this setup good for?
You've got a "super tank" that's fed by a single medium cap booster
You've got low dps highlighted by the loss of a relative turret from fozzies changes AND no dmg mod
You're easy to kite, just as most any medium/small blaster ship.
In the end, I see a setup that's good for one thing. Station game trolling in high sec.
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1200
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 19:20:00 -
[847] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
What's this setup good for?
You've got a "super tank" that's fed by a single medium cap booster
You've got low dps highlighted by the loss of a relative turret from fozzies changes AND no dmg mod
You're easy to kite, just as most any medium/small blaster ship.
In the end, I see a setup that's good for one thing. Station game trolling in high sec.
well yeah its a brawler for sure... and in it suffers from that play style.
though lolz as being cap stable... could always sub a nuet for a nos.
though i would really like to see the falloff bonus upped to 20% per level. that would allow the ship to reach out to standard kiting range.
though the 250 setup is pretty nasty too. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Rain6637
The Kissaki Syndicate
1640
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 19:23:00 -
[848] - Quote
all your fits for astarte are great but Fozzie and his nighthawk... http://i.imgur.com/YoVwqbt.jpg Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Blue Absinthe
Fur Industries
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 19:37:00 -
[849] - Quote
Fozzie, I hope you get to this!
One thing I've really like about drone boats such as the Myrmidon and Ishtar is the lack of turret specific bonuses. It's great that you can put projectiles or lasers on these ships to change things up. It'd be really great if the EOS could fit into this progression, could the Hyrbid bonus be changed to a generic turret tracking bonus (or something not weapon specific)? |
Siresa Talesi
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
70
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 20:06:00 -
[850] - Quote
[quote=Sol Trader]Furthermore, who at ccp has a hard on for the drake hull. First the navy drake, now nighthawk drake? Gross./quote]
This. One of the reasons I chose to skill up for a Nighthawk early on as a newish EVE player was to get into a missile boat that didn't have the ugly-as-sin, dull-as-drying paint, flying brick of a hull.
Now there is no escape; if you want a BC sized missile ship, you're stuck piloting a brick in space. I love my Caldari ships, but their builders seriously need a course in design aesthetics! |
|
|
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
144
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 20:29:00 -
[851] - Quote
Attack on CCP employee has been removed.
Forum rule 30. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.
ISD Tyrozan Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Rain6637
The Kissaki Syndicate
1640
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 20:54:00 -
[852] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/mn47Sco.jpg Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
98
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 20:57:00 -
[853] - Quote
ISD Tyrozan wrote:Attack on CCP employee has been removed.
Forum rule 30. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.
Good call.
Emotions are running high in this thread. It's understandable. Eve players love their game, and some issues that the community sees as important are seemingly not being addressed. This of course creates frustration since the player base often feels that it's voice is not heard. Eve players are very deeply invested in the game. They feel (rightly in my view) that they have a right to a re-balance that creates a coherent narrative of game play.
Please talk to the Eve devs when you get a chance. The resists vs rep bonus debacle needs to be addressed, and all command ships need to be equally (if differently) desirable. We have an opportunity to escape from the ridiculous situation where only the damnation and claymore are useful in their role, and only the sleipnir is useful in gang pvp.
We should not waste that chance.
For the record, I also favour only on-grid boosting being allowed. It would even up just about every encounter. In addition I would argue that if a fleet member is agressable in high/low sec, so should his squad, wing and fleet booster be. They are after all in effect, part of his ship. This would make hisec duels and lowsec skirmishes somewhat more even and fun.
|
Balzac Legazou
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 21:15:00 -
[854] - Quote
Looking only at the defensive bonus type, I think most people would feel happier with something like this:
Gallente field command: +% to armor repairer amount Gallente fleet command: +% to armor resists
Amarr field command: +% to armor repairer speed (cycle reduction) Amarr fleet command: +% to armor resists
Minmatar field command: +% to shield booster amount Minmatar fleet command: +% to shield resists
Caldari field command: +% to shield base regen Caldari fleet command: +% to shield resists
The actual percentages would need to be fine-tuned, and the field command defensive bonuses could move around (ex., maybe give more shield regen to Minmatar and better shield boosting to Caldari, or replace the base shield regen bonus with a shield booster cycle duration, etc.), but the general idea is:
Field command ships: better bonus for small gangs (local repair, self-reliant) Fleet command ships: better bonus for fleets (resists, rely on remote reps) |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 21:46:00 -
[855] - Quote
Faster armour repairer Cycle time on the Asbo? Yeh I'd love that. Every time I've flown one I've always thought "what shall I do with this spare cap from all the lasers"
On a more sensible note, I'm happy with how it is. I'm not convinced on the need to give Gallente/Minmatar Command Ships buffer bonuses with the dual sets of links. Like with Logistics there is a balance between races with Amarr/Caldari having the tough/slow stuff whilst Gal/Min have the skirmish flexibility. |
Balzac Legazou
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 22:21:00 -
[856] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Faster armour repairer Cycle time on the Asbo? Yeh I'd love that. Every time I've flown one I've always thought "what shall I do with this spare cap from all the lasers" On a more sensible note [...]
Faster cycles don't make you use more cap. You spend the same amount of cap per cycle, and repair faster. If you're leaving your reps on indefinitely when you're at 100%, that kind of falls into "L2P issues".
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1200
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 22:33:00 -
[857] - Quote
honnestly i think its time to rethink your rejection of allowing the 7.5% to armor repair include external incoming RR.
no mater how much tinkering you do to internal reps its not going to fix the scaleability of the bonus.
basically to take advantage of the skill you have to use that mod and it only scales in usefulness up to a certain amount of incoming damage. after 3-4 ships the bonus is uesless.
but if it was to include a bonus to incomming RR then the bonus would scale all the way up to fleet fights.
Honestly you claim that you dont want to encourage alpha as the main docterine is kind of silly due to how tidi works and that there is literally no diminishing return for stacking damage on a single ship.
Please please make the skill usefull after 3-4 ships and allow incomming RR to be increased.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
681
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 22:35:00 -
[858] - Quote
Balzac Legazou wrote:Mr Floydy wrote:Faster armour repairer Cycle time on the Asbo? Yeh I'd love that. Every time I've flown one I've always thought "what shall I do with this spare cap from all the lasers" On a more sensible note [...] Faster cycles don't make you use more cap. You spend the same amount of cap per cycle, and repair faster. If you're leaving your reps on indefinitely when you're at 100%, that kind of falls into "L2P issues". Ok, that covers one instance while ignoring all other situations in which the bonus is actually useful, basically any time you are under more DPS than the reps could handle unbonused. If you aren't using more cap you aren't taking advantage of the bonus. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 23:33:00 -
[859] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Balzac Legazou wrote:Mr Floydy wrote:Faster armour repairer Cycle time on the Asbo? Yeh I'd love that. Every time I've flown one I've always thought "what shall I do with this spare cap from all the lasers" On a more sensible note [...] Faster cycles don't make you use more cap. You spend the same amount of cap per cycle, and repair faster. If you're leaving your reps on indefinitely when you're at 100%, that kind of falls into "L2P issues". Ok, that covers one instance while ignoring all other situations in which the bonus is actually useful, basically any time you are under more DPS than the reps could handle unbonused. If you aren't using more cap you aren't taking advantage of the bonus.
I do Wish CCP would add more interestingbonuses, like a 50% reduction to capbooster, AAR, and ASB reload time. or a bonus to the effectiveness of shield extenders, or maybe some more over sized mod bonuses like a BC that can fit heavy newts or large smart bombs |
Erutpar Ambient
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation Black Core Alliance
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 23:39:00 -
[860] - Quote
Balzac Legazou wrote:Looking only at the defensive bonus type, I think most people would feel happier with something like this:
Gallente field command: +% to armor repairer amount Gallente fleet command: +% to armor resists
Amarr field command: +% to armor repairer speed (cycle reduction) Amarr fleet command: +% to armor resists
Minmatar field command: +% to shield booster amount Minmatar fleet command: +% to shield resists
Caldari field command: +% to shield base regen Caldari fleet command: +% to shield resists
The actual percentages would need to be fine-tuned, and the field command defensive bonuses could move around (ex., maybe give more shield regen to Minmatar and better shield boosting to Caldari, or replace the base shield regen bonus with a shield booster cycle duration, etc.), but the general idea is:
Field command ships: better bonus for small gangs (local repair, self-reliant) Fleet command ships: better bonus for fleets (resists, rely on remote reps) THIS!!!! also +1 (that means i liked it)
I keep saying it over and over. THERE IS NOT A FIX FOR LOCAL REP VS RESIST. That's right, it's time to get past it. This idea is a perfect way to handle the Racially unique aspect of each race, while also keeping them in line with each other somewhat. Maybe a bit less on the Caldari vs Minmatar side but hey it's a start.
Each race needs a ship in each class that can compete against the other races on each level of play. Most specifically Large fleet battles. There is no replacement for resist bonuses when it comes down to it. It's the only thing that increases life expectancy and also increases incoming Shield and Armor Logicstics effectiveness.
This issue is one of those things where you keep throwing adjustments and modules and limitless amounts of time at, but no matter how much you do there will always be a disparity because you're trying to balance apples with oranges.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Balzac Legazou wrote:Mr Floydy wrote:Faster armour repairer Cycle time on the Asbo? Yeh I'd love that. Every time I've flown one I've always thought "what shall I do with this spare cap from all the lasers" On a more sensible note [...] Faster cycles don't make you use more cap. You spend the same amount of cap per cycle, and repair faster. If you're leaving your reps on indefinitely when you're at 100%, that kind of falls into "L2P issues". Ok, that covers one instance while ignoring all other situations in which the bonus is actually useful, basically any time you are under more DPS than the reps could handle unbonused. If you aren't using more cap you aren't taking advantage of the bonus. No matter how you look at it, if you use a Repairer with this bonus, you ARE taking advantage of the bonus. How do i justify that you may ask. Well it's because of the nature of Armor Repairers. The thing about Armor Reps is that they're designed to give you your repair at the END of the cycle. This means that even if you run your rep in single cycles where you repair at exactly the same frequency as an unbonused rep, you still are given greater effect as your rep comes sooner. This also gives you the option to burst rep by turning your lasers off for a moment and allowing your rep to cycle a few times. Also it may be note worthy to know that cycle reduction provides greater Repair per second than does increase repair amount.
|
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
681
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 00:40:00 -
[861] - Quote
Erutpar Ambient wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Balzac Legazou wrote:Mr Floydy wrote:Faster armour repairer Cycle time on the Asbo? Yeh I'd love that. Every time I've flown one I've always thought "what shall I do with this spare cap from all the lasers" On a more sensible note [...] Faster cycles don't make you use more cap. You spend the same amount of cap per cycle, and repair faster. If you're leaving your reps on indefinitely when you're at 100%, that kind of falls into "L2P issues". Ok, that covers one instance while ignoring all other situations in which the bonus is actually useful, basically any time you are under more DPS than the reps could handle unbonused. If you aren't using more cap you aren't taking advantage of the bonus. No matter how you look at it, if you use a Repairer with this bonus, you ARE taking advantage of the bonus. How do i justify that you may ask. Well it's because of the nature of Armor Repairers. The thing about Armor Reps is that they're designed to give you your repair at the END of the cycle. This means that even if you run your rep in single cycles where you repair at exactly the same frequency as an unbonused rep, you still are given greater effect as your rep comes sooner. This also gives you the option to burst rep by turning your lasers off for a moment and allowing your rep to cycle a few times. Also it may be note worthy to know that cycle reduction provides greater Repair per second than does increase repair amount. That would be a 1 time bonus at the point as after the first cycle hits the delay to keep cap usage the same causes each additional rep cycle to complete at the same time as it would on an unbonused rep. If the goal is a 1 time saving on up to 25% of a single cycle to avoid the increased cap and get the first, and only the first, cycle in faster then cool. But as stated, all practical uses of the bonus cause you to use more cap. |
Erutpar Ambient
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation Black Core Alliance
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 00:54:00 -
[862] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:honnestly i think its time to rethink your rejection of allowing the 7.5% to armor repair include external incoming RR.
no mater how much tinkering you do to internal reps its not going to fix the scaleability of the bonus.
basically to take advantage of the skill you have to use that mod and it only scales in usefulness up to a certain amount of incoming damage. after 3-4 ships the bonus is uesless.
but if it was to include a bonus to incomming RR then the bonus would scale all the way up to fleet fights.
Honestly you claim that you dont want to encourage alpha as the main docterine is kind of silly due to how tidi works and that there is literally no diminishing return for stacking damage on a single ship.
Please please make the skill usefull after 3-4 ships and allow incomming RR to be increased.
Even if they did allow repair bonuses to affect incoming reps, Resists would still be more effective. Resists increase the effectiveness of incoming reps as well as increase total HP buffer. Rep bonus would not increase survivability.
That's why you can't compare them. Rep bonus is too narrow in scope to compete with Resist bonuses. They really need to be changed to not compete with each other at all. |
Erutpar Ambient
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation Black Core Alliance
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 01:04:00 -
[863] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Erutpar Ambient wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Balzac Legazou wrote:Mr Floydy wrote:Faster armour repairer Cycle time on the Asbo? Yeh I'd love that. Every time I've flown one I've always thought "what shall I do with this spare cap from all the lasers" On a more sensible note [...] Faster cycles don't make you use more cap. You spend the same amount of cap per cycle, and repair faster. If you're leaving your reps on indefinitely when you're at 100%, that kind of falls into "L2P issues". Ok, that covers one instance while ignoring all other situations in which the bonus is actually useful, basically any time you are under more DPS than the reps could handle unbonused. If you aren't using more cap you aren't taking advantage of the bonus. No matter how you look at it, if you use a Repairer with this bonus, you ARE taking advantage of the bonus. How do i justify that you may ask. Well it's because of the nature of Armor Repairers. The thing about Armor Reps is that they're designed to give you your repair at the END of the cycle. This means that even if you run your rep in single cycles where you repair at exactly the same frequency as an unbonused rep, you still are given greater effect as your rep comes sooner. This also gives you the option to burst rep by turning your lasers off for a moment and allowing your rep to cycle a few times. Also it may be note worthy to know that cycle reduction provides greater Repair per second than does increase repair amount. That would be a 1 time bonus at the point as after the first cycle hits the delay to keep cap usage the same causes each additional rep cycle to complete at the same time as it would on an unbonused rep. If the goal is a 1 time saving on up to 25% of a single cycle to avoid the increased cap and get the first, and only the first, cycle in faster then cool. But as stated, all practical uses of the bonus cause you to use more cap. You are given the option to use more cap to increase repair speed. Bonuses like this are good, they give you a choice, and give you something to do while fighting. It's not just a "turn on all modules and press F1 on target" type of Bonus. It's a bonus that gives you a great boost to a module at the cost of turning your weapons off. The ability to balance the 2 is where player skill will come into play.
|
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
221
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 06:40:00 -
[864] - Quote
Honestly I'm more for the idea of giving the Eos, Claymore and Vulture a +50% bonus to (racial) HP in place of, respectively, the armour rep bonus, the shield rep bonus and (one of) the optimal range bonus.
The % HP bonus gives double the amount of extra EHP versus the resist bonus (only 25% bonus to EHP) making them less likely to be headshot. The Caldari and Amarr can keep the advantage in HP and fleet tanking by keeping the resist bonus as a one up, but this will lessen the gap between the Damnation and every other races CS options in fleet substantially.
In exchange for the lack of a resist bonus the Minmatar and Gallente CS's should have somewhat better signature radii and higher speeds (WTF Eos?) allowing them to mitigate the damage a little more naturally rather than simply standing around taking it.
I'll admit, this still might (and probably will) leave the Damnation preferred in extremely large gang fights compared to the Eos and the Vulture to the Claymore, but it'll do a lot more to bridge the gap than giving them a bloody active rep bonus. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 07:03:00 -
[865] - Quote
Balzac Legazou wrote:Mr Floydy wrote:Faster armour repairer Cycle time on the Asbo? Yeh I'd love that. Every time I've flown one I've always thought "what shall I do with this spare cap from all the lasers" On a more sensible note [...] Faster cycles don't make you use more cap. You spend the same amount of cap per cycle, and repair faster. If you're leaving your reps on indefinitely when you're at 100%, that kind of falls into "L2P issues". Well yes, if you want to be pedantic they don't use more cap. You can even make them use less cap if you don't even turn the bloody thing on. I fully realise this would open up extra options, but it is exactly the same as rate of fire bonuses on lasers. It massively hits cap usage when actually being used. I'd take 7.5% rep amount of 7.5% faster cycle time on an Absolution any day of the week despite the slightly lower peak tank - it's hugely more manageable. It's the same as chosing between the 2 active tank rigs. Aux Nano pumps are pretty much the way to go unless you can use dual cap boosters or don't have lasers to run.
I'll keep the resist bonus ta. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1642
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 10:22:00 -
[866] - Quote
from https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3409697#post3409697
CERBERUS
In the first iteration we didn't quite go far enough with the Cerb in terms of power. In this pass we are going further to support its role as both a long range missile platform and a potential skirmisher by increasing its speed significantly and also adding more fitting to make fielding the extra launcher more comfortable. The change to cap recharge should go a long way to help the Cerb.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage 10% bonus to Missile velocity
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Missile flight time 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Slot layout: 6H, 5M, 4L; 0 turrets, 6 launchers(+1) Fittings: 800 PWG(+165), 520 CPU(+80) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2000(-4) / 1200(+4) / 1400(-6) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1200(+137.5) / 235s (-100s) / 5.1/s (+1.93) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 220(+45) / .463 / 12720000 / 8.17s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 15(+15) / 15(+15) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 95km(+15km) / 282 / 6 Sensor strength: 24 Gravimetric(+8) Signature radius: 135
OP:
Nighthawk: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10%(+5) bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage Command Ships skill bonuses: 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) Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and Information Warfare links Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1) Fittings: 825 PWG (+115), 550 CPU (-5) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5500(+695) / 3200(-163) / 3700(-144) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 80(+10) / 70(+7.5) / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 86.25(+6.88) / 62.5(+9.38) / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2812(-187.5) / 625s(-41.7) / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.65(+0.02) / 14810000(+800000) / 13.35s (+1.15) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km (+20) / 195 / 9(+1) Sensor strength: 24 Gravimetric (+5) Signature radius: 285 Cargo capacity: 700 Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
43
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 10:38:00 -
[867] - Quote
Split current command ships into 2 groups: Field Command ships: - Claymore - Damnation - Vulture - Eos No change for skill requirements. Heavy Assault Battlecruiser: - Sleipnir - Absolution - Astarte - Nighthawk Leave those ships as they are just remove ability to fit links and change skill requirements to: Heavy assault cruisers 5 -> Heavy Assault Battlecruiser 1 + Racial BC 5.
Rain6637 wrote:you mean remove the bonus to links? Yes |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1642
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 10:39:00 -
[868] - Quote
you mean remove the bonus to links? Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:08:00 -
[869] - Quote
Remove the link bonus, on the ship class designed specifically for running links, that's based on the T1 class, that is for running links? No. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15309
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:10:00 -
[870] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Entity wrote:So, Astarte getting a massive damage nerf?
The damage/rof changes do not offset the 29% reduced damage from losing 2 turrets, and adding 2 completely unbonused launchers isn't that particularly appealing.
It's going from 10.9 effective turrets to 10. However I expect the two utility highs, lower mass and extra resists to more than compensate. We shall see, but I have my doubts. I've use this as an expensive gun boat for quite some time and accepted the cost and risk. Not sure it's worth it now.
Oh and since when do we use effective turrets, as any kind of metric? I would much prefer to know the actual % loss tbh.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:16:00 -
[871] - Quote
Without digging out a calculator, 10.9 to 10 would be roughly 10% - I'm sure someone will come and give a more accurate answer if they can be bothered. It's still going to have a lot of fire power, 2 utility slots on top of that is potentially brutal. |
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:45:00 -
[872] - Quote
1) While removing 6th turret for abso make sure those turrets are nicely arranged on the ship (symmetrically on both sides of the ship).
2) Keep the missile slot for abso.
3) Remove +10 hp for Damnation and give it +5 rate of fire to missiles. Otherwise it won't be a combat ship.
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:48:00 -
[873] - Quote
lol @ point 1.
I get angry if my ships have odd placed guns. You'll find the ships do actually have as many turret slots as there are high slots though. If you just place the guns in the latter slots first they'll show in different places on the ship model :) |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
504
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:51:00 -
[874] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:
3) Remove +10 hp for Damnation and give it +5 rate of fire to missiles. Otherwise it won't be a combat ship.
/facepalm
Yeah, lets remove one of the only functional bonuses in the command ship lineup so that they can all suck equally for their intended role...
As as been pointed out probably over a hundred times in this thread... The solution is for EACH race to receive one fleet oriented ship with double tank bonuses (1 hp, 1 racial flavor) and one Small scale ship with 3x dmg bonuses, and 1x racial flavor tank bonuses. W/o such a change, we're going to go full circle and end with a result that oh so very similar to the issues we have on sisi today in which only 2-3 Commands are realistically used.
|
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:52:00 -
[875] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:lol @ point 1.
I get angry if my ships have odd placed guns. You'll find the ships do actually have as many turret slots as there are high slots though. If you just place the guns in the latter slots first they'll show in different places on the ship model :)
Does not work with abso coz turrets are displaced in two dimensions on wings (top/bottom and front/back) and the odd bottom turret is placed slightly left or slightly right from the axis. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:54:00 -
[876] - Quote
Ah ok I see what you mean. In that case, fix the model please CCP :D |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3236
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:15:00 -
[877] - Quote
Mag's wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Entity wrote:So, Astarte getting a massive damage nerf?
The damage/rof changes do not offset the 29% reduced damage from losing 2 turrets, and adding 2 completely unbonused launchers isn't that particularly appealing.
It's going from 10.9 effective turrets to 10. However I expect the two utility highs, lower mass and extra resists to more than compensate. We shall see, but I have my doubts. I've use this as an expensive gun boat for quite some time and accepted the cost and risk. Not sure it's worth it now. Oh and since when do we use effective turrets, as any kind of metric? I would much prefer to know the actual % loss tbh.
There's almost no loss of dps, as far as I can tell a dual rep neutron fit drops only 43 dps (770 > 727, Void, Hammers, no dmg mods) but gains 100m/s speed, medium NOS (and link with fitting implants), and with the rep buffs also 250 hp/s tank. Astarte looks p good tbh.
As a curious hilarisoty (likely not a word), MAAR+MAR+RAH fit with T2 resist link and Standard Exile tanks 10719 dps against Kinetic missiles. 4324 against antimatter. Will fly.
edit: small mistake with dps, still will fly
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
504
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:32:00 -
[878] - Quote
Roime wrote:
There's almost no loss of dps, as far as I can tell a dual rep neutron fit drops only 43 dps (770 > 727, Void, Hammers, no dmg mods) but gains 100m/s speed, medium NOS (and link with fitting implants), and with the rep buffs also 250 hp/s tank. Astarte looks p good tbh.
As a curious hilarisoty (likely not a word), MAAR+MAR+RAH fit with T2 resist link and Standard Exile tanks 10719 dps against Kinetic missiles. 4324 against antimatter. Will fly.
I'm not trying to bash you romie, hope you know that... But... 727 dps of which 150ish is from drones is pretty ******* bad... Especially when your ship is very low on ehp, has a double rep tank with a RAH fed by a single med cap booster....
Yes, the astarte is faster, yes it can fit a med nos or 2?(lol..) but it's still a 1 trick pony pretty much good for 1 thing, and 1 thing only. Station game trolling at undock....
If, we're going to keep the fail 19 total slots, then at the very least the Astarte needs a 7th low. So -1 high and +1 lowslot... It's not like anyone is going to use the ship as a gang booster anyway (unless they are dumb, not sane, or simply trolling).
|
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3238
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:42:00 -
[879] - Quote
You can easily make it gankier, that is low dps I agree and I just used that fit to compare the loss of dps. 52K EHP with Hype-like tank is quite enough for small gang work imho.
You can push it to 1243 peak dps and still have 780hp/s omni tank with S Exile.
There's plenty of small gang happening outside station undocks where the Astarte will be just fine.
Why wouldn't you slap a link on it? I can fit one along the NOS and it'll benefit all the ships in the gang. It's just like fitting a link on a BC with utility high, a no-brainer, just with better bonuses. I fly the Abso always with a link and don't really get why not.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
504
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:59:00 -
[880] - Quote
Roime wrote:You can easily make it gankier, that is low dps I agree and I just used that fit to compare the loss of dps. 52K EHP with Hype-like tank is quite enough for small gang work imho.
But it's not a hype like tank, it FAR FAR more cap susceptible (has a med cap booster and not 2x large), has LESS ehp, and reps FAR LESS against anything other than kin/therm.
I just don't see the point, especially when it's doing 750ish dps with point blank ammo..., and only really shines at troll tanking multiple vindis(or other blaster ships)
All I'm getting at here romie is that the current Command Ship Proposal feels very underwhelming, especially considering these ships have been horrendously balanced for 7+ years... There has been so much discussion on these ships over this time that I find the lack of addressing the real issues with these ships almost disheartening...
Sorry for the semi discussion lacking posts btw, at "work" so semi time limited. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
421
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 14:27:00 -
[881] - 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. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3240
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 14:28:00 -
[882] - Quote
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.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 14:32:00 -
[883] - Quote
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
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
421
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 14:35:00 -
[884] - 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. |
FleetAdmiralHarper
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:40:00 -
[885] - Quote
i just really really dont like this update... ******* over command ships damage is NOT something that needs to be done.
dont touch my nighthawk or ill cut you..
i will allow you to give it more resists and +100 pg though. |
Siresa Talesi
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
70
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:44:00 -
[886] - Quote
Balzac Legazou wrote:Looking only at the defensive bonus type, I think most people would feel happier with something like this:
Gallente field command: +% to armor repairer amount Gallente fleet command: +% to armor resists
Amarr field command: +% to armor repairer speed (cycle reduction) Amarr fleet command: +% to armor resists
Minmatar field command: +% to shield booster amount Minmatar fleet command: +% to shield resists
Caldari field command: +% to shield base regen Caldari fleet command: +% to shield resists
The actual percentages would need to be fine-tuned, and the field command defensive bonuses could move around (ex., maybe give more shield regen to Minmatar and better shield boosting to Caldari, or replace the base shield regen bonus with a shield booster cycle duration, etc.), but the general idea is:
Field command ships: better bonus for small gangs (local repair, self-reliant) Fleet command ships: better bonus for fleets (resists, rely on remote reps)
Makes sense to me. This way there is diversity between the races and distinctive roles for both field and fleet command ships, instead of just blending them all together.
+1 |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
504
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:45:00 -
[887] - Quote
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:i just really really dont like this update... ******* over command ships damage is NOT something that needs to be done.
dont touch my nighthawk or ill cut you..
i will allow you to give it more resists and +100 pg though.
And remove the 50% kinetic dmg bonus in favor of a 25% rof bonus, and move a low to a mid.
The ship on TQ sux, the ship proposed in this update sux.
I honestly think a 2 week old rifterling would have done a better job balancing the ship.
|
Ge Hucel-Ge
University of Caille Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:57:00 -
[888] - Quote
you are really missing the role of command ships with this rebalance.
command ships should enable fleetcommanders to do their job. so they should be able to survive, be resistent to ewar and they shouldnt be the slowest ship in the fleet.
these 3 points would them make kind imba so they have to suffer in another area - and that would be dmg.
there are enough other ships out there to fill the role of the old field command ships. |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:17:00 -
[889] - Quote
I still want 8 highs (7 on Eos) so I can fit a full fledged fit along with 3 links, Eos can basically do it so why not the rest? PS, Nighthawk is absolute and complete garbage. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
456
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:21:00 -
[890] - Quote
could these ships to split into two roles? like the original ones
fleet command ships should be tankier by a lot maybe give them shield/armor hp bonuses field command ships should be faster and push out more dps/ more drones |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
504
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:35:00 -
[891] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:could these ships to split into two roles? like the original ones
fleet command ships should be tankier by a lot maybe give them shield/armor hp bonuses field command ships should be faster and push out more dps/ more drones
This is honestly the only reasonable way forward...
I still stand by the 2/2 (gank/tank) bonuses on "Fleets" and 3/1 (gank/tank) bonuses on "Fields". One of the tank bonuses on the fleets MUST be an hp bonus, there is no way we are going to see extensive usage beyond what's seen on TQ atm if we don't. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
426
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:49:00 -
[892] - 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. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
144
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:53:00 -
[893] - Quote
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?
I only correct my own spelling. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
426
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:00:00 -
[894] - 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. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1644
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:13:00 -
[895] - Quote
let's not forget that without getting jerked around you would feel like you've "won" eve.
what better way to keep you busy than to totally flip metas and SP sinks, while also leaving some things obviously broken lest there be nothing to fix next time.
I can appreciate this.
though I'm pretty sure the Nighthawk PG and mids is a troll, since they're gaining the link bonuses and a reason to fit 3 links, which would require an additional 330 PG, bringing the total in-line with the rest of the class at 1145 PG.
and I apologize Fozzie, for thinking you didn't know better than to give a Nighthawk 5 mids/4 lows... obvious troll layout is obvious. Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Boss McNab
Tactical Chaos Corp Evil Things Inc.
19
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:37:00 -
[896] - Quote
Can we have something other than a useless Hybrid tracking bonus on the Eos? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
426
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:39:00 -
[897] - 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. |
Frothgar
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
81
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:51:00 -
[898] - Quote
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) |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
426
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 19:34:00 -
[899] - 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. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 19:56:00 -
[900] - Quote
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. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
426
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 20:09:00 -
[901] - 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. |
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
131
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 20:10:00 -
[902] - Quote
I was really hoping to see a third rigs (on all CS) and a fourth med slot on the abso =( |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
426
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 20:13:00 -
[903] - 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. |
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 20:50:00 -
[904] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: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
None of these things (well, except TDs) matter if you're shooting from scorch range. Lasers are fantastic compared to, say, the **** that is ACs right now. On a range-boosted ship, my medium lasers do full DPS out to 30km without range mods, while ACs are down to half damage at 20km. Even at point blank the raw damage of ACs is worse, only their tracking is better. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1296
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 20:56:00 -
[905] - Quote
Xequecal wrote:Harvey James wrote: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 None of these things (well, except TDs) matter if you're shooting from scorch range. Lasers are fantastic compared to, say, the **** that is ACs right now. On a range-boosted ship, my medium lasers do full DPS out to 30km without range mods, while ACs are down to half damage at 20km. Even at point blank the raw damage of ACs is worse, only their tracking is better.
Thats the only thing pulse lasers do.
Lolscorch.
Every single ******* amarr ship relies entierly on ******* stupid ass lolscorch
Yes i'm ******* bitter about the ******** ass state of amarr sub BC t1's BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Marcus Harikari
180
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 21:02:00 -
[906] - Quote
lol so you add a bonus to the nighthawk which makes it nice but then you take away 1 launcher hardpoint? LOL? so for solo work, there is still almost no point to train for and buy the much more expensive nighthawk over the drake? Lol...mmmkay |
mine mi
Boinas Rojas Gentlemen's Agreement
27
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 21:42:00 -
[907] - Quote
mine mi wrote:As I said before, I divide the ships command into two types, one for small fleets where every dps account and one for fleets where survival is the most important.
DPS comand ship
Absolution: No change Nighthawk: No change Astarte: No change Sleipnir: No change
Tank comand ship
Damnation: No change
Vulture: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range Command Ships skill bonuses: 1¦¦0¦¦%¦¦ ¦¦b¦¦o¦¦n¦¦u¦¦s¦¦ ¦¦t¦¦o¦¦ ¦¦M¦¦e¦¦d¦¦i¦¦u¦¦m¦¦ ¦¦H¦¦y¦¦b¦¦r¦¦i¦¦d¦¦ ¦¦T¦¦u¦¦r¦¦r¦¦e¦¦t¦¦ ¦¦o¦¦p¦¦t¦¦i¦¦m¦¦a¦¦l¦¦ ¦¦r¦¦a¦¦n¦¦g¦¦e¦¦ / change by / 10% bonus to all Shield hitpoints 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage (was link bonus)
Eos: Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints (was 5% MHT damage) Command Ships skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone tracking and microwarp velocity (was drone bay bonus) 7¦¦.¦¦5¦¦%¦¦ ¦¦b¦¦o¦¦n¦¦u¦¦s¦¦ ¦¦t¦¦o¦¦ ¦¦M¦¦e¦¦d¦¦i¦¦u¦¦m¦¦ ¦¦H¦¦y¦¦b¦¦r¦¦i¦¦d¦¦ ¦¦T¦¦u¦¦r¦¦r¦¦e¦¦t¦¦ ¦¦t¦¦r¦¦a¦¦c¦¦k¦¦i¦¦n¦¦g¦¦ ¦¦(¦¦w¦¦a¦¦s¦¦ ¦¦l¦¦i¦¦n¦¦k¦¦ ¦¦b¦¦o¦¦n¦¦u¦¦s¦¦)¦¦ / change by / 10% bonus to all Armor hitpoints
Claymore: Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire (was MPT RoF) 7.5% bonus to shield boosting amount Command Ships skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire (was link bonus) 5¦¦%¦¦ ¦¦b¦¦o¦¦n¦¦u¦¦s¦¦ ¦¦t¦¦o¦¦ ¦¦H¦¦e¦¦a¦¦v¦¦y¦¦ ¦¦M¦¦i¦¦s¦¦s¦¦i¦¦l¦¦e¦¦ ¦¦a¦¦n¦¦d¦¦ ¦¦H¦¦e¦¦a¦¦v¦¦y¦¦ ¦¦A¦¦s¦¦s¦¦a¦¦u¦¦l¦¦t¦¦ ¦¦M¦¦i¦¦s¦¦s¦¦i¦¦l¦¦e¦¦ ¦¦e¦¦x¦¦p¦¦l¦¦o¦¦s¦¦i¦¦o¦¦n¦¦ ¦¦v¦¦e¦¦l¦¦o¦¦c¦¦i¦¦t¦¦y¦¦ ¦¦(¦¦w¦¦a¦¦s¦¦ ¦¦M¦¦P¦¦T¦¦ ¦¦t¦¦r¦¦a¦¦c¦¦k¦¦i¦¦n¦¦g¦¦)¦¦ / change by / 10% bonus to all Shield hitpoints Forgive me, but I have must insist, this is the correct way |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 21:48:00 -
[908] - Quote
Have a +1 on that above post. I'd be happy with that :) Extra buffer on the Claymore/Eos. Without losing the active bonuses, matches the Damnation. Doesn't ruin any of the good things about any of the current field command ships. Thumbs up :)
Harvey James wrote: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
I'll point out Lasers are my favourite weapon by some way. I'm not suggesting they are perfect, but I'd laugh hysterically if they got a huge buff to cap usage, tracking or range. I'd like this game to be balanced, so here you go:
1) Cap bonus, Like I said, I wouldn't want to lose the cap bonus for the lasers without getting a role bonus to cover this. The use a lot of cap, deal with it. You don't need to carry a tonne of ammo and wait for reloads. Balance.
2) Tracking is perfectly good enough if you fight at optimal. Ofcourse they track worse than blasters/autocannons. Thing is, they can actually track similar sized targets at their optimal range unlike blasters and acs.
3/4) Yes this is true, it's a pain if solo. It's less of an issue in many fleet comps, can't have everything.
5) So can blasters, blaster ships also tend to have a smaller cap reserve than Amarr ships, they're also less regularly seen with a booster to make up for this. TD is effective against all guns.
Next please. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
505
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 22:05:00 -
[909] - Quote
I think pulse lasers need to worry far more about the new beam lasers stepping on their toes, not blasters and ACs....
As for the abso... I'd much rather see it at 11 relative turrets as it's got far less range than the legion/zealot, is slower with a larger sig (less fleet level tank even with the new full t2 resistance) and aligns much slower... Yes, the abso does currently do more dps than the legion/zealot, however I don't think it's enough. |
Varesk
Origin. Black Legion.
457
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 22:21:00 -
[910] - Quote
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.
Wing command bonuses from fleet is something that I 100% want to get fixed, although there are a few complications that mean I can't promise a specific timeline for it yet.
Command processors are also something that I agree have a lot of problems, not least of which is the big imbalance it created between armor and shield booster ships.
Its seems pretty pointless to rebalance ships when there are issues with the modules,bugs with bonuses or the imbalance of armor and shield boosting ships. Why not fix these problems before you continue to make changes?
|
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
754
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 23:25:00 -
[911] - 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. When they added drones to the Proph and all the other weird ****, all the indicators pointed towards homogenization and I pleaded with them to introduce racial role bonuses to at least keep up the illusion of variety. Obvious/perfect choice for Amarr is a +50% on all cap related internal mods (excl. nos/neut/inject) meaning useless mods (in PvP) like relays and batteries suddenly becomes viable.
Mr Floydy wrote:...Next please. Them thar be fightin' words!
1. The short reload is a red herring/curse and I actually think a 5s one is better .. first you only ever really use one ammo (you have one guess) extensively and when you do use the short reload to get NMF in there you have a ~25% chance of one gun in a stack not loading preventing the entire stack from firing. Ammo costs are still the same and it is not as if one saves cargo when injecting is pretty much mandatory now that more and more hulls have lost the cap bonus without being appropriately compensated in raw stats and everyone else are packing neuts. 2. Optimal is incredibly hard to maintain when everything you encounter is faster than you, is spamming TD's and when you have no mids to alleviate much of anything optimal related .. guess one could eat into the tank for some extra oomph, but since the tank is in most cases the saving grace of laser boats ... 3/4. But why is it only Amarr that must suffer that disease? There are numerous ways to balance out more mobility and mids even for laser boats .. mobility/mid deficiency is irrelevant in numbers but crippling to the point of going elsewhere in small gangs/solo. 5. TD's hit laser boats a lot harder as you don't have speed/mids to regain range once the enemy closes with you heating up empty space and you don't have the tracking/fight-control/drones to survive with an enemy close in. Activation cost of lasers is so much higher than blasters ditto that you will be gunless far sooner and for much longer .. cap reservoirs have almost been normalized with tiericide, Harb (laser cap bonus) vs Brute has a whopping 4% difference and Maller (no laser cap bonus!) vs Thorax has a staggering 3.5% difference.
As you said .. next please
On topic (AMARR!): Damnation needs to be able to vastly out-dps the Sacrilege when going balls out (being a brick is not a damn virtue), and a sixth gun or a fourth mid (take it from the highs) needs to added to the Absolution |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 23:50:00 -
[912] - Quote
tl;dr - step in the right direction, but not enough...
as most have pointed out these changes seem rather... underwhelming, although they are a step in the right direction for sure. damnation seems meh nighthawk seems meh (troll ship apparently?) 5 mid 5 low? and one of the few i've been following (the eos) seems quite meh) you had something going with the sleipnir's old slot count, but instead of carrying the extra slot over you nerf the sleip/claymore slot layout, you need to put that slot back onto all of the CS's and i dont like the current slot layout of the eos, yes its a drone boat so -1 compared to all of the other ships makes sense, but not when you have 4 unbonused guns, just tracking? (lol) the 7.5% tracking to heavy drones is interesting, and unique... i like it, but 250 drone bay? needs much more, especially when you are trying to get people to use heavy drones, a cruiser (ishtar) shouldnt have 125m^3 more than a battlecruiser...
all of the ships seem lacking in overall DPS, they need a bit more, even if you destroy your tank for dps, 905 dps and 617 tank (eos) is quite hilariously.... bad... and this seems to be a general trend... these ships are slow and large... they cant effectively kite against much, so they need to have an actual tank, and a good amount of dps while tanking halfway effectively
give all of the commandships the +1 slot they deserve give the eos more dronebay, and a better 4th bonus something like 7.5% MHT tracking and damage would be much better, and make it worth not having the extra slot the other CS's have or roll the tracking of MHT into the heavy drone tracking (weird yes) and add a +10% armor bonus (still not worth -1 slot tho for being a drone ship)
a 7.5% MHT tracking/damage bonus for its 4th bonus, 6/4/7 eos with 375 dronebay would be much better, and worth using. and because of the split weapon systems, you wouldnt get a silly 1500 dps ganker on roids, with 3 drone damage mods, only 1074dps and 617 tank... heck, the eos is an active tanker, it needs a second cap booster to be effective, a 6/5/7 slot layout might be a bit too much, but maybe not...
most ships that need help with tank should get a midslot for shield tankers or lowslot for armor tankers, excluding the damnation which already has a very nice tank, give it a 5th mid and change its velocity bonus to damage bonus, or give it an extra high and missile turret
but why are you bringing t2 bc's down in slot layout? t1 -> t2 cruisers give you +1 slot t1 -> t2 frigs give you +2 slots... t1 bc -> t2 bc should give you +1 slot, its ridiculous not to...
|
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
180
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 00:58:00 -
[913] - Quote
Marcus Harikari wrote:lol so you add a bonus to the nighthawk which makes it nice but then you take away 1 launcher hardpoint? LOL? so for solo work, there is still almost no point to train for and buy the much more expensive nighthawk over the drake? Lol...mmmkay well at least it has higher resists and a bit more shield, but still meh 6 launchers with 5%/level bonus is the same as 5 launchers with 10%/level bonus at BC 5, which is required to fly the ship anyway. It just means you have less ammo usage and another utility high.
That said, the mid/low slots on the nighthawk are silly, it should be 6/4, and as it's currently written there's very little reason to use a Nighthawk instead of a Claymore. |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
43
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 09:31:00 -
[914] - Quote
Nighhawk looks terrible.
It needs 6 mids and 4 lows and +250 grid at least to make it a viable choice over the other missile command the Claymore.
Looking at the 2 at the moment
NH has a less useful kin only damage bonus bonus. 33% less grid for only 5% more cpu can only field 5 light drones versus meds its slower , less agile loses a useful mid to gain a worthless low. It has less desirable gang bonuses.
Looking at the 2 and being able to fly both I can not find a single reason why I would choose a NH over a Clay.
|
Sigras
Conglomo
493
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 09:52:00 -
[915] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Thats the only thing pulse lasers do.
Lolscorch.
Every single ******* amarr ship relies entierly on ******* stupid ass lolscorch
Yes i'm ******* bitter about the ******** ass state of amarr sub BC t1's thats like complaining that the only thing artys do is "lolalpha"
Who the heck cares if you can only do one thing, as long as that one thing is super useful.
In fact, thats what you want! I'll take a ship thats super good at one thing over a ship that does a lot of things kinda ok any day.
The real problem is that you people fail epically at staying on topic because laser balance != command ship balance. |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 13:09:00 -
[916] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Command processors are also something that I agree have a lot of problems, not least of which is the big imbalance it created between armor and shield booster ships.
move to a rig away from the mid slot? |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 14:40:00 -
[917] - Quote
The abso needs a fourth mid! 3mids is fine and dandy on an omen but this is an effin command ship!! IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7260
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 14:41:00 -
[918] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: It's literally the Obama Care of Eve the way the push through this crap without any thought.
Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7260
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 14:41:00 -
[919] - Quote
....and caught up with this thread.
Updates based on your feedback coming very soon. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 14:43:00 -
[920] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:....and caught up with this thread.
Updates based on your feedback coming very soon.
Great to hear. You are doing superb job. |
|
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 14:46:00 -
[921] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:....and caught up with this thread.
Updates based on your feedback coming very soon.
Your doing Amarrian gods work here Foz, keep it up
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
145
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 14:46:00 -
[922] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:Nighhawk looks terrible.
It needs 6 mids and 4 lows and +250 grid at least to make it a viable choice over the other missile command the Claymore.
Looking at the 2 at the moment
NH has a less useful kin only damage bonus bonus. 33% less grid for only 5% more cpu can only field 5 light drones versus meds its slower , less agile loses a useful mid to gain a worthless low. It has less desirable gang bonuses.
Looking at the 2 and being able to fly both I can not find a single reason why I would choose a NH over a Clay.
When bufferfit and boosting shields, also 136k against 180k EHP, even though only 5 mids. Damage is higher, though limited to kinetic. Massive Blasterresists for the nighthawk (brawling), while the claymore is more suitable for tanking lasers/curators.
Nighthawk having bonused infolinks should already indicate that it is better suited for ewar-fleets (means it will probably be great for small gangs basing upon NH + curses/lachesis, leaving large fleets completely to the vulture with it's more appropriate PG to go 4+ links), while the claymore looks a lot more like a ship to link your current ABC-gang, going hit'n'run.
Can't see why you would even chose between them for a situation, one does one thing, other ship does another. Just cause they both shieldtank and use missiles doesn't mean they are competing for certain scenarios. I only correct my own spelling. |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 14:50:00 -
[923] - Quote
You guys figured out what it takes to be an effective active tanker when you balanced the Hyperion (5 mids 7 lows) And I'm excited to see the updates |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
512
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:05:00 -
[924] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:....and caught up with this thread.
Updates based on your feedback coming very soon.
Any news on when these changes may hit a test server? |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1203
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:14:00 -
[925] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:....and caught up with this thread.
Updates based on your feedback coming very soon. Any news on when these changes may hit a test server?
When vacation is over id say late August early September There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
132
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:20:00 -
[926] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:The abso needs a fourth mid! 3mids is fine and dandy on an omen but this is an effin command ship!!
This. I love my abso and i was *really* hoping to see a fourth med OR a third rig (on all CS). |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4457
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:20:00 -
[927] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:....and caught up with this thread.
Updates based on your feedback coming very soon. Any news on when these changes may hit a test server? When vacation is over id say late August early September I"m either working the wrong job, or in the wrong country... one or the other (possibly both). To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
98
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:26:00 -
[928] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:....and caught up with this thread.
Updates based on your feedback coming very soon.
Awesome. Hopefully we'll be seeing meaningful changes coming to the nighthawk so I have a reason to go out and buy one again. :D
I sold off my last PvP nighthawk a long time ago because it just wasn't up to par in combat. :( |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7265
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:36:00 -
[929] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:....and caught up with this thread.
Updates based on your feedback coming very soon. Any news on when these changes may hit a test server?
ASAP. We actually had planned for them to already be on SISI but the build ran into some problems. We have our best people on it. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
512
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:37:00 -
[930] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:....and caught up with this thread.
Updates based on your feedback coming very soon. Any news on when these changes may hit a test server? ASAP. We actually had planned for them to already be on SISI but the build ran into some problems. We have our best people on it.
YES!
Can i expect to see rozzie and friends killing angry forum dwellers? |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7265
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:42:00 -
[931] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4457
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:42:00 -
[932] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:....and caught up with this thread.
Updates based on your feedback coming very soon. Any news on when these changes may hit a test server? ASAP. We actually had planned for them to already be on SISI but the build ran into some problems. We have our best people on it. Don't worry Dr. Jones, we have top men working on it.
Whom exactly?
"Top... men"!
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1431
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:45:00 -
[933] - 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. Will they be getting a 3rd command ship bonus then or will we be losing the replaced bonus?
What about the very slender drone bay of the Eos? Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
409
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:45:00 -
[934] - 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. Are you still happy with the Damnation's dual tank bonuses and how that effectively makes the Damnation the only viable fleet command ship?
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7270
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:47:00 -
[935] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote: Will they be getting a 3rd command ship bonus then or will we be losing the replaced bonus?
What about the very slender drone bay of the Eos?
3rd bonus, and I think the Eos' drone bay will be quite sufficient, especially considering that we're leaning it slightly towards the shorter range brawler role. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
535
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:47:00 -
[936] - Quote
Why keeping 5 low slots for the nighthawk ? Why does a minmatar ship have more medslots than a caldari one ? u_u
Edit : Is the Vulture seriously considered to be a sniper ?
Are Caldari Command Ships definitively left on the side of the road ? G££ <= Me |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7270
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:48:00 -
[937] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Are you still happy with the Damnation's dual tank bonuses and how that effectively makes the Damnation the only viable fleet command ship?
I considered dropping the armor hp bonus from the Damnation, but in the end I think it's ok for it to have a strong identity, even if that identity makes it more popular than the others for large fleet warfare. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1203
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:48:00 -
[938] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
IMO the repper bonus would not be bad if it also included incomming RR and an aditional reduction in cap activation cost.
I know you dont want to do the RR but lets be honnest with the current meta and how tidi works the game is situated towards alpha for fleet fights... there is no way around it. and cutting off the skill being effective past small gang warfare is just a waste. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
433
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:49:00 -
[939] - 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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4457
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:49:00 -
[940] - Quote
Quote:Damnation: +100 Shield -300 Armor +100 Hull
Ack!
I think they call that inappropriate touching. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3246
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:57:00 -
[941] - Quote
CCP Fozzie
[b wrote:Astarte:[/b] +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.
Lovely stuff :)
Only one thing concerns me- the speeds of Astarte and Eos, especially Eos is really very slow, and might have issues getting to brawl properly because of that. Skirmish, BS speeds...
There is a huge gap in EHP between these two ships and Damnation, and I do understand the whines of the blobheads- when there's a differences of well over 100K EHP. However, blob PVP is a small niche in EVE and all ships shouldn't be designed for that.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
433
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:01:00 -
[942] - 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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4457
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:03:00 -
[943] - Quote
Quote:However, blob PVP is a small niche in EVE and all ships shouldn't be designed for that.
In this case I actually somewhat agree with this.
It is in huge fleet fights that some of these link bonuses start to scale badly, so if CS use is a bit difficult in that situation compared to smaller scale engagements that actually has some up sides.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Phantra
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:06:00 -
[944] - Quote
not bad. |
Valterra Craven
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:08:00 -
[945] - Quote
Fozzie, any comments about the CPU of these ships?
You stole 100 PG from most of the ships because you took two main damage slots away and made links only cost 100 PG each, but the cpu on those links either needs to come down as well to fit like a gun, or the ships need to be given a tad more CPU to fit those links with 5 guns like you intend. (They take +20 CPU each versus the weapons you'd fit before) |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
433
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:08:00 -
[946] - Quote
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. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
409
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:09:00 -
[947] - Quote
Is the OP going to be updated to reflect the 3% per level, or was I reading that wrong? Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
265
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:10:00 -
[948] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Are you still happy with the Damnation's dual tank bonuses and how that effectively makes the Damnation the only viable fleet command ship?
I considered dropping the armor hp bonus from the Damnation, but in the end I think it's ok for it to have a strong identity, even if that identity makes it more popular than the others for large fleet warfare.
All you have to do to fix the entire 'fleet ship' thing is to change the damnation bonus from electronic warfare to a skirmish bonus. If you did that no one would care how bad the Galente command ships are in fleet.
CCP Fozzie wrote: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 bonus command ships will all be viable for people who choose not to use the repair bonuses after this patch.
They're crap for the niche of boosting in a fleet. The job will be taken over by brick tanked T3 even with a smaller bonus. There's no point in putting a paper tank booster on the field or else everyone in their wing is going to lose bonuses as soon as the shooting starts.
/eos turret tracking bonus is still crap |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:13:00 -
[949] - Quote
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. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
146
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:14:00 -
[950] - Quote
The eos tracking bonus is more of a misunderstanding than worthless. It's probably more of a ship that can deal with smaller ships, frigates, etc.
It is not a alpha boat, but it is not totally screwed either if it gets tackled by a Atron.
50/50 on it so far. It could have a more useful bonus... I could not tell you what that bonus should be though. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
433
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:14:00 -
[951] - 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. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1431
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:15:00 -
[952] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, any chance of changing command processors into rigs? Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1203
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:23:00 -
[953] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Fozzie, any chance of changing command processors into rigs? or you could make command enhancers too that could be the low slot version. they pretty much do the same thing. cp would cost more cpu and ce would cost more pg. but would allow shield ships to fit CE and armor based ships to fit CP. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
434
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:23:00 -
[954] - 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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4458
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:23:00 -
[955] - Quote
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. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7275
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:23:00 -
[956] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Is the OP going to be updated to reflect the 3% per level, or was I reading that wrong?
I forgot to copy that part over from the CSM thread. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1431
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:27:00 -
[957] - Quote
That will help out tremendously when it comes to balancing links, T3 ships, Shield vs Armor and command ships. If it can be done that is. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:27:00 -
[958] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Trolly McForumalt wrote:Unless you are trying to keep that module off hulls larger than cruiser size - are you? Yes.
Hmm. Makes me curious that you (or someone) is getting ready to swing the nerfhammer on RLML or light missiles in general. Can you provide any insight into that? I know it's off topic but... *curious*.
Also add grid to the NH. It needs at least 100 more to make it not pathetic next to every other ship in the class (it will still have the lowest by a decent percent at that point). |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
597
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:27:00 -
[959] - Quote
Give each race a fleet and a skirmish CS - not break races in to skirmish and fleet ffs. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
99
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:28:00 -
[960] - Quote
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. |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
409
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:29:00 -
[961] - Quote
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. Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
435
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:31:00 -
[962] - 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 -
[963] - 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. |
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:33:00 -
[964] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: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.
It's true. Missile users don't deserve nice things. |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
99
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:34:00 -
[965] - Quote
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. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
435
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:36:00 -
[966] - 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. |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
393
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:36:00 -
[967] - Quote
I thought we were doing away with split weapon bonuses? Why then is the Eos STILL stuck with a hybrid bonus when it was and is always has been, a drone boat?
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
128
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:38:00 -
[968] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:ignored sleipnir being a armour alternative ( hurricane model) and the fact that minnie is 50/50 should be reflected here
Hell no. Don't change the Sleipnir from the awesome ship it is now to an armour ship. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
512
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:40:00 -
[969] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:I thought we were doing away with split weapon bonuses? Why then is the Eos STILL stuck with a hybrid bonus when it was and is always has been, a drone boat?
Yeah, it's almost as if the EOS does not even have a 4th bonus. Tracking on 4 turrets? Come on now fozzie |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4459
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:40:00 -
[970] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Trolly McForumalt wrote:Unless you are trying to keep that module off hulls larger than cruiser size - are you? Yes. Hmm. Makes me curious that you (or someone) is getting ready to swing the nerfhammer on RLML or light missiles in general. Can you provide any insight into that? I know it's off topic but... *curious*. Also add grid to the NH. It needs at least 100 more to make it not pathetic next to every other ship in the class (it will still have the lowest by a decent percent at that point). I have a feeling that as far a ships that sport medium sized missile hard points goes, they would prefer cruiser hulls be the weapon of choice vs small vessels... with CS filling a different role.
I could well be off base with that though. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:42:00 -
[971] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: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???
I've never understood this. Do blasters not benefit from an optimal range bonus? Since they have the lowest optimal in the game it seems as if they would. Or is it expected that you're basically sitting right on top of the target when brawling? I probably need to make a separate thread somewhere that discusses this... |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4459
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:43:00 -
[972] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote:Harvey James wrote: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??? I've never understood this. Do blasters not benefit from an optimal range bonus? Since they have the lowest optimal in the game it seems as if they would. Or is it expected that you're basically sitting right on top of the target when brawling? I probably need to make a separate thread somewhere that discusses this... Blaster optimal is so small that a bonus to it gives virtually no noticeable advantage. I do agree that it certainly doesn't hurt, but falloff serves it much better. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
SkyMeetFire
The Rising Stars The Initiative.
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:46:00 -
[973] - Quote
May be a stupid idea but - have you considered something like giving all the command ships a role bonus of +5% shield, armor, and structure per level, and then changing the Damnation's 10% armor bonus to a sort of damage application bonus?
That would somewhat narrow the gap between the Active vs Resist tanked CS for fleets, and could make the Damnation not stand out as the only major fleet CS, while also giving the Damnation a better status as a real fighting CS. |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
99
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:47:00 -
[974] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Blaster optimal is so small that a bonus to it gives virtually no noticeable advantage. I do agree that it certainly doesn't hurt, but falloff serves it much better.
Thought on making the Vulture more versatile: change one of the two optimal bonuses to falloff. Then it will have both an optimal and a falloff bonus.
Disclaimer: I've yet to fly a Vulture, so this is all theorycrafting.
Also, \o R1. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1302
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:49:00 -
[975] - Quote
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) BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:50:00 -
[976] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: Blaster optimal is so small that a bonus to it gives virtually no noticeable advantage. I do agree that it certainly doesn't hurt, but falloff serves it much better.
I guess I can see your point - though falloff is equally tiny (~5k falloff for ~3k optimal for medium blasters unbonused). Now that I think about it, it seems silly to have a single family cover both the shortest and longest range weapons. Maybe optimal range bonuses for hybrid weapons should list the bonus for blasters and rails separately? I don't want to discuss this too much here to avoid taking this thread off the rails (so to speak). |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
410
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:50:00 -
[977] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:I thought we were doing away with split weapon bonuses? Why then is the Eos STILL stuck with a hybrid bonus when it was and is always has been, a drone boat?
I'm telling you, this tracking bonus would be PERFECT to turn into +10% Armor HP per level.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
512
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:54:00 -
[978] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:PinkKnife wrote:I thought we were doing away with split weapon bonuses? Why then is the Eos STILL stuck with a hybrid bonus when it was and is always has been, a drone boat?
I'm telling you, this tracking bonus would be PERFECT to turn into +10% Armor HP per level.
Only way this would be reasonable is if the additional hp granted to the eos in the most recept proposal was reverted to the original proposal.
|
Sparkus Volundar
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
61
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:55:00 -
[979] - Quote
Hello,
Thanks for all the work on everything of late.
I think the premier shield tanking command ships should follow the Drake and have of 6 mids. The Nighthawk will also be shooting missiles after all.
It makes no sense to me to have the Caldari missile command ship mirror the hybrid weapon T1 battlecruiser model of 5 mids while the hybrid weapon T2 Vulture has 6 mids. Nighthawk still seems to suffer from the old tier issue of being based on the lower tier BC hull.
My suggestion would be to move one low to a mid.
Regards, Sparks Applied Creations is recruiting. Mystic Volundar says, "It could be you! " |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4459
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:07:00 -
[980] - Quote
Wrayeth wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Blaster optimal is so small that a bonus to it gives virtually no noticeable advantage. I do agree that it certainly doesn't hurt, but falloff serves it much better. Thought on making the Vulture more versatile: change one of the two optimal bonuses to falloff. Then it will have both an optimal and a falloff bonus. Disclaimer: I've yet to fly a Vulture, so this is all theorycrafting. Also, \o R1. 07 To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
435
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:15:00 -
[981] - 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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4459
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:27:00 -
[982] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: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 I appreciate what you are saying, but therein lie's a slippery slope.
Rare, expensive, but much superior ships end up having entire fleets dedicated to them in short order. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
265
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:30:00 -
[983] - Quote
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. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
98
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:32:00 -
[984] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Update time! ... 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.
Fozzie, the players don't mind if half the command ships have an active tanking bonus, as long as it's split 50/50 for each race. i.e. each race gets a 'skirmish' and each race gets a 'fleet' CS.
Of course we all know, and I know the evidence is there in your logs to support this position, no-one, just no-one ever did or every will fly a command ship with an active tank bonus in any kind of real pvp 'skirmish'. Active tank bonuses are useful in hypothetical 1v1 or 1v2 confrontations. These actually almost never happen other than under contrived circumstances on the test server.
In addition, given that a command ship is only useful in a fleet, it is further rendered useless on a command ship. Either,
your gang will gank a single solo ship - in which case you don't need local reps at all, or
your gang will engage another gang, and their combined firepower will render your local rep bonus completely irrelevant.
You know this full well. We know that you know it, and I think I can speak for the entire Eve community when I say we think you are wrong to persist in your current position.
Sorry to say this mate. Your previous work has been great. On this issue, for the good of the game, you need to relent.
|
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
33
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:33:00 -
[985] - Quote
Quote:Blaster optimal is so small that a bonus to it gives virtually no noticeable advantage. I do agree that it certainly doesn't hurt, but falloff serves it much better.
Discounting blaster nagas, of course. I'm pretty sure a vulture with dual 150s might pack a modest punch for what it is. |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:49:00 -
[986] - Quote
The nightwk and Astarte damage buffs are nice and so are the small up shuffles But come on you missed a lot with this "update" Eos is still lacking a slot which it needs, -1 slot when it has only 4 unbounded turrets? That's laughable... And why a damage application bonus for guns when it has no damage to apply? And give all the commandships +1 slot They should have one more slot than their t1 counterparts
Tl;dr +1 slot to all commandships Then ontop of that add a second slot to the eos to make up for the lack of anything but drones, or give it a better 4th bonus
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
435
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:15:00 -
[987] - 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. |
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:17:00 -
[988] - 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.
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? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
435
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:28:00 -
[989] - 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. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
512
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:30:00 -
[990] - 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?
Increasing the cargo capacity to 475m3 should be pretty much mandatory. The increased cap consumption can easily be offset by the usage of a nos tho. Other than that, I don't think the Astarte needs any more attention. It's faster, tanks better (against kin/therm) does more dmg, and has the option to fit missiles for even MORE dmg, or fit nos/nuets for offensive/defensive cap warfare. In short, it's looking very sexy. |
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
951
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:38:00 -
[991] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Eos: -300 Shield +500 Armor +300 Hull
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.
You are being ridiculous!
Most people are of the opinion that it makes logical sense to have one CS designed for small fights (active tank high dps brawler/skirmisher) and one ship that is designed for fleet fights (buffer tank field CS).
You recognise the necessity for an armour buffer CS in large fleet fights but instead of doing anything about it, you choose to ignore it and instead, suggest that people waste a bonus on their ship by fitting a buffer tank to an active tanked ship... That's crap game design IMO! Putting work in since 2010. |
Mister Vee
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:40:00 -
[992] - Quote
Ugh, Fozzie, I'm sorry but this is all really stupid. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve exactely, but it's failing hard.
Still can't use on-grid boosting
- Wing commanders will not get FC bonuses, which means they cannot survive at all
- Even if they did get FC bonus, only the damnation has enough hp to survive getting volleyed right off the field. Vultures will instadie in large engagements, while claymore hp is just laughable (often less than a regular battleship).
Off-grid boosting just got more annoying- Everyone is using boosters because they are too good to ignore, and because command ships just die, people HAVE to use off-grid boosters. Everyone does it on alts, because obviously it's boring to sit in a pos, but at least you could park it and leave it. Forcing them into safes becaus
- Off-grid boosting is dumb and boring, but it's necessary to level the playing field since everyone is doing it.
What's the point? Why not go all the way? I'm no game designer, but my suggestion would be something like
- Fix wing command bug first
- Rebalance field command to skirmish/active tank/dps bonuses, 1 link
- Rebalance fleet command to universally very high ehp, slots for utility instead of dps, 3 -4 links
- Find an alternative for command processors entirely, they're dumb
- Then remove off-grid boosting entirely
- And don't ignore smaller fleets who are too fast for bringing slow command ships with them...
|
Lixia Saran
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:43:00 -
[993] - Quote
CCP Fozzie:
so are we getting the hull changes (to the sleipnir, nighthawk, absolution, eos) in 1.1 as well? |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:56:00 -
[994] - Quote
All of these ships are large and slow (they're battle cruisers) so they need their tank and gank And they cannot kite, maybe the sleipnir/claymore with links and snakes, but that is all They need the extra slot compared to their t1 versions like all other t2 ships get And give the eos it's slot you unjustly took away
Please stop ignoring the fact they deserve these slots :/ |
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
43
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:57:00 -
[995] - Quote
Sleipnir still needs more CPU. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:02:00 -
[996] - Quote
Lixia Saran wrote:CCP Fozzie:
so are we getting the hull changes (to the sleipnir, nighthawk, absolution, eos) in 1.1 as well?
plz not
in his thread he told us he will only change it when theres enough backup in the comunity and imho there wasnt. so i hope this was just a troll...
plz let it be a troll |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
266
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:05:00 -
[997] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:plz not
in his thread he told us he will only change it when theres enough backup in the comunity and imho there wasnt. so i hope this was just a troll...
plz let it be a troll
If they don't change the eos into a myrm hull I'm going to flip tables and kick puppies.
The rest I don't really care about. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
412
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:06:00 -
[998] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Lixia Saran wrote:CCP Fozzie:
so are we getting the hull changes (to the sleipnir, nighthawk, absolution, eos) in 1.1 as well? plz not in his thread he told us he will only change it when theres enough backup in the comunity and imho there wasnt. so i hope this was just a troll... plz let it be a troll lol. There was plenty of feedback in the thread that said "yes, please." The hard core Sleipnir lovers said no, but many of them even said "well, if I have to lose the beloved Sleipnir to get the other hulls, then I guess it'd be a good tradeoff."
Maybe you can go back and take a look through the thread and not only pick out the negative comments you agreed with, and you might have a more objective viewpoint of the feedback.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
343
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:10:00 -
[999] - Quote
When are you going back to all the bad t1 ships that have been left behind? (atron executioner tristan punisher rifter corax ferox etc) And are T2 frigates/destroyers going to get done soon? They're pretty horrible at the moment.
For command ships though, swap the slot layouts on claymore and nighthawk, switch one of the sleipnir's damage bonuses for ROF and drop that ******** turret tracking bonus on the eos for something useful.
|
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:17:00 -
[1000] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Lixia Saran wrote:CCP Fozzie:
so are we getting the hull changes (to the sleipnir, nighthawk, absolution, eos) in 1.1 as well? plz not in his thread he told us he will only change it when theres enough backup in the comunity and imho there wasnt. so i hope this was just a troll... plz let it be a troll
Blue Myrm = awsome, red harb = awsome, black drake = awsome, also there was a ton of positive suport in that thread.
|
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1097
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:20:00 -
[1001] - Quote
Mister Vee wrote:Ugh, Fozzie, I'm sorry but this is all really stupid. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve exactely, but it's failing hard. Still can't use on-grid boosting
- Wing commanders will not get FC bonuses, which means they cannot survive at all
- Even if they did get FC bonus, only the damnation has enough hp to survive getting volleyed right off the field. Vultures will instadie in large engagements, while claymore hp is just laughable (often less than a regular battleship).
Off-grid boosting just got more annoying- Everyone is using boosters because they are too good to ignore, and because command ships just die, people HAVE to use off-grid boosters. Everyone does it on alts, because obviously it's boring to sit in a pos, but at least you could park it and leave it. Forcing them into safes because you don't fix boosting properly seems unfair to me
- Off-grid boosting is dumb and boring, but it's necessary to level the playing field since everyone is doing it.
What's the point? Why not go all the way? I'm no game designer, but my suggestion would be something like - Fix wing command bug first
- Rebalance field command to skirmish/active tank/dps bonuses, 1 link
- Rebalance fleet command to universally very high ehp, slots for utility instead of dps, 3 -4 links
- Find an alternative for command processors entirely, they're dumb
- Then remove off-grid boosting entirely
- And don't ignore smaller fleets who are too fast for bringing slow command ships with them...
Space Jesus has talk. You should read this at wake up and 10 times before hitting your bed Fozzie.
What I don't get is your absolute closed idea about Damnation being the only possible choice for commanders because they have enough ehp. You're not offering options but instead force this ship as only possible setup because anything else will simply die, thus not funny to fly thus no one will jump in with a smile knwoing a first or second volley they get the right to watch the rest of the fight on twich tv.
Just say it if you can't because of whatever code but stop pushing the same reasonning over and over when everyone and his grandmother is able to see the mistake in your decision. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Rain6638
Team Evil
568
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:23:00 -
[1002] - Quote
Fozzie.
post a fit for the Nighthawk. [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:35:00 -
[1003] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Mister Vee wrote:Ugh, Fozzie, I'm sorry but this is all really stupid. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve exactely, but it's failing hard. Still can't use on-grid boosting
- Wing commanders will not get FC bonuses, which means they cannot survive at all
- Even if they did get FC bonus, only the damnation has enough hp to survive getting volleyed right off the field. Vultures will instadie in large engagements, while claymore hp is just laughable (often less than a regular battleship).
Off-grid boosting just got more annoying- Everyone is using boosters because they are too good to ignore, and because command ships just die, people HAVE to use off-grid boosters. Everyone does it on alts, because obviously it's boring to sit in a pos, but at least you could park it and leave it. Forcing them into safes because you don't fix boosting properly seems unfair to me
- Off-grid boosting is dumb and boring, but it's necessary to level the playing field since everyone is doing it.
What's the point? Why not go all the way? I'm no game designer, but my suggestion would be something like - Fix wing command bug first
- Rebalance field command to skirmish/active tank/dps bonuses, 1 link
- Rebalance fleet command to universally very high ehp, slots for utility instead of dps, 3 -4 links
- Find an alternative for command processors entirely, they're dumb
- Then remove off-grid boosting entirely
- And don't ignore smaller fleets who are too fast for bringing slow command ships with them...
Space Jesus has talk. You should read this at wake up and 10 times before hitting your bed Fozzie. What I don't get is your absolute closed idea about Damnation being the only possible choice for commanders because they have enough ehp. You're not offering options but instead force this ship as only possible setup because anything else will simply die, thus not funny to fly thus no one will jump in with a smile knwoing a first or second volley they get the right to watch the rest of the fight on twich tv. Just say it if you can't because of whatever code but stop pushing the same reasonning over and over when everyone and his grandmother is able to see the mistake in your decision.
I can understand his motives. If he gives every CS the tank of damnation he will have to kill its gank. ANd people will complain again that they do no damage and are thus not good for anything.
He can't give them bot tank and gank because they would be way to overpowered. Imagine a CS doing 1200 dps (like astarta can) while having ovek 250k ehp (damnation). I call that bad balancing.
So if his goal is to give all of those ships good enough dps he needs to reduce the tank.
|
Rain6638
Team Evil
568
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:38:00 -
[1004] - Quote
it seems to me you're trying to get Command Ships and the Command Ships skill to act like separate Assault Battlecruiser and Command Ships skills (and two completely different roles)
You'll have an easier time by separating the two, into Assault Battlecruisers and Command Ships. [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
S1dy
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
19
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:43:00 -
[1005] - Quote
I really don't get what you did there Fozzie. That were minor tweaks, nothing special and mostly not needed. This patch will be the most frustrating one since Incarna, because you balanced HAC's and Command Ships into ****. I can believe it, really.
Why do you want to nerf the Damnation which is in the whole thread the only ship everyone agrees with as perfect as it is right now. It's tanky enough to achieve it's role in fleets. But you throw 300 Armor HP away. That's unbelievable
And what's with the Vulture you ignored completely? It should be at least comparable to the Damnation.
I don't know why you refuse to change the roles in both ship classes, that makes really no sense. Don't you see the aweful lot demands here in the threads? They have mostly the same topics they critisize.
This changes won't change anything in usage, that's for sure. You made it just worse with the Damnation nerf... Tech 3's for the win despite they will boost less |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
267
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:52:00 -
[1006] - Quote
Shpenat wrote:I can understand his motives. If he gives every CS the tank of damnation he will have to kill its gank. ANd people will complain again that they do no damage and are thus not good for anything.
He can't give them bot tank and gank because they would be way to overpowered. Imagine a CS doing 1200 dps (like astarta can) while having ovek 250k ehp (damnation). I call that bad balancing.
So if his goal is to give all of those ships good enough dps he needs to reduce the tank.
The people who are advocating for the huge brick tank boosters are willing to make that trade off. Their concern is staying on the most hostile battlefields while people are trying to headshot them, the DPS they put out is a distant third concern at best.
That's why people are asking for 1 heavy tank command ship where the offensive bonuses are unimportant, and 1 heavy assault battlecruiser ship that small-ish gangs can use to have a ganky boosty ship. As it stands now we have 7 HABC and 1 brick tank command ship. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4462
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:57:00 -
[1007] - Quote
Quote:Of course we all know, and I know the evidence is there in your logs to support this position, no-one, just no-one ever did or every will fly a command ship with an active tank bonus in any kind of real pvp 'skirmish'. Active tank bonuses are useful in hypothetical 1v1 or 1v2 confrontations. These actually almost never happen other than under contrived circumstances on the test server.
In addition, given that a command ship is only useful in a fleet, it is further rendered useless on a command ship. Either,
your gang will gank a single solo ship - in which case you don't need local reps at all, or
your gang will engage another gang, and their combined firepower will render your local rep bonus completely irrelevant.
While I'm not arguing your general stance, your supposition isn't really accurate.
Command ships are commonly used even in very small gang conflicts (many of them are tough, powerful ships even now), and part of the over reaching goal of this update is that they be a very useful combat ship with our without gang links.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
146
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:58:00 -
[1008] - Quote
Fozzie can't make all the command ships a brick like the Damnation. It would 1) destroy the damnation and 2) ... umm.. ok I don't have a 2.
He wants the ships to have roles. The main command ships have 4 roles, Two Large Fleet Doctrine Ships (one armor, one sheild), one small fleet doctrine ship (one armor, one shield).
I get it... I would love to have the EOS be a Brick. Anyway. |
Diivil
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:02:00 -
[1009] - Quote
Mister Vee wrote:Ugh, Fozzie, I'm sorry but this is all really stupid. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve exactely, but it's failing hard.
This exactly. Fozzie, you are not making on-grid boosting an option and instead you are just making flying boosters more annoying than it already is.
My views:
As long as it is not possible to put wing commanders on grid (so until skirmish boosters have Damnation level of EHP) POS boosting should stay in the game. I understand you want to make bonuses vulnerable and I do agree with that. But until on-grid boosting is a viable option, making running off-grid boosters more annoying isn't going to change anything. Fix on-grid boosting first, then force off-grid boosters out of their POSes.
Skirmish boosting ships absolutely have to have Damnation level of EHP. There seriously is no other way. If they don't, they are not going to ever be used in full fleets. Your current design would leave a fully tanked Claymore to around 150k EHP and the others aren't too far from that. Do you really think a ship which is insanely important but has less EHP than a fleet BS will ever survive when fleet BS die by the dozens if not hundreds in a proper fight.
If command processors were made to be rigs then the only ships that would ever use them would be off-grid t3 boosters. You would be unlikely to drop any tank from your on-grid command ships because they need all the EHP they can get. If they are changed to be rigs then at least I think carriers should have the ability to fit more than 1 link without command processors.
While Vee says off-grid boosting should be removed, personally I think it should stay stay in the game. Simply put it is the easiest solution with no new code being required, no need to invent frigate sized boosters for frigate fleets etc. But considering how you announced that it would be going away something like a year ago and it still hasn't leads me to believe you are not able to do it without a considerable amount of resources spend on it or without having too much stress on the server. Whatever the reason, off-grid boosting seems to be here to stay for at least the next few years. And it is not a bad thing. There are many fleet doctrines, small gang and full fleet sized, that need bonuses but can't bring a command ship on grid with them. As long as bonuses are as overpowered as they are now all fleets will want to have them so off-grid boosting allows us to have better and more interesting fleet concepts overall. Also as I have explained before it allows us to have more mobile fleets because you can sacrifice a few DPS ships to reposition but you can't sacrifice your bonuses.
In longer term I believe we need something in between no bonuses at all and full links. This would mean either nerfing the bonuses even more so that the gap is not as big (and simultaneously rebalancing most ships and weapons in game because everything is balanced based on the fact that people always have bonuses) or putting lesser form of bonuses in between no bonuses and full bonuses. This is because generally right now you will not be fighting in nullsec unless you have bonuses. So I want there to be an option to at least considering of keeping on fighting if you do lose your bonuses. While the warfare skills give some bonuses already it is not enough because it's just "base" stats (raw armor/shield, agility, targeting range) and not what the links actually give (better reps, tackle range, stronger ewar etc.) So what I would like to see to bridge this gap is that a perfect 5s leadership character could give maybe 30% to 50% link bonuses while being in any ship. It would still be worth bringing a dedicated bonus ship but you would not instantly be ****** if it dies.
All fleet command ships need to have enough PG to be able to fit 3 links, full tank (meaning 2 plates) and an MWD without fitting mods. Also preferably a probe launcher on top of that but that is not as important.
Even if you do all of this and manage to get people to use on-grid command ships they of course can do nothing while they are on the grid except run away. They will be fully tank fit which leaves no room to fit guns. No that the guns would do any real damage without DPS mods. Or that they would ever hit anyone when the command ships would be anchoring on the logi anchor and staying as far away from the fight as possible. So what fleet command ships need is not DPS bonuses. If you want to make them fun you will need to give them utility. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1100
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:02:00 -
[1010] - Quote
Shpenat wrote: I can understand his motives. If he gives every CS the tank of damnation he will have to kill its gank. ANd people will complain again that they do no damage and are thus not good for anything.
He can't give them bot tank and gank because they would be way to overpowered. Imagine a CS doing 1200 dps (like astarta can) while having ovek 250k ehp (damnation). I call that bad balancing.
So if his goal is to give all of those ships good enough dps he needs to reduce the tank.
But that's absolutely not what we're asking for !
As Vee perfectly explained we need A command ship per race able to push Damnation tank, DPS is not the FC/commander problem because there are better ships dedicated or specialized for this, ok to hoar on KM's but no need 800dps CS. Make the second one still tanky but less, less links and eventually take down some of that dps, COMMAND ships should not be solo pownmobiles no matter the number of ships on the gang or solo. For that people should train T3's or take faction ships. Look at the sleipnir and how many people bring for fleets? -none, it's a gang/solo pownmachine CS that not even fits links most times, this is silly. Gallente get two clones of Sleipnir and matar gets one half good tanker slow as a battleship with bulkheads in lows.
Logisitcs can perfectly survive with little tanks, with current large fleets numbers command ships never, if it's not a Damnation or if you don't have 30 logis on the field 10 already exclusively dedicated to the FC (and all other pre locking also) even then with perfect volleys despite so many logis I've seen super tank Vultures get two volleyed off the field (alpha is really stupid for this)
Command ships are specialized boosting ships, why the hell should they do more dps than HACs? -take dps out and give them HP for higher tiers and loose some dps for mobility for second tiers. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
|
Hatsumi Kobayashi
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
262
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:03:00 -
[1011] - Quote
This entire round of changes feels really sloppy, even more so with today's revisions. STANDING ON THE VERGE OF PROLAPSE |
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:04:00 -
[1012] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Shpenat wrote:I can understand his motives. If he gives every CS the tank of damnation he will have to kill its gank. ANd people will complain again that they do no damage and are thus not good for anything.
He can't give them bot tank and gank because they would be way to overpowered. Imagine a CS doing 1200 dps (like astarta can) while having ovek 250k ehp (damnation). I call that bad balancing.
So if his goal is to give all of those ships good enough dps he needs to reduce the tank.
The people who are advocating for the huge brick tank boosters are willing to make that trade off. Their concern is staying on the most hostile battlefields while people are trying to headshot them, the DPS they put out is a distant third concern at best. That's why people are asking for 1 heavy tank command ship where the offensive bonuses are unimportant, and 1 heavy assault battlecruiser ship that small-ish gangs can use to have a ganky boosty ship. As it stands now we have 7 HABC and 1 brick tank command ship.
That's a bit tricky. Which one should do which? Lets take astarte and eos (as those are ships I know best).
It seems astarte is better for small fleets while eos for larger. SO in the end there will again be no option for eos to do any significant damage. So skirmish commander who wants to use drones now has no ship to fly. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
952
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:04:00 -
[1013] - Quote
Shpenat wrote: I can understand his motives. If he gives every CS the tank of damnation he will have to kill its gank. ANd people will complain again that they do no damage and are thus not good for anything.
You know that each race has two CS, right?
... Make one ship gank and one tank. Simple! Putting work in since 2010. |
Elendar
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
60
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:05:00 -
[1014] - Quote
Mister Vee wrote:Ugh, Fozzie, I'm sorry but this is all really stupid. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve exactely, but it's failing hard. Still can't use on-grid boosting
- Wing commanders will not get FC bonuses, which means they cannot survive at all
- Even if they did get FC bonus, only the damnation has enough hp to survive getting volleyed right off the field. Vultures will instadie in large engagements, while claymore hp is just laughable (often less than a regular battleship).
Off-grid boosting just got more annoying- Everyone is using boosters because they are too good to ignore, and because command ships just die, people HAVE to use off-grid boosters. Everyone does it on alts, because obviously it's boring to sit in a pos, but at least you could park it and leave it. Forcing them into safes because you don't fix boosting properly seems unfair to me
- Off-grid boosting is dumb and boring, but it's necessary to level the playing field since everyone is doing it.
What's the point? Why not go all the way? I'm no game designer, but my suggestion would be something like - Fix wing command bug first
- Rebalance field command to skirmish/active tank/dps bonuses, 1 link
- Rebalance fleet command to universally very high ehp, slots for utility instead of dps, 3 -4 links
- Find an alternative for command processors entirely, they're dumb
- Then remove off-grid boosting entirely
- And don't ignore smaller fleets who are too fast for bringing slow command ships with them...
I completely agree with everything posted here.
On grid links simply are not viable against any decent fleet that can co-ordinate alpha, they don't even have to be especially large to alpha vultures let alone claymores if they have high alpha guns (tornadoes for example). |
Kane Fenris
NWP
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:08:00 -
[1015] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Lixia Saran wrote:CCP Fozzie:
so are we getting the hull changes (to the sleipnir, nighthawk, absolution, eos) in 1.1 as well? plz not in his thread he told us he will only change it when theres enough backup in the comunity and imho there wasnt. so i hope this was just a troll... plz let it be a troll lol. There was plenty of feedback in the thread that said "yes, please." The hard core Sleipnir lovers said no, but many of them even said "well, if I have to lose the beloved Sleipnir to get the other hulls, then I guess it'd be a good tradeoff." Maybe you can go back and take a look through the thread and not only pick out the negative comments you agreed with, and you might have a more objective viewpoint of the feedback.
last time i looked about a week after post i had an diffrent impression....
i cant understand why they cant give the cyclone the hurricane hull IF they do the change..... after all ist just a modell and nobody cares about the cyclone model (i suppose) |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
435
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:09:00 -
[1016] - 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. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
270
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:09:00 -
[1017] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Fozzie can't make all the command ships a brick like the Damnation. It would 1) destroy the damnation and 2) ... umm.. ok I don't have a 2.
He wants the ships to have roles. The main command ships have 4 roles, Two Large Fleet Doctrine Ships (one armor, one sheild), one small fleet doctrine ship (one armor, one shield).
I get it... I would love to have the EOS be a Brick. Anyway.
The problem is how the boosts are distributed. For big fleets the 2 boosts you want are your primary tank (shield/armor) and skirmish boosts. The way they originally laid out the boosts it would've been fine with the legion being able to give both armor and skirmish boosts (lol shield doctrines). Unfortunately they decided to switch up the boosts and instead gave the skirmish boost to galente.
If they would undo that change the discontent would switch from "we need better brick tank command ships" to "we need a brick tank shield skirmish booster." It's like CCP knows exactly what people want out of a fleet booster and they keep making decision to spite them. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:09:00 -
[1018] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Lixia Saran wrote:CCP Fozzie:
so are we getting the hull changes (to the sleipnir, nighthawk, absolution, eos) in 1.1 as well? plz not in his thread he told us he will only change it when theres enough backup in the comunity and imho there wasnt. so i hope this was just a troll... plz let it be a troll lol. There was plenty of feedback in the thread that said "yes, please." The hard core Sleipnir lovers said no, but many of them even said "well, if I have to lose the beloved Sleipnir to get the other hulls, then I guess it'd be a good tradeoff." Maybe you can go back and take a look through the thread and not only pick out the negative comments you agreed with, and you might have a more objective viewpoint of the feedback.
last time i looked about a week after post i had an diffrent impression....
i cant understand why they cant give the cyclone the hurricane hull IF they do the change..... after all ist just a modell (clarification: whats wrong with a hurricane hull shooting missiles) and nobody cares about the cyclone model (i suppose)
[edit] double post mistake plz remove first post |
Durrr
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:15:00 -
[1019] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Shpenat wrote: I can understand his motives. If he gives every CS the tank of damnation he will have to kill its gank. ANd people will complain again that they do no damage and are thus not good for anything.
He can't give them bot tank and gank because they would be way to overpowered. Imagine a CS doing 1200 dps (like astarta can) while having ovek 250k ehp (damnation). I call that bad balancing.
So if his goal is to give all of those ships good enough dps he needs to reduce the tank.
But that's absolutely not what we're asking for ! As Vee perfectly explained we need A command ship per race able to push Damnation tank, DPS is not the FC/commander problem because there are better ships dedicated or specialized for this, ok to hoar on KM's but no need 800dps CS. Make the second one still tanky but less, less links and eventually take down some of that dps, COMMAND ships should not be solo pownmobiles no matter the number of ships on the gang or solo. For that people should train T3's or take faction ships. Look at the sleipnir and how many people bring for fleets? -none, it's a gang/solo pownmachine CS that not even fits links most times, this is silly. Gallente get two clones of Sleipnir and matar gets one half good tanker slow as a battleship with bulkheads in lows. Logisitcs can perfectly survive with little tanks, with current large fleets numbers command ships never, if it's not a Damnation or if you don't have 30 logis on the field 10 already exclusively dedicated to the FC (and all other pre locking also) even then with perfect volleys despite so many logis I've seen super tank Vultures get two volleyed off the field (alpha is really stupid for this) Command ships are specialized boosting ships, why the hell should they do more dps than HACs? -take dps out and give them HP for higher tiers and loose some dps for mobility for second tiers.
It all depends on what roll CCP wants them to fill. If we want them to fill the HAC/T3 roll, then the current changes are pretty good. If we want them to be true Command ships (if they are indeed intended to be for FCs and what not), their main purpose should be to keep them on field with heavy resists and strong overall tank, a sig radius that's not overly large, and decent mobility. DPS should be a giant afterthought. So it comes down to what we want their roll to be. |
sXyphos
The Scope Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:15:00 -
[1020] - Quote
Meh i was expecting more dramatic changes like in the HAC thread(babysteps so far ), lots of people had some valid points in the thread but they lack *charisma i think considering the result , keep it going guys, 45 more pages and we get another 75PG on the nighthawk |
|
Acidictadpole
Reikoku The Retirement Club
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:16:00 -
[1021] - Quote
Why is your view of these ships allowing them to have a brawler role? It really feels like a fleet command ship should be avoiding direct combat itself, but have the defenses to hold off until backup arrives.
While I like the fact that some of these ships can hold their own in a fight, I'm not sure that a vision which includes them as potential brawlers is a good step forward.
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1101
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:16:00 -
[1022] - Quote
Shpenat wrote:That's a bit tricky. Which one should do which? Lets take astarte and eos (as those are ships I know best).
It seems astarte is better for small fleets while eos for larger. SO in the end there will again be no option for eos to do any significant damage. So skirmish commander who wants to use drones now has no ship to fly.
Fozzie is telling you with this change: want to boost fleets cross train Damnation
This is what is boring people who spend time training command ships with views on either FC or simply boost friends.
Then there's fleet bug Vee explained already, wing commanders not receiving fleet commander boosts. This is not a simple annoyance, it's really really annoying specially flying paper tank ships getting volleyed by a bazillion of sentries or hundreds of battleships alpha. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
271
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:22:00 -
[1023] - Quote
Shpenat wrote:That's a bit tricky. Which one should do which? Lets take astarte and eos (as those are ships I know best).
It seems astarte is better for small fleets while eos for larger. SO in the end there will again be no option for eos to do any significant damage. So skirmish commander who wants to use drones now has no ship to fly.
They could still use the Eos, it just wouldn't have as much DPS. If you're choosing to fly a command ship the niche you're choosing to fill is that of a fleet booster, not a gank mobile. Other ships, specifically the domi and ishtar, are drone gank mobiles. But this is coming back around to what role these ships are suppose to fill. Are they battlecruiser sized HAC's, or are they fleet boosters? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
435
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:25:00 -
[1024] - 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. |
Elendar
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
60
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:36:00 -
[1025] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: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
I get my cap by nosing whatever friendly ahac is nearest to me at the time |
Orakkus
Winds of Dawn Kraken.
112
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:44:00 -
[1026] - Quote
Mister Vee wrote:Ugh, Fozzie, I'm sorry but this is all really stupid. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve exactely, but it's failing hard. Still can't use on-grid boosting
- Wing commanders will not get FC bonuses, which means they cannot survive at all
- Even if they did get FC bonus, only the damnation has enough hp to survive getting volleyed right off the field. Vultures will instadie in large engagements, while claymore hp is just laughable (often less than a regular battleship).
Off-grid boosting just got more annoying- Everyone is using boosters because they are too good to ignore, and because command ships just die, people HAVE to use off-grid boosters. Everyone does it on alts, because obviously it's boring to sit in a pos, but at least you could park it and leave it. Forcing them into safes because you don't fix boosting properly seems unfair to me
- Off-grid boosting is dumb and boring, but it's necessary to level the playing field since everyone is doing it.
What's the point? Why not go all the way? I'm no game designer, but my suggestion would be something like - Fix wing command bug first
- Rebalance field command to skirmish/active tank/dps bonuses, 1 link
- Rebalance fleet command to universally very high ehp, slots for utility instead of dps, 3 -4 links
- Find an alternative for command processors entirely, they're dumb
- Then remove off-grid boosting entirely
- And don't ignore smaller fleets who are too fast for bringing slow command ships with them...
+1 from me on this.
I don't use command ships often, but the changes made so far seem a bit.. vanilla. Each of the Command Ships seem to be just a minor variation of the other. Now, I know both you and CCP Rise aren't afraid of variety or of giving ships a bit of difference, so I'm of the mind that these particular changes are being influenced by upcoming changes in other ships. Am I correct?
|
El Scotch
Eighty Joule Brewery Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:46:00 -
[1027] - Quote
Might I suggest unfucking the game before you start ******* it up more?
Making things less fun/interesting for fleet commanders really isn't a good model. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
154
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:50:00 -
[1028] - Quote
Field Command ships: DPS / active tank bonuses, can use 2 links at once Approx 150-200k ehp with typical t2 fit
Fleet Command ships: HP bonus, can use one link per level of Command Ships Approx 400k ehp with typical t2 fit
Fire command procs into the nearest sun. Or make it so they boost link strength by like 1% or something idc
Do this thing~ |
Michael J Caboose
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:51:00 -
[1029] - Quote
Maybe it's all an indirect nerf to skirmish links?
Maybe CCP wants you to chose;
1) Want bonused skirmish links so your fleet can be super fast, have uber range tackle and itty bitty sigs while it pwns all the things? Fine, here's your ship with it's crappy paper tank.
2) Want an epic fleet boosting brick that can withstand the alpha of ten thousand Arty Maelstroms? Fine, here's your heroic brick with it's crappy info war links that almost no one cares about. |
Fredric Wolf
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:56:00 -
[1030] - Quote
Maybe we can have both? Lets look at something that would give command ships more EHP and Less DPS by fitting them the warfare links. What if we change how the link give bonuses to the ships. So for every Warfare Link you fit to a ship you get a 15% bonus to shilds and armor or some other number and a reduction of 15% DPS to Guns, Missiles, and Drones. This would allow ships that want to support fleets to get they EHP they need and allow members that want to use command ships to pvp not not boost a way to still maintain their DPS. |
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1106
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:56:00 -
[1031] - Quote
Michael J Caboose wrote:2) Want an epic fleet boosting brick that can withstand the alpha of ten thousand Arty Maelstroms? Fine, here's your heroic brick with it's crappy info war links that almost no one cares about.
Translation: fly Amarr command ship because it's the ONLY one doing so but then there's a little issue, bring an armor command ship to shield fleets is a bit annoying heh?
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Aplier Shivra
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:57:00 -
[1032] - Quote
Stopping by to voice that I am happy with the proposed changes to Absolution in the OP, although I guess that's not too surprising considering that it is pretty much an all-around buff.
However, I would like to make the suggestion of swapping the RoF bonus with the resist bonus for Amarr BC/CS skills. With 5%/5% damage per level there was already a large emphasis on dps coming from the CS skill, but at 5%/10% this becomes a fairly punishing gap between each level of CS. The increase in absolution's T2 resists up to damnation's level will somewhat help offset the resist loss for pilots below CS 5 compared to current TQ stats.
EDIT: just want to add, I like my current model. A lot. So if I'm getting a new model for it, the guys in charge better be putting their heart and soul into making it just as awesome. |
Shimbei
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:02:00 -
[1033] - Quote
Diivil wrote:Even if you do all of this and manage to get people to use on-grid command ships they of course can do nothing while they are on the grid except run away. They will be fully tank fit which leaves no room to fit guns. No that the guns would do any real damage without DPS mods. Or that they would ever hit anyone when the command ships would be anchoring on the logi anchor and staying as far away from the fight as possible. So what fleet command ships need is not DPS bonuses. If you want to make them fun you will need to give them utility.
Ohhh won't anyone think of the roles? I think some are off starving someplace.
Maybe it's a lack of direct experience? Why not open up a constellation or two in UUA-F4 with some dev group holding sov. We'll come and fight you I'm sure. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
414
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:10:00 -
[1034] - Quote
Shimbei wrote:Diivil wrote:Even if you do all of this and manage to get people to use on-grid command ships they of course can do nothing while they are on the grid except run away. They will be fully tank fit which leaves no room to fit guns. No that the guns would do any real damage without DPS mods. Or that they would ever hit anyone when the command ships would be anchoring on the logi anchor and staying as far away from the fight as possible. So what fleet command ships need is not DPS bonuses. If you want to make them fun you will need to give them utility. Ohhh won't anyone think of the roles? I think some are off starving someplace. Maybe it's a lack of direct experience? Why not open up a constellation or two in UUA-F4 with some dev group holding sov. We'll come and fight you I'm sure. Are you kidding? PL would be all over that with their superblob.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
FalconX Blast
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:14:00 -
[1035] - Quote
Balanced with Alliance Tournament on the brain instead of the real EVE Online. |
Shimbei
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:17:00 -
[1036] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Are you kidding? PL would be all over that with their superblob.
Oh? and CCP can't limit ships by mass? Or engage alliance leaderships? It's their game. Don't be stupid.
|
Sigras
Conglomo
494
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:20:00 -
[1037] - Quote
I think the root problem with command ships is that there is nothing good for ships that specialize in tank (like command ships should) to do except give gang boosts . . . theyre not even usually that good at tackle because they usually cant keep up with their target.
This creates problems because CCP wants to make these ships interesting to fly, but:
- giving them massive DPS and EHP makes them solo pwnmobiles
- giving them little EHP leaves them vulnerable to being alphaed off the field
- giving them little damage makes them very un-fun to play
I think the answer is to give ships that focus primarily on tank a role. A while ago, I proposed a module which would do just that..
Not every ship needs to tank and gank
TL;DR a high slot module which would decrease the target ship's signature radius by 15% and increase yours by 30% This would of course be stack penalized but you could transfer a significant amount of the sig radius from one of your friendly ships to your own at the cost of your own DPS as you are using high slots to do so.
This would allow for a "tank class" of ship in order to encourage your opponents to fire at one ship over another without forcing them to. |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
1361
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:23:00 -
[1038] - Quote
Diivil wrote:Mister Vee wrote:Ugh, Fozzie, I'm sorry but this is all really stupid. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve exactely, but it's failing hard.
Really awesome post...
This exactly. Fozzie, you are not making on-grid boosting an option and instead you are just making flying boosters more annoying than it already is.
My views:
As long as it is not possible to put wing commanders on grid (so until skirmish boosters have Damnation level of EHP) POS boosting should stay in the game. I understand you want to make bonuses vulnerable and I do agree with that. But until on-grid boosting is a viable option, making running off-grid boosters more annoying isn't going to change anything. Fix on-grid boosting first, then force off-grid boosters out of their POSes.
Skirmish boosting ships absolutely have to have Damnation level of EHP. There seriously is no other way. If they don't, they are not going to ever be used in full fleets. Your current design would leave a fully tanked Claymore to around 150k EHP and the others aren't too far from that. Do you really think a ship which is insanely important but has less EHP than a fleet BS will ever survive when fleet BS die by the dozens if not hundreds in a proper fight.
If command processors were made to be rigs then the only ships that would ever use them would be off-grid t3 boosters. You would be unlikely to drop any tank from your on-grid command ships because they need all the EHP they can get. If they are changed to be rigs then at least I think carriers should have the ability to fit more than 1 link without command processors.
While Vee says off-grid boosting should be removed, personally I think it should stay stay in the game. Simply put it is the easiest solution with no new code being required, no need to invent frigate sized boosters for frigate fleets etc. But considering how you announced that it would be going away something like a year ago and it still hasn't leads me to believe you are not able to do it without a considerable amount of resources spend on it or without having too much stress on the server. Whatever the reason, off-grid boosting seems to be here to stay for at least the next few years. And it is not a bad thing. There are many fleet doctrines, small gang and full fleet sized, that need bonuses but can't bring a command ship on grid with them. As long as bonuses are as overpowered as they are now all fleets will want to have them so off-grid boosting allows us to have better and more interesting fleet concepts overall. Also as I have explained before it allows us to have more mobile fleets because you can sacrifice a few DPS ships to reposition but you can't sacrifice your bonuses.
In longer term I believe we need something in between no bonuses at all and full links. This would mean either nerfing the bonuses even more so that the gap is not as big (and simultaneously rebalancing most ships and weapons in game because everything is balanced based on the fact that people always have bonuses) or putting lesser form of bonuses in between no bonuses and full bonuses. This is because generally right now you will not be fighting in nullsec unless you have bonuses. So I want there to be an option to at least considering of keeping on fighting if you do lose your bonuses. While the warfare skills give some bonuses already it is not enough because it's just "base" stats (raw armor/shield, agility, targeting range) and not what the links actually give (better reps, tackle range, stronger ewar etc.) So what I would like to see to bridge this gap is that a perfect 5s leadership character could give maybe 30% to 50% link bonuses while being in any ship. It would still be worth bringing a dedicated bonus ship but you would not instantly be ****** if it dies.
All fleet command ships need to have enough PG to be able to fit 3 links, full tank (meaning 2 plates) and an MWD without fitting mods. Also preferably a probe launcher on top of that but that is not as important.
Even if you do all of this and manage to get people to use on-grid command ships they of course can do nothing while they are on the grid except run away. They will be fully tank fit which leaves no room to fit guns. No that the guns would do any real damage without DPS mods. Or that they would ever hit anyone when the command ships would be anchoring on the logi anchor and staying as far away from the fight as possible. So what fleet command ships need is not DPS bonuses. If you want to make them fun you will need to give them utility. Dual Pane idea: Click!
CCP Please Implement |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15359
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:30:00 -
[1039] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote: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? Increasing the cargo capacity to 475m3 should be pretty much mandatory. The increased cap consumption can easily be offset by the usage of a nos tho. Other than that, I don't think the Astarte needs any more attention. It's faster, tanks better (against kin/therm) does more dmg, and has the option to fit missiles for even MORE dmg, or fit nos/nuets for offensive/defensive cap warfare. In short, it's looking very sexy. Split weapon systems suck chubby and I thought we were past them. I dislike the weapons change to the Astarte greatly and doubt if I'll now be using it again tbh.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Mark Artreides
NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:41:00 -
[1040] - Quote
Selling all my command ships because CCP is doing the ******** thing again.
Jesus holy **** Fozzie how can you skip 45 pages of feedback and not get it? You are changing one of the most vital ships in nullsec warfare and seem to be doing it without ANY consulting, experience or feedback.
|
|
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
33
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:41:00 -
[1041] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote: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? Increasing the cargo capacity to 475m3 should be pretty much mandatory. The increased cap consumption can easily be offset by the usage of a nos tho. Other than that, I don't think the Astarte needs any more attention. It's faster, tanks better (against kin/therm) does more dmg, and has the option to fit missiles for even MORE dmg, or fit nos/nuets for offensive/defensive cap warfare. In short, it's looking very sexy. Split weapon systems suck chubby and I thought we were past them. I dislike the weapons change to the Astarte greatly and doubt if I'll now be using it again tbh.
Wait wait
Its primary weapons system gets buffed (read the effective turrets part) and you get two highs that *can* fit missiles and just as easily fit neuts/nos
and you then complain about split weapons systems and how this ship is bad and you won't fly it can you even read? |
Mark Artreides
NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:42:00 -
[1042] - Quote
lol even the word r-e-tard-ed gets censored. These forums... |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
1362
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:44:00 -
[1043] - Quote
I spent the greater part of a year training into command ships only to find that I spend my time on another account, alt+tabbed in order to have fun.
I want to repeat this...
It takes almost a year, with implants, to properly fly these very niche and specialty ships. They should be powerful.
Before you remove the POS use, you need to make Command Ships viable on grid.
Small gangs (<20) are horribly gimped by your current proposal in that, any large gang they feel they'd be able to take will have the numerical advantage to keep a command ship on grid.
Command ships and boosting in general as I see them:
Remove Command Procs and create hard points.
- Destroyer 1 (make frig gang boosting viable).
- T1 (Ferox etc.) 2
- T2 (Vulture etc.) 3
- T3 (Loki etc.) 5
- Carriers get 3
- Titans 5.
Command ships should have the highest tank on grid, period.
Not the T1 counterparts, just the T2 "Command Ship" should. No sub cap should be able to match the "Command Ship"'s overall EHP with a reasonable T2 fit.
Mini would be the fastest, Amarr largest armor tank. etc, however if I'm fielding a claymore, allow it to function in a nano gang if you're going to keep it's current EHP.
Bring utility to the command ship on grid by giving them recon bonuses.
This makes it so the ship isn't just a boosting platform, but actually brings a use on grid.
- Claymore = Web/TP
- Vulture = ECM / (Probe strength?)
- Damnation = TD/Neut
- Eos = Point/SD
Bonuses would be "Aura" based rather than Fleet Position based.
- 1 AU Range
- Remove the 'fleet position' necessity, provided the pilot has the proper leadership skill, they can pass bonuses. However forcing a Fleet Commander into the only position to warp a fleet into a ship that takes about a year to properly fly raises the barrier for entry. Not to mention revoking and assigning boosts has never functioned properly and breaks too easily.
- Ships in EVE now accept auras, so that, a frigate can only get maybe 1-3 boosts, a battleship on the other hand has the ability to get boosts from all 9 possibilities.
Dual Pane idea: Click!
CCP Please Implement |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
33
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:45:00 -
[1044] - Quote
Mark Artreides wrote:lol even the word r-e-tard-ed gets censored. These forums...
being politically correct is the foundation of success doncha know |
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
312
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:48:00 -
[1045] - Quote
Roime wrote:CCP Fozzie
[b wrote:Astarte:[/b] +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. Lovely stuff :) Only one thing concerns me- the speeds of Astarte and Eos, especially Eos is really very slow, and might have issues getting to brawl properly because of that. Skirmish, BS speeds... There is a huge gap in EHP between these two ships and Damnation, and I do understand the whines of the blobheads- when there's a differences of well over 100K EHP. However, blob PVP is a small niche in EVE and all ships shouldn't be designed for that. there is a huge difference in dps between these 3 ships as well. gallente can dish out the pain, but not the damnation. it CAN hurt ya, but the astarte has always shredded...and now it seems its even more deadly. and we lost 300 armor on the damnation. i would MUCH rather have the same tank as the astarte and dish out the same dps than being able to take it all day and eventually die a slow, agonizing death |
Maegor Stark
Perkone Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:52:00 -
[1046] - Quote
What about the sleip? I wanted to run C3s in it but now its gonna be very dangerous :x |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 22:01:00 -
[1047] - Quote
Why the DPS anyway? Let us Support and Tank, we are already busy calling targets and smacktalking! |
stup idity
43
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 22:27:00 -
[1048] - Quote
S1dy wrote:Why do you want to nerf the Damnation which is in the whole thread the only ship everyone agrees with as perfect as it is right now. It's tanky enough to achieve it's role in fleets. But you throw 300 Armor HP away. That's unbelievable And what's with the Vulture you ignored completely? It should be at least comparable to the Damnation.
I can only agree to that.
And (some points were already mentioned, probably several times): -All command ships should get a resists bonus, not just Amarr/Caldari.
- One CS of each race should get a second tank bonus, the other one should emphasize a little more on gank. Active boosting is of rather limited use, so how about a signature bonus or, even if it's untypical, also a buffer bonus.
-What I really dislike: the same bonus on one ship twice, like damage on the sleipnir, looks very unimaginative.
-They all should have the resists, one damage and the warfarelink bonuses on the command ship skill. For symmetry and to encourage heavy sp investment.
-Hybrid tracking on the eos really looks out of place. I also don't get the double range bonuses on the Vulture; honestly, even one is too much for my taste. I am the Herald of all beings that are me. |
Rain6638
Team Evil
569
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 22:35:00 -
[1049] - Quote
disambiguate.
-those command ships that didn't receive bonuses to links anyway -> assault battlecruisers (calling it a command ship previously was a misnomer, since all battlecruiser hulls can fit links. Field Command ships were literally T2, Assault BCs)
-those command ships that did receive link bonuses -> Command Ships
-if you want two racial command ships, give one a covops cloak. (Black Ops BC with bonused links; this fills a BC gap and command role in the covert line. I don't see why not--when recons have the modules used best with skirmish and info links, and have covops force recon variants)
Covops BC:
Primary Skill required Command Ships V
Secondary Skill required Black Ops I [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
33
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 22:52:00 -
[1050] - Quote
Rain6638 wrote:disambiguate.
-those command ships that didn't receive bonuses to links anyway -> assault battlecruisers (calling it a command ship previously was a misnomer, since all battlecruiser hulls can fit links. Field Command ships were literally T2, Assault BCs)
-those command ships that did receive link bonuses -> Command Ships
-if you want two racial command ships, give one a covops cloak. (Black Ops BC with bonused links; this fills a BC gap and command role in the covert line. I don't see why not--when recons have the modules used best with skirmish and info links, and have covops force recon variants)
Covops BC:
Primary Skill required Command Ships V
Secondary Skill required Black Ops I
I find this idea far-fetched yet incredibly reasonable and satisfactory |
|
Ashlore
Svea Rike Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 22:59:00 -
[1051] - Quote
So basicly enemy fart and the bonus is gone.. What is the point in having them then?
I think you should listen to mister vee He have som constructive suggestions. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1433
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:02:00 -
[1052] - Quote
It would be kind of neat to see Caldari get an equivalent to the Damnation, it shield recharge rate would need to adjusted accordingly.
For Gallente the Eos would neat to see it get a remote armor repair bonus to range and cap usage. Gallente Battlecruisers : +10% Drone Damage and HP per level +100% Remote Armor Repair Unit range per level Command Ships: +7.5% Heavy Drone Tracking and Microwarp Velocity per level -5% capacitor needs of remote armor repair units per level +3% to the strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links per level Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Rain6638
Team Evil
570
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:16:00 -
[1053] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:Rain6638 wrote:disambiguate.
-those command ships that didn't receive bonuses to links anyway -> assault battlecruisers (calling it a command ship previously was a misnomer, since all battlecruiser hulls can fit links. Field Command ships were literally T2, Assault BCs)
-those command ships that did receive link bonuses -> Command Ships
-if you want two racial command ships, give one a covops cloak. (Black Ops BC with bonused links; this fills a BC gap and command role in the covert line. I don't see why not--when recons have the modules used best with skirmish and info links, and have covops force recon variants)
Covops BC:
Primary Skill required Command Ships V
Secondary Skill required Black Ops I I find this idea far-fetched yet incredibly rational and satisfactory command ships should look like the damnation assault battlecruisers should look like the sleipnir covops command ships should look like the nighthawk [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
755
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:16:00 -
[1054] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Update time!.... You had got to be kidding. You are actually adding MORE dps to the penultimate brawling CC .. Q: What tactic would work if going up against the Astarte in another CC? A: None. You won't break his tank before he breaks you at ranges in excess of your points but well within his. Only hope is a neuting buddy to alpha his cap and drain him whenever he injects.
I am beginning to think/fear my jokes about Dev Gallente bias might not be jokes after all.
Funny thing: All facets of the Astarte get positive reinforcement while all others have some negatives mixed in, even goes so far as to ADD launchers to Astarte while all other gunboats are partially or completely stripped of theirs.
Bad time in Eve to be flying non-Gallente hulls.
CCP Fozzie wrote:I considered dropping the armor hp bonus from the Damnation, but in the end I think it's ok for it to have a strong identity, even if that identity makes it more popular than the others for large fleet warfare. Problem is that "identity" pigeon holes it into the blob with practically no function outside: ****-poor dps with links that can be just as easily be carried by the Absolution which can actually help kill a cruiser if the need arises .. don't expect it to go much higher than that, 10 turrets with no drones to speak of and zero fight control.
1. Halve the bonus to 5% armour per level and bump the damage to 20%/level .. will still be eminently suited as the blob anchor and ten launchers (ie. same as non-kin NH) with no application bonus will ensure it remains a second tier platform. NB: Before you say "but Claymore!!!111" .. it has optional guns (and application bonus) whereas the brick does not, they were ruthlessly eradicated.
-or-
2. Complete do-over and remake it in using the tiericided Prophecy as a template. Fits better anyway as Gallente/Amarr are 1st/2nd drone races and Caldari/Minmatar are 1st/2nd missile spammers.
Long story shorter: The idea was to make the field commands power in their own right, yet Damnation is handidly out damaged even by the palsy Sacrilege .. and no, that is not an invitation to reduce the Sacrilege further!
PS: In case you missed it, the Abso needs more! |
Keif Kroker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:23:00 -
[1055] - Quote
If your not going to make ships tanky enough to be the last ship to be called primary your doing something wrong. These are ships that need to survive in 250 man fleets going against even more people when being repped to be on grid as a fleet command ship. You can't call this balance if the only command ship ends up being the damnation. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
274
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:43:00 -
[1056] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Problem is that "identity" pigeon holes it into the blob with practically no function outside: ****-poor dps with links that can be just as easily be carried by the Absolution which can actually help kill a cruiser if the need arises .. don't expect it to go much higher than that, 10 turrets with no drones to speak of and zero fight control.
Oh yes, lets nerf the only functional command ship for large fleet engagements. In return it can add a few more DPS to the tens of thousands when large fleets clash.
Get out. |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
183
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:55:00 -
[1057] - Quote
Mister Vee wrote:Ugh, Fozzie, I'm sorry but this is all really stupid. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve exactely, but it's failing hard. Still can't use on-grid boosting
- Wing commanders will not get FC bonuses, which means they cannot survive at all
- Even if they did get FC bonus, only the damnation has enough hp to survive getting volleyed right off the field. Vultures will instadie in large engagements, while claymore hp is just laughable (often less than a regular battleship).
Off-grid boosting just got more annoying- Everyone is using boosters because they are too good to ignore, and because command ships just die, people HAVE to use off-grid boosters. Everyone does it on alts, because obviously it's boring to sit in a pos, but at least you could park it and leave it. Forcing them into safes because you don't fix boosting properly seems unfair to me
- Off-grid boosting is dumb and boring, but it's necessary to level the playing field since everyone is doing it.
What's the point? Why not go all the way? I'm no game designer, but my suggestion would be something like - Fix wing command bug first
- Rebalance field command to skirmish/active tank/dps bonuses, 1 link
- Rebalance fleet command to universally very high ehp, slots for utility instead of dps, 3 -4 links
- Find an alternative for command processors entirely, they're dumb
- Then remove off-grid boosting entirely
- And don't ignore smaller fleets who are too fast for bringing slow command ships with them...
it seems he is to pigheaded to want to drop the useless rep bonus. but i cant quote this enough! seriously fozzie get your bleep out of.. bleep
|
Sieve Girl
Polaris Rising Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:55:00 -
[1058] - Quote
I have an alt account I was considering using as a fleet booster, it is a rather long training time to ensure we had an edge in fleets, hence using an alt account, but I was going to do it. However, after reading this thread I see no point. I will not bring an expensive ship with expensive implants into a fight, on grid, only to watch it get alphaed by scrub lords assigning T1 sentry drones to another player and giggling like school girls. What is more, I don't want to be forced to fly an expensive ship with a great big target on my forehead and not have any opportunity to participate beyond starting up my links, sitting on the logi anchor or the edge of the grid and taking bets with the other wing commanders on who dies first.
Hence why people use alts parked in a tower, so they can alt tab to their main account and actually participate in the fight. Perhaps Fozzie should observe the fight in 6DVT, the CFC destroyed every hostile command ship on the field, typically alphaed them, and by controlling the moons ensured that there was no safe POS. This is the reality that your changes will bring. Who wants to fly a ship that everyone knows will be the die faster than a interdictor? |
Rain6638
Team Evil
570
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:55:00 -
[1059] - Quote
any chance you would consider giving tier 3 battlecruisers ("glass houses") a shot at having command link bonuses? I think the lack of tank is a good trade-off for having a covops cloak.
4x 100% damage bonused turrets, 1 covops cloak and 2 utility highs, everything else unaltered
because each race has 3 battlecruisers, not just the two you seem to be considering right now.
if you're concerned about an undeniable DPS creep by creating assault battlecruisers, let's face it: Battleships never scaled in terms of DPS vs sig radius anyway. They could use a boost.
I like the dual-"racial" type bonuses to command ships, because it allows full tank/info/skirmish for both full-armor and full-shield gangs. [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
183
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:59:00 -
[1060] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Shpenat wrote:I can understand his motives. If he gives every CS the tank of damnation he will have to kill its gank. ANd people will complain again that they do no damage and are thus not good for anything.
He can't give them bot tank and gank because they would be way to overpowered. Imagine a CS doing 1200 dps (like astarta can) while having ovek 250k ehp (damnation). I call that bad balancing.
So if his goal is to give all of those ships good enough dps he needs to reduce the tank.
The people who are advocating for the huge brick tank boosters are willing to make that trade off. Their concern is staying on the most hostile battlefields while people are trying to headshot them, the DPS they put out is a distant third concern at best. That's why people are asking for 1 heavy tank command ship where the offensive bonuses are unimportant, and 1 heavy assault battlecruiser ship that small-ish gangs can use to have a ganky boosty ship. As it stands now we have 7 HABC and 1 brick tank command ship.
In deed, I dont care one bit about DPS. heck remove ALL turret and launchers from the tanky ones for all I care. I only have a civilian laser to get on mails as it is. since every single lowslot is tank on my damnation and mid. well prob, capbooster and.. well one free :) who cares about some damage when my job is to boost and stay alive. make the old field command ships the ganky ones, but for the hate of Michael let those of us that need to stay alive have the tools to do so! what was wrong with having a fleet and one field command ships? why this sudden need for them to be similar? seems so counter intuitive to me.
|
|
Aplier Shivra
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:59:00 -
[1061] - Quote
Acidictadpole wrote:I do believe that the two racial battlecruisers need to be split. A command ship, by name, just doesn't seem like it should fit the role you're giving it. One of the two can be made a combat ship, with a bonus to offensive and defensive capabilities over its t1 variant, but the other should remain strictly a fleet ship, and be dubbed a Command ship.
If a Command ship is given prowess over links, then it should be the best at fielding them. It should have high defenses and very little offensive capability, and perhaps even an EW defensive capability which is projected to nearby friendlies. These command ships should move with the fleet and be in close proximity to any fight taking place. In addition, they *should* be a high priority target in a fight (not necessarily highest, but high).
The combat variant should not have any command abilities whatsoever, but instead trade those for its offensive capability. It should have slightly less defensive capabilities than its command ship brethren, yet still have bonuses over its t1 counterpart.
So basically what you're asking, is that command ships be left alone completely, and are fine as is. One that is dedicated to boosting, but sucks at combat, and the other that sucks at boosting but can do combat.
Or instead, we can have our current boosting dedicated ones be brought up to the combat capability of our current combat ones, and vice versa. So that instead of 4 combat command ships and 4 boosting command ships, we can have 8 command ships that are good at both and can choose before undocking if they want to focus on their combat aspect or their boosting aspect. Personally, I like the new system. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
755
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 00:01:00 -
[1062] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Oh yes, lets nerf the only functional command ship for large fleet engagements. In return it can add a few more DPS to the tens of thousands when large fleets clash.
Get out. Taking off 25% from the bonus equates to losing a single 1600 plate from the 50% hull .. you'll lose in the neighborhood of 60k EHP leaving 210k+.
Do you really think that your survival increases by that much when forced onto grid in the blob to justify it being nothing but a brick in or out of the blob when no other hulls has to suffer that fate? Problem is that even when not bricked it is outperformed by most tiericided cruisers and probably some of the bling frigs and that is neither here nor there .. sacrificing dps when bricking is one thing, but not even having the option/choice is entirely different.
Adjust the mobility and/or sig to approximate the "real" EHP of the current near stationary triple-plated if need be, just don't nerf it to a point where being a giant buffer is all it can do.
PS: How do you know that it is the only functional blob link platform when they have generally never seen action so far .. anyone can sit in a POS or at a safe. Even CCP has no clue where the chips may land when/if they get through the Gordian knot they have their resident hacker chewing on. |
Malango
Astro Defence Industry
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 00:15:00 -
[1063] - Quote
Why is the nighthawk losing a launcher???........... what the hell is that about. |
Rain6638
Team Evil
570
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 00:16:00 -
[1064] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I considered dropping the armor hp bonus from the Damnation, but in the end I think it's ok for it to have a strong identity, even if that identity makes it more popular than the others for large fleet warfare. "that advantage is just its identity, and it's not worth changing a ship over something as superfluous as identity."
I'm just going to laugh, because I refuse to be trolled. this is just comedy, fozzie. [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 00:41:00 -
[1065] - Quote
Rain6638 wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:I considered dropping the armor hp bonus from the Damnation, but in the end I think it's ok for it to have a strong identity, even if that identity makes it more popular than the others for large fleet warfare. "that advantage is just its identity, and it's not worth changing a ship over something as superfluous as identity." I'm just going to laugh, because I refuse to be trolled. this is just comedy, fozzie. maybe you should list all the RP aspects of these ships that are beyond reproach.
I do notic that when given the opertunity to completely mix things up ccp are kinda scared, i know there are allot of die hards of even terible ships, but if they went out on a limb and made something interesting they would make new diehards. Anyway at least they game skirmish links to galente and gave the amarr the lol info links to make galenty that much more apealing. |
Rain6638
Team Evil
570
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 00:48:00 -
[1066] - Quote
depending on how you look at it, this could be interpreted as a mere shuffle of things to give the illusion of "new", due to any number of reasons (lack of manpower/time/ideas) -or- a slight attempt at creating new SP sinks according to player metrics we don't have access to...
basically, create new reasons for people to sub and enjoy it. those types of changes would come slowly--and they're something you would expect a for-profit company to do.
...but the idea of preserving the RP of certain ships is a motivation I have not considered. and those things should be listed along with ship stats in the OP. [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
Caldess
The Executives Executive Outcomes
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 00:49:00 -
[1067] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:It would be kind of neat to see Caldari get an equivalent to the Damnation, it shield recharge rate would need to adjusted accordingly.
For Gallente it would neat to see the Eos get a remote armor repair bonus to range and cap usage. Gallente Battlecruisers : +10% Drone Damage and HP per level +100% Remote Armor Repair Unit range per level Command Ships: +7.5% Heavy Drone Tracking and Microwarp Velocity per level -5% capacitor needs of remote armor repair units per level +3% to the strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links per level
I don't know for minmatar, but it would most likely involve the Claymore as most would rage if the Sleipnir got touched.
This would give Caldari and Amarr solid large fleet command ships, Gallente and Minmatar good small gang command ships.
Why would you EVER fit remote repair mods on a command ship? You dont really think that while im FCing in that ship i got time to repair someone and give it the attention it needs to be valuable? |
Rain6638
Team Evil
570
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 00:51:00 -
[1068] - Quote
because this is a troll thread, you didn't know? [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 01:04:00 -
[1069] - Quote
Caldess wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:It would be kind of neat to see Caldari get an equivalent to the Damnation, it shield recharge rate would need to adjusted accordingly.
For Gallente it would neat to see the Eos get a remote armor repair bonus to range and cap usage. Gallente Battlecruisers : +10% Drone Damage and HP per level +100% Remote Armor Repair Unit range per level Command Ships: +7.5% Heavy Drone Tracking and Microwarp Velocity per level -5% capacitor needs of remote armor repair units per level +3% to the strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links per level
I don't know for minmatar, but it would most likely involve the Claymore as most would rage if the Sleipnir got touched.
This would give Caldari and Amarr solid large fleet command ships, Gallente and Minmatar good small gang command ships. Why would you EVER fit remote repair mods on a command ship? You dont really think that while im FCing in that ship i got time to repair someone and give it the attention it needs to be valuable?
What you dont have a suden urdge to fly in an all Eos or Damnation fleet, spider tanking and and laughing with glee? because i think thats what ccp hopes happens, giving all comand ships 2 utility highs. I personaly will have a dule newt Eos and brawl, let someone else in fleet fly the linky boat. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
279
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 01:52:00 -
[1070] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:PS: How do you know that it is the only functional blob link platform when they have generally never seen action so far .. anyone can sit in a POS or at a safe. Even CCP has no clue where the chips may land when/if they get through the Gordian knot they have their resident hacker chewing on.
I flew logistics in the Fountain war. The enemy knows every single one of our FC's, and they would try to headshot them off the field every single battle. Once we started to fly megathron fleets the only ships our FC's would use were brick tanked proteus and brick tanked damnations. These are the ships that have tank to stay on the field when two battleship fleets start pounding each other.
If you think that damnations haven't been tested on grid in massive fleet battles, you haven't been paying attention. |
|
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
133
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 03:14:00 -
[1071] - Quote
What about a module (like triage or siege) for CS that gives them +20% per level to armor (or shield if you are a ***) when activated? This way, if you want a tanky CS for larger fleet, you fit this mod for *extreme* tank. You want your CS for small gang, pve or simply ganking miners in 0.5 because you are *very* spacerish? You fit your CS without this mod.
Of course, once fitted, this mod would make the CS almost does no DPS at all (only for whoring KM). |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1434
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 03:45:00 -
[1072] - Quote
Caldess wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:It would be kind of neat to see Caldari get an equivalent to the Damnation, it shield recharge rate would need to adjusted accordingly.
For Gallente it would neat to see the Eos get a remote armor repair bonus to range and cap usage. Gallente Battlecruisers : +10% Drone Damage and HP per level +100% Remote Armor Repair Unit range per level Command Ships: +7.5% Heavy Drone Tracking and Microwarp Velocity per level -5% capacitor needs of remote armor repair units per level +3% to the strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links per level
I don't know for minmatar, but it would most likely involve the Claymore as most would rage if the Sleipnir got touched.
This would give Caldari and Amarr solid large fleet command ships, Gallente and Minmatar good small gang command ships. Why would you EVER fit remote repair mods on a command ship? You dont really think that while im FCing in that ship i got time to repair someone and give it the attention it needs to be valuable? Yeah, in retrospect it was a bad idea, and I feel bad for it. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Rain6638
Team Evil
570
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 03:56:00 -
[1073] - Quote
cap chain claymores with local reps and egress port maximizer rig. that was a fun EFT exercise.
don't bother, it was a 500hp rep tank w/ LSB and a 125k EHP buffer.
stable, but crap. [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
Namamai
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
189
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 04:08:00 -
[1074] - Quote
The NH changes are welcome, but I still think the hull is pretty underwhelming compared to the rest of the CSes, or even compared to the Cerberus.
I think it's worthwhile to do an apples-to-apples comparison with the Claymore: * Both are shield boats with bonuses relevant to active tanking (NH gets resists, Claymore gets boost bonus) * Both are missile users with 5 hardpoints * Both get bonuses to missile application -- NH gets exp radius, Claymore gets exp velocity
The main difference is that the Claymore has much higher base mobility and a sixth mid slot. However, as it turns out, this makes a massive difference.
* The Claymore is significantly faster -- 400m/s faster base, over 700m/s faster if it's using one of its option highs for a bonused Rapid Deployment link. * The Claymore ends up having about the same EHP on a buffer fit -- while the NH has a resist bonus, the Claymore's kin hole is much smaller than the NH's em hole, and it can comfortably fit double T2 LSEs. In the end, it's 110K EHP versus 115K EHP if both are taking a Shield Harmonizing link. * The Claymore has far more fitting room -- 35 less CPU, but 200 more grid. * The Claymore has less missile DPS, but it can take a flight of medium drones instead of lights. It ends up being about a 100dps difference -- 600 versus 700 for a HAM fit. However, the Claymore can apply that DPS better since it has an extra mid slot for a web. (Especially if it opts for an Interdiction link instead of a SHarm.)
Given the choice between 100dps, and 600m/s of mobility plus an extra tackle mod, the choice is pretty obvious for me. And I suspect that the Claymore's link bonuses (Siege+Skirmish) are far more compelling to medium and large gangs than a Nighthawk's.
As it stands, the only time I'd take NH is in very large gangs where buffer is extremely important -- in which case, it has to compete with the Vulture, and you may want to spend your highs on smartbombs/cyno instead of HMLs. |
Rain6638
Team Evil
570
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 04:15:00 -
[1075] - Quote
please don't make the claymore sound good, or fozzie will touch it [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
Caldess
The Executives Executive Outcomes
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 04:56:00 -
[1076] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:Oh yes, lets nerf the only functional command ship for large fleet engagements. In return it can add a few more DPS to the tens of thousands when large fleets clash.
Get out. PS: How do you know that it is the only functional blob link platform when they have generally never seen action so far .. anyone can sit in a POS or at a safe. Even CCP has no clue where the chips may land when/if they get through the Gordian knot they have their resident hacker chewing on.
Its pretty simple how we know it. If you are almost able to headshot a Damnation, what do you think will happen to any other Commandship? |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4467
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 05:08:00 -
[1077] - Quote
Caldess wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:It would be kind of neat to see Caldari get an equivalent to the Damnation, it shield recharge rate would need to adjusted accordingly.
For Gallente it would neat to see the Eos get a remote armor repair bonus to range and cap usage. Gallente Battlecruisers : +10% Drone Damage and HP per level +100% Remote Armor Repair Unit range per level Command Ships: +7.5% Heavy Drone Tracking and Microwarp Velocity per level -5% capacitor needs of remote armor repair units per level +3% to the strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links per level
I don't know for minmatar, but it would most likely involve the Claymore as most would rage if the Sleipnir got touched.
This would give Caldari and Amarr solid large fleet command ships, Gallente and Minmatar good small gang command ships. Why would you EVER fit remote repair mods on a command ship? You dont really think that while im FCing in that ship i got time to repair someone and give it the attention it needs to be valuable? I think that soon you will find a sharp reduction in the amount of large fleet FCing done from Command Ships. No matter how this balancing goes, or the eventual fate of off grid boosting, as fleets get larger and larger it will eventually become impossible to survive alpha strikes via tank alone. FC's are going to have to get either sneaky or clever to survive. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Swiftus Mahyisti
Viziam Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 06:12:00 -
[1078] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:tl;dr - step in the right direction, but not enough...
as most have pointed out these changes seem rather... underwhelming, although they are a step in the right direction for sure. damnation seems meh nighthawk seems meh (troll ship apparently?) 5 mid 5 low? and one of the few i've been following (the eos) seems quite meh) you had something going with the sleipnir's old slot count, but instead of carrying the extra slot over you nerf the sleip/claymore slot layout, you need to put that slot back onto all of the CS's and i dont like the current slot layout of the eos, yes its a drone boat so -1 compared to all of the other ships makes sense, but not when you have 4 unbonused guns, just tracking? (lol) the 7.5% tracking to heavy drones is interesting, and unique... i like it, but 250 drone bay? needs much more, especially when you are trying to get people to use heavy drones, a cruiser (ishtar) shouldnt have 125m^3 more than a battlecruiser...
all of the ships seem lacking in overall DPS, they need a bit more, even if you destroy your tank for dps, 905 dps and 617 tank (eos) is quite hilariously.... bad... and this seems to be a general trend... these ships are slow and large... they cant effectively kite against much, so they need to have an actual tank, and a good amount of dps while tanking halfway effectively
give all of the commandships the +1 slot they deserve give the eos more dronebay, and a better 4th bonus something like 7.5% MHT tracking and damage would be much better, and make it worth not having the extra slot the other CS's have or roll the tracking of MHT into the heavy drone tracking (weird yes) and add a +10% armor bonus (still not worth -1 slot tho for being a drone ship)
a 7.5% MHT tracking/damage bonus for its 4th bonus, 6/4/7 eos with 375 dronebay would be much better, and worth using. and because of the split weapon systems, you wouldnt get a silly 1500 dps ganker on roids, with 3 drone damage mods, only 1074dps and 617 tank... heck, the eos is an active tanker, it needs a second cap booster to be effective, a 6/5/7 slot layout might be a bit too much, but maybe not...
most ships that need help with tank should get a midslot for shield tankers or lowslot for armor tankers, excluding the damnation which already has a very nice tank, give it a 5th mid and change its velocity bonus to damage bonus, or give it an extra high and missile turret
but why are you bringing t2 bc's down in slot layout? t1 -> t2 cruisers give you +1 slot t1 -> t2 frigs give you +2 slots... t1 bc -> t2 bc should give you +1 slot, its ridiculous not to...
THIS! +1, outlined everything that is wrong, and gave reasonable replacements for useless bonuses. Please take a hint from this man.
|
Gustav Mannfred
the bring back canflipping corp
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 06:49:00 -
[1079] - Quote
I have a question:
On the damnation, you give a bonus to all kind of missile damage, why you give on the nighthawk just a bonus to kinetic damage?
i'm REALY miss the old stuff.-á
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=24183 |
Aplier Shivra
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 06:58:00 -
[1080] - Quote
Gustav Mannfred wrote:I have a question:
On the damnation, you give a bonus to all kind of missile damage, why you give on the nighthawk just a bonus to kinetic damage?
It's fairly standard for caldari's missile bonuses to be for kinetic |
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
22
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 07:39:00 -
[1081] - Quote
Amarr = EM Caldari = Kinetic Gallente = Thermal Minmatar = Explosiv
I know some maybe different but thats the official Rule. |
Gustav Mannfred
the bring back canflipping corp
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 08:08:00 -
[1082] - Quote
but i still want to know, why the amarr and minmatar ships gets a bonus to ALL damage types and the caldari just for kinetic? i find it a littlebit strange, that the scyte fleet has a 10% to all damage types and the osprey navy just 10% to kinetic.
the same with the damnation and nighthawk. i'm REALY miss the old stuff.-á
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=24183 |
Balzac Legazou
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 08:19:00 -
[1083] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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 bonus command ships will all be viable for people who choose not to use the repair bonuses after this patch.
I don't think the issue is "the existence of repair bonuses on half of these ships". The issue is how that "half" is defined.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that command ships have two sub-categories, which are a perfect way to make that distinction:
- Give fleet command ships resist bonuses (and make them rely on the fleet for repairs).
- Give field command ships active repair bonuses (and make them self-reliant).
The actual bonuses can be differentiated by race, but this way not only does every race have both options, there is also a stronger sense of identity and role for field command ships vs. fleet command ships.
The issue people have is that some races seem to have two field command ships and zero fleet command ships.
|
FleetAdmiralHarper
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 08:25:00 -
[1084] - Quote
Malango wrote:Why is the nighthawk losing a launcher???........... what the hell is that about.
agreed. i want it to keep all 6. it looks better aesthetically and its better for when you need to change damage types in pvp or pve. shooting kinetic 24/7 doesn't ******* always help... so even if it does magically have the equivalent of 11 launchers (according to fozzie) with its 5. it doesnt matter because people arent always going to use that freaking damage type...
im a little less pissed about the just now updated, because the increased rate of fire will help out when changing missiles. but im still HEAVILY against the -(launcher)
i think they believe that these changes will make the nighthawk over powered in some way. but the night hawk is so ****** now because of the heavy missile uber nerf last December.... if they left the 6th launcher and added the changes.,all it would succeed in doing is making the nighthawk slightly useable.
leave the 6th slot fozzie, and the rest of the current changes, and all will be well.
atleast for the nighthawk....
sorry guys i cant help you fix the rest of your command ships. i have no experience with them, and im a firm believer in you shouldn't talk what you dont know about XD |
Grymwulf
Give Me Shelter From Taxes
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 08:41:00 -
[1085] - Quote
Has anyone considered that perhaps CCP should set it up that each race has a viable skirmish and fleet command ship? Instead of making Minmatar/Gallente kings of small gangs and Amarr/Caldari kings of fleet boosting, give each race one command ship with a resist bonus and the other with the local rep bonus.
This allows those who prefer a specific race to choose a ship based on not just it's weapon types, but on whether they will be doing small gang or fleet ops. I'm a jerk.-á Get used to it.
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1112
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 09:45:00 -
[1086] - Quote
Shimbei wrote:Maybe it's a lack of direct experience? Why not open up a constellation or two in UUA-F4 with some dev group holding sov. We'll come and fight you I'm sure.
Up for this
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1112
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 09:58:00 -
[1087] - Quote
Rain6638 wrote:disambiguate.
-those command ships that didn't receive bonuses to links anyway -> assault battlecruisers (calling it a command ship previously was a misnomer, since all battlecruiser hulls can fit links. Field Command ships were literally T2, Assault BCs)
-those command ships that did receive link bonuses -> Command Ships
-if you want two racial command ships, give one a covops cloak. (Black Ops BC with bonused links; this fills a BC gap and command role in the covert line. I don't see why not--when recons have the modules used best with skirmish and info links, and have covops force recon variants)
Covops BC:
Primary Skill required Command Ships V
Secondary Skill required Black Ops I
I don't like solo pownmobiles because it's always fun at a very large number of other players unfun, it's fun 5min then I get quickly bored, no challenge whatsoever.
But this could be really nice indeed to replace T3 command sub (never gonna happen anyway for what we see). I mean a T2 BC with that firepower and Cov OPs Cloak on top? -ho man I'd get a full hangar of those !! *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Kane Fenris
NWP
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 10:02:00 -
[1088] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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
thanks your the best! (missile bonus change) still i seem to need that reactor controll for a normal setup...
i hope your in charge for marauders?
|
Rain6638
Team Evil
571
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 10:30:00 -
[1089] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Rain6638 wrote:disambiguate.
-those command ships that didn't receive bonuses to links anyway -> assault battlecruisers (calling it a command ship previously was a misnomer, since all battlecruiser hulls can fit links. Field Command ships were literally T2, Assault BCs)
-those command ships that did receive link bonuses -> Command Ships
-if you want two racial command ships, give one a covops cloak. (Black Ops BC with bonused links; this fills a BC gap and command role in the covert line. I don't see why not--when recons have the modules used best with skirmish and info links, and have covops force recon variants)
Covops BC:
Primary Skill required Command Ships V
Secondary Skill required Black Ops I I don't like solo pownmobiles because it's always fun at a very large number of other players unfun, it's fun 5min then I get quickly bored, no challenge whatsoever. But this could be really nice indeed to replace T3 command sub (never gonna happen anyway for what we see). I mean a T2 BC with that firepower and Cov OPs Cloak on top? -ho man I'd get a full hangar of those !! since writing that I thought maybe the tier 3 glass houses would be a better option.
but covops only in the sense that they can take the covops bridge--and have the gimped cloak like those of the blackops battleships.
a sidetrack thought, in a muddy thread. [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15359
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 12:35:00 -
[1090] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:Mag's wrote:Split weapon systems suck chubby and I thought we were past them. I dislike the weapons change to the Astarte greatly and doubt if I'll now be using it again tbh. Wait wait Its primary weapons system gets buffed (read the effective turrets part) and you get two highs that *can* fit missiles and just as easily fit neuts/nos and you then complain about split weapons systems and how this ship is bad and you won't fly it can you even read? if not, how do you post? this is awfully confusing If you think going from 10.9 effective turrets to 10 is a buff to it's primary weapon system, then I'm not the one with reading issues.
But oh yea, I can fit nos or missiles and this makes it all better.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
|
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3249
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 12:49:00 -
[1091] - Quote
Mag's check the latest update:
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
<3
Along with the other changes, Astarte got a pretty major buff imho :)
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15359
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 13:09:00 -
[1092] - Quote
Roime wrote:Mag's check the latest update:
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
<3
Along with the other changes, Astarte got a pretty major buff imho :)
Ahh so it was changed yesterday, that explains the guys sh**ty attitude and reply. Shame he couldn't simply point out it had been updated.
Yea I agree, good buff mate.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 13:09:00 -
[1093] - Quote
The Astarte did get a nice buff, I'm pretty happy where it is except for the fact it along with all other commandships are missing a slot they deserve To reiterate T1 bc. 17 slots Faction. 18 slots T2 bc. 17. Slots
All other t2 ships get extra slots, so why don't commandships? I'd like to know why they didn't give the proper slot layout to these ships... |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
514
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 13:22:00 -
[1094] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:The Astarte did get a nice buff, I'm pretty happy where it is except for the fact it along with all other commandships are missing a slot they deserve To reiterate T1 bc. 17 slots Faction. 18 slots T2 bc. 17. Slots
All other t2 ships get extra slots, so why don't commandships? I'd like to know why they didn't give the proper slot layout to these ships...
The large dmg bonuses and lower numbers of turrets/launchers is essentially giving you a slot tho. Also, your comparison is also not counting rig slots as slots, which it should...
so if we count raw slots w/o taking dmg bonuses into account
t1 20, t2 19, navy 21 |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
756
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 13:25:00 -
[1095] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:...If you think that damnations haven't been tested on grid in massive fleet battles, you haven't been paying attention.
Caldess wrote:...Its pretty simple how we know it. If you are almost able to headshot a Damnation, what do you think will happen to any other Commandship? And that can only be solved by bricking them?
How about fixing the Target Spectrum thingie and slapping a 4x effect on CC's as a role bonus alongside the 'Can fit links' bonus. Frees them all up to be gank or tank monsters as originally intended instead of having some being way over the top gank wise and others not even able to support to their own weight.
|
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 13:41:00 -
[1096] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: 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
Some moves in the right direction, thanks for these.
5 mids 5 lows is still an odd setup for a shield tanked missile boat. 1 low for the DC , 3 lows for BCS and 1 low for ? While shield gun boats aimed at damage ( sliep ) can make use of a 5th low with a te a missile boat has very little use for a 5th low.
Is the NighHawk designed from the outset to be the only CS that requires a Fitting mod ( RCU ) by default for decent fits , effectivelly leaving it a slot down over competitors ?
6 mids / 4 lows and 1000 grid is where the NighHawk needs to be.
or if damage is the game for the NH break the mold and go 8/5/4 giving the NH its damage potential from 5 launchers on a 3link boat.
|
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 13:51:00 -
[1097] - Quote
Even with nice damage bonuses (which t1 battle cruisers and maybe some cruisers have) it doesn't compensate for the loss of slots... And in the eos' case it gets standard drone dps bonus and nothing more, then they take a further slot away If they had gun dps bonuses that last part would make sense for the eos, but they don't
I'd rather have the eos's unique bonus lineup with the proper 18 (+ rigs) slot layout than going for a more standard drone and gun damage bonus eos with 17 slots
You guys did a good job figuring out what active armor tankers need to work, look at the Hyperion 7/5/7 The mid/low slot layout is what the eos needs
Give the eos a. 6/5/7 slot layout with current bonuses Or if you refuse to give the eos the 18th slot make it 5/5/7 with 4 guns and integrate a damage bonus into the mht tracking bonus
Other commandships should get their slots to where they need it Damnation +1 high/launcher Astarte +1 low Nighthawk +1 mid +more pwg Abso +1 mid seems like the consensus The others I don't know enough about them |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
514
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:07:00 -
[1098] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Even with nice damage bonuses (which t1 battle cruisers and maybe some cruisers have) it doesn't compensate for the loss of slots... And in the eos' case it gets standard drone dps bonus and nothing more, then they take a further slot away If they had gun dps bonuses that last part would make sense for the eos, but they don't
I'd rather have the eos's unique bonus lineup with the proper 18 (+ rigs) slot layout than going for a more standard drone and gun damage bonus eos with 17 slots
You guys did a good job figuring out what active armor tankers need to work, look at the Hyperion 7/5/7 The mid/low slot layout is what the eos needs
Give the eos a. 6/5/7 slot layout with current bonuses Or if you refuse to give the eos the 18th slot make it 5/5/7 with 4 guns and integrate a damage bonus into the mht tracking bonus
Other commandships should get their slots to where they need it Damnation +1 high/launcher Astarte +1 low Nighthawk +1 mid +more pwg Abso +1 mid seems like the consensus The others I don't know enough about them
In the case of the Astarte, the 2 dmg boni it gets most certainly do make up for the loss of a slot. In the case of the EOS, I most certainly agree with you tho...
|
FleetAdmiralHarper
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:17:00 -
[1099] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: 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
Some moves in the right direction, thanks for these. 5 mids 5 lows is still an odd setup for a shield tanked missile boat. 1 low for the DC , 3 lows for BCS and 1 low for ?
the last low is for a power diag.. its exactly the set up it needs to be. or else you cant fit those command links, or get away with some fits.
you could also put a shield relay in that slot if in a pulsar or somthing.
the slots dont need change. and the 1 missile slot doesnt need removed... |
Serenity Zipher
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:17:00 -
[1100] - Quote
Fozzie!!! The absolution 1000% needs a +1 mid slot., especially if you want it fit beam lasers. Either add a mid for a capbooster/cap-recharger , increase capacitor recharge rate or reduce cap usage of beam lasers, any of these will suffice. |
|
Thalesia
System lords Collective
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:19:00 -
[1101] - Quote
The absolution absolutely needs another mid slot to stay competative, 3 mid slots on a battlecruiser and a tier 2 one at that is just ridiculous. Probably been said somewhere in here but cba to read thru 50 pages. |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:22:00 -
[1102] - Quote
The only bad thing about the Astarte is the weak tank, even with the rep bonus, to get anywhere with the dps it has to murder it's tank, tho I have not done extensive eft warrioring, but if not a low perhaps a mid, but the Astarte is in a pretty good shape along with (what seems to be) the claymore and sleipnir
The eos, vulture, nighthawk, absolution, and damnation each seem to have a problem here or there Most of which a slot (or two for the eos) will fix Vulture seems to be lacking enough dps and nighthawk needs a mid and pwg |
Serenity Zipher
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:28:00 -
[1103] - Quote
Thalesia wrote:The absolution absolutely needs another mid slot to stay competative, 3 mid slots on a battlecruiser and a tier 2 one at that is just ridiculous. Probably been said somewhere in here but cba to read thru 50 pages.
I agree 100%, currently my absolution has to sacrifice 2 of its rig slots and 1 mid for capacitor recharge. Even then I am no where near cap stable, lasting 1 minute and 40 seconds with beams, a dead space repper and a dead space MWD all running |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
515
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:33:00 -
[1104] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:The only bad thing about the Astarte is the weak tank, even with the rep bonus, to get anywhere with the dps it has to murder it's tank, tho I have not done extensive eft warrioring, but if not a low perhaps a mid, but the Astarte is in a pretty good shape along with (what seems to be) the claymore and sleipnir
The eos, vulture, nighthawk, absolution, and damnation each seem to have a problem here or there Most of which a slot (or two for the eos) will fix Vulture seems to be lacking enough dps and nighthawk needs a mid and pwg
No doubt that many of the ships are not in a "Great" place as of the most current proposal. The ones you listed, astarte, claymore, and sleipnir most certainly are "fine" with the current proposal beyond the fact that each race needs and hp bonus ship.
As for the eos, there is no justification for it having 1 less slot compared to the other commands. The golden rule of "well it's a drone ship" does not apply when other ships in it's class are receiving HUGE dmg buffs to limited numbers of turrets. It probably could use another midslot to allow for some more "flavor" compared to the astarte. However, if it would drop it's mongoloid tracking bonus for an hp bonus i don't think it needs any new slots at all.
Now for the abso... It looks reasonable, pretty much the same as it is on tq atm. The problem is that it should not just be "reasonable" it should be bad ass for it's intended focus which beyond providing links is obviously a close range armor brawler. I'm not really on board with adding slots anymore, I'd much rather see it get the same turret bonuses as the new Astarte, and move to 11 effective turrets rather than 10... It's lacking a range bonus compared to other laser ships which is extremely important in zealot/legion meta. Because of this it needs to be extremely destructive at close range and should rival the Astarte in terms of effective turrets.
|
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:49:00 -
[1105] - Quote
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:Dav Varan wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: 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
Some moves in the right direction, thanks for these. 5 mids 5 lows is still an odd setup for a shield tanked missile boat. 1 low for the DC , 3 lows for BCS and 1 low for ? the last low is for a power diag.. its exactly the set up it needs to be. or else you cant fit those command links, or get away with some fits.
Thats the whole point, fitting mods are a choice on other commands not a neccessity.
Its neccessary to use 1 low for a RCU or PDU therefore making the layout effectivelly 7/5/4 compared to 7/6/4 for vulture/clay which dont need to boost there grid to fit. |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:52:00 -
[1106] - Quote
I feel the eos would benefit more from an added low than mid but it should get both, and if it got an hp bonus then it has to choose which bonus to use, meaning it is still in bad shape, as it can only use 3 of its bonuses, the current bonuses and 5mids 7 lows would make it a very unique ship And I doubt it would go well with an hp bonus as it has a heavy drone tracking bonus, larger fleets would need sentries So you would end up using only two bonuses in larger fleets....
The abso needs a fourth mid, especially if its going for close range brawler mwd cap booster web point are required
|
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:55:00 -
[1107] - Quote
The concern I have with the Astarte in terms of lows is active vs passive tank along with its nice dps 6 lows means a very weak tank either way, 7 lows means nice balance for dps and active tank, but might be too much passive tank, but without a resist bonus maybe not.... |
Tepalica
ACME-INC
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 15:05:00 -
[1108] - Quote
Each time I look at the Absolution or Zealot, or any Amarr laser boat (including the new Prophecy and Armageddon drone carriers which are now 100% better off with missiles and/or projectile turrets instead of lasers)....only one thing comes to mind.
Once and for all, REMOVE those stupid useless 10% bonuses to ****** Energy Turret capacitor use, give a special ability to ALL Amarr laser boats that give 50% of cap reduction for energy turret use to make their racial doctrine weapons usable too good effect only on Amarr hulls and give those ships a decent 2nd bonus - tracking, optimal, armor resists....all depending on the ship's role because right now, all you have are a bunch of cap hungry beasts with normal ship bonuses and a bunch of not so cap hungry gimped ships that only have 1 (3) bonus where there should be 2 (4).
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15365
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 15:13:00 -
[1109] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Even with nice damage bonuses (which t1 battle cruisers and maybe some cruisers have) it doesn't compensate for the loss of slots... And in the eos' case it gets standard drone dps bonus and nothing more, then they take a further slot away If they had gun dps bonuses that last part would make sense for the eos, but they don't
I'd rather have the eos's unique bonus lineup with the proper 18 (+ rigs) slot layout than going for a more standard drone and gun damage bonus eos with 17 slots
You guys did a good job figuring out what active armor tankers need to work, look at the Hyperion 7/5/7 The mid/low slot layout is what the eos needs
Give the eos a. 6/5/7 slot layout with current bonuses Or if you refuse to give the eos the 18th slot make it 5/5/7 with 4 guns and integrate a damage bonus into the mht tracking bonus
Other commandships should get their slots to where they need it Damnation +1 high/launcher Astarte +1 low Nighthawk +1 mid +more pwg Abso +1 mid seems like the consensus The others I don't know enough about them In the case of the Astarte, the 2 dmg boni it gets most certainly do make up for the loss of a slot. In the case of the EOS, I most certainly agree with you tho... You know it's been so long since I even considered the EOS, I didn't even look at the changes for it.
I agree that simply removing the high slot and not moving it, is a poor move. It's been a lacklustre ship for quite some time and removing a slot doesn't help change that.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
516
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 15:20:00 -
[1110] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:The concern I have with the Astarte in terms of lows is active vs passive tank along with its nice dps 6 lows means a very weak tank either way, 7 lows means nice balance for dps and active tank, but might be too much passive tank, but without a resist bonus maybe not....
Part of the reason this is the case is how it can fit battleship plates but cruiser armor reps... (Imnot saying lets change that) but we need to take cruiser reps into consideration
I think the biggest issue with cruiser/bc sized active tanking is massive difference between medium and large cap boosters... I'd like to see a change allowing t2 medium cap boosters to fit 2x navy 800s.
As for the lows on the Astarte, I won't lie, I would "love" to see a 7 low astarte, however I see it being extremely op. right now, with a single dmg mod, the astarte can easily put out 1k dps while sporting a tanking that can deal with a couple BCs. In the case of kin/therm dmg, the astarte can tank 2 vindis if you're pilled and linked. |
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15366
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 15:31:00 -
[1111] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Eldrith Jhandar wrote:The concern I have with the Astarte in terms of lows is active vs passive tank along with its nice dps 6 lows means a very weak tank either way, 7 lows means nice balance for dps and active tank, but might be too much passive tank, but without a resist bonus maybe not....
Part of the reason this is the case is how it can fit battleship plates but cruiser armor reps... (Imnot saying lets change that) but we need to take cruiser reps into consideration I think the biggest issue with cruiser/bc sized active tanking is massive difference between medium and large cap boosters... I'd like to see a change allowing t2 medium cap boosters to fit 2x navy 800s. As for the lows on the Astarte, I won't lie, I would "love" to see a 7 low astarte, however I see it being extremely op. right now, with a single dmg mod, the astarte can easily put out 1k dps while sporting a tanking that can deal with a couple BCs. In the case of kin/therm dmg, the astarte can tank 2 vindis if you're pilled and linked. I tend to agree. My only gripe at the initial changes, was the loss of DPS and inclusion of missiles to the Astarte. Now he's addressed the turrets with a change of it's bonuses, I think it's a rather fine ship and any extra low would tip it to being OP.
But the more I look at the EOS..... damn Not that I'll fly that thing anyway and it's the perfect candidate for the Merm hull.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Largus Jett
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 15:31:00 -
[1112] - Quote
So I had this ******** idea, and it could be broken in scenarios I hadn't thought of but here is the general concept:
People dislike active bonuses for their CS, and we aren't getting the "local tank bonus also helps incoming reps" so could we perhaps let all reps (on active tank bonused ships) extended the base raw hp pool up to a percentage? like 37.5% maybe, just like the bonuses do to local reps. Let this extra buffer gradually decay back to the normal maximum if no reps are received/done locally. So keep a logi ship repping the CS to make sure the buffer is kept at a maximum.
I can see single plate+rep or LSE + ASB fits potentially becoming too strong, but wouldnt a single rep + new nos + plate concept be pretty cool?
Alright, bash away and point out all the flaws gents. |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 15:38:00 -
[1113] - Quote
A 2x 800 booster would be very useful, but not part of this thread, unfortunately, and if it can get over 1k dps with 1 magstab then the Astarte is probably fine on lows, but I'm not sure I can't check eft I'm at work, but going by solely therm/kin is silly, it's exp/em hole is massive, to get rid of those requires an em and explosive hardener (or two) then 2 reppers and a dcu And that's all of your lows
And as a side thought with the eos having split weapons it's even worse off, a magstab or drone damage mod is much less effective, makes me feel like a 7th low on the eos is even more required
And the abso is ok on cap with a 4th low IMO, then you could change the cap usage to a tracking bonus, reinforcing the brawler in it
Maybe give the vulture 7 mids for diversity, make it tanky like the damnation, but gives the option for a tracking computer without hurting the tank, gives it a more sniper feel perhaps
+1 mid for nighthawk and more pg, it can't compare to the claymore ATM (don't nerf it :p) make the nighthawk do more damage with kinetic than the claymore can apply, but less dps with other damage types, but still good dps I'd worry about a 7mid claymore or sleipnir with t2 resists an active bonus and a couple of xp asb's tho so don't give them an extra mid, maybe an extra high and gun, with pg/CPU to compensate, and change the damage bonuses to compensate if you are happy with them |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 15:53:00 -
[1114] - Quote
The more I look at these ships the more apparent it becomes some of these are balanced with 17 slots, while it seems some like the eos need 18 to compare, claymore/sleipnir seem ok with 17 slots, I would actually not change those to 18
The nighthawk/vulture idk about the vulture, maybe an extra mid for it, but nighthawk needs an 18th slot(+1 mid) and a little more pwg
Absolution needs another midslot and damnation maybe a high/launcher, or change the missile velocity to a damage bonus
Astarte I'm not quite sure yet, I need to eft warrior that but I believe an extra low would help, as it has always had a pathetic tank, and not much is changing in that regard The eos needs 5 mids 7lows tho 6/5/7 would make it quite interesting and unique without changing the bonuses(which would make it something special and different than any of the other drone boats, so please don't change the bonuses just the slots) |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
104
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 16:14:00 -
[1115] - Quote
56 pages of suggestions suggests to me that the whole mechanic of command ships is b0rked from the ground up.
As I recall, Darth Vader always commanded his fleets from a supercapital. Perhaps we can kill 2 birds with one stone here:
Remove command bonuses from command ships entirely. Only Titans get the command bonus. Disallow off-grid boosting. When a command module is activated, make it light up on overview like a cyno does. Use it at your peril.
This has the following effects:
1. It finally forces titans to stay and fight, and ensures that they are on the field rather than gathering dust in deadspace. 2. No sides in a skirmish are at a disadvantage 3. No command bonuses in wormholes, ensuring evenly matched skirmish-style fights (gudfite!) 4. T2 battlecruisers can focus on tank and gank, which is pretty much the only way they'll get used on grid ever in the entire history of eve past, present and future. 5. no command bonuses in hisec, which makes duels and hisec wars fairer and more fun for both sides. 6. In order to alpha the command ship off the field, you'll need to bring a BIG fleet. So all that whinging about command ships not being useful in fleet warfare goes away.
Remember, listen to your Uncle Darth. The Dark SIde of the Force knows best.
/MC
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
517
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 16:23:00 -
[1116] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Remove command bonuses from command ships entirely. Only Titans get the command bonus. Disallow off-grid boosting.
Nice, so only super alliances with on grid titans are allowed to gets links...
Do you understand how fundamentally broken this idea is?
|
J A Aloysiusz
Precision Strike Brigade Angeli Mortis
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 16:40:00 -
[1117] - Quote
Why is it that the Sacrilege and Damnation (amarr brawlers) are getting missile velocity bonus, and the Nighthawk (caldari is range?) and Claymore (winmatar wants to kite) are not?
My speculation is that it was difficult to find a last bonus for the sacrilege (to replace cap), and then it was carried to the Damnation for "synergy" or whatever. But taking that approach, the Nighthawk should be similar to the cerberus...
The Damnation is a BRAWLER big time - it has armor like nothing else, and 4 mids, which mean dual web. I think the damnation will be epic with a velocity bonus, but it's not the ship that needs it. The nighthawk, however, does not have the same tackle capabilities, and if it's caldari, it should really have some range capabilities. As is, it currently lacks the tank+tackle to brawl like the damnation, and can't even hit as far as it... It's still going to be a ship without a niche, unless this is changed.
Dat explosion radius. If I can't one shot Dramiels with it, I'd rather have a real bonus. |
Dysgenesis
Dhoomcats
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 16:53:00 -
[1118] - Quote
With tiercide overall I am concerned that recent changes (HACs and command ships) seem rather rushed. These balance changes to pretty much all the ships in the game are by far and away the most important thing to happen to EVE (for me anyway) within my 4+ years of playing. However I do find evidence of iterative and polish passes to previous tiercide implementation reassuring. We have gone from excellent (T1 frigs and cruisers), to good (battlecruisers, navy cruisers), to ok (battleships), to meh (industrials, HACs and command ships). I just hope we are not on the slippery slope to herp-a-derp.
Now some specific features that stand out as poor (or stupid),
The Nighthawk needs a low moving to a mid. 5 slots is not enough for a ship that should be able to fit a big shield tank, especially if you are in small gangs or solo and want to fit a point. Shield fleets need a Damnation equivalent brick tank, change one of the 2 lol-range bonuses of the Vulture for a shield HP increase. A tracking bonus on the Eos seems totally redundant, change for anything that may be useful. As I said previously in the HAC thread I would love this ship to have a +1 drones controlled per level like the Guardian-Vexor (keep bandwith at 125) so it could launch a swarm of Valkyries, at least this would give it an identity in the ever-increasingly crowded drone boat group. Some are the cargo capacities are way off others for no particular reason, unless you are thinking of ammo use/size. Reliance on cap charges is far more relevant.
Things I like,
The Astarte does even more damage and should hopefully have a bit more tank. The Claymore is god mode (at least in my mind). The Nighthawk might actually do a lot of paper DPS.
Also there is no longer any good reason for tech 2 ships to only have 2 rig slots. Give them all 3 please.
Also also another slot for the command ships would be nice, but probably a little OP. They do seem to suffer from being constrained by the slot layout of the pre-tiercide tier 1 battlecruisers, which we all knew were almost universally terrible not least in part due to their lack of slots compared to their tier 2 counterparts. I know you have tried to address this by limiting highs and having double damage bonuses, but some ships seriously need another mid (nighthawk, absolution) or another low (Astarte).
Oh and hurry up with the model change announcement would you |
Dysgenesis
Dhoomcats
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 16:55:00 -
[1119] - Quote
Dysgenesis wrote:With tiercide overall I am concerned that recent changes (HACs and command ships) seem rather rushed. These balance changes to pretty much all the ships in the game are by far and away the most important thing to happen to EVE (for me anyway) within my 4+ years of playing. However I do find evidence of iterative and polish passes to previous tiercide implementation reassuring. We have gone from excellent (T1 frigs and cruisers), to good (battlecruisers, navy cruisers), to ok (battleships), to meh (industrials, HACs and command ships). I just hope we are not on the slippery slope to herp-a-derp. Now some specific features that stand out as poor (or stupid), The Nighthawk needs a low moving to a mid. 5 slots is not enough for a ship that should be able to fit a big shield tank, especially if you are in small gangs or solo and want to fit a point. Shield fleets need a Damnation equivalent brick tank, change one of the 2 lol-range bonuses of the Vulture for a shield HP increase. A tracking bonus on the Eos seems totally redundant, change for anything that may be useful. As I said previously in the HAC thread I would love this ship to have a +1 drones controlled per level like the Guardian-Vexor (keep bandwith at 125) so it could launch a swarm of Valkyries, at least this would give it an identity in the ever-increasingly crowded drone boat group. Some are the cargo capacities are way off others for no particular reason, unless you are thinking of ammo use/size. Reliance on cap charges is far more relevant. Things I like, The Astarte does even more damage and should hopefully have a bit more tank. The Claymore is god mode (at least in my mind). The Nighthawk might actually do a lot of paper DPS. Also there is no longer any good reason for tech 2 ships to only have 2 rig slots. Give them all 3 please. Also also another slot for the command ships would be nice, but probably a little OP. They do seem to suffer from being constrained by the slot layout of the pre-tiercide tier 1 battlecruisers, which we all knew were almost universally terrible not least in part due to their lack of slots compared to their tier 2 counterparts. I know you have tried to address this by limiting highs and having double damage bonuses, but some ships seriously need another mid (nighthawk, absolution) or another low (Astarte). Oh and hurry up with the model change announcement would you
Oh and as stated by the previous poster a velocity bonus on the Damnation also seems somewhat pointless.
|
J A Aloysiusz
Precision Strike Brigade Angeli Mortis
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 17:04:00 -
[1120] - Quote
Dysgenesis wrote:Dysgenesis wrote:With tiercide overall I am concerned that recent changes (HACs and command ships) seem rather rushed. These balance changes to pretty much all the ships in the game are by far and away the most important thing to happen to EVE (for me anyway) within my 4+ years of playing. However I do find evidence of iterative and polish passes to previous tiercide implementation reassuring. We have gone from excellent (T1 frigs and cruisers), to good (battlecruisers, navy cruisers), to ok (battleships), to meh (industrials, HACs and command ships). I just hope we are not on the slippery slope to herp-a-derp. Now some specific features that stand out as poor (or stupid), The Nighthawk needs a low moving to a mid. 5 slots is not enough for a ship that should be able to fit a big shield tank, especially if you are in small gangs or solo and want to fit a point. Shield fleets need a Damnation equivalent brick tank, change one of the 2 lol-range bonuses of the Vulture for a shield HP increase. A tracking bonus on the Eos seems totally redundant, change for anything that may be useful. As I said previously in the HAC thread I would love this ship to have a +1 drones controlled per level like the Guardian-Vexor (keep bandwith at 125) so it could launch a swarm of Valkyries, at least this would give it an identity in the ever-increasingly crowded drone boat group. Some are the cargo capacities are way off others for no particular reason, unless you are thinking of ammo use/size. Reliance on cap charges is far more relevant. Things I like, The Astarte does even more damage and should hopefully have a bit more tank. The Claymore is god mode (at least in my mind). The Nighthawk might actually do a lot of paper DPS. Also there is no longer any good reason for tech 2 ships to only have 2 rig slots. Give them all 3 please. Also also another slot for the command ships would be nice, but probably a little OP. They do seem to suffer from being constrained by the slot layout of the pre-tiercide tier 1 battlecruisers, which we all knew were almost universally terrible not least in part due to their lack of slots compared to their tier 2 counterparts. I know you have tried to address this by limiting highs and having double damage bonuses, but some ships seriously need another mid (nighthawk, absolution) or another low (Astarte). Oh and hurry up with the model change announcement would you Oh and as stated by the previous poster a velocity bonus on the Damnation also seems somewhat pointless.
Yes to everything here.
|
|
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 17:32:00 -
[1121] - Quote
The eos's current bonuses are interesting and unique, I like them but it definately doesn't need the typical -1 slot Re add that slot to a low and move a high to a med for a 5/5/7 although you wanted full gank and 2 utility highs, with 4 unbonused guns it would be ok, and still useful/interesting
Nighthawk needs an extra mid for sure, as well as the absolution, And change the damnation velocity bonus to a damage bonus
And the more I think of the Astarte the more I think it might be ok the way it is, it gets extra resists, a lil more damage, and two utility highs. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Tribal Band
327
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 17:44:00 -
[1122] - Quote
The proposed new changes will do absolutely nothing to address the issues at hand.
Each race should have 1 fleet command ship with brick tank for large fleets that can withstand large alpha, and 1 skirmish (field) command ship for small gangs that can survive on local tank. The current assortment and assignment of link boosts is fine.
The Damnation, nor any ship within a single class, should not stand out so clearly that any other available choice is obviously outclassed. Either remove its extra HP bonus or give the same or similar (shield HP in the case of Minmatar and Caldari) to their respective fleet CS.
Since the role of fleet CS is to provide links and not die, dps is really not the point. Hell, I don't even put launchers/turrets on my fleet CS because, why? I can ***** on killmails with a Target painter or civilian gun. I have smartbombs and a cyno in my highs because I don't want to die to a fleet of warrior IIs or get perma-jammed by EC-300s.
I'm not saying we can't have CS with active tanking bonuses. I think its great to have the option. But don't make it so that both skirmish-boosting races can't survive on field in large fleets.
Or.... is this intentional? Death to skirmish boosts? :tinfoil: Free Ripley Weaver! |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
835
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 18:01:00 -
[1123] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:I'm not saying we can't have CS with active tanking bonuses. I think its great to have the option. But don't make it so that both skirmish-boosting races can't survive on field in large fleets.
Or.... is this intentional? Death to skirmish boosts? :tinfoil:
I'm pretty sure it is intentional. CCP are saying that bonused skirmish links should only come from CS with skirmish-type tank bonuses. I think what this actually means is that the Skirmish links are overpowered but CCP can't quite bring themselves to nerf them properly. |
Gheyna
Hoover Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
98
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 18:47:00 -
[1124] - Quote
This is my opinion of the CS
There should be 1 command ship that can do pvp/pve, basically a T2 combat bc. (no racial skill boost)
There should be 1 command ship that can do small gang/fleet boost and shoot at things (2 links. Racial skill boost boost more then the fleet command ship)
And there should be 1 command ship that can do large scale battles and survive/tank with boost (2 different leadership boost 3-4 links, boost less then the small gang one) |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Tribal Band
328
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 19:15:00 -
[1125] - Quote
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. Free Ripley Weaver! |
Rain6638
Team Evil
573
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 19:35:00 -
[1126] - Quote
run all your links on damnations.
34.5% -> 30% max skirmish evasive/interdiction 30.2% -> 26.25% rapid deployment.
//lol soldarius i wish i had posted mine sooner (and before you) [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
104
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 19:39:00 -
[1127] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Remove command bonuses from command ships entirely. Only Titans get the command bonus. Disallow off-grid boosting.
Nice, so only super alliances with on grid titans are allowed to gets links... Do you understand how fundamentally broken this idea is?
Not quite. Anyone could fit a link, just not a bonused one.
The requirement to put a supercap on the field in order to get the extra bonuses would create a dilemma for an FC. If he fields a supercap and advertises it's presence on overview it becomes a beacon to killmail whores all over New Eden. He needs to think about whether he wants to run that risk.
It also means that to get the mega-bonuses you have to commit 100Bn to the fight. I think that's reasonable. In the current world, if a weak alliance is involved in a fight with a strong one, they will expect to get cynoblobbed. That's why big alliances get big - to be strong. It's reasonable and realistic.
For reference, my original tongue in cheek post was #1105. But the more I think about it, the more reasonable I think the suggestion is. |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 19:41:00 -
[1128] - Quote
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? |
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
313
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 20:04:00 -
[1129] - Quote
Mole Guy wrote:i just had a thought: before i share it, i fly amarr cs mostly. but i can and do fly them all.
give a 10% per cs level to all incoming remote reps. we can fit a descent tank if we are fleet boosting and any healing that comes to us will keep us alive. the active tank would be good for solo battles or small gang warfare. im not saying get rid of it, but as a role for command ships, give them the ability to amplify incoming reps.
that way, in fleet setups, it would take advantage of incoming reps without having to have 400k EHP (which i think is a lot for a bc btw), it would still be able to self rep in solo or small gang situations AND maintain its tank or link setup as it likes.
fleet doctrines would mean several links AND maintaining tank small gang would mean to use of a command ship without the need for logi.
maybe get rid of the active tank bonus all together and just have a bonus for incoming reps. all ships maintain max dps (astarte level) with chosen weapon system. i know ccp is trying to make multi weapon choices and i REALLY am looking forward to smokin someone with my hamnation, or settling into using my absolution with killer resists now...
if you think about it, with the high resists they have, they need 1/2 the healing normal ships do to maintain their tank and with them gaining from incoming reps, we could keep them alive A LOT longer than you guys think. this would give the damnation another bonus instead of the tank bonus. maybe another missile bonus or something.
with my incursion abso, good resist, links up and the armor implant, (1 1600 plate and good skillz), i had it at 110k EHP. this was gank fit for incursions. the ehp will be higher now because of links so i would expect 180k ehp or so or alot more with 2 1600 plates.
thats a descent buffer, not huge, but descent. now, if it gained 50% to reps at cs 5, thats a crap load of incoming reps. as soon a the battle starts, logi lock a cs. 10 current logi healing equates to 15 post patch logi healing. this will keep them alive, allow them to fulfill their roles in fleet AND for those who like solo fighting, maintain their dps output. just give bonuses to incoming reps and keep the tanks the same. read this post. most skipped over it. i think this would fix everything. all we have to do is balance the ships for dps and let the incoming reps get bonuses. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
440
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 20:20:00 -
[1130] - 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. |
|
J A Aloysiusz
Precision Strike Brigade Angeli Mortis
29
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 20:24:00 -
[1131] - Quote
Mole Guy wrote:Mole Guy wrote:i just had a thought: before i share it, i fly amarr cs mostly. but i can and do fly them all.
give a 10% per cs level to all incoming remote reps. we can fit a descent tank if we are fleet boosting and any healing that comes to us will keep us alive. the active tank would be good for solo battles or small gang warfare. im not saying get rid of it, but as a role for command ships, give them the ability to amplify incoming reps.
that way, in fleet setups, it would take advantage of incoming reps without having to have 400k EHP (which i think is a lot for a bc btw), it would still be able to self rep in solo or small gang situations AND maintain its tank or link setup as it likes.
fleet doctrines would mean several links AND maintaining tank small gang would mean to use of a command ship without the need for logi.
maybe get rid of the active tank bonus all together and just have a bonus for incoming reps. all ships maintain max dps (astarte level) with chosen weapon system. i know ccp is trying to make multi weapon choices and i REALLY am looking forward to smokin someone with my hamnation, or settling into using my absolution with killer resists now...
if you think about it, with the high resists they have, they need 1/2 the healing normal ships do to maintain their tank and with them gaining from incoming reps, we could keep them alive A LOT longer than you guys think. this would give the damnation another bonus instead of the tank bonus. maybe another missile bonus or something.
with my incursion abso, good resist, links up and the armor implant, (1 1600 plate and good skillz), i had it at 110k EHP. this was gank fit for incursions. the ehp will be higher now because of links so i would expect 180k ehp or so or alot more with 2 1600 plates.
thats a descent buffer, not huge, but descent. now, if it gained 50% to reps at cs 5, thats a crap load of incoming reps. as soon a the battle starts, logi lock a cs. 10 current logi healing equates to 15 post patch logi healing. this will keep them alive, allow them to fulfill their roles in fleet AND for those who like solo fighting, maintain their dps output. just give bonuses to incoming reps and keep the tanks the same. read this post. most skipped over it. i think this would fix everything. all we have to do is balance the ships for dps and let the incoming reps get bonuses.
I'm afraid I disagree. You'd have invulnerable spider damnation fleets running all up and down new eden.
Am I missing something here? The warfare link changes say static 15%, but the command ship changes say 3% per level. Obviously it amounts to the same, but the difference between static and level-based is significant for the "curve/cliff" aspect mentioned in the warfare link section. |
Rain6638
Team Evil
573
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 20:30:00 -
[1132] - Quote
15% flat was changed to 3% per level on the 7th of Aug [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
148
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 20:37:00 -
[1133] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: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...
Vulture is massively undertanked? No dps?
It can actually choose between sniping like an eagle or brawling like a Blaga, 500dps at 15km using Null. Using Void for ~700 @8km is still on par with a sleipnir.
I agree though that it is slow as hell, don't see a problem though. I only correct my own spelling. |
Jureth22
FLA5HY RED FLE5HY WARLARDS
114
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 20:46:00 -
[1134] - Quote
Sarmatiko wrote:Quote:The other threads are : Command Ship model changes
NO FOZZIE PLS NO Also glad that Marauders are safe, for now..
command ships are ugly,nighthawk looks sexy,but the rest are just meh.
also claymore bonuses are bad,fozzie needs to change either one of them to hm and ham damage instead of rof.otherwise it will fire very fast for very little damage,and thats always dissapoint. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
73
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 20:50:00 -
[1135] - Quote
Jureth22 wrote:Sarmatiko wrote:Quote:The other threads are : Command Ship model changes
NO FOZZIE PLS NO Also glad that Marauders are safe, for now.. command ships are ugly,nighthawk looks sexy,but the rest are just meh. also claymore bonuses are bad,fozzie needs to change either one of them to hm and ham damage instead of rof.otherwise it will fire very fast for very little damage,and thats always dissapoint. Well, yes, but rof increases dps more than damage. So unless you plan on alpha heavies (such a thing exists?) then stick with rof. And besides he dual rof bonus those missiles fire almost every 2 seconds. Damage bonus would kill its dps by quite a bit. |
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
313
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 21:12:00 -
[1136] - Quote
J A Aloysiusz wrote:Mole Guy wrote:Mole Guy wrote:i just had a thought: before i share it, i fly amarr cs mostly. but i can and do fly them all.
give a 10% per cs level to all incoming remote reps. we can fit a descent tank if we are fleet boosting and any healing that comes to us will keep us alive. the active tank would be good for solo battles or small gang warfare. im not saying get rid of it, but as a role for command ships, give them the ability to amplify incoming reps.
that way, in fleet setups, it would take advantage of incoming reps without having to have 400k EHP (which i think is a lot for a bc btw), it would still be able to self rep in solo or small gang situations AND maintain its tank or link setup as it likes.
fleet doctrines would mean several links AND maintaining tank small gang would mean to use of a command ship without the need for logi.
maybe get rid of the active tank bonus all together and just have a bonus for incoming reps. all ships maintain max dps (astarte level) with chosen weapon system. i know ccp is trying to make multi weapon choices and i REALLY am looking forward to smokin someone with my hamnation, or settling into using my absolution with killer resists now...
if you think about it, with the high resists they have, they need 1/2 the healing normal ships do to maintain their tank and with them gaining from incoming reps, we could keep them alive A LOT longer than you guys think. this would give the damnation another bonus instead of the tank bonus. maybe another missile bonus or something.
with my incursion abso, good resist, links up and the armor implant, (1 1600 plate and good skillz), i had it at 110k EHP. this was gank fit for incursions. the ehp will be higher now because of links so i would expect 180k ehp or so or alot more with 2 1600 plates.
thats a descent buffer, not huge, but descent. now, if it gained 50% to reps at cs 5, thats a crap load of incoming reps. as soon a the battle starts, logi lock a cs. 10 current logi healing equates to 15 post patch logi healing. this will keep them alive, allow them to fulfill their roles in fleet AND for those who like solo fighting, maintain their dps output. just give bonuses to incoming reps and keep the tanks the same. read this post. most skipped over it. i think this would fix everything. all we have to do is balance the ships for dps and let the incoming reps get bonuses. I'm afraid I disagree. You'd have invulnerable spider damnation fleets running all up and down new eden. Am I missing something here? The warfare link changes say static 15%, but the command ship changes say 3% per level. Obviously it amounts to the same, but the difference between static and level-based is significant for the "curve/cliff" aspect mentioned in the warfare link section. i initially wrote to get rid of the damnation tank bonus and give it a missile damage bonus so it can compete with other command ships. it would have the tank of an abso or something.
if yer worries about spider tanking, jam them. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
519
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 21:34:00 -
[1137] - Quote
Jureth22 wrote:Sarmatiko wrote:Quote:The other threads are : Command Ship model changes
NO FOZZIE PLS NO Also glad that Marauders are safe, for now.. command ships are ugly,nighthawk looks sexy,but the rest are just meh. also claymore bonuses are bad,fozzie needs to change either one of them to hm and ham damage instead of rof.otherwise it will fire very fast for very little damage,and thats always dissapoint.
I'm going to generally agree with you here, however what I'm about to say should be applied to the nighthawk as well.
I'd very much like to see "unique" models for each of the command ships. No, I'm not talking about totally new ships designs, I'm talking about modest modifications to each of the commands that gives them some kind of specific feel. It could be something as small as the unique bridge the Kronos gets compared to the other mega models.
|
Ziranda Hakuli
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
150
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 23:17:00 -
[1138] - Quote
many pages. many suggestions makes the head hurt wondering why so many are talking with the brown hole.
remember T1 bc. 17 slots Faction. 18 slots T2 bc. 17. Slots
Before the rebalance you had 1 Command Link and awesome DPS this was mostly used in PVP, Gate camps while the other with 3 links with a beefy tank in mind.
Now they both can support 3 links defeating the role of what one was intended and you children are being way too greedy.
As for fitting these beautiful ships and you cry your short on CPU or power, not enough DPS or Tank. have ya looked at your skills lately or are you being a complete idiot not know how to PROPERLY fit a ship. Way too much of one will kill it when you cannot find the balance you need.
Do not forget you may need implants to put these together. and lately well i been toying with them and been finding a decent balance with what has been mentioned but i feel that you all need to suck it up and check it all out on the test server when its ready to toy with.
|
Window VentureWas VeryWeary
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 23:19:00 -
[1139] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:56 pages of suggestions suggests to me that the whole mechanic of command ships is b0rked from the ground up.
As I recall, Darth Vader always commanded his fleets from a supercapital. Perhaps we can kill 2 birds with one stone here:
Remove command bonuses from command ships entirely. Only Titans get the command bonus. Disallow off-grid boosting. When a command module is activated, make it light up on overview like a cyno does. Use it at your peril.
This has the following effects:
1. It finally forces titans to stay and fight, and ensures that they are on the field rather than gathering dust in deadspace. 2. No sides in a skirmish are at a disadvantage 3. No command bonuses in wormholes, ensuring evenly matched skirmish-style fights (gudfite!) 4. T2 battlecruisers can focus on tank and gank, which is pretty much the only way they'll get used on grid ever in the entire history of eve past, present and future. 5. no command bonuses in hisec, which makes duels and hisec wars fairer and more fun for both sides. 6. In order to alpha the command ship off the field, you'll need to bring a BIG fleet. So all that whinging about command ships not being useful in fleet warfare goes away.
Remember, listen to your Uncle Darth. The Dark SIde of the Force knows best.
/MC
This....this is making an insane amount of sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN0q_M9UFFY |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
233
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 23:21:00 -
[1140] - Quote
The nighthawk still needs more midslots. The 5 mid and 5 lows isn't a fantastic setup for a shield tanking command ship.
The double optimal bonus for the vulture is a real hindrance IMO, it should swap an optimal for 10% shield hp per level.
Giving a hybrid tracking bonus for the EOS is a waste and should be replaced which something better. |
|
Window VentureWas VeryWeary
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 23:21:00 -
[1141] - Quote
Grymwulf wrote:Has anyone considered that perhaps CCP should set it up that each race has a viable skirmish and fleet command ship? Instead of making Minmatar/Gallente kings of small gangs and Amarr/Caldari kings of fleet boosting, give each race one command ship with a resist bonus and the other with the local rep bonus.
This allows those who prefer a specific race to choose a ship based on not just it's weapon types, but on whether they will be doing small gang or fleet ops.
At the very minimum, this ^, it is literally full ****** to lock a racial group into a specific style of fleet play, that's not dynamic at all, that's stagnant as ****. |
Reatu Krentor
Void Spiders Fate Weavers
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 23:24:00 -
[1142] - Quote
Rise,
Have you tried using a marauder style role bonus for the weapons? With this you wouldn't need to do strange things like having double 10% damage bonuses on the sleipnir or 7.5% rate of fire and damage on the nighthawk. If you have considered this, I wouldn't mind knowing what made you decide against it. For a sleipnir, a 40% damage role bonus would make 5 turrets/launchers equivalent to 7. With such a role bonus you wouldn't have to change the sleipnir's bonuses for example. The 5 turrets on the new sleipnir would be effectively identical to the 7 of before. The same could be done for Astarte, keep the double 25% damage skill bonus and add a 40% damage role bonus. Nighthawk and Absolution could keep identical bonuses and dps with a 20% damage role bonus but maybe they could be snazzed up a bit and also receive a 40% role bonus as well. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
521
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 23:24:00 -
[1143] - Quote
Ziranda Hakuli wrote:
remember T1 bc. 17 slots Faction. 18 slots T2 bc. 17. Slots
remember rigs are slots too
Sooo....
t1 bc 20 slots navy bc 21 slots t2 bc 19 slots
|
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
234
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 23:31:00 -
[1144] - Quote
The previous post bring up a good point, T2 ships usually has more slots than its t1 counterparts.
Its a laughable joke that T1 and Navy ships have more slots than T2. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
522
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 23:36:00 -
[1145] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:The previous post bring up a good point, T2 ships usually has more slots than its t1 counterparts.
Its a laughable joke that T1 and Navy ships have more slots than T2.
I was not trying to make a point by posting rig including slot numbers other than rigs should be considered when looking at total slots.
The real point i was trying to make is that the raw slot count is not a good way to compare ships, especially when certain ships have much larger dmg bonuses intended at making a smaller number of turrets do dmg similarly to a larger number of turrets with the overall goal of freeing up slots for other modules.
To use the Astarte again....
8-4-6 astarte with 7 turrets and TQ bonuses is worse than the currently proposed astarte (not even factoring in resistances changes ect). In this situation, a raw comparison of slot numbers is simply misleading.
|
Andy Landen
Battlestars Ex Cinere Scriptor
131
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 23:55:00 -
[1146] - Quote
Show gallente and minmatar command ships some fleet resist bonus love. Remind us why gallente command ships should be flown. Help the EOS for goodness sake!!!! What kind of bonuses are those anyway? "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein-á |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
73
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 00:27:00 -
[1147] - Quote
What if the claymore and Eos got a Shield/Armor HP bonus instead of resist bonuses as other players suggested. So Caldari/Amarr get resist bonuses (might have to kill the damnations HP bonus) and the Gallente/Minmatar get HP bonus? the C/A ships would still be good at mitigating incoming damage thorugh resists, while G/M ships have a larger buffer. It would allow the G/M ships to be more usable in large fleets while still being able to utilize that bonus effectively on small scales that they seemed to be destined to fly in. |
Rain6638
Team Evil
573
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 00:31:00 -
[1148] - Quote
Ziranda Hakuli wrote:a bunch of name calling and no proof
post a fit [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
282
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 00:46:00 -
[1149] - Quote
Andy Landen wrote:Help the EOS for goodness sake!!!! What kind of bonuses are those anyway?
To be fair the eos is much better than what's live right now. The live eos is just an abortion of bonuses. |
SOL Ranger
Jaeger Squadron
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 01:15:00 -
[1150] - Quote
Absolution: Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances 10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use Command Ships skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire 10%(+5) bonus Medium Energy Turret damage 3% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Information Warfare links Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules
...
10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use
...
Give us proper bonuses on Amarr laser ships, like so:
10% bonus Medium Energy Turret optimal range (was 10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use)
And then introduce a new skill Controlled Energy Bursts(5x), the skill reduces capacitor use by Energy Turrets by 10% per level, requires Controlled Bursts V.
Please, it is needed. |
|
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 01:17:00 -
[1151] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Andy Landen wrote:Help the EOS for goodness sake!!!! What kind of bonuses are those anyway? To be fair the eos is much better than what's live right now. The live eos is just an abortion of bonuses.
I'd rather see the eos with the current bonus layout and give it the slot you unjustly robbed of it, you take a slot away but give double 10% damage bonuses to other cs's And then move a slot from the high to a mid So with the same bonuses the eos will have instead of 4 guns 6/4/6 Have it a 5/5/7 with 4 guns
Would lead to a much more interesting and balanced ship and not gimping it with an oddball rep bonus and hp bonus 7 lows will give it a fairly strong passive tank if that is your goal and allowing a decent active tank with drone damage mods to make use of its drones (which have only one standard damage bonus, as compared to the other cs's extra strong bonuses) |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
283
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 01:31:00 -
[1152] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:Andy Landen wrote:Help the EOS for goodness sake!!!! What kind of bonuses are those anyway? To be fair the eos is much better than what's live right now. The live eos is just an abortion of bonuses. I'd rather see the eos with the current bonus layout and give it the slot you unjustly robbed of it, you take a slot away but give double 10% damage bonuses to other cs's
Have you ever used the live eos? Have you seen anyone use the live eos? |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
523
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 02:44:00 -
[1153] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:Andy Landen wrote:Help the EOS for goodness sake!!!! What kind of bonuses are those anyway? To be fair the eos is much better than what's live right now. The live eos is just an abortion of bonuses. I'd rather see the eos with the current bonus layout and give it the slot you unjustly robbed of it, you take a slot away but give double 10% damage bonuses to other cs's Have you ever used the live eos? Have you seen anyone use the live eos?
Believe it or not, but this balance pass goes a bit beyond simply "improving" ships, it's intent is "balance".
The suggestion proposed by elrith was to return an unjustly removed slot from the eos, while retaining the current bonuses proposed for 1.1. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
283
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 02:48:00 -
[1154] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Believe it or not, but this balance pass goes a bit beyond simply "improving" ships, it's intent is "balance".
...which means that a bad ship, such as the live eos, would get improved yes?
Unless you're using the trickle down theory of ship balancing that is. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
523
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 02:57:00 -
[1155] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Believe it or not, but this balance pass goes a bit beyond simply "improving" ships, it's intent is "balance". ...which means that a bad ship, such as the live eos, would get improved yes?
While a balance pass towards the EOS most certainly is manifested in the improvement of said ship, a simple improvement does not necessary make it balanced. The loss of a slot in comparison to other ships justified by a larger drone bay and drone bonuses is not applicable here because the weapon bonuses on ships of comparison(other commands) are far more potent that seen on most other classes of ships in which the loss of a slot on a drone ship is acceptable. If anything, the suggestion is avoiding the "trickle down/up" balancing style you are referring to.
Also, your facetious comment is heavily missing the point raised by myself and Eldrith. |
Rain6638
Team Evil
573
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 03:06:00 -
[1156] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Have you ever used the live eos? Have you seen anyone use the live eos? to support your point, yeah, i used an eos but only because it was the fleet version with the bonuses to info [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 05:57:00 -
[1157] - Quote
SOL Ranger wrote:Absolution: Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances 10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use Command Ships skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire 10%(+5) bonus Medium Energy Turret damage 3% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Information Warfare links Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules
...
10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use
...
Give us proper bonuses on Amarr laser ships, like so:
10% bonus Medium Energy Turret optimal range (was 10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use)
And then introduce a new skill Controlled Energy Bursts(5x), the skill reduces capacitor use by Energy Turrets by 10% per level, requires Controlled Bursts V.
Please, it is needed.
I got a better Idea!
Skillname: Trolololo Amarr
-25% Cap Use for all Amarr Ships per Level and 50% more Tracking, Range or Damage if the Laser Crystal does need it.
... Please we dont need Special Race Skills... |
Battlingbean
Star Frontiers Dirt Nap Squad.
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 06:07:00 -
[1158] - Quote
Armor tanked Nighthawk anyone? |
Rain6638
Team Evil
573
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 06:12:00 -
[1159] - Quote
dual tanked
it all makes sense now [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
Twikki
The Rusty Muskets Lost Obsession
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 07:51:00 -
[1160] - Quote
Not sure if it has been said all ready, way to many posts to read.
What the chances of getting missle speed bonus and travel time on the nighthawk similar to that of the cerb.
Then at least the HAM's wont be as restricted.
Failing that to the same bonus as the damnation, after all caldari is meant to be the main missile race.
While you are at it give the drake a little buff also, with similar bonus. it could use a little love with all the nerfs you gave it.
Also going back to the guy that suggested a skill to reduce capcitor use on laser's, i strongly agree to this cap use is terrible on lasers.
Would train that to rank 5 asap!! |
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15380
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 08:12:00 -
[1161] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:Andy Landen wrote:Help the EOS for goodness sake!!!! What kind of bonuses are those anyway? To be fair the eos is much better than what's live right now. The live eos is just an abortion of bonuses. I'd rather see the eos with the current bonus layout and give it the slot you unjustly robbed of it, you take a slot away but give double 10% damage bonuses to other cs's Have you ever used the live eos? Have you seen anyone use the live eos? Believe it or not, but this balance pass goes a bit beyond simply "improving" ships, it's intent is "balance". The suggestion proposed by elrith was to return an unjustly removed slot from the eos, while retaining the current bonuses proposed for 1.1. |I agree. Maybe they could return the missing slot to the lows, giving the EOS a better tank than the Astarte. Give it a reason to be used again.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Dysgenesis
Dhoomcats
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 09:09:00 -
[1162] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Believe it or not, but this balance pass goes a bit beyond simply "improving" ships, it's intent is "balance".
I think people should always bear this in mind. Having advocated a Damnation equivalent shield buffer brick I would also nerf the HP bonus down to 5% per level.
|
FleetAdmiralHarper
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 10:08:00 -
[1163] - Quote
Battlingbean wrote:Armor tanked Nighthawk anyone?
all you people bitching about the nighthawks low slots are r3tarded.. the low slots on that ship should always be, dc2, bcu2x3 powerdiag 2.
have you noticed it has less powergrid then a ferox?? it cant fit ****, i needs that low slot for a power module.
UHH DURRRRRRR
if you dont know what your talking about then please dont speak.. i dont wanna see fozzie listen to you numb nuts who have never used the ship, or made a fit with it, and break it even more, when its so close to be usable. it just needs to keep the launcher he wants to remove and it will be good.
ITS FINE THE WAY IT IS, IT NEEDS TO HAVE 5 LOWS, SHUT UP ALL OF YOU!! (Gò»-¦Gûí-¦)Gò»n+¦ Gö+GöüGö+ GAHH im out of here, *slams door*
thats what a rage quit looks like kids ^
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
762
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 10:13:00 -
[1164] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:6/5/7 would make it quite interesting and unique without changing the bonuses(which would make it something special and different than any of the other drone boats, so please don't change the bonuses just the slots) So you want a drone platform to have more slots than its gun counterparts? Deimos, Eos and Astarte are all capable of 1k+ tanks with six lows, want to take a guess what it would be called if it had seven .. give you a hint: rhymes with token.
Proposed Eos (Heavy drone brawler) does less damage than the Astarte but it will positively murderize any size ship where the Astarte will have to get tricky to wreck frigates and some cruisers. And of course you have the whole "free highs + full damage" that is drone platforms so you can go full link and not lose any damage.
If only the Damnation had the fleet + solo + small + medium gang potential of the Eos
SOL Ranger wrote:Give us proper bonuses on Amarr laser ships, like so:
10% bonus Medium Energy Turret optimal range (was 10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use)
And then introduce a new skill Controlled Energy Bursts(5x), the skill reduces capacitor use by Energy Turrets by 10% per level, requires Controlled Bursts V.
Please, it is needed. Oh God, not range .. with Scorch in game it is utterly useless on a ~200k EHP ship .. you have ample time to close distance. Lasers have range, what they need is application, the 7.5% tracking from the Navy Harb would fit a lot better especially considering the only three mids which exclude the use of a web.
Cap can be sorted by upping either size/recharge or doubling the benefit of Controlled Bursts, sure it would help hybrid users as well but since they all have more mids and similar base cap numbers it will be the proverbial drop in a bucket. Good idea to move the cap deficit to skills though, hadn't thought of that.
|
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 11:40:00 -
[1165] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:SOL Ranger wrote:Absolution: Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances 10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use Command Ships skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire 10%(+5) bonus Medium Energy Turret damage 3% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Information Warfare links Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules
...
10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use
...
Give us proper bonuses on Amarr laser ships, like so:
10% bonus Medium Energy Turret optimal range (was 10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use)
And then introduce a new skill Controlled Energy Bursts(5x), the skill reduces capacitor use by Energy Turrets by 10% per level, requires Controlled Bursts V.
Please, it is needed. I got a better Idea! Skillname: Trolololo Amarr -25% Cap Use for all Amarr Ships per Level and 50% more Tracking, Range or Damage if the Laser Crystal does need it. ... Please we dont need Special Race Skills...
Actually almost ALL laser amarr ships have one bonus less then ship of the same class from different race, it's absurd. Oh you will say now but lazors can instant swap ammo big optimal bla bla i don't care. The point is we need fitting bonus to make them usable and then we lack one normal bonus. And don't get me started on fixed damage type we can't do nothing about. I wonder how many people would go mad when suddenly all hybrid weapons would need bonus like that instead of +X% damage or something similar. CCP should make some fixes to lasers, while used on amarr ships to use less cap or some special bonus on hulls. Anyone watched alliance tournament. There was like 5 lasers altogether, i wonder why....
|
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
138
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 12:31:00 -
[1166] - Quote
I wonder how badly the cap would be without the -10% cap usage per level?
My absolution has 3min 20sec of cap with the MWD on (faction mwd) and is cap stable without it. I'm buffer fit, so no armor repairer. Of course, i have almost perfect cap skill (only need lv5 for mwd cap usage) and gunnery skill.
I'm pretty sure removing the -10% cap usage per level would make amarr ship even more vulnerable to neuting AND hurts a lot newer players who don't have good skill in cap. Just look at the abaddon for PVE. Cap is often a problem for noobs. I'm flying a nightmare and god, how many time i have read it was short on cap, when me and older players with better skill don't seem to have one. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 12:39:00 -
[1167] - Quote
I am flying all T2 Amarr Ships myself and i dont need that many cap. Hell if you cant kill him in 5 minutes anyway your ******, end of the Story.
Yeah ok, ok, i can accept you dont like the horrific Ship Bonus for Cap, but then they need another drawback to suffer and which one should it be?
Range? Already bad without Scourge. Tracking? Already bad within specific ranges. Damage? LOL yeah Damage and Laser in one Word, nice try.
So whats left? I can live with harsh cap managment. But not with the drawbacks above. |
Mr Doctor
Los Polos Hermanos. Happy Cartel
39
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 12:54:00 -
[1168] - Quote
Oh boo f**king hoo. Change race if you hate them so, Amarr are brilliant.... and you know what so are the other 3 races. I hate this trend of "my races ships arent all powerful there for my race sucks and needs a buff". Every race is great at different things and bad at different things, its called balance.
Oh and I quite like the new Eos, it could be hella scary in small gang/solo work. |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 12:56:00 -
[1169] - Quote
bloodknight2 wrote:I wonder how badly the cap would be without the -10% cap usage per level?
My absolution has 3min 20sec of cap with the MWD on (faction mwd) and is cap stable without it. I'm buffer fit, so no armor repairer. Of course, i have almost perfect cap skill (only need lv5 for mwd cap usage) and gunnery skill.
I'm pretty sure removing the -10% cap usage per level would make amarr ship even more vulnerable to neuting AND hurts a lot newer players who don't have good skill in cap. Just look at the abaddon for PVE. Cap is often a problem for noobs. I'm flying a nightmare and god, how many time i have read it was short on cap, when me and older players with better skill don't seem to have one.
have you tryed flying the maller without a cap booster?
lemme give you a hint: you MWD towards your target to get point for about 3 cycles , then you have less than a minute to kill him with your lazers before you run out of cap. even a small neut you halve that time.
ok i might be exagerating , but thats how it feels when fighting against ships that dont use cap for anything else than tackle and neuts (flabbers , ruptures ect).
the lack of cap bonus on t1/navy/t2 BCs isnt really felt because of their massive capacitors (almost twice as big as t1 cruisers) and their use of medium lazers. imho the ony ones suffering are the t1/navy cruisers , the baddon and apoc and the punisher (since the rebalance). IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Blue Absinthe
Fur Industries
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 13:12:00 -
[1170] - Quote
Any chance of making the turret tracking on the the EOS generic and not hybrid specific? |
|
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 14:35:00 -
[1171] - Quote
Yes I have used the current eos in small gangs, it's bad :p
But yes it deserves the 7th low, it gets a single standard bonus to drone damage, while other ships are getting things like double 10% damage and 7.5% damage and rof
With 1 magstab the Astarte does over 1k dps, with a single drone damage amp, an eos does less dps than an Astarte with no mag stabs... Lol? With drones meant for hitting bs's and bc's
Astarte with full tank, no magstabs with 2 hams an void neutrons gets 870 dps 1 magstab 1012 2 magstab 1166 3 magstab 1277
Eos with 4 void neutrons and 5 ogre 2's 702 dps 1 dda 812 2 dda 929 3 dda 1021
That is not balanced, especially when u realize the eos can only use 2 flights of heavies and nothing else, destroy them and lol It's a good step in the right direction but the eos needs another low 5/5/7. Move a high to a mid and add a low Leave the current bonuses and gun slots Make it interesting compared to the others while being balanced |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 14:41:00 -
[1172] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Yes I have used the current eos in small gangs, it's bad :p
But yes it deserves the 7th low, it gets a single standard bonus to drone damage, while other ships are getting things like double 10% damage and 7.5% damage and rof
With 1 magstab the Astarte does over 1k dps, with a single drone damage amp, an eos does less dps than an Astarte with no mag stabs... Lol? With drones meant for hitting bs's and bc's
Astarte with full tank, no magstabs with 2 hams an void neutrons gets 870 dps 1 magstab 1012 2 magstab 1166 3 magstab 1277
Eos with 4 void neutrons and 5 ogre 2's 702 dps 1 dda 812 2 dda 929 3 dda 1021
That is not balanced, especially when u realize the eos can only use 2 flights of heavies and nothing else, destroy them and lol It's a good step in the right direction but the eos needs another low 5/5/7. Move a high to a mid and add a low Leave the current bonuses and gun slots Make it interesting compared to the others while being balanced
Drones are not short range. Please compare to a rail astarte.
|
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 14:47:00 -
[1173] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Yes I have used the current eos in small gangs, it's bad :p
But yes it deserves the 7th low, it gets a single standard bonus to drone damage, while other ships are getting things like double 10% damage and 7.5% damage and rof
With 1 magstab the Astarte does over 1k dps, with a single drone damage amp, an eos does less dps than an Astarte with no mag stabs... Lol? With drones meant for hitting bs's and bc's
Astarte with full tank, no magstabs with 2 hams an void neutrons gets 870 dps 1 magstab 1012 2 magstab 1166 3 magstab 1277
Eos with 4 void neutrons and 5 ogre 2's 702 dps 1 dda 812 2 dda 929 3 dda 1021
That is not balanced, especially when u realize the eos can only use 2 flights of heavies and nothing else, destroy them and lol It's a good step in the right direction but the eos needs another low 5/5/7. Move a high to a mid and add a low Leave the current bonuses and gun slots Make it interesting compared to the others while being balanced Drones are not short range. Please compare to a rail astarte.
Please use heavy drones and realize how slow they are, and how easy it is to kill them when u can't scoop up up from blaster range, even with the nice buff to heavy drone speed ogres are laughably slow, you need to web and be in blaster range to use them
Edit: even if they were fast enough, current drone so makes it so they will always end up with weird loops putting them way out of optimal, mitigating a lot of the damage, only way to avoid that is by webbing, also Heavy drones require webbing |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
106
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 15:14:00 -
[1174] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote: Drones are not short range. Please compare to a rail astarte.
Clearly sir, you have only used heavy drones in PVE.
The are absolutely short range only. You absolutely have to have webbed your target for them to even to stay near him, and in a small-scale skirmish they are the absolutely target of choice for your enemy since he know that once they are dead you can't hurt him at all. Thus, you have to be within 2.5km of them at all times so you can recall them the moment they receive the slightest brush of damage.
Sentry drones are medium range (aka railguns), or long range on a ship with the specific range bonus (the Dominix).
Unfortunately, sentry drones suck (to a degree) for skirmish PVP (this ship's apparent role) because once you've deployed them you either can't move (i.e. not skirmishing) or you have to kiss goodbye to 5M isk and half your offensive capability when you leave them behind. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
106
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 15:24:00 -
[1175] - Quote
raawe wrote: Actually almost ALL laser amarr ships have one bonus less then ship of the same class from different race, it's absurd. Oh you will say now but lazors can instant swap ammo big optimal bla bla i don't care. The point is we need fitting bonus to make them usable and then we lack one normal bonus. And don't get me started on fixed damage type we can't do nothing about. I wonder how many people would go mad when suddenly all hybrid weapons would need bonus like that instead of +X% damage or something similar. CCP should make some fixes to lasers, while used on amarr ships to use less cap or some special bonus on hulls. Anyone watched alliance tournament. There was like 5 lasers altogether, i wonder why....
What you say has some merit, but lasers do have one specific advantage in pvp in that they can apply full damage at a longer range than any other gunnery system.
It's fairly obvious to me that the slot layouts of amarr ships suggest that they are designed to work in fleets, and in such groups they are deadly well beyond blaster and autocannon ranges (ignoring the machariel for a moment).
This is a huge advantage and reinforces the traditional Eve doctrine of: Gallente : I can only hit you in scram range, but it's going to be hard Minmatarr: I can hit you pretty hard in disruptor range and you find it hard to hit me back Amarr: We can blap you from beyond your sorry inferior projectile gun ranges Caldari: We can bombard you from 200km with our mega-missiles and there's no way you're hitting us back because we have scorpions. PWND!
For the record, I tend to fly gallente. It means I have to pick my fights and set them up carefully, but if I do my preparation and don't miss something, I tend to win - mostly. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 15:32:00 -
[1176] - Quote
I think amarrs main disadvantage is that they are so slow that they dont often get to keep enemys at their superior optimal where they have a advantage, great for saying stay back kity Mimatar but not much else., I htink they need to have more mid slots for Ewar to make up for this, but sadly amarr are the most mid slot deficiant race. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
524
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 15:50:00 -
[1177] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote: Drones are not short range. Please compare to a rail astarte.
Stop posting
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
524
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 15:53:00 -
[1178] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:For the record, I tend to fly gallente. It means I have to pick my fights and set them up carefully, but if I do my preparation and don't miss something, I tend to win - mostly.
This is a very accurate depiction of gallente solo/small scale pvp. The ships are rather strait forward once you get them into their desired range, however getting the fight exactly where you want it takes some preparation.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
106
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 15:55:00 -
[1179] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:I think amarrs main disadvantage is that they are so slow that they dont often get to keep enemys at their superior optimal where they have a advantage, great for saying stay back kity Mimatar but not much else., I htink they need to have more mid slots for Ewar to make up for this, but sadly amarr are the most mid slot deficiant race.
I agree. And it's right and good that every race has a disadvantage to go along with their advantages. It means you have to think and work out how to fill the holes of your own fleet's weaknesses while exploiting those of your opponents.
Gallente take withering fire while getting in range do arrive already damaged. Minmatar are skirmishers f**ked if they get scrammed. Amarr want to keep ships at range and have to work hard to do it. Caldari... well, the challenge for them is to stop people simply bouncing off a celestial and onto their position.
These offsetting advantages and disadvantages work together to make Eve the complex, rich and rewarding game we all love, right?
|
SOL Ranger
Jaeger Squadron
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 16:03:00 -
[1180] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: *snip* Oh God, not range .. *snip*
It was mostly meant as a *placeholder* with a bonus of some actual use rather than the patchwerk bandaid laser bonus of cap use. I get what you're saying and I agree to an extent in the current state of affairs, however that is mostly a result from the problem with scorch and not in the low value or lack of use for an optimal bonus in general.
What I'm saying is, the bonus could very well be optimal range when scorch gets fixed, with the medium long range weapon rebalance I would hope that day is soon to come however I'm not holding my breath.
A tracking bonus or nearly anything else would be a better choice, optimal range would be one of the weakest possible however at the same time also one of the most fitting as such since the energy turret capacitor use skill would be implemented at the same time.
TL;DR
But yes, in short I agree it is not ideal.
|
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4471
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 16:22:00 -
[1181] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Dav Varan wrote: Drones are not short range. Please compare to a rail astarte.
Clearly sir, you have only used heavy drones in PVE. The are absolutely short range only. You absolutely have to have webbed your target for them to even to stay near him, and in a small-scale skirmish they are the absolutely target of choice for your enemy since he know that once they are dead you can't hurt him at all. Thus, you have to be within 2.5km of them at all times so you can recall them the moment they receive the slightest brush of damage. Sentry drones are medium range (aka railguns), or long range on a ship with the specific range bonus (the Dominix). Unfortunately, sentry drones suck (to a degree) for skirmish PVP (this ship's apparent role) because once you've deployed them you either can't move (i.e. not skirmishing) or you have to kiss goodbye to 5M isk and half your offensive capability when you leave them behind. I'd still like a high slot module, basically a modified tractor beam, that when activated would grab your normally stationary sentry drones and drag them into position around your ship... holding them in a group around you while you move. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
SOL Ranger
Jaeger Squadron
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 16:28:00 -
[1182] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
*mindless trolling*
... Please we dont need Special Race Skills...
Extended Magazine holds(5x) - Increases the number of charges your weapons can hold by 5%.
Would you be willing to trade for this or are you just being unreasonable? |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 16:49:00 -
[1183] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:I think amarrs main disadvantage is that they are so slow that they dont often get to keep enemys at their superior optimal where they have a advantage, great for saying stay back kity Mimatar but not much else., I htink they need to have more mid slots for Ewar to make up for this, but sadly amarr are the most mid slot deficiant race. I agree. And it's right and good that every race has a disadvantage to go along with their advantages. It means you have to think and work out how to fill the holes of your own fleet's weaknesses while exploiting those of your opponents. Gallente take withering fire while getting in range so arrive already damaged. Minmatar skirmishers are f**ked if they get scrammed. Amarr want to keep ships at range and have to work hard to do it. Caldari... well, the challenge for them is to stop people simply bouncing off a celestial and onto their position. These offsetting advantages and disadvantages work together to make Eve the complex, rich and rewarding game we all love, right?
Interestingly enough Gallente used to be almost as slow as amarr but have recently been getting speed buff in large propotions brining them closer to mimatar lvls, greatly reducing their disadvantage for getting in close, especialy when they only usualy have to burn say 15-25k to get a scram on where they then have an overwhelming dps advantage even if 30% of their tank is already gone. Not saying thsi is bad but just that amarr could overcome some of their weakness eventualy.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
106
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 16:56:00 -
[1184] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:
Interestingly enough Gallente used to be almost as slow as amarr but have recently been getting speed buff in large propotions brining them closer to mimatar lvls, greatly reducing their disadvantage for getting in close, especialy when they only usualy have to burn say 15-25k to get a scram on where they then have an overwhelming dps advantage even if 30% of their tank is already gone. Not saying thsi is bad but just that amarr could overcome some of their weakness eventualy.
Yes, this was a most welcome change. Prior to this, Gallente were the worst and most underused PVP ships in the game, bar none.
The speed increase has also incidentally affected Amarr ships because of the new honeycombing skill and the fact that active armour tanking rigs now nerf powergrid rather than speed.
I know, I know... no-one active armour tanks (except me in a hyperion because I like a challenge). But that's perhaps being solved by the new buffs to local reppers. We'll see.
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
432
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 17:03:00 -
[1185] - Quote
raawe wrote:Actually almost ALL laser amarr ships have one bonus less then ship of the same class from different race, it's absurd. Oh you will say now but lazors can instant swap ammo big optimal bla bla i don't care. The point is we need fitting bonus to make them usable and then we lack one normal bonus. And don't get me started on fixed damage type we can't do nothing about. I wonder how many people would go mad when suddenly all hybrid weapons would need bonus like that instead of +X% damage or something similar. CCP should make some fixes to lasers, while used on amarr ships to use less cap or some special bonus on hulls. Anyone watched alliance tournament. There was like 5 lasers altogether, i wonder why....
Actually, I'd not mind the fitting bonus on Amarr ships IF lasers were as they were originally intended: They were intended to have better innate stats that the other weapons systems (better damage/tracking/damage modifiers, etc.) at the cost of really high cap use. To balance it out, and prevent other races from all fitting the innately-better lasers, Amarr ships would have bonuses to cap use to keep the lasers under control and because lasers wouldn't need "traditional" tracking or damage bonuses due to their built-in advantages. Further, the capacitor was sort of the Amarr's "ammo." Lasers could fire for much longer on Amarr ships, but they weren't intended to fire forever (especially since their actual crystal ammo lasted forever).
But, as the game evolved, this philosophy seems to have been somewhat diminished, and lasers have become nerfed over time to be only slightly better than other weapons systems at certain things, while Amarr ships have lost the energy use bonuses and been compensated with more capacitor/recharge.
Lasers need to be restored to their original design intent. Make them stronger (tracking/damage/range/etc.) innately and then the cap use bonus begins to make sense again. Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
526
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 17:07:00 -
[1186] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Yes I have used the current eos in small gangs, it's bad :p
But yes it deserves the 7th low, it gets a single standard bonus to drone damage, while other ships are getting things like double 10% damage and 7.5% damage and rof
With 1 magstab the Astarte does over 1k dps, with a single drone damage amp, an eos does less dps than an Astarte with no mag stabs... Lol? With drones meant for hitting bs's and bc's
Astarte with full tank, no magstabs with 2 hams an void neutrons gets 870 dps 1 magstab 1012 2 magstab 1166 3 magstab 1277
Eos with 4 void neutrons and 5 ogre 2's 702 dps 1 dda 812 2 dda 929 3 dda 1021
That is not balanced, especially when u realize the eos can only use 2 flights of heavies and nothing else, destroy them and lol It's a good step in the right direction but the eos needs another low 5/5/7. Move a high to a mid and add a low Leave the current bonuses and gun slots Make it interesting compared to the others while being balanced
Very good post.
I however have had conflicting opinions on what to do with eos... If it's going to keep all of it's currently proposed bonuses, it most certainly needs another low. I personally would rather see it stay at it's current slot number and have it's tracking bonus swapped to an hp bonus, just like the damnation. This hp bonus would of course come with a reduction to the recent hp increase to the eos tho.
There seriously needs to be more distinction between the two ships as the current proposal makes the two ships even more similar than the myrmidon and brutix. Reasoning being that the myrmidon gets 5 mids allowing for dual cap injector making a tri rep possible, or dual web giving it superior range control and frigate pwnage inside of scram range when compared to the Brutix. These advantages are simply not present in the Eos vs Astarte comparison meaning that the Astarte is going to be better in pretty much every situation.
In the end, it comes down to this imo... Every race needs 1 small gang CS (sleipnir/astarte) and 1 fleet based ship with an hp bonus. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 17:09:00 -
[1187] - Quote
SOL Ranger wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:
*mindless trolling*
... Please we dont need Special Race Skills...
Extended Magazine holds(5x) - Increases the number of charges your weapons can hold by 5%. Would you be willing to trade for this or are you just being unreasonable?
Sry for breaking your Little Amarrian Heart, but you know Amarr is more then simply cap problems and give them a seperate Skill is just horrific, hell i Even dont like Burst Controlle give us another Cap Recharge Skill instead or we can start giving every single Race a seperate Skill to compensate every disadventage they have, yeah sounds legit.
And no i dont like this Skill because Amarr dont have any advantage from that Skill so its the same Problem just in green instead of blue. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 17:35:00 -
[1188] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:
Interestingly enough Gallente used to be almost as slow as amarr but have recently been getting speed buff in large propotions brining them closer to mimatar lvls, greatly reducing their disadvantage for getting in close, especialy when they only usualy have to burn say 15-25k to get a scram on where they then have an overwhelming dps advantage even if 30% of their tank is already gone. Not saying thsi is bad but just that amarr could overcome some of their weakness eventualy.
Yes, this was a most welcome change. Prior to this, Gallente were the worst and most underused PVP ships in the game, bar none. The speed increase has also incidentally affected Amarr ships because of the new honeycombing skill and the fact that active armour tanking rigs now nerf powergrid rather than speed. I know, I know... no-one active armour tanks (except me in a hyperion because I like a challenge). But that's perhaps being solved by the new buffs to local reppers. We'll see.
I wouldnt say that, i fly dule rep SFIs, dule rep + plate prophecys, and Dule Rep Thorax's quite often. their speeds are amazing and they have the magical 4 mids i belive needed to active armor tank, unfortunatly most amarr boats dont have this. Over all I think if amarr got a nice sig decrease across the board it would help out their playstyle much in the same way speed helped Galent in their roll. |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 17:41:00 -
[1189] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:
Interestingly enough Gallente used to be almost as slow as amarr but have recently been getting speed buff in large propotions brining them closer to mimatar lvls, greatly reducing their disadvantage for getting in close, especialy when they only usualy have to burn say 15-25k to get a scram on where they then have an overwhelming dps advantage even if 30% of their tank is already gone. Not saying thsi is bad but just that amarr could overcome some of their weakness eventualy.
Yes, this was a most welcome change. Prior to this, Gallente were the worst and most underused PVP ships in the game, bar none. The speed increase has also incidentally affected Amarr ships because of the new honeycombing skill and the fact that active armour tanking rigs now nerf powergrid rather than speed. I know, I know... no-one active armour tanks (except me in a hyperion because I like a challenge). But that's perhaps being solved by the new buffs to local reppers. We'll see. I wouldnt say that, i fly dule rep SFIs, dule rep + plate prophecys, and Dule Rep Thorax's quite often. their speeds are amazing and they have the magical 4 mids i belive needed to active armor tank, unfortunatly most amarr boats dont have this. Over all I think if amarr got a nice sig decrease across the board it would help out their playstyle much in the same way speed helped Galent in their roll.
A cruiser might be ok active tanking with 4 mids but with a bc I just don't think it's nearly as viable with only 4, I think 5 is the magic number for an active tanked large ship Just look at the myrm and Hyperion, 5/6 and 5/7 reapectcely |
Sigras
Conglomo
496
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 18:26:00 -
[1190] - Quote
DAE want actual dedicated command ships and not super HACs? |
|
Fal Dara
The Scope Gallente Federation
68
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 18:56:00 -
[1191] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote::Edit: Updates posted on August 7th :Edit: Astarte:Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 7.5%(+2.5) bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness Command Ships skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret rate of fire (was 5% damage) 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 3% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare linksFixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modulesSlot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 6 L, 5 turrets (-2), 2 launchers (+2) Fittings: 1350 PWG (-100), 440 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3400(-444) / 4900(+576) / 5000(+195) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 60(+10) / 85(+7.5) / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 67.5(+8.13) / 83.75(+8.13) / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+187.5) / 667s(+41.7) / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.7(+0.03) / 12300000 (-950000) / 11.94s (-0.34) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 75(+25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 75km (+20) / 200 / 8(+1) Sensor strength: 23 Magnetometric (+5) Signature radius: 300 Cargo capacity: 400
As some one who flies this ship often, i am OUTRAGED!
I realize that you likley moved the ship's 7 guns down to 5 because you think the bonuses make up for it (they DONT!), or that the hybrid changes will make up for it--THEY DONT.
Give it atleast 6 turrets, it's a command ship, not a cruiser!
and MISSILE launchers on a gallente ship? are you on drugs? No gallente in their right mind will ever train missiles!
The powergrid nerf doesnt bother me too much, There have been times that if i were to fit a plate i would NEED that 100, but it's not that bad. i see you want to keep it 'glass cannon' ....
only you're taking out the cannon part too!
SOLUTION
6 turrets.
5% Rof bonus instead of 7.5% (these things are cap hungry mothers, RoF bonus is a direct nerf)
lose the launchers. compleatly.
change the falloff bonus to tracking (like navy brute) 3% per level (to offset the tracking nerf you had in mind for rails).
..........................
I dont know what on earth you're thinking, but a command ship needs to be powerful, useful..
not nerfed beyond all reason, given an extra and useless weapons system, RoF bonused to finish off its cap (which was bad to start), gah!
i would even live with 25mb drone badnwidth on top of ALL the rest of that, for the rest of what i suggested.
... and i love drones.
PLEASE consider this for the astarte.
|
SOL Ranger
Jaeger Squadron
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 19:08:00 -
[1192] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote: Sry for breaking your Little Amarrian Heart... *words*
I'm Gallente, specialized in projectiles and capless weapons mostly, Minmatar hulls, my connection to Amarr in general is about as heart warming as my connection to you, which your continued poor behaviour guarantees. I occasionally fly other ships and I like things balanced, as opposed to your agenda where you want lasers to stay the second rate weapon system it is at the moment; Spouting in essence "lasers are fine" doesn't cut it because that is just a lie and anyone with a moderately objective view can see that.
Soon you'll be telling me base HML damage isn't too low, blaster damage isn't too high and the talos is fine with drones and tracking for its intended role as well... yeah no, when **** stinks I point where it is so CCP can hopefully pick it up, if you want to pretend it smells like roses whilst dancing on the turds that is all on you pal but you'll be dancing alone. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
107
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 19:11:00 -
[1193] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote: I wouldnt say that, i fly dule rep SFIs, dule rep + plate prophecys, and Dule Rep Thorax's quite often. their speeds are amazing and they have the magical 4 mids i belive needed to active armor tank, unfortunatly most amarr boats dont have this. Over all I think if amarr got a nice sig decrease across the board it would help out their playstyle much in the same way speed helped Galent in their roll.
To be honest, and a little off topic, in my view armour reppers need to consume 10% less cap. That would allow you to run 2 with 1 cap booster, finally making 3-mid ships viable for armour tanking and allowing a 5-mid ship to fit something useful like tracking computers, target painters, ecm, or even a drone navigation mod.
Perhaps then you'd even see the proteus' active tanking subsystem used in pvp in the same way the tengu's is.
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 19:23:00 -
[1194] - Quote
SOL Ranger wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote: Sry for breaking your Little Amarrian Heart... *words*
I'm Gallente, specialized in projectiles and capless weapons mostly, Minmatar hulls, my connection to Amarr in general is about as heart warming as my connection to you, which your continued poor behaviour guarantees. I occasionally fly other ships and I like things balanced, as opposed to your agenda where you want lasers to stay the second rate weapon system it is at the moment; Spouting in essence "lasers are fine" doesn't cut it because that is just a lie and anyone with a moderately objective view can see that. Soon you'll be telling me base HML damage isn't too low, blaster damage isn't too high and the talos is fine with drones and tracking for its intended role as well... yeah no, when **** stinks I point where it is so CCP can hopefully pick it up, if you want to pretend it smells like roses whilst dancing on the turds that is all on you pal but you'll be dancing alone.
Geeze, whats your problem, just get over it if you cant handle another opinion.
Its just isnt right to pervert the difference between each races with skills to make them all equal.
Laser without cap problems would be just like Hybrid, if this is your Goal, go ahead, ruin the game. As CCP had not taken enough of the Old Spirit of Eve throught all the rebalancing already, no just for the sake of it make them equal!
Oh, my bad i am the Troll here, i forgot...
|
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 19:43:00 -
[1195] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote: I wouldnt say that, i fly dule rep SFIs, dule rep + plate prophecys, and Dule Rep Thorax's quite often. their speeds are amazing and they have the magical 4 mids i belive needed to active armor tank, unfortunatly most amarr boats dont have this. Over all I think if amarr got a nice sig decrease across the board it would help out their playstyle much in the same way speed helped Galent in their roll.
To be honest, and a little off topic, in my view armour reppers need to consume 10% less cap. That would allow you to run 2 with 1 cap booster, finally making 3-mid ships viable for armour tanking and allowing a 5-mid ship to fit something useful like tracking computers, target painters, ecm, or even a drone navigation mod. Perhaps then you'd even see the proteus' active tanking subsystem used in pvp in the same way the tengu's is.
I agree especialy since it usualy takes two reps ro equal out to a shield tank. would be nice to see dule rep Abso's more often. |
SOL Ranger
Jaeger Squadron
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 19:55:00 -
[1196] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
I got a better Idea!
Skillname: Trolololo Amarr
-25% Cap Use for all Amarr Ships per Level and 50% more Tracking, Range or Damage if the Laser Crystal does need it.
... Please we dont need Special Race Skills...
You seriously believe anyone will take you seriously after starting like that, that is not an opinion piece, that is trolling.
Quote:Geeze, whats your problem, just get over it if you cant handle another opinion.
Its just isnt right to pervert the difference between each races with skills to make them all equal.
Laser without cap problems would be just like Hybrid, if this is your Goal, go ahead, ruin the game. As CCP had not taken enough of the Old Spirit of Eve throught all the rebalancing already, no just for the sake of it make them equal!
Oh, my bad i am the Troll here, i forgot...
Lasers would still have cap problems after a 50% reduction, do you even fly Amarr at all? You say the 50% cap reduction is perverting the difference of races, so every ship with 4 turrets or capacitor use reduction with lasers is perverted? Seriously man, you're stuck in some kind of principled limbo where you refuse to look at the facts and throw hyperbole around like it's the only thing you know.
Now you play the victim and moan about being unjustly labelled a troll and a condescending one you are, you do not discuss the topic, you spout vague principled phrases which are largely unfounded in the big picture of current state of affairs facts and think you've somehow shown some kind of evidence that refutes mine and many others claims on lasers being too reliant on capacitor.
Try to not respond to my posts as you will have nothing useful to bring to them, next time you initiate a discussion try not to be a jackass from the start and it will probably serve you better.
|
Rain6638
Team Evil
576
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 20:54:00 -
[1197] - Quote
give the nighthawk torps. then i'll be happy [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
VanKenMar
Beach Boys Cartel.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 22:20:00 -
[1198] - Quote
Good to see how Eve is changing, but I grow old and my beloved Phantasm is still in the Ice Age! Dont care about Command ships, this is not my fairy tale so far, small scale pvp can be enough exciting without changes of the Command ships. But for the All Gods of Salvaging and Loot please do some upgrades to Phantasm! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
681
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 22:40:00 -
[1199] - Quote
Fal Dara wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote::Edit: Updates posted on August 7th :Edit: Astarte:Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 7.5%(+2.5) bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness Command Ships skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret rate of fire (was 5% damage) 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 3% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare linksFixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modulesSlot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 6 L, 5 turrets (-2), 2 launchers (+2) Fittings: 1350 PWG (-100), 440 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3400(-444) / 4900(+576) / 5000(+195) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 60(+10) / 85(+7.5) / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 67.5(+8.13) / 83.75(+8.13) / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+187.5) / 667s(+41.7) / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.7(+0.03) / 12300000 (-950000) / 11.94s (-0.34) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 75(+25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 75km (+20) / 200 / 8(+1) Sensor strength: 23 Magnetometric (+5) Signature radius: 300 Cargo capacity: 400 As some one who flies this ship often, i am OUTRAGED! I realize that you likley moved the ship's 7 guns down to 5 because you think the bonuses make up for it (they DONT!), or that the hybrid changes will make up for it--THEY DONT. Give it atleast 6 turrets, it's a command ship, not a cruiser! and MISSILE launchers on a gallente ship? are you on drugs? No gallente in their right mind will ever train missiles! The powergrid nerf doesnt bother me too much, There have been times that if i were to fit a plate i would NEED that 100, but it's not that bad. i see you want to keep it 'glass cannon' .... only you're taking out the cannon part too! SOLUTION6 turrets. 5% Rof bonus instead of 7.5% (these things are cap hungry mothers, RoF bonus is a direct nerf) lose the launchers. compleatly. change the falloff bonus to tracking (like navy brute) 3% per level (to offset the tracking nerf you had in mind for rails). .......................... I dont know what on earth you're thinking, but a command ship needs to be powerful, useful.. not nerfed beyond all reason, given an extra and useless weapons system, RoF bonused to finish off its cap (which was bad to start), gah! i would even live with 25mb drone badnwidth on top of ALL the rest of that, for the rest of what i suggested. ... and i love drones. PLEASE consider this for the astarte. Before raging, do the math. Number of effective turrats IS going up, though only slightly as the buff in 1 damage bonus and the conversion and buff to ROF on the other bonus more than make up the difference in turret count. Cap is only 1 effective turret higher than before, which is manageable and the rail tracking nerf is intended to partly offset the DPS boost. In the end that's a considerable increase in rail damage. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
108
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 23:16:00 -
[1200] - Quote
VanKenMar wrote:Good to see how Eve is changing, but I grow old and my beloved Phantasm is still in the Ice Age! Dont care about Command ships, this is not my fairy tale so far, small scale pvp can be enough exciting without changes of the Command ships. But for the All Gods of Salvaging and Loot please do some upgrades to Phantasm!
I agree with you. I have played with the new navy cruisers on SiSi and they pretty much always own a phantasm.
That doesn't seem right to me.
|
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
763
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 00:03:00 -
[1201] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:...I wouldnt say that, i fly dule rep SFIs, dule rep + plate prophecys, and Dule Rep Thorax's quite often. their speeds are amazing and they have the magical 4 mids i belive needed to active armor tank, unfortunatly most amarr boats dont have this. Over all I think if amarr got a nice sig decrease across the board it would help out their playstyle much in the same way speed helped Galent in their roll. Four mids and low sigs are all fine suggestions, but if you really want to help Amarr then have the lasers output warrant the cap drain instead of those silly LED flashlights they get for the cap investment.
Buff lasers to a point where they out-damage the Old Testament God (ie. post patch Gallente! ) by a healthy margin but suck so much cap that injector is needed beyond the 60-90s mark and introduce the high tracking 3rd pulses in M/L sizes .. gives you flavour, usefulness, vulnerability etc. all in one go. Works for blobs as cap can be outsourced in the form of Guardians, works for solo/small-gang where injectors are often added anyway to run SAAR's/neuts and it even works for PvE where damage = tank so one can throw in more relays and such to get the 5-6min cap needed for most missions/spawns.
The lack of flavour is what gets me the most. Previous racially restricted bonuses are scattered all over the place and ship lines seem to be geared towards offering all options within each race so that one need never cross-train for anything |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
108
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 00:15:00 -
[1202] - Quote
wait a minute, only a few months ago the general advice was "if you want to pvp in battleships, use amarr". Before that it was "only use minmatar". And suddenly lazorz suck? Come come. You just need to control your engagements with good tactics. Get range, keep range, use ewar (such as tracking disruptors and neuts) to keep others from attacking you.
Lasers have a place - good tracking, range and full damage all the way out.
Autocannons are very good for skirmishing but only apply toothpick damage at scorch range.
Blasters, well... if you're close enough to use blasters, you *have* to win. Because there is no way you're going to extract yourself if it's going wrong. No way in hell. You're absolutely f*cking committed. That's a hell of a price to pay for all the damage they do.
|
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
143
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 00:41:00 -
[1203] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:wait a minute, only a few months ago the general advice was "if you want to pvp in battleships, use amarr". Before that it was "only use minmatar". And suddenly lazorz suck? Come come. You just need to control your engagements with good tactics. Get range, keep range, use ewar (such as tracking disruptors and neuts) to keep others from attacking you.
Lasers have a place - good tracking, range and full damage all the way out.
Autocannons are very good for skirmishing but only apply toothpick damage at scorch range.
Blasters, well... if you're close enough to use blasters, you *have* to win. Because there is no way you're going to extract yourself if it's going wrong. No way in hell. You're absolutely f*cking committed. That's a hell of a price to pay for all the damage they do.
Lasers are utter ****.
Scorch is completely amazing.
They even out. Unless you can't use scorch, then lasers suck. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
81
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 01:15:00 -
[1204] - Quote
Voith wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:wait a minute, only a few months ago the general advice was "if you want to pvp in battleships, use amarr". Before that it was "only use minmatar". And suddenly lazorz suck? Come come. You just need to control your engagements with good tactics. Get range, keep range, use ewar (such as tracking disruptors and neuts) to keep others from attacking you.
Lasers have a place - good tracking, range and full damage all the way out.
Autocannons are very good for skirmishing but only apply toothpick damage at scorch range.
Blasters, well... if you're close enough to use blasters, you *have* to win. Because there is no way you're going to extract yourself if it's going wrong. No way in hell. You're absolutely f*cking committed. That's a hell of a price to pay for all the damage they do.
Lasers are utter ****. Scorch is completely amazing. They even out. Unless you can't use scorch, then lasers suck. Each weapon system has its strong points and it drawbacks.
in order of best base stats comparing large Blasters, AC, and Lasers (left - best, right - worst):
Damage modifier: Blasters, Lasers, Autocannons
Range: (combined optimal/falloff): Lasers, Autocannons, Blasters
Tracking: Blasters, Autocannons, Lasers
Capacitor Friendly: Autocannons, Lasers, Blasters
Reload Time: Lasers, Blasters, Autocannons
lets use a point system to accumulate a score shall we? (3 point for best, 2 for second, 1 for worst)
Blasters = 10
Lasers = 9
Autocannons = 9
Puts blasters in the lead by 1 point with autocannons and lasers tied. Seems pretty fair to me.
And before anyone mentions ammo i will say i didnt include them because the bonuses damage they produce dont always match up with other weapon systems. if it turns out the ammo is what needs to be fixed talk about that. |
Sigras
Conglomo
496
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 05:18:00 -
[1205] - Quote
Fal Dara wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote::Edit: Updates posted on August 7th :Edit: Astarte:Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 7.5%(+2.5) bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness Command Ships skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret rate of fire (was 5% damage) 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 3% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare linksFixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modulesSlot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 6 L, 5 turrets (-2), 2 launchers (+2) Fittings: 1350 PWG (-100), 440 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3400(-444) / 4900(+576) / 5000(+195) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 60(+10) / 85(+7.5) / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 67.5(+8.13) / 83.75(+8.13) / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+187.5) / 667s(+41.7) / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.7(+0.03) / 12300000 (-950000) / 11.94s (-0.34) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 75(+25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 75km (+20) / 200 / 8(+1) Sensor strength: 23 Magnetometric (+5) Signature radius: 300 Cargo capacity: 400 As some one who flies this ship often, i am OUTRAGED! I realize that you likley moved the ship's 7 guns down to 5 because you think the bonuses make up for it (they DONT!), or that the hybrid changes will make up for it--THEY DONT. Give it atleast 6 turrets, it's a command ship, not a cruiser! and MISSILE launchers on a gallente ship? are you on drugs? No gallente in their right mind will ever train missiles! The powergrid nerf doesnt bother me too much, There have been times that if i were to fit a plate i would NEED that 100, but it's not that bad. i see you want to keep it 'glass cannon' .... only you're taking out the cannon part too! SOLUTION6 turrets. 5% Rof bonus instead of 7.5% (these things are cap hungry mothers, RoF bonus is a direct nerf) lose the launchers. compleatly. change the falloff bonus to tracking (like navy brute) 3% per level (to offset the tracking nerf you had in mind for rails). .......................... I dont know what on earth you're thinking, but a command ship needs to be powerful, useful.. not nerfed beyond all reason, given an extra and useless weapons system, RoF bonused to finish off its cap (which was bad to start), gah! i would even live with 25mb drone badnwidth on top of ALL the rest of that, for the rest of what i suggested. ... and i love drones. PLEASE consider this for the astarte. In what way do the bonuses not make up for the loss of turrets? In the way where it does more damage now than before? or in the way where it takes less ammo now than before?
If you want to be taken seriously i suggest you not post things that make you sound like an idiot. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 05:34:00 -
[1206] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Voith wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:wait a minute, only a few months ago the general advice was "if you want to pvp in battleships, use amarr". Before that it was "only use minmatar". And suddenly lazorz suck? Come come. You just need to control your engagements with good tactics. Get range, keep range, use ewar (such as tracking disruptors and neuts) to keep others from attacking you.
Lasers have a place - good tracking, range and full damage all the way out.
Autocannons are very good for skirmishing but only apply toothpick damage at scorch range.
Blasters, well... if you're close enough to use blasters, you *have* to win. Because there is no way you're going to extract yourself if it's going wrong. No way in hell. You're absolutely f*cking committed. That's a hell of a price to pay for all the damage they do.
Lasers are utter ****. Scorch is completely amazing. They even out. Unless you can't use scorch, then lasers suck. Each weapon system has its strong points and it drawbacks. in order of best base stats comparing large Blasters, AC, and Lasers (left - best, right - worst): Damage modifier: Blasters, Lasers, Autocannons Range: (combined optimal/falloff): Lasers, Autocannons, Blasters Tracking: Blasters, Autocannons, Lasers Capacitor Friendly: Autocannons, Lasers, Blasters Reload Time: Lasers, Blasters, Autocannons lets use a point system to accumulate a score shall we? (3 point for best, 2 for second, 1 for worst) Blasters = 10 Lasers = 9 Autocannons = 9 Puts blasters in the lead by 1 point with autocannons and lasers tied. Seems pretty fair to me. And before anyone mentions ammo i will say i didnt include them because the bonuses damage they produce dont always match up with other weapon systems. if it turns out the ammo is what needs to be fixed talk about that.
^This and yeah Ammo need some Balance the closecombat turrets are fine. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
763
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 08:00:00 -
[1207] - Quote
Rowells wrote:in order of best base stats comparing large Blasters, AC, and Lasers (left - best, right - worst): ... Decent enough spin attempt, but you overvalue reload time and neglected to include fittings, tiericide has made most equal size ships fittings almost the same with variances based on amount of mids and tank type mostly.
Damage modifer: Blasters <22%> Lasers <3%> Auto
Range: (combined optimal/2xfalloff): Autos <8%> Lasers <47%> Blasters
Tracking: Blasters <14%> Autocannons <30%> Lasers
Capacitor Friendly: Autos --- Blasters <316%> Lasers (NB: Even after hull bonus of -50% lasers are worse!)
Fitting ((cpu+grid)/2): Autos <23%> Blasters <10%> Lasers
Reload Time: Irrelevant as laser swap only really changes range and not damage (no uses all the above standard ammos except for beams), so is never actually (ab)used as speeds have been equalized somewhat. Scorch and MF, chosen before a fight in most cases .. but if you must include it then add 3 to Lasers, 2 to Blasters and 1 to Autos.
Blasters = 13 Lasers = 7 Autocannons = 12
See what happen when you twist it ever so slightly and refrain from spreading disinformation (blasters worse on cap than lasers, thats a new one! ). Lasers and Autos have a single point up in the air from range dependent on whether you use 1x or 2x falloff and completely ignore TE's effect, but it does not impact the otherwise very clear picture: Lasers are one adjustment behind the others. It makes sense given that projectiles had a major revamp, kicking off Winmatar and Blasters recently got a minor revamp/tweak. |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 08:27:00 -
[1208] - Quote
Since these CPU/PG tweaks on command ships I would like to ask CCP Fozzie to post one fit for each ship. Think it'll help all of us to understand his vision on this subject.
I would also like to know why would you need 8 for same purpose. What is the point of having 2 command ships? If we are talking about links on field, then any weapon system on those ships is irrelevant. Nobody ever fielded Damnation or Claymore for extra DPS. I doubt anybody will actually try doing that in future as well. So since guns on command ships are irrelevant then splitting them based on missile/turret/drone platforms is also a bit ********. Extra 200 dps coming from those ships in future will not make any difference what so ever. There are many ways to fit current Claymore for example with links+guns but nobody does that. Nobody fits Gyrostabs or BCUs on it, ppl prefer having PDUs for extra HP and guns are pure KMWHORING mods. You can review the killboards and see it yourselves.
I am very frustrated with such a horrible understanding on game mechanics. I am pretty sure that CCP Dev team has different EVE there, not the one we play. My last hope is CCP Rise aka kill2. He's new there so must still have some common sense left. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 09:46:00 -
[1209] - Quote
SOL Ranger wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:
I got a better Idea!
Skillname: Trolololo Amarr
-25% Cap Use for all Amarr Ships per Level and 50% more Tracking, Range or Damage if the Laser Crystal does need it.
... Please we dont need Special Race Skills...
You seriously believe anyone will take you seriously after starting like that, that is not an opinion piece, that is trolling. Quote:Geeze, whats your problem, just get over it if you cant handle another opinion.
Its just isnt right to pervert the difference between each races with skills to make them all equal.
Laser without cap problems would be just like Hybrid, if this is your Goal, go ahead, ruin the game. As CCP had not taken enough of the Old Spirit of Eve throught all the rebalancing already, no just for the sake of it make them equal!
Oh, my bad i am the Troll here, i forgot... Lasers would still have cap problems after a 50% reduction, do you even fly Amarr at all? You say the 50% cap reduction is perverting the difference of races, so every ship with 4 turrets or capacitor use reduction with lasers is perverted? Seriously man, you're stuck in some kind of principled limbo where you refuse to look at the facts and throw hyperbole around like it's the only thing you know. Now you play the victim and moan about being unjustly labelled a troll and a condescending one you are, you do not discuss the topic, you spout vague principled phrases which are largely unfounded in the big picture of current state of affairs facts and think you've somehow shown some kind of evidence that refutes mine and many others claims on lasers being too reliant on capacitor. Try to not respond to my posts as you will have nothing useful to bring to them, next time you initiate a discussion try not to be a jackass from the start and it will probably serve you better.
Look, you can Act all Day and Night the big reasonable player, but your Ideas like special Energy Weapon Cap saving skills or ammunition increase skills are completly biased, your facts or better the problems your think to See are completly wrong, Amarr does have some Cap problems, Amarr does have some Tracking Problems in specific ranges and yes the damage Lacks sometimes.
But hell give them a stupid Race specific Skill IS NOT the answer, adding meaningless Skills everywhere is Never the answer.
And if you cant handle this Fact go Troll elsewhere. |
Serenity Eon
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 10:09:00 -
[1210] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:SOL Ranger wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:
I got a better Idea!
Skillname: Trolololo Amarr
-25% Cap Use for all Amarr Ships per Level and 50% more Tracking, Range or Damage if the Laser Crystal does need it.
... Please we dont need Special Race Skills...
You seriously believe anyone will take you seriously after starting like that, that is not an opinion piece, that is trolling. Quote:Geeze, whats your problem, just get over it if you cant handle another opinion.
Its just isnt right to pervert the difference between each races with skills to make them all equal.
Laser without cap problems would be just like Hybrid, if this is your Goal, go ahead, ruin the game. As CCP had not taken enough of the Old Spirit of Eve throught all the rebalancing already, no just for the sake of it make them equal!
Oh, my bad i am the Troll here, i forgot... Lasers would still have cap problems after a 50% reduction, do you even fly Amarr at all? You say the 50% cap reduction is perverting the difference of races, so every ship with 4 turrets or capacitor use reduction with lasers is perverted? Seriously man, you're stuck in some kind of principled limbo where you refuse to look at the facts and throw hyperbole around like it's the only thing you know. Now you play the victim and moan about being unjustly labelled a troll and a condescending one you are, you do not discuss the topic, you spout vague principled phrases which are largely unfounded in the big picture of current state of affairs facts and think you've somehow shown some kind of evidence that refutes mine and many others claims on lasers being too reliant on capacitor. Try to not respond to my posts as you will have nothing useful to bring to them, next time you initiate a discussion try not to be a jackass from the start and it will probably serve you better. Look, you can Act all Day and Night the big reasonable player, but your Ideas like special Energy Weapon Cap saving skills or ammunition increase skills are completly biased, your facts or better the problems your think to See are completly wrong, Amarr does have some Cap problems, Amarr does have some Tracking Problems in specific ranges and yes the damage Lacks sometimes. But hell give them a stupid Race specific Skill IS NOT the answer, adding meaningless Skills everywhere is Never the answer. And if you cant handle this Fact go Troll elsewhere.
^ I must agree with the player above, the last thing Amarr needs is another race specific skill. Go for the head of the snake!!! Nerf beam laser cap use. Then remove the 10% laser cap reduction skill from all Amarr ships and replace it with something meaningful ( like a falloff/tracking bonus). |
|
FleetAdmiralHarper
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
19
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 10:15:00 -
[1211] - Quote
fozzie it looks like you kicked the hornets nest with wanting to take weapons off ships. so please don't do that.. we get it, they are command ships and we can put 3 links on them now, that doesnt mean that we should be forced to have that many links if we dont need it. we should have the option to come up with fittings as needed.
i know if you take a launcher off my nighthawk, ill have 1 empty high slot...
lol look at me, its like im praying or something XD. im just talking to the air with no one else in the room, hoping some-kinda divine force hears me and decides not to remove weapons from all the command ships. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
84
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 10:30:00 -
[1212] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Blasters = 13 Lasers = 7 Autocannons = 12 im going to respond to the rest of that in a minute but I'm going to point out that you have 32 (7+12+13 = 32) total points on a system that only has 30 so....
5 points of comparison x (best 3 + second 2 + worst 1) = 30
If I'm doing this right the proper score should be (according to you):
Blasters 10
Auto cannons 12
Lasers 8
I'll be back to re-explain some points when I get more time. |
TehCloud
Carnivore Company 24eme Legion Etrangere
81
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 10:43:00 -
[1213] - Quote
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:fozzie it looks like you kicked the hornets nest with wanting to take weapons off ships. so please don't do that.. we get it, they are command ships and we can put 3 links on them now, that doesnt mean that we should be forced to have that many links if we dont need it. we should have the option to come up with fittings as needed.
i know if you take a launcher off my nighthawk, ill have 1 empty high slot...
lol look at me, its like im praying or something XD. im just talking to the air with no one else in the room, hoping some-kinda divine force hears me and decides not to remove weapons from all the command ships.
The Missing Hardpoint is compensated by a bigger damage bonus.
So you have more spare PG/CPU, need less Ammo and if you don't want to fit a second link, you can fit a neut, or a nos. FFS you could even fit an auto-targeter.
Don't complain because you have 1 less launcher, the ship will perform way better than before. My Condor costs less than that module! |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
84
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 10:56:00 -
[1214] - Quote
TehCloud wrote:FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:fozzie it looks like you kicked the hornets nest with wanting to take weapons off ships. so please don't do that.. we get it, they are command ships and we can put 3 links on them now, that doesnt mean that we should be forced to have that many links if we dont need it. we should have the option to come up with fittings as needed.
i know if you take a launcher off my nighthawk, ill have 1 empty high slot...
lol look at me, its like im praying or something XD. im just talking to the air with no one else in the room, hoping some-kinda divine force hears me and decides not to remove weapons from all the command ships. The Missing Hardpoint is compensated by a bigger damage bonus. So you have more spare PG/CPU, need less Ammo and if you don't want to fit a second link, you can fit a neut, or a nos. FFS you could even fit an auto-targeter. Don't complain because you have 1 less launcher, the ship will perform way better than before. I can imagine he might actually cry if someone only have him 1 launcher with a 1000% bonus to damage |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
84
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 11:18:00 -
[1215] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Capacitor Friendly: Autocannons, Lasers, Blasters I stand corrected, I did put those in backwards.
Reworked the numbers:
Auto cannons - 9
Lasers - 8
Blasters - 11 |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 15:02:00 -
[1216] - Quote
This is a commandship thread lets try to keep on topic and not compare weapon systsems and balance here
|
Ellendras Silver
No Self Esteem ShAdOw PoLiTiCs
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 15:25:00 -
[1217] - 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.
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 would realy like to keep the role as the role of a command ship is to provide boosts. also the leadership skills and cybernetics 5 is very skill intensive allready |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
763
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 15:28:00 -
[1218] - Quote
Rowells wrote:im going to respond to the rest of that in a minute but I'm going to point out that you have 32 (7+12+13 = 32) total points on a system that only has 30 so.... Damn, the lack of the % partition on cap friendliness threw me off.
My tally is: Blaster: 12 Auto: 11 Laser: 7
Doesn't change the conclusion though
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:This is a commandship thread lets try to keep on topic and not compare weapon systsems and balance here How on Earth do you propose one goes about balancing the hulls without taking into account the mods they are likely to use? Everything, as in everything (Grid/CPU, Cap, mobility, bonuses et al.) are dictated by the how/what/where/when of fitting and using a ship, it is why CCP tweaks grid downwards to "force" auto fits or removes slots on drone boats.
When the weapon systems are so much out of sync as is the case currently (many moons has passed since last laser change), the balancing (or feedback thereon) of the hulls becomes impossible for us to participate in without factoring in possible future changes to weapons .. I am fairly certain that the Dev crew already has an outline of where they want lasers to be and are using that when they cook the numbers, but we are not privy to it so must make our own (they may not have said outline in which case we (Amarr) are seriously screwed ) |
SOL Ranger
Jaeger Squadron
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 15:36:00 -
[1219] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote: Look, you can Act all Day and Night the big reasonable player...
Alright, I'll look. I would like to believe I am quite reasonable yes, however I do not "act" as that would implicate me wanting or needing an audience, I am here to solve balance issues and not for looking good for on the forums, I'd look much better if I didn't reply to you for instance, food for thought.
Quote:...but your Ideas like special Energy Weapon Cap saving skills or ammunition increase skills are completly biased, your facts or better the problems your think to See are completly wrong...
Again with the focus on me being "biased", "completely wrong", may I ask, to clarify, is it the fact that my suggestion is a skill that is the problem or is the problem the reduction of laser capacitor use?
Because as I remember the problem you had first in your original wise-ass post was in short to not add skills, then in the subsequent posts the issue was a reduction in capacitor use would "pervert the races" and ""destroy EvE"", now yet again you are saying specifically the skill part is "completely biased" as if introducing more skills to the game would overly benefit me alone.
Which is it?(rhetorical question, I place no real value in your opinions at this point)
Quote:...Amarr does have some Cap problems, Amarr does have some Tracking Problems in specific ranges and yes the damage Lacks sometimes.
I really don't understand what you're opposed to now, you say what I think about lasers is completely wrong yet you're definitely agreeing that lasers have quite a few apparent problems and especially noteworthy is the part of capacitor problems, which my suggestions are directly and exclusively aimed at.
Quote:But hell give them a stupid Race specific Skill IS NOT the answer, adding meaningless Skills everywhere is Never the answer.
I don't get where you're coming from when you say a "stupid" cap reduction skill would be "meaningless", it's not stupid nor is it meaningless; If you want to argue the pros/cons of having it as a skill or that the solution should rather focus to reduce cap use on the most demanding lasers baseline, I'd be willing to discuss that, if only I could get one post from you without an obvious attitude problem I would.
All your rambling this far has only resulted in a test on how often you can accuse me of being "completely wrong" and "biased" without strengthening your stance nor offering any kind of insight as to why, this isn't a political arena, personal posturing is what is stupid and meaningless and empty statements like "completely wrong" and "biased" are of null value.
You've agreed that lasers are indeed overly problematic, as has been my stance this entire time although I directly point at the capacitor use ship bonus and the high consumption of cap lasers consume, as it is in my opinion the most apparent problem.
Quote:And if you cant handle this Fact go Troll elsewhere.
You present few facts and those you present are only strengthening my stance, I now see you have fully turned the tables inside your own head, it is called projection, you have officially thrown rationality out of the window.
TL;DR
Progress. At last even the most vehement opposition directly agrees lasers have cap problems.
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
321
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 16:58:00 -
[1220] - Quote
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. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
442
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 17:06:00 -
[1221] - 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. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
109
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 17:57:00 -
[1222] - Quote
I should think that after 61 pages of angry capsuleer reactions he's thinking very hard before posting any more suggestions. He has my sympathy, but it seems to me that he could do himself a favour by: 1. Studying the stats on production numbers of existing command ships (a reasonable proxy for desirability) 2. incrementally buffing the least used 3. waiting to see what effect that has on player uptake.
This would be the scientific method. Data driven, factual, devoid of all irrelevant opinion.
He would then have a credible defence against any flames directed his way, i.e. "The numbers don't lie".
Fozzie?
|
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 19:09:00 -
[1223] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Rowells wrote:im going to respond to the rest of that in a minute but I'm going to point out that you have 32 (7+12+13 = 32) total points on a system that only has 30 so.... Damn, the lack of the % partition on cap friendliness threw me off. My tally is: Blaster: 12 Auto: 11 Laser: 7 Doesn't change the conclusion though Eldrith Jhandar wrote:This is a commandship thread lets try to keep on topic and not compare weapon systsems and balance here How on Earth do you propose one goes about balancing the hulls without taking into account the mods they are likely to use? Everything, as in everything (Grid/CPU, Cap, mobility, bonuses et al.) are dictated by the how/what/where/when of fitting and using a ship, it is why CCP tweaks grid downwards to "force" auto fits or removes slots on drone boats. When the weapon systems are so much out of sync as is the case currently (many moons has passed since last laser change), the balancing (or feedback thereon) of the hulls becomes impossible for us to participate in without factoring in possible future changes to weapons .. I am fairly certain that the Dev crew already has an outline of where they want lasers to be and are using that when they cook the numbers, but we are not privy to it so must make our own (they may not have said outline in which case we (Amarr) are seriously screwed )
You are makin this thread about weapon systems, not about the ships, you are talking about how lasers are bad nerfed buffed etc and not about how to make the ships good and balanced with the weapon system, it's one thing to go "oh lasers are bad and the abso will suffer in xyz way so change the 10% cap consumption to 7.5% cap consumption and tracking" or w.e You are talking simply about the lasers-autos-hybrids
Edit: you as in you and the others, and if this came off as mean spirited sorry, it is not meant as such |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
681
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 19:22:00 -
[1224] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I should think that after 61 pages of angry capsuleer reactions he's thinking very hard before posting any more suggestions. He has my sympathy, but it seems to me that he could do himself a favour by: 1. Studying the stats on production numbers of existing command ships (a reasonable proxy for desirability) 2. incrementally buffing the least used 3. waiting to see what effect that has on player uptake.
This would be the scientific method. Data driven, factual, devoid of all irrelevant opinion.
He would then have a credible defence against any flames directed his way, i.e. "The numbers don't lie".
Fozzie?
This would only work if he wants the classes he's working on now to be finished over the course of several months AFTER the first round of changes hits. Between training and individual preference shifts a real change in numbers of a global scale could take quite some time. It could also be deceptive as the move towards a ship, especially T2 ships with lengthy prerequisites, could ha deterred in part by training. It could also allow singular variables to override what might be an otherwise good ship since the metric of balanced becomes usage in a class where there are obviously intended role differences still and those roles don't play out in even numbers. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
86
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 20:05:00 -
[1225] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:Rowells wrote:im going to respond to the rest of that in a minute but I'm going to point out that you have 32 (7+12+13 = 32) total points on a system that only has 30 so.... Damn, the lack of the % partition on cap friendliness threw me off. My tally is: Blaster: 12 Auto: 11 Laser: 7 Doesn't change the conclusion though Eldrith Jhandar wrote:This is a commandship thread lets try to keep on topic and not compare weapon systsems and balance here How on Earth do you propose one goes about balancing the hulls without taking into account the mods they are likely to use? Everything, as in everything (Grid/CPU, Cap, mobility, bonuses et al.) are dictated by the how/what/where/when of fitting and using a ship, it is why CCP tweaks grid downwards to "force" auto fits or removes slots on drone boats. When the weapon systems are so much out of sync as is the case currently (many moons has passed since last laser change), the balancing (or feedback thereon) of the hulls becomes impossible for us to participate in without factoring in possible future changes to weapons .. I am fairly certain that the Dev crew already has an outline of where they want lasers to be and are using that when they cook the numbers, but we are not privy to it so must make our own (they may not have said outline in which case we (Amarr) are seriously screwed ) You are makin this thread about weapon systems, not about the ships, you are talking about how lasers are bad nerfed buffed etc and not about how to make the ships good and balanced with the weapon system, it's one thing to go "oh lasers are bad and the abso will suffer in xyz way so change the 10% cap consumption to 7.5% cap consumption and tracking" or w.e You are talking simply about the lasers-autos-hybrids Edit: you as in you and the others, and if this came off as mean spirited sorry, it is not meant as such If you think that our discussion was off-topic go check out the grammar war going on in the warfare links thread. |
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
147
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 21:00:00 -
[1226] - Quote
Each race has 2 CS. Make one of them tanky (250k+ ehp) and the other one dps (like the absolution and damnation). |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
763
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 21:08:00 -
[1227] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:...Edit: you as in you and the others, and if this came off as mean spirited sorry, it is not meant as such Its a public forum where grown ups get hot-n-bothered about spaceships like pre-teen boys who see what's on TV after mommy and daddy has gone to bed.
We are on page 60+ with Devs probably trying to find shelter (somewhere halfway through) from the deluge of critique that has pelted this thread, CC's are a about as big a deal as it can get as they are being set up to reclaim the link crown and links are going to be joining the melee .. and .. we have been promised that they would all have teeth should the player choose to bare them.
Balance stickies are historically derailed around page 50 when people run out of 100% on topic feedback and just sort of drift away, we know the Devs are monitoring them so they are WMD's in the war to get heard. All my 100% OT was concluded in the first fifteen pages or so, with some good ideas/arguments involved if I dare say so myself
|
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 21:22:00 -
[1228] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Eldrith Jhandar wrote:...Edit: you as in you and the others, and if this came off as mean spirited sorry, it is not meant as such Its a public forum where grown ups get hot-n-bothered about spaceships like pre-teen boys who see what's on TV after mommy and daddy has gone to bed. We are on page 60+ with Devs probably trying to find shelter (somewhere halfway through) from the deluge of critique that has pelted this thread, CC's are a about as big a deal as it can get as they are being set up to reclaim the link crown and links are going to be joining the melee .. and .. we have been promised that they would all have teeth should the player choose to bare them. Balance stickies are historically derailed around page 50 when people run out of 100% on topic feedback and just sort of drift away, we know the Devs are monitoring them so they are WMD's in the war to get heard. All my 100% OT was concluded in the first fifteen pages or so, with some good ideas/arguments involved if I dare say so myself
Fair enough, you wernt completely off topic and we have to wait for the debs to respond before we can flame them more... :p Carry on |
Goldensaver
Khanid Regional Directorate
221
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 22:48:00 -
[1229] - Quote
Now that I think about it they'be got a right mess to deal with. As things are they want them to be able to have teeth... for the right sacrifices. But as it is, for fleet work you need to do full brick and links. At the fitting cost of links this basically means that if you give them enough fitting for a massive brick AND links, they've got space for a ridiculous tank and full tank. If they don't give them that space they're hopeless for fleets.
First thing I might do is reduce the fitting cost of links further, and remove another high for a mid/low. For a combat ship you gimp yourself flying links in damage, not fitting. You will still be able to contribute, just not as much in damage, more in utility/support. This also means that pure combat CS's won't have as many utility slots with all their power.
Next you reduce the fitting of CS's. Let them fit full tank with poor damage or full damage with a poor tank. This also leaves open the option of fitting it midway. But because you reduced the fitting of Links, you don't have to heavily gimp your tank to fit them.
Next: more tanking bonuses. Each should get a pure buffer bonus (10% HP per level or something) and a racial tank bonus (active or resists). I know this gives Amarr and Caldari the advantage for pure buffer, but again I believe that Gallente and Minmatar should be compensated in speed and sig. Still inferior, but now they have a niche, especially with their skirmish links. Change the bonuses around or just plain give them more so that they can fit for current damage numbers if they go full tank, but they will do so at the cost of links and utility highs.
Who knows, maybe I just don't get it, but I would like all of them to have options when it comes to tank or gank, support or damage. Making fitting sacrifices to fill a role. |
Zane Ziebold
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe R.E.P.O.
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 22:48:00 -
[1230] - Quote
Ok what up with the split weapon types now, it goes against some of the makers of the ships. Like with the Astarte Duvolle Labs(see below) makes the blue prints and they favors blasters its not Roden Shipyards that use missiles. I am just asked why the change all of a sudden.
Developer: Duvolle Labs
Duvolle Labs manufactures sturdy ships with a good mix of offensive and defensive capabilities. Since the company is one of New Eden's foremost manufacturers of particle blasters, its ships tend to favor turrets and thus have somewhat higher power output than normal.
Developer: Roden Shipyards
Unlike most Gallente ship manufacturers, Roden Shipyards tend to favor missiles over drones and their ships generally possess stronger armor. Their electronics capacity, however, tends to be weaker than ships from their competitors. |
|
Goldensaver
Khanid Regional Directorate
221
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 22:54:00 -
[1231] - Quote
Zane Ziebold wrote:Ok what up with the split weapon types now, it goes against some of the makers of the ships. Like with the Astarte Duvolle Labs(see below) makes the blue prints and they favors blasters its not Roden Shipyards that use missiles. I am just asked why the change all of a sudden.
Developer: Duvolle Labs
Duvolle Labs manufactures sturdy ships with a good mix of offensive and defensive capabilities. Since the company is one of New Eden's foremost manufacturers of particle blasters, its ships tend to favor turrets and thus have somewhat higher power output than normal.
Developer: Roden Shipyards
Unlike most Gallente ship manufacturers, Roden Shipyards tend to favor missiles over drones and their ships generally possess stronger armor. Their electronics capacity, however, tends to be weaker than ships from their competitors. What split weapons? It's a blaster boat through and through with 2 utility slots and 2 completely unbonused launcher slots should you decide to use them to augment your damage. |
Auferre
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
30
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 01:35:00 -
[1232] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Are you still happy with the Damnation's dual tank bonuses and how that effectively makes the Damnation the only viable fleet command ship?
I considered dropping the armor hp bonus from the Damnation, but in the end I think it's ok for it to have a strong identity, even if that identity makes it more popular than the others for large fleet warfare.
This is a real head-scratcher. Isn't fleet warfare the entire point of command ships? Isn't the goal of rebalancing to make most (if not all) ships useful in their intended role?
Why would you be okay with only one ship in an entire class being popular for that role? |
Feffri
Death By Design
33
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 04:13:00 -
[1233] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:so... the command ship model change has been upgraded from something you were just considering, to a thing? videodev blog
Please, Please, Please this |
Kara Vix
Sanford and Son Salvage
202
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 06:55:00 -
[1234] - Quote
Feffri wrote:Rain6637 wrote:so... the command ship model change has been upgraded from something you were just considering, to a thing? videodev blog Please, Please, Please this
Meh, if my precious nighthawk changes to look like a bloody drake that's the tipping point. CCP really lacks in the art department and if they change one of the nicest looking ships into one of the most boring, well I guess it would be predictable. If you change them at all change them to something unique. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
86
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 07:11:00 -
[1235] - Quote
How about giving the vulture, claymore, and eos a 10% armo shield bonus (while removing the local rep/resist bonus) and taking away the resist bonus on the damnation. Then have the sleipner and Astarte keep their local reps and the nighthawk and absolution keep their resist bonuses. Good or bad? |
Alkyria Decile
Delstar Corp
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 08:04:00 -
[1236] - Quote
Rowells wrote:How about giving the vulture, claymore, and eos a 10% armo shield bonus (while removing the local rep/resist bonus) and taking away the resist bonus on the damnation. Then have the sleipner and Astarte keep their local reps and the nighthawk and absolution keep their resist bonuses. Good or bad?
Personally I would give the vulture or the nighthawk a 10% shield bonus per level then give one of the minmatar and one of the gallente command ships a resistance bonus per level. Then you end up with one super tanky/ehp command ship for armor and one for shield, you have your choice of 4 resist bonus only command ships (2 armor 2 shield) for medium to small fights and 2 with rep bonus only for small gangs.
But at the very least shield needs a blob ship like the absolution is for armor.
|
Teri Cox
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 08:36:00 -
[1237] - Quote
What about giving the Vulture the following bonuses:
Battlecruiser skill: 10% to medium hybrid damage (was optimal range) 4% to all shield resist
command ships skill: 10% to medium hybrid damage 10% to medium hybrid falloff (was optimal range)
i think, the command ships arent realy balanced (vulture has 7.5 effective turrets, while the sleipnir has 11.25) i propose, to give the absolution, astarte and vulture 11.25 effective turrets.
the astarte should get 2x 10% damage (one from BC skill and one from CS skill) the absolution should loose his capicator use bonus and get a 10% damage bonus from bc and a 10% from CS skill. The ROF bonus can get replaced with something useful (optimal range, tracking...)
about the claymore: this ship is good, but a dual 5% rof bonus means very high ammo consum. I suggest to replace one of these rof bonuses to a 10% missile damage bonus.
the damnation: the missile velocity bonus should get replaced with a 5% rof bonus.
The eos: i dont believe, that the tracking bonus is usefull, a drone control radius bonus would be great (similar to the ishtar) |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
148
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 09:11:00 -
[1238] - Quote
Auferre wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Are you still happy with the Damnation's dual tank bonuses and how that effectively makes the Damnation the only viable fleet command ship?
I considered dropping the armor hp bonus from the Damnation, but in the end I think it's ok for it to have a strong identity, even if that identity makes it more popular than the others for large fleet warfare. This is a real head-scratcher. Isn't fleet warfare the entire point of command ships? Isn't the goal of rebalancing to make most (if not all) ships useful in their intended role? Why would you be okay with only one ship in an entire class being popular for that role?
Fleetwarfare is the thing for damnation/vulture. Claymore appears to be well usable as an active tanked nano-cs (two skirmish links and you still got a 700dps tank sustained for a long time without issue - talking of 3-4 man gangs)
Eos will be an excellent frontline-ship for wormhole people, as fights happen directly on wormholes and smartbombs can't (in most cases) even be activated around your heavy drones. Still got 170k EHP, which is terrible compared to the 270k+ of a damnation, but equalized by having some 700 formidable dps.
Astarte/Sleipnir/Abso seem to - even though they can link - be rather premier versatile vessels, all of them having grid/cpu/cap to run dual-med-neuts along with secondhighest or highest tier SR weapons, while also feauturing a 100k+ EHP buffer.
The Nighthawk seems to be slightly less tanky compared to a vulture, however: nighthawk dps on paper seem extremely strong, and at least I'm assuming they'll be extremely strong apllied to any vessel I normally run into (Cruisers upwards) As a bonus, nighthawk can run duallinks
Soooo.... you can use every single ship as a linkship to bring on grid, but their fields of expertise vary extremely. The bigger the fight becomes, the more damnation. The smaller it is, the more it feautures the claymore in it's runaway-style or the eos for it's insane dps next to 3 links.
Just waiting for the first triplerep-Eos to show the world what a myrmidon always wanted to be. I only correct my own spelling. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
529
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 09:24:00 -
[1239] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Just waiting for the first triplerep-Eos to show the world what a myrmidon always wanted to be.
You can't really triple rep a 4 midslot ship unless you want to drop some form of tackle, or prop for the second cap booster.
Eos will probably be better with 2x reps and a ddm.
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
148
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 09:37:00 -
[1240] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote:
Just waiting for the first triplerep-Eos to show the world what a myrmidon always wanted to be.
You can't really triple rep a 4 midslot ship unless you want to drop some form of tackle, or prop for the second cap booster. Eos will probably be better with 2x reps and a ddm.
From what I've trying to fit up, you can run triplerep and go with scram only (which, as you stated indirectly) won't let you hold sufficient tackle on one target it may be, however the tracking bonus to heavies might at least solve parts of that question. Eos got quite the beefy capacitor, so unless neuted, you can reliably run the two MAR IIs constantly under occasional cycling of your cap booster.
The way more conservative solution (imo) is the 3link eos with a 1600 plate and 2 med reppers, 1 cap booster. For engaging a small gang, just gives you the right ratio of existing buffer and prolongued life :) Or ~130k EHP and 1.2k/s, linking itself. Niche!
Also quite nice is the 2 link-thingy with 4 ions, and no active tank whatsoever, leaving you at just short over 1000dps using ogres/antimatter with still unchanged buffer. No matter how you look at it, the eos is just gorgeuos. I only correct my own spelling. |
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
86
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 09:45:00 -
[1241] - Quote
This thread is going to get a lot more pages and flames once they finally put these ships on sisi |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
529
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 09:57:00 -
[1242] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:
No matter how you look at it, the eos is just gorgeuos.
I'm not going to argue that it's "god awful" but the currently proposed eos really serves no point when compared to the astarte.
The two ships are even more similar than the myrmidon and brutix.
Imo, the eos needs to get it's missing slot back in the form of a 5th mid. The "smallish" drone bay, and lack of super dmg bonuses as seen on other commands does not justify the loss of a slot as seen on most other drone ships. |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 10:04:00 -
[1243] - Quote
No to model changes, these ships are iconic.
Vulture dps is abysmal, this needs fixing in some way or form |
Battlingbean
Star Frontiers Dirt Nap Squad.
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 11:24:00 -
[1244] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Auferre wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Are you still happy with the Damnation's dual tank bonuses and how that effectively makes the Damnation the only viable fleet command ship?
I considered dropping the armor hp bonus from the Damnation, but in the end I think it's ok for it to have a strong identity, even if that identity makes it more popular than the others for large fleet warfare. This is a real head-scratcher. Isn't fleet warfare the entire point of command ships? Isn't the goal of rebalancing to make most (if not all) ships useful in their intended role? Why would you be okay with only one ship in an entire class being popular for that role? ... Eos will be an excellent frontline-ship for wormhole people, as fights happen directly on wormholes and smartbombs can't (in most cases) even be activated around your heavy drones. Still got 170k EHP, which is terrible compared to the 270k+ of a damnation, but equalized by having some 700 formidable dps. ...
Lloyd Roses wrote:Just from toying around, Abso can run with a plate, 2 hardeners, EANM and DCU, 2 heatsinks, scram, mwd, med cap booster, 5 HPL and 2 med neuts, one ancil rig and a trimark. It's nice with some 180k EHP linked, 680dps using conflag and dualmed-neut. :|
Also, more than 5 mids on a nighthawk would be highly broken. 5 mids is a good thing to keep the ship on the ground, given it's boni. It is ridiculously tanky already. And it's not like you really need to sacrifice a mid for tackle on a linkship.
7/7/3 would be an inherent godmode. I strognly disagree of a 150k EHP brawler with full tackle and 650dps.
Right so the EOS can have 700dps and 170ehp and be an "excellent frontline-ship" but a theoretical 7/7/3 Nighthawk with 650 dps and 150 EHP is "godmode". Your full of bias. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
148
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 11:48:00 -
[1245] - Quote
Right so the EOS can have 700dps and 170ehp and be an "excellent frontline-ship" but a theoretical 7/7/3 Nighthawk with 650 dps and 150 EHP is "godmode". Your full of bias.[/quote]
Don't mess up the quoting. A 7/5/5 nighthawk has 150k EHP+ (179k to be precise, using a vanilla fit linking itself including siege link) A 7/7/3 nighthawk would push that tank up a lot and also push it's passive recharge to the 600s, being full buffer fit (it's 400ish right now) - which would result in a solo-pwnmachine.
But yeah, if you think that 200k+ EHP, 700dps and a passive recharge of around 3 stabbers worth isn't godmode, pls tell me what is then.
Mean, sure make it 7/7/3, I fly that thing anyways... No issue with my ships being ridiculously OP - but I'd really dislike facing them in a fight. I only correct my own spelling. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
763
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 12:31:00 -
[1246] - Quote
Battlingbean wrote:...Right so the EOS can have 700dps and 170ehp and be an "excellent frontline-ship" but a theoretical 7/7/3 Nighthawk with 650 dps and 150 EHP is "godmode". Your full of bias. Damnation doesn't even get 500 paper dps with HAM's and three BCSII's (130k EHP in three slot tank .. hahaha) so quit your complaining!!
Damnation ought to be the base line for the old fleets and Sleipnir the baseline for old fields, thusly:
Damnation, Eos, Vulture, Claymore: Tank first, damage second. Resists/Raw EHP, means that Claymore/Eos will have to give up their repair bonuses .. they should all be capable of 225k+ EHP if they choose to forego damage. When using triple damage mods they should be on par with the other four using one (15-20% difference) * Considering the link type bonuses I'd suggest having one of each (EHP/Resist) available for both camps.
Absolution, Astarte, Nighthawk, Sleipnir: Damage/Application first, Tank second. Bonuses to be damage, tracking, range etc. with paper dps somewhere around 8-900 (1k for blasters) if skimping on tank and nimbler/smaller than their fat cousins. If tanked out they should be able equal the other four in relative EHP over a period of one full Ancillary repairers worth, pure buffering should fall short by 25% or more. Means that Absolution should have 15-20% more damage and/or application, NH about half that (has range advantage), Astarte to lose some damage and Sleipnir 7.5%Rof/7.5%Dmg (one turret more than current proposal = +10%dps) and tanks adjusted as needed. * Sorry Gallente lovers (includes Dev in charge), but believe it or not: Having 1k+ dps while being able to tank that amount is not good for the game unless same performance is made available to all .. ie. if it is only the one it is broken/OP.
Provides both link camps (Info and Skirmish) comparative options; face-melt close range hull and a longer range/utility blob mobile without making either utterly useless when outside its comfort zone (ie. small gang stuff).
PS: Sorting the Spectrum Breaker (functional IDFF) and giving all CCs a hefty bonus to them would be an ideal role bonus which negates the need to nerf alpha into the ground once links come on grid. |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
99
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 13:10:00 -
[1247] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:[quote=Battlingbean]
Don't mess up the quoting. A 7/5/5 nighthawk has 150k EHP+ (179k to be precise, using a vanilla fit linking itself including siege link) A 7/7/3 nighthawk would push that tank up a lot and also push it's passive recharge to the 600s, being full buffer fit (it's 400ish right now) - which would result in a solo-pwnmachine.
But yeah, if you think that 200k+ EHP, 700dps and a passive recharge of around 3 stabbers worth isn't godmode, pls tell me what is then.
Mean, sure make it 7/7/3, I fly that thing anyways... No issue with my ships being ridiculously OP - but I'd really dislike facing them in a fight.
I'm assuming your fits don't bother running any sort of tackle on them. As such, I'd like to see you re-run those numbers with tackle included. I'm sure they'll change significantly and show you that the Nighthawk, in its current 7/5/5 configuration, is pretty weak.
As far as 7/7/3, sure I'd LOVE to have that, but that's just a pipe dream in all likelihood. It needs to be at least 7/6/4, however, to be viable in any sort of PvP where it fits both a prop mod and a point. If this doesn't happen, it will continue to be relegated to the trash bin of history and passed up for other, more effective ships.
Hopefully we'll see it get the love it needs to become viable.
Help me, CCP Fozzie. You're my only hope! |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
34
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 15:47:00 -
[1248] - Quote
Give Claymore a dmg bonus (7.5% or so) instead of one of the RoF bonuses and un-nerf the mass on the NH, it's slow enough live at it is now. |
Gustav Mannfred
the bring back canflipping corp
70
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 16:22:00 -
[1249] - Quote
Increase the damage bonus on the vulture to 20% per level, to give her 10 effective turrets. (around 8% less damage, then an astarte does on tq) i'm REALY miss the old stuff.-á
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=24183 |
Kane Fenris
NWP
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 16:27:00 -
[1250] - Quote
Doed wrote:...... un-nerf the mass on the NH, it's slow enough live at it is now.
+1
(i did ask for response why nighthawk was made slower but fozzie sadly didnt respond. i can see no reason to make the nh slower) |
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
148
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 20:36:00 -
[1251] - Quote
Wrayeth wrote:[...] As such, I'd like to see you re-run those numbers with tackle included. I'm sure they'll change significantly and show you that the Nighthawk, in its current 7/5/5 configuration, is pretty weak.
http://i.imgur.com/5dp9KGc.png I'm not sure if just a point is 'tackle', but again (linking itself + siege mindlink) it seems rather acceptable. Can switch the EM-hardener for a EM-resistance amp to mount a third link. As long as it's around tanking and hitting, I really can't see an issue with the nighthawk.
I only correct my own spelling. |
Snape Dieboldmotor
Perkone Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 20:54:00 -
[1252] - Quote
I really like these ships.
As stated by others, the shield equivalent of the Damnation is an obvious hole. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
444
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 21:16:00 -
[1253] - 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. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
529
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 02:39:00 -
[1254] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Doed wrote:...... un-nerf the mass on the NH, it's slow enough live at it is now. +1 (i did ask for response why nighthawk was made slower but fozzie sadly didnt respond. i can see no reason to make the nh slower)
NH was clearly op.....
|
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
288
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 03:37:00 -
[1255] - Quote
I'm tired about talking and reading about these ships. Just give us the final stats so I can make plans. :( |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
99
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 03:41:00 -
[1256] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:http://i.imgur.com/5dp9KGc.pngI'm not sure if just a point is 'tackle', but again (linking itself + siege mindlink) it seems rather acceptable. Can switch the EM-hardener for a EM-resistance amp to mount a third link. As long as it's around tanking and hitting, I really can't see an issue with the nighthawk.
I have a couple of issues with this. First, tech II rigs were used, which are far too expensive to run on run-of-the-mill ships. If you're faction/deadspace fitting it, that's one thing, but tech II rigs add too much to the cost for standard use ships.
Second, you're factoring a ganglink into the stats. The idea of the change was to make them effective combatants with or without ganglinks. If you have to use a ganglink to give the ship comparable stats to the other command ships without links, then there's an issue.
With such glaring flaws, I'm not sure why you made the argument you posted. All I can think is that you wish to push people into a false belief that the nighthawk's current state is okay. I can't see any reason for that aside from an anti-Caldari bias that some posters on these forums show, mostly because they look at Caldari ships as the carebear's ship of choice and they hate carebears. I can't say if this applies to you or not, but it's all I can think of at the moment. |
Selexim
Leader Dogs Metatron Inc. Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 03:48:00 -
[1257] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Command Ship model changes
Can we see the new models?
|
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
288
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 03:48:00 -
[1258] - Quote
Wrayeth wrote:I have a couple of issues with this. First, tech II rigs were used, which are far too expensive to run on run-of-the-mill ships. If you're faction/deadspace fitting it, that's one thing, but tech II rigs add too much to the cost for standard use ships.
As much as I'm sick of talking about these ships I will say that tech II rigs aren't near as expensive as they use to be. Tech II medium extender rigs are around 30m each, which is a lot more reasonable to put on a ~250m ship. |
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
143
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 04:00:00 -
[1259] - Quote
Gunna chime into echo what others have said.
It is cool that you're adding some dedicated command ships.
But a lot of people, my self included, don't like Losing the Uber-Hac lines for all factions.
Leaving The Sleipnir, Nighthawk, Absolution and Astarte as more of a HAC than gang link ***** would be nice. |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 08:39:00 -
[1260] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Dav Varan wrote: Drones are not short range. Please compare to a rail astarte.
Clearly sir, you have only used heavy drones in PVE. The are absolutely short range only. You absolutely have to have webbed your target for them to even to stay near him, and in a small-scale skirmish they are the absolutely target of choice for your enemy since he know that once they are dead you can't hurt him at all. Thus, you have to be within 2.5km of them at all times so you can recall them the moment they receive the slightest brush of damage. Sentry drones are medium range (aka railguns), or long range on a ship with the specific range bonus (the Dominix). Unfortunately, sentry drones suck (to a degree) for skirmish PVP (this ship's apparent role) because once you've deployed them you either can't move (i.e. not skirmishing) or you have to kiss goodbye to 5M isk and half your offensive capability when you leave them behind.
Its a command ship, you are in a gang. Maybe your tackle ships should have scram/web.
Drones damage is going to be balanced at max effective range along with other long systems such as missile , which btw are also more effective if your target is webbed down.
Asking for blaster levels of damage from a drone boat that can if it wishes apply its damage from 50km away is unreasonable.
|
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
148
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 10:38:00 -
[1261] - Quote
Wrayeth wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote:http://i.imgur.com/5dp9KGc.pngI'm not sure if just a point is 'tackle', but again (linking itself + siege mindlink) it seems rather acceptable. Can switch the EM-hardener for a EM-resistance amp to mount a third link. As long as it's around tanking and hitting, I really can't see an issue with the nighthawk. I have a couple of issues with this. First, tech II rigs were used, which are far too expensive to run on run-of-the-mill ships. If you're faction/deadspace fitting it, that's one thing, but tech II rigs add too much to the cost for standard use ships. Second, you're factoring a ganglink into the stats. The idea of the change was to make them effective combatants with or without ganglinks. If you have to use a ganglink to give the ship comparable stats to the other command ships without links, then there's an issue. With such glaring flaws, I'm not sure why you made the argument you posted. All I can think is that you wish to push people into a false belief that the nighthawk's current state is okay. I can't see any reason for that aside from an anti-Caldari bias that some posters on these forums show, mostly because they look at Caldari ships as the carebear's ship of choice and they hate carebears. I can't say if this applies to you or not, but it's all I can think of at the moment.
So sry, let me go detail by detail. I'm a pewpew pilot. I shoot ships that shoot back. I'm using sleipnir/claymore/astarte on a regular basis and sometimes absolutions (plate + dualrep, MAR+AMAR, pure buffer fit), rarely any of the others, basically I pretty much am used to flying T2 BCs. As such, let me tell you that the nighthawk is really nice. If you're complaining that the HAM-dps of 650 using NAVY is not enough, you clearly are a one-eyed person. Other CS are mostly way worse dps wise, are worse ehp wise. So if you're complaining that 110k EHP, or 140k+ running the links you will fit anyways, is bad or not enough, than you have been pampered with loldrakes for way to long. It's a good step that devs are taking the emergency brake on that shieldtank, cause the buffer on such a ship (factoring passive recharge) makes dem solo-capabilities and smallscale situations plainly hilarious. Anyone asking for a ridiculous shieldbuffer because armor got one aswell: Dude, when do reps land? Really, answer that one and you see why 190k EHP shieldtank is favorable to a 280k armortank. Like 9 out of 10 cases.
Know what your uberdamnation got a buffer before links? Ye, me neither. Cause it normally has links running, so the stats behind that aren't that important, important is the state it enters the battlefield. And I give a rats ass about how well it is designed for pve, it's not a dread, not a carrier and not a rapier... So I doubt it will make big bucks anyways. It's a CS, they lose the pve-race to any failfit T1 BS.
And what is deadspace/faction about that nighthawk? 60 mil in t2 rigs is all but pimp. If you are too poor to not even afford those basically dirtcheap 10% extra-hp, pls don't jeopardize your OP over such small amounts. It's 60 mil, that's nothing on a ship costing almost 400mil on it's own with hull/mindlink/other modules. When you are piloting your fleet's links, I would really appreciate that person to make all those expenses that bother none but increase the chance of links not being pushed off the field. Mean, CS gone, tank drops by some 40%. Since Faction Invulns are not worth the money, faction LSEs don't add anything of value and TS PDS are way overpriced for the gain, t2 rigs is the last resort to enhance your survivability even further.
If you really take offense in how a normal fit looks, or that you cannot afford those rigs over and over (sry bro, but I don't care about +- 60 mil)...
... Then please tell straight away that you can't carebear hard enough in that ship, instead of using excuses to obfuscate a ship's clear strength, citing it's advantages as disadvantages. Final word: It's a shieldtanked CS, so forget about the point. You now got a 180+k EHP megadrake. I only correct my own spelling. |
Darling Hassasin
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 11:36:00 -
[1262] - Quote
So most CMs have their dps increased but the Astarte loses more than one effective turret? Wait what? |
Jureth22
FLA5HY RED FLE5HY WARLARDS
116
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 12:11:00 -
[1263] - Quote
how about a role bonus for all command ships just like assault frigs and hacs? ex : 50% reduction in signature when using mwd or anything |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 12:20:00 -
[1264] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Dav Varan wrote: Drones are not short range. Please compare to a rail astarte.
Clearly sir, you have only used heavy drones in PVE. The are absolutely short range only. You absolutely have to have webbed your target for them to even to stay near him, and in a small-scale skirmish they are the absolutely target of choice for your enemy since he know that once they are dead you can't hurt him at all. Thus, you have to be within 2.5km of them at all times so you can recall them the moment they receive the slightest brush of damage. Sentry drones are medium range (aka railguns), or long range on a ship with the specific range bonus (the Dominix). Unfortunately, sentry drones suck (to a degree) for skirmish PVP (this ship's apparent role) because once you've deployed them you either can't move (i.e. not skirmishing) or you have to kiss goodbye to 5M isk and half your offensive capability when you leave them behind. Its a command ship, you are in a gang. Maybe your tackle ships should have scram/web. Drones damage is going to be balanced at max effective range along with other long systems such as missile , which btw are also more effective if your target is webbed down. Asking for blaster levels of damage from a drone boat that can if it wishes apply its damage from 50km away is unreasonable.
The eos in this proposed conditions a heavy drone ship. Aka ogres bersekers etc Not sentries, te domi is a sentry boat, it gets tracking and range for them The eos gets speed and tracking to heavies, which even with this change go about 1.3-1.4km/s Which is rediculously slow if you want to apply damage to something 20, 30, 40km+ Further more heavies simply cannot apply damage to things that arnt webbed, they won't catch up as they orbit too slowly and will get out of range every 5 seconds
The eos is a close range brawling drone ship, not a kiter or sniper, it's resiculous they took a slot away form the eos while giving double 10% damage bonuses out like candy The eos needs to be brought bak into line with the other cs's Leave it's bonuses as is and make it 5 highs 4 blasters 5 mids 7 lows
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
529
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 12:29:00 -
[1265] - Quote
Darling Hassasin wrote:So most CMs have their dps increased but the Astarte loses more than one effective turret? Wait what?
This has been updated in the newest proposal. Live astarte is 10.9 effective turrets, the current proposal has it at 11, wtih 2 spare highs for capstuff/missiles.
Currently proposed Astarte is much much better than the one on TQ.
|
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 13:55:00 -
[1266] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Dav Varan wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Dav Varan wrote: Drones are not short range. Please compare to a rail astarte.
Clearly sir, you have only used heavy drones in PVE. The are absolutely short range only. You absolutely have to have webbed your target for them to even to stay near him, and in a small-scale skirmish they are the absolutely target of choice for your enemy since he know that once they are dead you can't hurt him at all. Thus, you have to be within 2.5km of them at all times so you can recall them the moment they receive the slightest brush of damage. Sentry drones are medium range (aka railguns), or long range on a ship with the specific range bonus (the Dominix). Unfortunately, sentry drones suck (to a degree) for skirmish PVP (this ship's apparent role) because once you've deployed them you either can't move (i.e. not skirmishing) or you have to kiss goodbye to 5M isk and half your offensive capability when you leave them behind. Its a command ship, you are in a gang. Maybe your tackle ships should have scram/web. Drones damage is going to be balanced at max effective range along with other long systems such as missile , which btw are also more effective if your target is webbed down. Asking for blaster levels of damage from a drone boat that can if it wishes apply its damage from 50km away is unreasonable. The eos in this proposed conditions a heavy drone ship. Aka ogres bersekers etc Not sentries, te domi is a sentry boat, it gets tracking and range for them The eos gets speed and tracking to heavies, which even with this change go about 1.3-1.4km/s Which is rediculously slow if you want to apply damage to something 20, 30, 40km+ Further more heavies simply cannot apply damage to things that arnt webbed, they won't catch up as they orbit too slowly and will get out of range every 5 seconds The eos is a close range brawling drone ship, not a kiter or sniper, it's resiculous they took a slot away form the eos while giving double 10% damage bonuses out like candy The eos needs to be brought bak into line with the other cs's Leave it's bonuses as is and make it 5 highs 4 blasters 5 mids 7 lows
All the cs ships have 10 mid/low slots for damage modding and tank. Why would EOS get an extra 2 ?
Note before complaining about fewer highs that fewer high slots are a consequnce of the Damage from drones which dont need highs like turrets/bays
I think berserkers approaching 2k/s with speed mod will get firepower down at range no problem at all espcially assigned to tackle af's its gonna be rapidley lethal to non brick bc and down.
Remember CS are no solopwnmobiles.
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
148
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 14:13:00 -
[1267] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote: Remember CS are no solopwnmobiles.
Current TQ Sleipnir/Astarte would like to disagree. Future CS will completely disagree with that GÖÑ I only correct my own spelling. |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 14:13:00 -
[1268] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Dav Varan wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Dav Varan wrote: Drones are not short range. Please compare to a rail astarte.
Clearly sir, you have only used heavy drones in PVE. The are absolutely short range only. You absolutely have to have webbed your target for them to even to stay near him, and in a small-scale skirmish they are the absolutely target of choice for your enemy since he know that once they are dead you can't hurt him at all. Thus, you have to be within 2.5km of them at all times so you can recall them the moment they receive the slightest brush of damage. Sentry drones are medium range (aka railguns), or long range on a ship with the specific range bonus (the Dominix). Unfortunately, sentry drones suck (to a degree) for skirmish PVP (this ship's apparent role) because once you've deployed them you either can't move (i.e. not skirmishing) or you have to kiss goodbye to 5M isk and half your offensive capability when you leave them behind. Its a command ship, you are in a gang. Maybe your tackle ships should have scram/web. Drones damage is going to be balanced at max effective range along with other long systems such as missile , which btw are also more effective if your target is webbed down. Asking for blaster levels of damage from a drone boat that can if it wishes apply its damage from 50km away is unreasonable. The eos in this proposed conditions a heavy drone ship. Aka ogres bersekers etc Not sentries, te domi is a sentry boat, it gets tracking and range for them The eos gets speed and tracking to heavies, which even with this change go about 1.3-1.4km/s Which is rediculously slow if you want to apply damage to something 20, 30, 40km+ Further more heavies simply cannot apply damage to things that arnt webbed, they won't catch up as they orbit too slowly and will get out of range every 5 seconds The eos is a close range brawling drone ship, not a kiter or sniper, it's resiculous they took a slot away form the eos while giving double 10% damage bonuses out like candy The eos needs to be brought bak into line with the other cs's Leave it's bonuses as is and make it 5 highs 4 blasters 5 mids 7 lows All the cs ships have 10 mid/low slots for damage modding and tank. Why would EOS get an extra 2 ? Note before complaining about fewer highs that fewer high slots are a consequnce of the Damage from drones which dont need highs like turrets/bays I think berserkers approaching 2k/s with speed mod will get firepower down at range no problem at all espcially assigned to tackle af's its gonna be rapidley lethal to non brick bc and down. Remember CS are no solopwnmobiles.
None of these cs's are. And if you do that then you are wasting a valuable mid, and even with that heavies don't have the damage projection you claim, you need to be on your target to web and scram your target or heavies will never be effective. And why make everything such a conformative blob of Internet space pixels, diversity is good, and my major point is the eos should not have a slot taken away when other ships are getting double 10% damage bonuses, the Astarte does more damage with no damage mods than the eos with a drone damage amp, so the current proposed eos is now 2 slots behind the Astarte and still not doing the same damage, and no I'm not sayon the Astarte is op, or the eos should have different bonuses I like the current Astarte and the current eos bonuses, but the way they are you cannot gimp the eos by taking a slot away The eos needs 5 mids and 7 lows to be an effective active armor tanker Even with 5 mids any neuts will be sitting off your reps fairly easily With 4 it will kill you flat out If they intend on keeping the eos' slots the same (which I hope they don't...) They would need to roll a second drone damage bonus in somewhere
It's pretty obvious where they see the eos, a close range small gang active tanked brawler That's why they have it getting a bonus to heavies and not sentries or scout drones, and an active tanked bonus But the current iteration is not effective at the moment |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 14:44:00 -
[1269] - Quote
Now that the Warfair link has been moved into the command ship skills per lvl, it would be nice to give them some sort of roll bonus [like a MWD cap usage deduction bonus]
:) I know im just wishing on a star but whatever |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 15:27:00 -
[1270] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote: None of these cs's are. And if you do that then you are wasting a valuable mid, and even with that heavies don't have the damage projection you claim, you need to be on your target to web and scram your target or heavies will never be effective. And why make everything such a conformative blob of Internet space pixels, diversity is good, and my major point is the eos should not have a slot taken away when other ships are getting double 10% damage bonuses, the Astarte does more damage with no damage mods than the eos with a drone damage amp, so the current proposed eos is now 2 slots behind the Astarte and still not doing the same damage, and no I'm not sayon the Astarte is op, or the eos should have different bonuses I like the current Astarte and the current eos bonuses, but the way they are you cannot gimp the eos by taking a slot away The eos needs 5 mids and 7 lows to be an effective active armor tanker Even with 5 mids any neuts will be sitting off your reps fairly easily With 4 it will kill you flat out If they intend on keeping the eos' slots the same (which I hope they don't...) They would need to roll a second drone damage bonus in somewhere
It's pretty obvious where they see the eos, a close range small gang active tanked brawler That's why they have it getting a bonus to heavies and not sentries or scout drones, and an active tanked bonus But the current iteration is not effective at the moment
Your working from the misconception that you have to do your own web / scram. This has not been the case for 10 years.
Berserkers whiping around the battle field at 2k/s onto team mate tackeled targets gives the EOS the ability to project significant damage while staying out of harms way.
I don't understand why you think the EOS is meant to be a brawler. The Astarte is the brawler of the Gallente line. Like you said diversity is good , why would both gallente ships be dedicated brawlers ? The drone MWD bonus clearly indicates boosting projected damage not brawler damage.
The only reason it has lost a high slot is because it has gained damage from drones. This is typical of all drone boats. all drone boats have fewer highs than non drone boats.
|
|
Gummi Worm
Blood And Sand Tectora
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 15:49:00 -
[1271] - Quote
... |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
110
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 16:34:00 -
[1272] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:
...snip...
The only reason it has lost a high slot is because it has gained damage from drones. This is typical of all drone boats. all drone boats have fewer highs than non drone boats.
... for no good reason at all.
There used to be a point to this, many years ago when you were able to field more than 5 drones at once.
The size of drone bay (beyond 125m) was a factor in determining drone damage output. These days this is not the case. The extra drone bay size no longer means extra damage, just spare drones. Therefore in my view the dedicated drone ships need not suffer the loss of a high slot.
Drone battlecruisers have always lagged behind in the dps stakes, which makes them undesirable. This is not the case with the new cruisers. The the cruiser drone ships compete well on DPS with the turret versions.
Currently the EOS has been used even less than the astarte in pvp (read: only a fool would do so). It needs to be competitive, otherwise why waste the effort designing it? No-one will ever build one, let alone use it in combat.
|
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
291
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 16:55:00 -
[1273] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Dav Varan wrote:
...snip...
The only reason it has lost a high slot is because it has gained damage from drones. This is typical of all drone boats. all drone boats have fewer highs than non drone boats.
... for no good reason at all. There used to be a point to this, many years ago when you were able to field more than 5 drones at once. The size of drone bay (beyond 125m) was a factor in determining drone damage output. These days this is not the case. The extra drone bay size no longer means extra damage, just spare drones. Therefore in my view the dedicated drone ships need not suffer the loss of a high slot. Drone battlecruisers have always lagged behind in the dps stakes, which makes them undesirable. This is not the case with the new cruisers. The the cruiser drone ships compete well on DPS with the turret versions. Currently the EOS has been used even less than the astarte in pvp (read: only a fool would do so). It needs to be competitive, otherwise why waste the effort designing it? No-one will ever build one, let alone use it in combat.
Every drone ship that has been rebalanced has 1 less module slot. Even the cruisers.
I'm not saying it's right, just that it's consistent with everything that's been rebalanced in the last year or so. |
Goldensaver
Perkone Caldari State
221
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 17:03:00 -
[1274] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Dav Varan wrote:
...snip...
The only reason it has lost a high slot is because it has gained damage from drones. This is typical of all drone boats. all drone boats have fewer highs than non drone boats.
... for no good reason at all. There used to be a point to this, many years ago when you were able to field more than 5 drones at once.
Ahh, this is the part where we ignore Drone Interfacing, the skill that used to let you field more drones but was instead changed to make your drones more effective by the same amount at each level.
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
The size of drone bay (beyond 125m) was a factor in determining drone damage output. These days this is not the case. The extra drone bay size no longer means extra damage, just spare drones. Therefore in my view the dedicated drone ships need not suffer the loss of a high slot.
Yeah, I'd much rather they just removed the extra bay so I can have spare drones, and only gave me one set than having a bunch of spares just in case. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
111
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 17:27:00 -
[1275] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote: Ahh, this is the part where we ignore Drone Interfacing, the skill that used to let you field more drones but was instead changed to make your drones more effective by the same amount at each level.
No sir, I am not ignoring drone interfacing. This skill affects all ships, not just drone ships. So it turns out that after this skill was introduced, all non-drone ships had their drones doubled in power while drone ships were no more or less powerful than before (dps-wise anyway).
It does not of course affect web, ecm, neutraliser, target painter, sensor dampening or remote repair drones.
What this skill did was actually a 50dps buff to gun/missile ships with 25m drone bays and a 75dps buf to ships with 50m drone bays, and a relative nerf to drone ships (EWAR drones now halved in number and therefore power and versatility).
The drone ships should get an extra mid slot in return to replace the ewar capability they have lost. They absolutely should not lose a slot.
|
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 17:29:00 -
[1276] - Quote
Hello guys,
overall its nice to see some changes on the lovely commandships BUT:
Why are you boosting the Field Command Ships so hard by giving them more resistances, armor or shield hp and more damage and the abylity to use gangmodules with bonuses too, in comparison to the Fleet Command Ships? They get like nothing...
Untill now i thought Fleet Cs = strong fleet-boni and good tank and Field CS = High Damage and decent tank The two ships are like equal with the changes, i really dont get it...
Why are u nerfing the gang modules so hard? |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
149
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 17:35:00 -
[1277] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:[...] diversity is good, and my major point is the eos should not have a slot taken away when other ships are getting double 10% damage bonuses, the Astarte does more damage with no damage mods than the eos with a drone damage amp, so the current proposed eos is now 2 slots behind the Astarte and still not doing the same damage, and no I'm not sayon the Astarte is op, or the eos should have different bonuses
Don't forget that you only need to fit two DDAs to profit. The Astarte needs magstabs AND med blasters. So while the Astarte does x dps, 0.8x with 4 guns and 3 links, 0.6x with 4 links etc., the eos just does *this much*, no matter how your mids/lows look like. Edit: mids/highs... sure, ignore the lows on a droneboat I only correct my own spelling. |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 19:21:00 -
[1278] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Eldrith Jhandar wrote:[...] diversity is good, and my major point is the eos should not have a slot taken away when other ships are getting double 10% damage bonuses, the Astarte does more damage with no damage mods than the eos with a drone damage amp, so the current proposed eos is now 2 slots behind the Astarte and still not doing the same damage, and no I'm not sayon the Astarte is op, or the eos should have different bonuses Don't forget that you only need to fit two DDAs to profit. The Astarte needs magstabs AND med blasters. So while the Astarte does x dps, 0.8x with 4 guns and 3 links, 0.6x with 4 links etc., the eos just does *this much*, no matter how your mids/lows look like. Edit: mids/highs... sure, ignore the lows on a droneboat
The eos does lose dps from having 3 or 4 links, but 1: if they are fielding that many links, their goal is tank and survivabily not dps And 2: it has more damage to begin with and with 3 links they the Astarte does more dps still if my math is correct
Another note the ships that have -1 slot can compete with the standard ships in damage and tank potentials, they are balanced The eos here is not balanced, therefor it needs another lowslot lot or better bonuses (this imbalance is from the double 10% damage bonuses) I would rather see another low
And yes diversity is good, which is why I wat a high end active armor tanked drone boat, which we don't have, only a myrm
And another note drones have worse damage application due to flight times of the drones than missiles, and with bersekers your damage is pretty bad, I can't recall the exact number of dps but ogre 2's do 475 dps and I think berserkers do between 375-400 Which even with the nice bonus and mids going to drone navigation modules, it still has poor damage projection from the very way drones work, there's a reason people used sentries, and since ccp wants this ship as a brawler they didn't gve the sentries the bonus they need to be effective and have good damage projection
Which I go back to close range brawler, which is sub par, which is not balanced
I go back to 5/5/7 slot layout, which is what an active armor brawler needs, enough mids for the cap, whic is required now that neuts are even more prevelent, still weak vs them just not instant death to them, and te lows for tank/gank 5 highs and 4 guns just puts it in an interesting position when u want to put on links, and seeing how it does not have ancillary weapons like a couple of missile launchers like the Astarte I think it works out fine |
Balzac Legazou
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
29
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 19:35:00 -
[1279] - Quote
Florian Kuehne wrote: Why are you boosting the Field Command Ships so hard [...] the abylity to use gangmodules with bonuses too, in comparison to the Fleet Command Ships? [...] The two ships are like equal with the changes, i really dont get it...
Me neither. All the dev posts here seem to ignore the fact that there are two different kinds of command ships (and there doesn't seem to be any sense of identity for them). Maybe they're trying to get rid of fleet command ships entirely, and just don't want to say it explicitly?
The most ironic thing, of course, is that those two sub-classes would be perfect to solve the complaint most people have about the currently proposed changes:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3461970#post3461970
Additionally, fleet command ships should have some benefit in terms of links (either 1 more link or a stronger bonus to the links). |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1443
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 19:43:00 -
[1280] - Quote
Balzac Legazou wrote:Florian Kuehne wrote: Why are you boosting the Field Command Ships so hard [...] the abylity to use gangmodules with bonuses too, in comparison to the Fleet Command Ships? [...] The two ships are like equal with the changes, i really dont get it...
Me neither. All the dev posts here seem to ignore the fact that there are two different kinds of command ships (and there doesn't seem to be any sense of identity for them). Maybe they're trying to get rid of fleet command ships entirely, and just don't want to say it explicitly? The most ironic thing, of course, is that those two sub-classes would be perfect to solve the complaint most people have about the currently proposed changes: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3461970#post3461970Additionally, fleet command ships should have some benefit in terms of links (either 1 more link or a stronger bonus to the links). Yes they did hit rid of the two types of command ships, and they were very spoken about it the re-balancing the future dev blog. Ideas for Drone Improvement |
|
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 19:45:00 -
[1281] - Quote
jeah true words, i thought the same about taking the Fleet Command Ship away
In fact commandships by now are good and quite decent ships but need a bit of balancing like SMALL Damage buffs and SMALL utiltiy possibilities, just to give one example - and not buffing all stuff to the heaven
The new Field CS will melt like every ship... |
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 19:50:00 -
[1282] - Quote
Just to mention something from the past.
As the Eos was pretty damn hard, cause of the fact to launch 5 heavy drones and using lots of turrets. You nerfed it from step to step and now the monster awakes again |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 20:11:00 -
[1283] - Quote
Florian Kuehne wrote:Just to mention something from the past. As the Eos was pretty damn hard, cause of the fact to launch 5 heavy drones and using lots of turrets. You nerfed it from step to step and now the monster awakes again
Except it doesn't, not quite, this current eos is not as good as the old |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
293
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 20:15:00 -
[1284] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Florian Kuehne wrote:Just to mention something from the past. As the Eos was pretty damn hard, cause of the fact to launch 5 heavy drones and using lots of turrets. You nerfed it from step to step and now the monster awakes again Except it doesn't, not quite, this current eos is not as good as the old
You, sir, have slighted CCP's e-honour. The 5% tracking on 4 medium hybrid turrets is surely a mighty advantage over anything that has come before.
I think we shall settle this with pistols at dawn. |
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 20:17:00 -
[1285] - Quote
jeah not 100% but it goes in the right direction: - more drone bandwith&dronebay&damage - more hp (i think more as the origional beast) - more sensor strength (even more as the origional beast) - less mass, better targeting |
Storm Novah
Yada Industries
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 20:28:00 -
[1286] - Quote
Just went on Sisi to check out the CS changes. I have found that after dropping the 2 turrets from my sleipnir I still couldn't fit my ship as I did before the changes as I didn't have enough cpu and more than enough pg. When looking over the thread afterward I see that the cpu was dropped by 50 from the sleipnir while the other command ships only lost as much as 25 cpu and a couple of them were actually given more. I think the 50 cpu drop on the sleipnir is a bit much... and think the 25 cpu drop that lines up with the other ships would be more appropriate. |
Valfreyea
Zervas Aeronautics Tribal Band
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 20:59:00 -
[1287] - Quote
Just got on Sisi to test the Eos.
Fozzie, could you explain the point of the hybrid tracking bonus when your ship only has four turrets? Also, even with a speed bonus, the heavies are still hilariously slow, and rather easy to kill.
Combined with the limited dronebay (unless your enemies are new to this game, you're going to lose a lot of heavies, fast), I don't really understand the point of making the Eos a weaker brawler when compared to the Astarte. Rather, shouldn't it be give a different role?
Or something more interesting, like perhaps the ability to field more drones per level, as someone else mentioned in this thread.
Perhaps give a double bonus, replacing the hybrid tracking with another 7.5% to Heavy Drone speed and perhaps RoF?
Haven't seen a bonus for drone RoF, so it'd be something new at least :p |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
293
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 21:23:00 -
[1288] - Quote
Valfreyea wrote:Just got on Sisi to test the Eos.
Fozzie, could you explain the point of the hybrid tracking bonus when your ship only has four turrets? Also, even with a speed bonus, the heavies are still hilariously slow, and rather easy to kill.
Combined with the limited dronebay (unless your enemies are new to this game, you're going to lose a lot of heavies, fast), I don't really understand the point of making the Eos a weaker brawler when compared to the Astarte. Rather, shouldn't it be give a different role?
Or something more interesting, like perhaps the ability to field more drones per level, as someone else mentioned in this thread.
Perhaps give a double bonus, replacing the hybrid tracking with another 7.5% to Heavy Drone speed and perhaps RoF?
Haven't seen a bonus for drone RoF, so it'd be something new at least :p
Honestly I'm pretty unimpressed with the design of the eos as a drone boat. It's pretty obvious that they wanted to avoid giving it a sentry bonus because sentries are flavor of the month, but the heavy drone bonus is simply underwhelming. It would have been awesome to get +1 drone per level and make it a medium drone boat, which would be close to the same DPS as 5 heavies but it would be a damage application bonus. As it is the eos is kind of like a sad ishtar that can fit gang links.
And the 5% turret tracking is misplaced in just about every way possible. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
529
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 21:26:00 -
[1289] - Quote
Valfreyea wrote:
Perhaps give a double bonus, replacing the hybrid tracking with another 7.5% to Heavy Drone speed and perhaps RoF?
Haven't seen a bonus for drone RoF, so it'd be something new at least :p
I'd much rather see the ship get a midslot, lose the tracking bonus, lose some of the armor HP granted in the most recent proposal and then gain a 10% armor hp per level in place of the tracking bonus.
Also, 7.5% to rof would be so hilariously overpowered.
|
Gargantoi
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 21:27:00 -
[1290] - Quote
holly mother of ******* **** ....absolution needs to lose the capacitor bonus ..give it a tracking bonus ( no 4th med slot to fit web ) also astarte needs +1 more low slot ..u just can`t do a nice tank on that ship ..it takes to much dmg and reps to slow and goese kboom ..sleipnir is like omfgwtfbbq ..the tank + dmg on that is gonna make it insane ..THANK GOD for 5 ogre eos again ....as for nighthawk and vulture ...well they seem "legit" but still there will be no interest in nighthawk ....still is a lil bit better vs cruisers / frigates now with that radius bonus and last but not least ..missile claymore is ..lol ..u should stop making minmatar missiles + autos ..and just stick to autos as for damnation ...now it can actually have some dps rather then a big buff |
|
Korvus Falek
Depraved Corruption Space Wolves Alliance
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 21:46:00 -
[1291] - Quote
Just posting to say I love the damnation changes. Stocking up on them now =) |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 21:58:00 -
[1292] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Valfreyea wrote:
Perhaps give a double bonus, replacing the hybrid tracking with another 7.5% to Heavy Drone speed and perhaps RoF?
Haven't seen a bonus for drone RoF, so it'd be something new at least :p
I'd much rather see the ship get a midslot, lose the tracking bonus, lose some of the armor HP granted in the most recent proposal and then gain a 10% armor hp per level in place of the tracking bonus. Also, 7.5% to rof would be so hilariously overpowered.
I disagree with the 10% armor hp per level As then you have to choose which bonus to use and you cannot use all 4 bonuses, altho a 5% damage per level to heavy drones might be an alternative to giving the slot stolen from the eos Tho I still stand by my 5/5/7 eos Allows active tanking with enough mids for cap boosterx2 web point mwd, equal tank to te Astarte but weaker dps slightly, but not by too much
Btw a rail Astarte will be doing more dps than an eos attemtping to use berserkers by about 135 dps, and can instantly switch targets and apply damage immediately... The eos under any circumstances seems to be vastly inferior in any roll, eos needs a further buff to come back into line with the other commandships Either make it 5/5/7 or change the tracking for hybrids changed to 5% to heavy drone damage and hp I will continue to stand by a 5/5/7 eos as it makes it possible to buffer it for super large fleets tho not as effectively as damnation ofc |
Jureth22
FLA5HY RED FLE5HY WARLARDS
116
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 22:41:00 -
[1293] - Quote
please fozzie,give claymore one damage to hm and ham instead of 2x bonuses to rof. |
Net7
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 22:51:00 -
[1294] - Quote
Nighthawk "Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1)"
So... anyone wanna buy my Nighthawk?
My fit is now screwed... even with the increase for missile skills the loss of a launcher kills it, not its not fit for SOLO... OR Fleet comps... like many other's have said, Caldari gets the shaft once again |
TekGnosis
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 22:51:00 -
[1295] - Quote
Sux that there is no combination of Armor and Skirmish. :(
There were a bunch of changes recently specifically geared toward increasing the mobility of armor. e.g. AAR, 800/400mm plate mass reductions, removal of speed penalties for active rigs, etc etc.
So what ship exactly is it I'm supposed to FC in for AHAC again? You know, the ones I'm wanting to give Armor and Skirmish links to?
I 'get' flavor differences between races etc etc, but why aren't these just '3% bonus to warfare links'... |
Balzac Legazou
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
29
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 23:00:00 -
[1296] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:It's pretty obvious that they wanted to avoid giving it a sentry bonus because sentries are flavor of the month
Not just of the month; they're objectively better than other combat drone types in most situations, and have been for a long time. Which is a bit silly; the peak of the drone skill tree is when you get drones that actually function as turrets.
Part of the problem with (real, moving, non-sentry) drones is the UI, but (although they are making some superficial improvements to it) there don't seem to be any plans to overhaul that.
If they want drones to remain stupid, slow, and hard to control (so they get destroyed often), they need to give ships much bigger drone bays, or get rid of drone bays and let players launch them from the normal cargo hold. With that change, I guess the "treat drones as ammo" philosophy can make sense. Until then, heavies just move too slowly and die too easily to justify using them instead of sentries.
Heavy drones often get killed before they even reach their target, and in less time than it takes them to react to the "recall" command (i.e., before they even turn back, let alone dock). |
Ellendras Silver
No Self Esteem ShAdOw PoLiTiCs
79
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 23:03:00 -
[1297] - Quote
TekGnosis wrote:Sux that there is no combination of Armor and Skirmish. :(
There were a bunch of changes recently specifically geared toward increasing the mobility of armor. e.g. AAR, 800/400mm plate mass reductions, removal of speed penalties for active rigs, etc etc.
So what ship exactly is it I'm supposed to FC in for AHAC again? You know, the ones I'm wanting to give Armor and Skirmish links to?
I 'get' flavor differences between races etc etc, but why aren't these just '3% bonus to warfare links'...
according to OP astarte and eos have armor and skirmish bonus |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
212
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 23:05:00 -
[1298] - Quote
So the general Idea I'm hearing is an Eos with:
300 drone bay
100 bandwidth
+1 drone controlled per level + 10% to drone mwd speed and tracking
+ 10% to HP and drone damage + 10% to armor HP
Would make it inline with all the other commands where it's fierce against frigs and cruisers but somewhat lacking against BS. Give's it 3 flights of medium drones, but limits heavy drone use completely.
Justifies the -1 slot b/c of the additional drones/capabilities
Solves the issues with it's terribad HPs
Still susceptible to smartbomb counters, especially on BS.
Sounds reasonable, and actually makes the EOS unique. Could also shift around some of the high slots to lows or mediums... or change the bonus to allow it to fit drone control units so that it has to choose between DPS and gang links like all the rest of the commands.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1443
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 23:19:00 -
[1299] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:So the general Idea I'm hearing is an Eos with:
300 drone bay
100 bandwidth
+1 drone controlled per level + 10% to drone mwd speed and tracking
+ 10% to HP and drone damage + 10% to Armor HP
Would top out just under 800 dps with 10 medium drones, 3 DDAs and perfect skills, but lets face it, mediums are really easy to pop....and it's still under the dps of an Astarte by a long shot. The funny thing about medium drones, is they do exactly 1/2 the damage of a large drone. So 10 medium drones do the exact same damage as 5 large drones just not as much HP as large drones. Ideas for Drone Improvement |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
212
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 23:42:00 -
[1300] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:I'm Down wrote:So the general Idea I'm hearing is an Eos with:
300 drone bay
100 bandwidth
+1 drone controlled per level + 10% to drone mwd speed and tracking
+ 10% to HP and drone damage + 10% to Armor HP
Would top out just under 800 dps with 10 medium drones, 3 DDAs and perfect skills, but lets face it, mediums are really easy to pop....and it's still under the dps of an Astarte by a long shot. The funny thing about medium drones, is they do exactly 1/2 the damage of a large drone. So 10 medium drones do the exact same damage as 5 large drones just not as much HP as large drones.
Yes, but they're also twice as fast and better tracking.
and with 10 drones, you can mix in some neuts/webs/ecm drones effectively to compensate for the lost slot. |
|
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 23:53:00 -
[1301] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:I'm Down wrote:So the general Idea I'm hearing is an Eos with:
300 drone bay
100 bandwidth
+1 drone controlled per level + 10% to drone mwd speed and tracking
+ 10% to HP and drone damage + 10% to Armor HP
Would top out just under 800 dps with 10 medium drones, 3 DDAs and perfect skills, but lets face it, mediums are really easy to pop....and it's still under the dps of an Astarte by a long shot. The funny thing about medium drones, is they do exactly 1/2 the damage of a large drone. So 10 medium drones do the exact same damage as 5 large drones just not as much HP as large drones. Yes, but they're also twice as fast and better tracking. and with 10 drones, you can mix in some neuts/webs/ecm drones effectively to compensate for the lost slot.
I don't like the idea of going with a 10% hp per level, in terms of drone boats we only have one active tanker and I'd love to see another along side of the myrmidon, and in terms of 10 hammerheads they would need to change the 10% speed and tracking to just scout drones and add in a 5% per level to scout drones for this to be worth the -1 slot And it would be unique but I'd still rather see a 5/5/7 eos with its current bonuses at the moment
|
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 00:06:00 -
[1302] - Quote
Also on the note of the claymore it currently has 8.8888 effective turrets Which seems a little low But the vulture also has about 7.5 Could switch a 5% rof to 10% damage and get 10 effective turrets And maybe change the one range bonus to a 5% damage 5% optimal or falloff combined bonus |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
112
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 00:43:00 -
[1303] - Quote
Just been on sisi to test the new Eos and Astarte. I am nonplussed. The problem is the lack of low slots and the explosive hole. You just can't get enough tank on there (using 1 slot for a damage mod) for the ship to be viable.
These ships will not see the light of day on tranquility unless this is fixed.
Disappointing.
As before, the Sleipnir has an amazing omni tank and puts huge amounts of damage into the explosive hole of any armour ship. As before, it's OP in comparison. (for the record, I have skills for both, but would like the choice of whether to armour or shield tank on TQ).
In terms of balance, nothing has changed.
Perhaps the new local rep buffs have not made it onto the test server? If so, perhaps when that's fixed these ships have half a chance of being useful, but to be honest it does not look like they will.
b0rked, unuasble. All that design effort is wasted. These ships will sit on the market gathering dust.
For the record, I used the 2 utility highs for nosferatus to top up the aneamic cap recharger. This is the only way to run 2 armour repairers. Fitting just 1 armour rep means a certain and swift death. I used to use this trick for the ishtar - of course now I can't so the ishtar can't self rep any more (it used to be ok at this).
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
150
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 02:01:00 -
[1304] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: Perhaps the new local rep buffs have not made it onto the test server? If so, perhaps when that's fixed these ships have half a chance of being useful, but to be honest it does not look like they will.
b0rked, unuasble. All that design effort is wasted. These ships will sit on the market gathering dust.
For the record, I used the 2 utility highs for nosferatus to top up the aneamic cap recharger. This is the only way to run 2 armour repairers. Fitting just 1 armour rep means a certain and swift death. I used to use this trick for the ishtar - of course now I can't so the ishtar can't self rep any more (it used to be ok at this).
Use a cap booster. You can easily fit two T2 meds on an ishtar filled with 400s each to give some constant recharge. Also can't say I experienced any issues with a single cap booster on an MAR+AMAR setup. I only correct my own spelling. |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
339
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 02:26:00 -
[1305] - Quote
Net7 wrote:Nighthawk "Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1)"
So... anyone wanna buy my Nighthawk?
My fit is now screwed... even with the increase for missile skills the loss of a launcher kills it, not its not fit for SOLO... OR Fleet comps... like many other's have said, Caldari gets the shaft once again
The loss of a launcher doesn't kill it now. It did in the first proposal, because it did absolutely laughable damage with non-kinetic missiles. But they changed the bonuses so that now it'll do the same amount of damage as now with non-kinetic, and do more with kinetic missiles. If anything it'll make it slightly easier to fit.
The problem is that the Claymore is better than it in almost every way, one of the biggest being slot layout. I can't even say it's like Raven vs. Typhoon here because they're both shield ships, and the Claymore just completely outperforms the Nighthawk in terms of defense capability, speed, and being able to choose damage types. Not to mention, the Claymore has more space for drones. The Nighthawk might still see use in missions vs. Guristas but that's literally it- I can't see people choosing it over the vulture for anything PvP related. Or choosing it at all, really. |
DEATHS PHOENIX
Zervas Aeronautics Tribal Band
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 03:14:00 -
[1306] - Quote
Valfreyea wrote:Just got on Sisi to test the Eos.
Fozzie, could you explain the point of the hybrid tracking bonus when your ship only has four turrets? Also, even with a speed bonus, the heavies are still hilariously slow, and rather easy to kill.
Combined with the limited dronebay (unless your enemies are new to this game, you're going to lose a lot of heavies, fast), I don't really understand the point of making the Eos a weaker brawler when compared to the Astarte. Rather, shouldn't it be give a different role?
Or something more interesting, like perhaps the ability to field more drones per level, as someone else mentioned in this thread.
Perhaps give a double bonus, replacing the hybrid tracking with another 7.5% to Heavy Drone speed and perhaps RoF?
Haven't seen a bonus for drone RoF, so it'd be something new at least :p
Uh... yeaH! |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 03:23:00 -
[1307] - Quote
Let's just agree overall these changes are slightly underwhelming, I'm still a cites about what will happen to them but for the most part I'm worried about these ships, sleipnir will most likely continue to rule, Astarte will have its role, same with vulte(only for large fleets as a booster) and damnation for basically the same thing, claymore needs a small damage buff and nighthawk needs another mid(I forget how it's dps is), abso should get a tracking bonus instead of te cap bonus, vulture should have one optimal range bonus changed to 5% damage and optimal, and eos needs it stolen slot back, or much better bonuses(change turret tracking to 5% heavy drone damage and hp.... Which puts it still weaker than an Astarte but atleast comparable..... Still rather see a 5/5/7 eos tho, basically a giant myrm.... Well, t2 myrm) We are moving in the right direction with the changes but still a little ways to go |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
220
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 04:13:00 -
[1308] - Quote
Drop a high from the Eos and put it on a low, drop another high and put it on a mid, change stupid useless afterthought hybrid tracking bonus to 10% hp/lvl and suddenly it's a good ship.
That way you can fit this:
[Eos, Dual Rep Lonesome] Medium Armor Repairer II Medium Armor Repairer II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Reactive Armor Hardener Damage Control II True Sansha Armor Explosive Hardener
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 800 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II Medium 'Vehemence' Shockwave Charge [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I Medium Nanobot Accelerator I
Ogre II x5
And get a DDA and a second cap booster or ewar mod on there. You only need 3 highs for links+1 for utility or a 4th link since it's a drone boat.
4H/5M/7L, job done.
For fleets you could fit this and put a co-proc in the last low so it might actually fit:
[Eos, Fleet] Internal Force Field Array I Reactive Armor Hardener 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II True Sansha Armor Explosive Hardener Centum C-Type Energized EM Membrane Centii C-Type Adaptive Nano Plating
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Command Processor I
Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity II [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 09:34:00 -
[1309] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Let's just agree overall these changes are slightly underwhelming, I'm still a cites about what will happen to them but for the most part I'm worried about these ships, sleipnir will most likely continue to rule, Astarte will have its role, same with vulte(only for large fleets as a booster) and damnation for basically the same thing, claymore needs a small damage buff and nighthawk needs another mid(I forget how it's dps is), abso should get a tracking bonus instead of te cap bonus, vulture should have one optimal range bonus changed to 5% damage and optimal, and eos needs it stolen slot back, or much better bonuses(change turret tracking to 5% heavy drone damage and hp.... Which puts it still weaker than an Astarte but atleast comparable..... Still rather see a 5/5/7 eos tho, basically a giant myrm.... Well, t2 myrm) We are moving in the right direction with the changes but still a little ways to go
The Eos did not have a slot "stolen" It went from 6.25 effective turrets 3 heavies to 4 turrets ( with tracking bonus ) 7.5 effective heavies ( with tracking bonus ).
Thats an extra 4.5 effective heavies which is why it had to "give up" a high slot so that it could not run 3 links and all turrets. Exactly the same fitting choice as other Commands.
Theres no justification for an extra 2 slots for tank on this hull , it has no more need for tank than other commands. |
sprototles Ganzo
Eternal Darkness. Fatal Ascension
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 10:11:00 -
[1310] - Quote
Nighthawk 5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)
for me was velocity bonus more useful |
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
113
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 10:53:00 -
[1311] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote: ...snip... Theres no justification for an extra 2 slots for tank on this hull , it has no more need for tank than other commands.
The Astarte and Eos suffer from having to use medium armour reppers for their tank, while the shield ships can use an x-large ASB (a battleship module).
The disparity in performance is so wide that even if the Eos has 2 more slots available to it, it would die in flames to shield ships every time.
I am now more convinced than ever that ill-conceived ASB needs to go, and active tanking armour ships need a bonus slot just to compete.
There is certainly no place for active armour tanking bonuses on the command ships as they currently stand. It is simply not a viable setup.
|
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
186
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 13:44:00 -
[1312] - Quote
so the only viable ship for me is still the damnation, no biggie as I love it but it would be nice with a shield mate to it. CCP why STILL silent on what so many of us that actually use command ships for.. *gasp* gang links are asking for?! |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:01:00 -
[1313] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Dav Varan wrote: ...snip... Theres no justification for an extra 2 slots for tank on this hull , it has no more need for tank than other commands.
The Astarte and Eos suffer from having to use medium armour reppers for their tank, while the shield ships can use an x-large ASB (a battleship module). The disparity in performance is so wide that even if the Eos has 2 more slots available to it, it would die in flames to shield ships every time. I am now more convinced than ever that ill-conceived ASB needs to go, and active tanking armour ships need a bonus slot just to compete. There is certainly no place for active armour tanking bonuses on the command ships as they currently stand. It is simply not a viable setup.
Given that commands need cap a viable X-Large ASB setup might be based around
X-Large ASB Small injector ( to run the links / hards and prop against neuts ) Co-Pro to fit the X-Large ASB
Work out its sustainable boost. ( including reload of ASB ) and hoping theres enough buffer to get through the 60 secs reload.
Compare to Med injector Dual mar with 37.5% boost and the 15%boost Mar's are getting in the patch.
I don't have access here to the numbers or a copy of EFT. I think you will find the Dual Mar setup sustains more rep though.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15397
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:02:00 -
[1314] - Quote
What would be nice is 4 tanky ships and 4 DPS ones. I just hope they see fit to buff the Eos.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
89
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:32:00 -
[1315] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Dav Varan wrote: ...snip... Theres no justification for an extra 2 slots for tank on this hull , it has no more need for tank than other commands.
The Astarte and Eos suffer from having to use medium armour reppers for their tank, while the shield ships can use an x-large ASB (a battleship module). The disparity in performance is so wide that even if the Eos has 2 more slots available to it, it would die in flames to shield ships every time. I am now more convinced than ever that ill-conceived ASB needs to go, and active tanking armour ships need a bonus slot just to compete. There is certainly no place for active armour tanking bonuses on the command ships as they currently stand. It is simply not a viable setup. if the ASB goes then so does the 1600mm plate. Shield ships dont have any equivalent. |
IceDe4d
Kath's Menagerie
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:36:00 -
[1316] - Quote
rly nice try to make me happy ccp but im not happy with the cs changes. I tryed it today on sisi and first of all the astarte lost 200 dps and you got 2 empty highs for it not worth it... tank is better now but that got nothing to do with the cs change itself. On the other hand you got space for 5 mid and 5 small drones but that does not rly help the ship.
To make thinks clear i got max skills for the astarte every single skill that effects the ship is at 5 and im used that ship back in the days for many years but now i thought ok maybe i can use it again but the 2 hours on sisi made rly clear nope sry no way because the bs are way too powerfull and they do the same job.
eos changes looking better but for some reason it feels way to week compared to the damination. |
Verity Sovereign
Sovereign Fleet Tax Shelter
515
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:37:00 -
[1317] - Quote
If the 1600mm goes, then the XL shield booster goes, the shield amps go, and the passive shield recharge goes... armor doesn't have any equivalent....
Great logic there, right? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
89
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:42:00 -
[1318] - Quote
Verity Sovereign wrote:If the 1600mm goes, then the XL shield booster goes, the shield amps go, and the passive shield recharge goes... armor doesn't have any equivalent....
Great logic there, right? shield amps and passive regen go, 10% racial resist bonus can go to |
Grutpig Cloudwalker
The Skulls
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:48:00 -
[1319] - Quote
As for the Nighthawk, the loss of bonus to RLML's kills it for me. The PG on the Nighthawk is so terrible its almost impossible to fit it without RLML, which actually made it useful against frigates. And with all the recent drawbacks to Heavy missiles theres just no way I would fit one ever again.
I buried my Drake after the changes to HM, now I have to bury my Nighthawk along with it. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
11230
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:55:00 -
[1320] - Quote
Grutpig Cloudwalker wrote:As for the Nighthawk, the loss of bonus to RLML's kills it for me. The PG on the Nighthawk is so terrible its almost impossible to fit it without RLML, which actually made it useful against frigates. And with all the recent drawbacks to Heavy missiles theres just no way I would fit one ever again.
I buried my Drake after the changes to HM, now I have to bury my Nighthawk along with it.
Did you notice that the Nighthawk got a fairly large PG increase?
1 Kings 12:11
|
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
89
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:57:00 -
[1321] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Grutpig Cloudwalker wrote:As for the Nighthawk, the loss of bonus to RLML's kills it for me. The PG on the Nighthawk is so terrible its almost impossible to fit it without RLML, which actually made it useful against frigates. And with all the recent drawbacks to Heavy missiles theres just no way I would fit one ever again.
I buried my Drake after the changes to HM, now I have to bury my Nighthawk along with it. Did you notice that the Nighthawk got a fairly large PG increase? that and it doesnt need to fit an extra launcher for the same (relatively) dps |
Grutpig Cloudwalker
The Skulls
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 15:21:00 -
[1322] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Malcanis wrote:Grutpig Cloudwalker wrote:As for the Nighthawk, the loss of bonus to RLML's kills it for me. The PG on the Nighthawk is so terrible its almost impossible to fit it without RLML, which actually made it useful against frigates. And with all the recent drawbacks to Heavy missiles theres just no way I would fit one ever again.
I buried my Drake after the changes to HM, now I have to bury my Nighthawk along with it. Did you notice that the Nighthawk got a fairly large PG increase? that and it doesnt need to fit an extra launcher for the same (relatively) dps
I thought it was +75 PG. But if it is +265 (+190 from original post + 75 from update post) then I guess the PG should be quite ok.
Still very sceptical to HMs, the RLMLs made the Nighthawk fit a specific role in a fleet, and one of few ships that could counter frigate swarms with a fairly strong tank and strong DPS against fast, small targets. The DPS on paper is in many cases far from the truth. |
Acidictadpole
Reikoku The Retirement Club
19
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 15:26:00 -
[1323] - Quote
Aplier Shivra wrote:So basically what you're asking, is that command ships be left alone completely, and are fine as is. One that is dedicated to boosting, but sucks at combat, and the other that sucks at boosting but can do combat. Or instead, we can have our current boosting dedicated ones be brought up to the combat capability of our current combat ones, and vice versa. So that instead of 4 combat command ships and 4 boosting command ships, we can have 8 command ships that are good at both and can choose before undocking if they want to focus on their combat aspect or their boosting aspect. Personally, I like the new system.
No, I'm not asking for them to be left alone completely. Right now there's about as much reason to fly a command ship as a HAC. T3 do better links and are better at surviving with a decent fit.
Even with T3s out of the picture, the fleet command ships (vulture, claymore, damnation, eos) still put out a high amount of damage compared to what I think they should. I really believe they should be given a role other than combat to go along with their links, like a lesser logistics role, while the Field command ships should have their ability to operate links removed and given a role bonus that is based on doing damage (essentially a proper battlecruiser upgrade, instead of being a command ship).
So I don't know where you got "are fine as is" from my post, because sucking at offense is not the same as sucking at combat. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
529
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 15:41:00 -
[1324] - Quote
Acidictadpole wrote:
No, I'm not asking for them to be left alone completely. Right now there's about as much reason to fly a command ship as a HAC. T3 do better links and are better at surviving with a decent fit.
I dno about you but i've found the new CS to be about as effective as you can get for solo/small scale. While this is not the pigeonholed fleet brick links ship many of the powerblocks are pushing for, there is most certainly a reason to fly them...
I'm not saying that there is not room for improvement, or anything wrong with dedicating 1 of the 2 racial ships to "fleet boosting" but... You are very much Over exaggerating their uselessness.
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
449
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 15:45:00 -
[1325] - 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. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
113
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 15:49:00 -
[1326] - Quote
Rowells wrote: if the ASB goes then so does the 1600mm plate. Shield ships dont have any equivalent.
Large shield extender II is the equivalent. It gives fewer ehp but does not have the drawback of slowing the ship down.
It also does not take up a valuable low slot, allowing the LSE-fitter to fit more damage mods.
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
90
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 15:49:00 -
[1327] - 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? I have literally never thought of this concept. ever.
would definitely fit along the lines of "mionmatar versatility".
only thing i don't like is this would provide many more options for armor tanking than for shield
would it be bad to ask for a gallente ship to be Shield tanked as well? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
90
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 15:51:00 -
[1328] - Quote
accidental double post. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
150
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 15:52:00 -
[1329] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Acidictadpole wrote:
No, I'm not asking for them to be left alone completely. Right now there's about as much reason to fly a command ship as a HAC. T3 do better links and are better at surviving with a decent fit.
I dno about you but i've found the new CS to be about as effective as you can get for solo/small scale. While this is not the pigeonholed fleet brick links ship many of the powerblocks are pushing for, there is most certainly a reason to fly them... I'm not saying that there is not room for improvement, or anything wrong with dedicating 1 of the 2 racial ships to "fleet boosting" but... You are very much Over exaggerating their uselessness.
From what you're able to fit them up for, looks like: (personal impression)
abso/sleip/astarte - well suitable dps ships, appear to be not the premier choices for boosting on-grid in comparison to the competition
claymore/eos - well suitable to boost 3-10man fleets with nearly no logi (like that random oni/scimi at max, or some spidering)
nighthawk - looks like a boosting ship for considerable small or medium sized fleets, given it still massively contributes to gang dps at close range and has quite a lot of buffer, very solid buffer when neglecting a point, and (given you got a second nighthawk along) the sensor-integrity-link is pretty badass in the situation it will be fielded. I believe.
vulture - 6 midslots, t2 resists, resistance bonus, loads of PG. Doesn't nearly have the nighthawk's dps. same for damnation - still the best brick avaiable, sucks hard at anything but linking or bait I only correct my own spelling. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
529
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 15:55:00 -
[1330] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
The astarte *just about* out-tanks a dual ASB sleipnir when the astarte pilot is in a fleet with gang links and the sleipnir is not.
That Astarte of mine you fought was not linked :P. Just pills, implants, and t2 rigs.
Overheated explosive hardener + increase to the kinetic resistance means your firing into a resistance wall.
Either way, it will be interesting to see what these ships do with deadspace, links, and all the other jazz.
|
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
150
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 16:05:00 -
[1331] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Either way, it will be interesting to see what these ships do with deadspace mods, links, and all the other jazz. 3K tanks will most certainly be possible.
Guess 2k is doable with standard drugs and ganglinks, using c-types for the rep and T2 for resistances. Cool thing you can link (with at least one more guy in system) yourself :) I only correct my own spelling. |
Syrias Bizniz
Space-Brewery-Association 24eme Legion Etrangere
217
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 16:07:00 -
[1332] - Quote
Hello Fozzie,
Please force your graphics-slaves into making:
Harbinger as Damnation base hull Myrmidon as Eos base hull
I don't care about the others. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
297
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 16:12:00 -
[1333] - Quote
Syrias Bizniz wrote:Hello Fozzie,
Please force your graphics-slaves into making:
Harbinger as Damnation base hull Myrmidon as Eos base hull
I don't care about the others.
The myrm = eos last I heard, but I think the absolution is going to the harbinger hull.
Sorry. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
113
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 16:14:00 -
[1334] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:
The astarte *just about* out-tanks a dual ASB sleipnir when the astarte pilot is in a fleet with gang links and the sleipnir is not.
That Astarte of mine you fought was not linked :P. Just pills, implants, and t2 rigs. Overheated explosive hardener + increase to the kinetic resistance means your firing into a resistance wall (if you used hail). If there was faction EMP, I think things would have been a bit different. 6 lowslot Gallente active tankers will most probably have an em hole unless you decide to bail on the dmg mod. In the end that particular 1v1 (astarte vs sleipnir) is all about cap charge management, which the astarte is better at as you can pretty much run a single repper forever with 2x nos and no cap booster. Either way, it will be interesting to see what these ships do with deadspace mods, links, and all the other jazz. 3K tanks will most certainly be possible.
Anticipating the gaping EM hole on a 6-low armour ship, I looked for Faction EMP on the market prior but it had not been seeded.
I have to be honest, I'm beginning to calm down about the 2 gallente command ships as skirmish leaders. It looks like they'll do OK in a small gang, as long as they don't meet a larger one.
The Astarte has to be the preferred choice, as before. The Eos just can't get enough damage down, and those drones are so vulnerable... |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
529
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 16:26:00 -
[1335] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:
The astarte *just about* out-tanks a dual ASB sleipnir when the astarte pilot is in a fleet with gang links and the sleipnir is not.
That Astarte of mine you fought was not linked :P. Just pills, implants, and t2 rigs. Overheated explosive hardener + increase to the kinetic resistance means your firing into a resistance wall (if you used hail). If there was faction EMP, I think things would have been a bit different. 6 lowslot Gallente active tankers will most probably have an em hole unless you decide to bail on the dmg mod. In the end that particular 1v1 (astarte vs sleipnir) is all about cap charge management, which the astarte is better at as you can pretty much run a single repper forever with 2x nos and no cap booster. Either way, it will be interesting to see what these ships do with deadspace mods, links, and all the other jazz. 3K tanks will most certainly be possible. Anticipating the gaping EM hole on a 6-low armour ship, I looked for Faction EMP on the market prior but it had not been seeded. I have to be honest, I'm beginning to calm down about the 2 gallente command ships as skirmish leaders. It looks like they'll do OK in a small gang, as long as they don't meet a larger one. The Astarte has to be the preferred choice, as before. The Eos just can't get enough damage down, and those drones are so vulnerable...
No doubt man. Your last point is the reason that I don't want to see the eos left as it is. It needs to have some type of advantage over the astarte and right now there really is little to no point. A 5th mid for another cap booster would be a good start giving it the "option" of fielding a tri rep tank with full tackle... |
Acidictadpole
Reikoku The Retirement Club
19
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 16:48:00 -
[1336] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Acidictadpole wrote:
No, I'm not asking for them to be left alone completely. Right now there's about as much reason to fly a command ship as a HAC. T3 do better links and are better at surviving with a decent fit.
I dno about you but i've found the new CS to be about as effective as you can get for solo/small scale. While this is not the pigeonholed fleet brick links ship many of the powerblocks are pushing for, there is most certainly a reason to fly them... I'm not saying that there is not room for improvement, or anything wrong with dedicating 1 of the 2 racial ships to "fleet boosting" but... You are very much Over exaggerating their uselessness.
And that's about as much a reason to fly a HAC, if I recall. They're decent upgrades per pilot, but not quite worth their isk in abilities.
But in the same vein, why wouldn't you just bring T3s instead of the command ships? They're smaller, perform similarly in damage, and often have a tank that rivals the CS. If the answer is price, then that's about the same for HACs. |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 17:54:00 -
[1337] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:
The astarte *just about* out-tanks a dual ASB sleipnir when the astarte pilot is in a fleet with gang links and the sleipnir is not.
That Astarte of mine you fought was not linked :P. Just pills, implants, and t2 rigs. Overheated explosive hardener + increase to the kinetic resistance means your firing into a resistance wall (if you used hail). If there was faction EMP, I think things would have been a bit different. 6 lowslot Gallente active tankers will most probably have an em hole unless you decide to bail on the dmg mod. In the end that particular 1v1 (astarte vs sleipnir) is all about cap charge management, which the astarte is better at as you can pretty much run a single repper forever with 2x nos and no cap booster. Either way, it will be interesting to see what these ships do with deadspace mods, links, and all the other jazz. 3K tanks will most certainly be possible. Anticipating the gaping EM hole on a 6-low armour ship, I looked for Faction EMP on the market prior but it had not been seeded. I have to be honest, I'm beginning to calm down about the 2 gallente command ships as skirmish leaders. It looks like they'll do OK in a small gang, as long as they don't meet a larger one. The Astarte has to be the preferred choice, as before. The Eos just can't get enough damage down, and those drones are so vulnerable...
It goes beyond te fact heavy drones are vulnerable, it's also the factthey stole a slot away, even if it got a 7th low and you put on a drone damage amp and all else was an equal it, Astarte wins out over the eos quite handily, the Astarte does more damage with no damage mods Add in how stacking works and you see that the Astarte is even better than a 6/4/7 eos Making the eos 5/5/7 makes it subpar in some parts and ways but better in others as it has an extra mid, and can put together a nice buffer for large fleets. I'm loathed to say to put a 7th low on an Astarte as it starts with such a huge amount of dps 870 with no mods or implants While at the moment the eos is at 702, yes the eos is getting buffed yes the proposed eos is better than the current eos, but that is not balanced, it is still subpar, and I'm looking forward to see what fizzle says about these ships |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
114
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 18:14:00 -
[1338] - Quote
I am loving the new deimos. It's gone from being a lightweight retreat ship to a real heavy assault ship. A swarm of these will be deadly.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
529
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 18:20:00 -
[1339] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I am loving the new deimos. It's gone from being a lightweight retreat ship to a real heavy assault ship. A swarm of these will be deadly.
Yeah, they are very effective. The combination of smallish sig and a rep bonus gives the deimos an amazing tank, even if it's lacking ehp compared to similarly fit Commands. I look at the deimos now as a slightly lower dps, higher tank, lower ehp, much faster/smaller Brutix.
P.S. I just watched Mournful Conciousness tank a couple vindis and a malestrom for a rather extended period of time in his deimos, ships doing pretty well |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
114
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 20:17:00 -
[1340] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I am loving the new deimos. It's gone from being a lightweight retreat ship to a real heavy assault ship. A swarm of these will be deadly.
Yeah, they are very effective. The combination of smallish sig and a rep bonus gives the deimos an amazing tank, even if it's lacking ehp compared to similarly fit Commands. I look at the deimos now as a slightly lower dps, higher tank, lower ehp, much faster/smaller Brutix. P.S. I just watched Mournful Conciousness tank a couple vindis and a malestrom for a rather extended period of time in his deimos, ships doing pretty well
Although in fairness it has to be said that at the time I was under the influence of hard drugs, and had a command ship augmenting my movements. In addition, most people on Sisi in a vindicator are people who do not have the skills, money or courage to fly one on TQ :-)
Nevertheless, the ship has now become what I am sure it was always supposed to be: a hard-hitting, tough little annoying wasp of a cruiser. On it's own, not a huge threat to a properly fitted battleship, but in a group - utterly deadly.
When this ship comes out on TQ, there will be a steady stream of tears from wormhole ratters courtesy of this little star. |
|
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 20:29:00 -
[1341] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I am loving the new deimos. It's gone from being a lightweight retreat ship to a real heavy assault ship. A swarm of these will be deadly.
Yeah, they are very effective. The combination of smallish sig and a rep bonus gives the deimos an amazing tank, even if it's lacking ehp compared to similarly fit Commands. I look at the deimos now as a slightly lower dps, higher tank, lower ehp, much faster/smaller Brutix. P.S. I just watched Mournful Conciousness tank a couple vindis and a malestrom for a rather extended period of time in his deimos, ships doing pretty well
It's rather hilarious that a deimos has the same tank as an Astarte or eos... I'd like to see the tank of the eos and Astarte better, but with te Astarte insane dps I can't justify it, but with the eos you can, as with 7 lows, and having an equal tank the eos has less gank still, or you can fit it with even less dps but more survivability,
A 5/5/7 eos can survive a decent amount of dps in a small gang, but will still melt to neuts
2 cap boosters and tri rep eos would have survivability but not the dps to become a solo pwn mobile And is too large and slow to do some of the silly things the Deimos candiru it's mobility and sig radius
And I'm curious how well an xl+l asb fit claymore/sleipnir/vulture (idk if a nighthawk could fit them) would do tank wise I know my xl+l asb cyclone is pretty awesome without crystals even, gonna get on the test server to play with those =] |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
529
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 20:54:00 -
[1342] - Quote
Word eldrith, HMU on test, I want to see what a claymore can do and sadly don't have the missiles skills maxed to make it viable for myself. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1141
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 22:43:00 -
[1343] - Quote
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 Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 23:12:00 -
[1344] - 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
hell no where come those people from who want to change the awesome sleipnir ... (inclueding those who want it to be an awfull cane modell) |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 23:54:00 -
[1345] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I am loving the new deimos. It's gone from being a lightweight retreat ship to a real heavy assault ship. A swarm of these will be deadly.
Yeah, they are very effective. The combination of smallish sig and a rep bonus gives the deimos an amazing tank, even if it's lacking ehp compared to similarly fit Commands. I look at the deimos now as a slightly lower dps, higher tank, lower ehp, much faster/smaller Brutix. P.S. I just watched Mournful Conciousness tank a couple vindis and a malestrom for a rather extended period of time in his deimos, ships doing pretty well It's rather hilarious that a deimos has the same tank as an Astarte or eos... I'd like to see the tank of the eos and Astarte better, but with te Astarte insane dps I can't justify it, but with the eos you can, as with 7 lows, and having an equal tank the eos has less gank still, or you can fit it with even less dps but more survivability, A 5/5/7 eos can survive a decent amount of dps in a small gang, but will still melt to neuts 2 cap boosters and tri rep eos would have survivability but not the dps to become a solo pwn mobile And is too large and slow to do some of the silly things the Deimos candiru it's mobility and sig radius And I'm curious how well an xl+l asb fit claymore/sleipnir/vulture (idk if a nighthawk could fit them) would do tank wise I know my xl+l asb cyclone is pretty awesome without crystals even, gonna get on the test server to play with those =]
Theses numbers without gang bonuses
Just did some tests on sisi
Both ships 2 links med injector / mwd / scram / web dual mar / dual eanm / dcu / explosive hard anti em / aux nano
That's 77% exp lowest resist 562 ehps into that resist
Eos 5 Ogre II ( 466.5 dps ) + 4 neut blaster ( fnam 200 dps ) = 666.5 dps
Astarte 2 Ogre II ( 124.4 dps ) + 5 neut blaster ( fnam 491 dps ) = 615.4 dps 2 Ogre II ( 124.4 dps ) + 5 neut blasters ( void 547.9 dps ) = 672.3 dps
That's nice damage from the eos there given the better projection of drones even for a brawler setup
For an 7km orbit ( with linked scrams ) the dropoff of neuts is going to leave there contribution at about 75% navy and 50% void This makes the Eos clearly better at the 4km - 10km brawler range. Astarte has to be point blank to get better damage than the EOS.
EOS is fine. Astarte could do with another 2 cpu to avoid downgrade of meta 4 scrams and webs to lower meta's
My skills not maxed , lvl 4 blaster spec and lvl 4 gal drone spec |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 00:24:00 -
[1346] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I am loving the new deimos. It's gone from being a lightweight retreat ship to a real heavy assault ship. A swarm of these will be deadly.
Yeah, they are very effective. The combination of smallish sig and a rep bonus gives the deimos an amazing tank, even if it's lacking ehp compared to similarly fit Commands. I look at the deimos now as a slightly lower dps, higher tank, lower ehp, much faster/smaller Brutix. P.S. I just watched Mournful Conciousness tank a couple vindis and a malestrom for a rather extended period of time in his deimos, ships doing pretty well It's rather hilarious that a deimos has the same tank as an Astarte or eos... I'd like to see the tank of the eos and Astarte better, but with te Astarte insane dps I can't justify it, but with the eos you can, as with 7 lows, and having an equal tank the eos has less gank still, or you can fit it with even less dps but more survivability, A 5/5/7 eos can survive a decent amount of dps in a small gang, but will still melt to neuts 2 cap boosters and tri rep eos would have survivability but not the dps to become a solo pwn mobile And is too large and slow to do some of the silly things the Deimos candiru it's mobility and sig radius And I'm curious how well an xl+l asb fit claymore/sleipnir/vulture (idk if a nighthawk could fit them) would do tank wise I know my xl+l asb cyclone is pretty awesome without crystals even, gonna get on the test server to play with those =] Theses numbers without gang bonuses Just did some tests on sisi Both ships 2 links med injector / mwd / scram / web dual mar / dual eanm / dcu / explosive hard anti em / aux nano That's 77% exp lowest resist 562 ehps into that resist Eos 5 Ogre II ( 466.5 dps ) + 4 neut blaster ( fnam 200 dps ) = 666.5 dps Astarte 2 Ogre II ( 124.4 dps ) + 5 neut blaster ( fnam 491 dps ) = 615.4 dps 2 Ogre II ( 124.4 dps ) + 5 neut blasters ( void 547.9 dps ) = 672.3 dps That's nice damage from the eos there given the better projection of drones even for a brawler setup For an 7km orbit ( with linked scrams ) the dropoff of neuts is going to leave there contribution at about 75% navy and 50% void This makes the Eos clearly better at the 4km - 10km brawler range. Astarte has to be point blank to get better damage than the EOS. EOS is fine. Astarte could do with another 2 cpu to avoid downgrade of meta 4 scrams and webs to lower meta's My skills not maxed , lvl 4 blaster spec and lvl 4 gal drone spec
You needs to look at maxed skills for one And I'll do the calculations briefly for maxed skills No implants etc (which favor the Astarte)
Eos with 4 neutrons void 702 dps Fnam 678.6
Astarte with [hammerheads] and void 785 Fnam 718 Hams (2) add 84 dps more And implants can add 50-70 dps more for the Astarte, which if u can use An Astarte ill imagine you have atleast +3% damage implants
Adds up to a 931 dps Astarte with no damage mods 931 or 702? Which would you pick? Which is subpar
|
Goldensaver
Perkone Caldari State
221
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 00:48:00 -
[1347] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote: You needs to look at maxed skills for one And I'll do the calculations briefly for maxed skills No implants etc (which favor the Astarte)
Eos with 4 neutrons void 702 dps Fnam 678.6
Astarte with [hammerheads] and void 785 Fnam 718 Hams (2) add 84 dps more And implants can add 50-70 dps more for the Astarte, which if u can use An Astarte ill imagine you have atleast +3% damage implants
Adds up to a 931 dps Astarte with no damage mods 931 or 702? Which would you pick? Which is subpar
I'm liking the amount of cherry picking going on here. You use the Void Astarte with HAMs and implants. Now tell me who in their right mind will put 2 HAMs on their Astarte instead of links?
Now the implants are worth talking about, with Medium Hybrid Turret 5% implants costing around 10m on market right now, but anything higher than a 3% gunnery is ridiculous to assume, adding 90m/130m to a pod loss... which you will lose if you lose the ship in a bubble.
Also, he made a decent point about the Eos really out-ranging the Astarte. Once you get out of knife fighting range and nearer to web/scram range (unlinked) you'll be getting better damage out of the Eos. At around linked web/scram range (you have the option of fitting one, it's bonused!) the Eos will probably be doing much better off than the Astarte. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
529
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 00:54:00 -
[1348] - Quote
After a bit of Astarte testing today (200+ kills between myself and a couple others), I can gaurantee that it's superior to the eos in almost every imaginable way.
Eos needs some help for sure. Being a worse astarte is not a "role". |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
115
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 01:00:00 -
[1349] - Quote
Acidictadpole wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Acidictadpole wrote:
No, I'm not asking for them to be left alone completely. Right now there's about as much reason to fly a command ship as a HAC. T3 do better links and are better at surviving with a decent fit.
I dno about you but i've found the new CS to be about as effective as you can get for solo/small scale. While this is not the pigeonholed fleet brick links ship many of the powerblocks are pushing for, there is most certainly a reason to fly them... I'm not saying that there is not room for improvement, or anything wrong with dedicating 1 of the 2 racial ships to "fleet boosting" but... You are very much Over exaggerating their uselessness. And that's about as much a reason to fly a HAC, if I recall. They're decent upgrades per pilot, but not quite worth their isk in abilities. But in the same vein, why wouldn't you just bring T3s instead of the command ships? They're smaller, perform similarly in damage, and often have a tank that rivals the CS. If the answer is price, then that's about the same for HACs.
Having flown the deimos for an evening I'm not so sure that T3's are that much, if any, better any more. I watched in amazement this evening as my deimos soloed a 100mn tengu.
This is a welcome development. It means that there will be more than 1 class of ship seen fighting in wormhole space at last.
This I am sure will make for more interesting fights and new tactics. "Bait" need no longer be a 100mn loki. It can be a HAC or command ship (or an industrial, now that you can fit a dual-asb iteron 4 which will happily tank a cruiser for 3000m3 of cap boosters).
Eve got better today.
Engaging ships is no longer something you'll be able to do without thinking through an exit plan. That's a good thing for the game.
+1 Happy Customer
|
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 02:13:00 -
[1350] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Eldrith Jhandar wrote: You needs to look at maxed skills for one And I'll do the calculations briefly for maxed skills No implants etc (which favor the Astarte)
Eos with 4 neutrons void 702 dps Fnam 678.6
Astarte with [hammerheads] and void 785 Fnam 718 Hams (2) add 84 dps more And implants can add 50-70 dps more for the Astarte, which if u can use An Astarte ill imagine you have atleast +3% damage implants
Adds up to a 931 dps Astarte with no damage mods 931 or 702? Which would you pick? Which is subpar
I'm liking the amount of cherry picking going on here. You use the Void Astarte with HAMs and implants. Now tell me who in their right mind will put 2 HAMs on their Astarte instead of links? Now the implants are worth talking about, with Medium Hybrid Turret 5% implants costing around 10m on market right now, but anything higher than a 3% gunnery is ridiculous to assume, adding 90m/130m to a pod loss... which you will lose if you lose the ship in a bubble. Also, he made a decent point about the Eos really out-ranging the Astarte. Once you get out of knife fighting range and nearer to web/scram range (unlinked) you'll be getting better damage out of the Eos. At around linked web/scram range (you have the option of fitting one, it's bonused!) the Eos will probably be doing much better off than the Astarte. Edit: Perhaps you could use some meta modules? And also not try to fit the biggest of everything all at once and expect easy mode fitting. You've got a full complement of highs, maximum tank with an MWD, and you don't want any issues at all? a Co-Processor in place of one of the BCU's should fix that fine. 2 BCU's are still acceptable, and you don't lose any tank. Eldrith Jhandar wrote: A 5/5/7 eos can survive a decent amount of dps in a small gang, but will still melt to neuts
2 cap boosters and tri rep eos would have survivability but not the dps to become a solo pwn mobile And is too large and slow to do some of the silly things the Deimos candiru it's mobility and sig radius
Perhaps you could fit 2 injectors, an MWD and a point and you don't run the risk of having a solo pwn mobile because of full tackle with that tank and damage? Besides, what do you need the web for? Your gang should have tackle fine. And if you're talking about having a web for solo work, for solo work a dual rep fit with a single injector and maybe a NOS in one of the highs should work just fine for keeping the reps going. Besides, it's not like you're using those highs for links if you're flying solo.
It's funny how you talk about cherry picking things but then cherry picking a timy range of 8-10k The things I'm talking about are all available to the Astarte if it wants but not the eos, it can't even compete with 2 links, or 3 links even These ships should be balanced not Astarte is better than the eos, that's not balance And at the moment it is better It's an easy fix but the Astarte is in a good place while the eos is not yet there And just because you use a commandship in a small fleet doesn't mean you will be using links you can have a fleet of commandships After using both ships today I can definately say the eos is indeed subpar, I'm looking forward to testing the others tomorrow |
|
Goldensaver
Perkone Caldari State
221
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 06:08:00 -
[1351] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:
It's funny how you talk about cherry picking things but then cherry picking a timy range of 8-10k The things I'm talking about are all available to the Astarte if it wants but not the eos, it can't even compete with 2 links, or 3 links even These ships should be balanced not Astarte is better than the eos, that's not balance And at the moment it is better It's an easy fix but the Astarte is in a good place while the eos is not yet there And just because you use a commandship in a small fleet doesn't mean you will be using links you can have a fleet of commandships After using both ships today I can definately say the eos is indeed subpar, I'm looking forward to testing the others tomorrow
I'm hardly cherry picking a tiny range of 8-10km. I'm implying that at around that range is where it surpasses the Astarte. I'll admit it's tough to apply damage without webs and scram on targets, but you can still send your heavies out past that range. Or you could launch mediums at that point. Whatever you do is up to you. I know that you don't get that MWD velocity and tracking bonus to mediums, but they're still faster than heavies, and you have enough bay to have a full flight of heavies, 2 spares and keep a flight of mediums and lights. It doesn't matter, put in your bay whatever you want, it's your choice.
Also, despite the fact you say that the Eos can't compete with 2, or even 3 links, I'd definitely disagree there. With 2 or 3 links it has a much higher chance of outlasting whatever it's fighting. It'll outrep the Astarte in that scenario by at least 33%.
Also, are we covering every single scenario here, or are we talking solopwnmobile? Gang? What is being discussed? I would definitely disagree that the Astarte is better in 100% of scenarios. The Astarte is only good if it has the means to get in range. The Eos is at least acceptable outside of its blaster range.
Edit: Oh, and the Eos probably could still use some work, maybe some moderate tweaks to bring it up, a change to some of the bonuses, even. But I really don't think that making it a 5/5/7 is the way to go. That's just ridiculous. |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 08:58:00 -
[1352] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Dav Varan wrote:Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I am loving the new deimos. It's gone from being a lightweight retreat ship to a real heavy assault ship. A swarm of these will be deadly.
Yeah, they are very effective. The combination of smallish sig and a rep bonus gives the deimos an amazing tank, even if it's lacking ehp compared to similarly fit Commands. I look at the deimos now as a slightly lower dps, higher tank, lower ehp, much faster/smaller Brutix. P.S. I just watched Mournful Conciousness tank a couple vindis and a malestrom for a rather extended period of time in his deimos, ships doing pretty well It's rather hilarious that a deimos has the same tank as an Astarte or eos... I'd like to see the tank of the eos and Astarte better, but with te Astarte insane dps I can't justify it, but with the eos you can, as with 7 lows, and having an equal tank the eos has less gank still, or you can fit it with even less dps but more survivability, A 5/5/7 eos can survive a decent amount of dps in a small gang, but will still melt to neuts 2 cap boosters and tri rep eos would have survivability but not the dps to become a solo pwn mobile And is too large and slow to do some of the silly things the Deimos candiru it's mobility and sig radius And I'm curious how well an xl+l asb fit claymore/sleipnir/vulture (idk if a nighthawk could fit them) would do tank wise I know my xl+l asb cyclone is pretty awesome without crystals even, gonna get on the test server to play with those =] Theses numbers without gang bonuses Just did some tests on sisi Both ships 2 links med injector / mwd / scram / web dual mar / dual eanm / dcu / explosive hard anti em / aux nano That's 77% exp lowest resist 562 ehps into that resist Eos 5 Ogre II ( 466.5 dps ) + 4 neut blaster ( fnam 200 dps ) = 666.5 dps Astarte 2 Ogre II ( 124.4 dps ) + 5 neut blaster ( fnam 491 dps ) = 615.4 dps 2 Ogre II ( 124.4 dps ) + 5 neut blasters ( void 547.9 dps ) = 672.3 dps That's nice damage from the eos there given the better projection of drones even for a brawler setup For an 7km orbit ( with linked scrams ) the dropoff of neuts is going to leave there contribution at about 75% navy and 50% void This makes the Eos clearly better at the 4km - 10km brawler range. Astarte has to be point blank to get better damage than the EOS. EOS is fine. Astarte could do with another 2 cpu to avoid downgrade of meta 4 scrams and webs to lower meta's My skills not maxed , lvl 4 blaster spec and lvl 4 gal drone spec You needs to look at maxed skills for one And I'll do the calculations briefly for maxed skills No implants etc (which favor the Astarte) Eos with 4 neutrons void 702 dps Fnam 678.6 Astarte with [hammerheads] and void 785 Fnam 718 Hams (2) add 84 dps more And implants can add 50-70 dps more for the Astarte, which if u can use An Astarte ill imagine you have atleast +3% damage implants Adds up to a 931 dps Astarte with no damage mods 931 or 702? Which would you pick? Which is subpar
|
Snape Dieboldmotor
Perkone Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 08:58:00 -
[1353] - Quote
I tested the Claymore on Singularity. I tried various PVP and PVE fittings.
For my purposes, the power grid to CPU ratio seems out of balance for an advanced ship. To fix, I would slightly lower the power grid and slightly increase the CPU. |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 09:11:00 -
[1354] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote: Adds up to a 931 dps Astarte with no damage mods 931 or 702? Which would you pick? Which is subpar
Its 785 v 702. You need links in the fits to be taken seriously. Not empty highs on the EOS.
Keep your lol HAMs I'll take 25% more tank on the EOS and 30% more speed to control the engagement.
Links can add 25% more ehp and reps to either fit. + more reps or more tackle range or more speed
Don't quote implant boosted stats v non implants. What is going in that empty implant slot ? more grid enabling more tank ?boosted armor ? boosted reps ?
So 785 v 702 I would choose either. given the 785 is going to fall off fast past 3km.
You have highlighted one change that can be made though.
Astarte -2 launcher slots. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
153
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 10:49:00 -
[1355] - Quote
I still believe Creodron should be slapped really hard, the EOS reassigned to the roden shipyards. I mean they messed up the eos pretty hard a couple years ago, why not give it HAMs? (Totally not because I'd personally love that *shizzle*)
Claymore is pretty damn funny, with a large SB and two operational solidifiers, all the other stuff (2 BCUs, 2 nanos, 2 med cap booster, invuln, def web, 5 hams, 2 skirmishlinks) fits nicely. Can't wait to fly the pimped out variation with deadspace/faction/storyline equip on TQ and get rid of those fitting inconveniences GÖÑ
Command ship zipping around at 2.7km/s (OH mwd)... Say yes to linking yourself! I only correct my own spelling. |
Vulfen
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 10:51:00 -
[1356] - Quote
@ CCP Fozzie
I can understand the reluctance to add any additional slots to the CS but they do need one. Otherwise a Navy BS can match it for usefullness in a fleet.
So here's my idea;
Allow Command ships to fit 3 rigs, and give it 450 Calibration.
This means your not going to mess up the amount of utility on the ship to make it the out and out best. |
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
152
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 11:25:00 -
[1357] - Quote
I do not understand the whole "2 free high slot" for all CS. Like i said earlier, make one boosting CS and one dps CS.
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
450
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 11:40:00 -
[1358] - 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. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
765
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 12:15:00 -
[1359] - Quote
bloodknight2 wrote:I do not understand the whole "2 free high slot" for all CS. Like i said earlier, make one boosting CS and one dps CS. Ditto.
Could probably get away with just adding a primary weapon mount on the dps varieties and nothing else, they could still do twin links but would have to sacrifice potential damage .. only supplemental change that might be needed would be to roll back the 2nd adjustment to Astarte (the 11 gun vs 10 gun change). |
Vulfen
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 12:30:00 -
[1360] - Quote
bloodknight2 wrote:I do not understand the whole "2 free high slot" for all CS. Like i said earlier, make one boosting CS and one dps CS.
So what your saying is.., dont change CSs from current?... erm no by doing this it allows cleaver people to mix thier links in with the rest of the gang and each of these ships have different fleets in mind; Ie;
Absolution is still the upfront power house but as a trade off you can bring Damnations which will have more EHP but a slightly lower DPS so by creating a fleet where absos are supported by some damnations your links on the field are mixed in and you cant just neut them out on field as obvious
Selphnir would make a great artillery platform when you combine the new bonuses and the increase in damage from medium projectiles and you could run a fleet with just these (except logi) in them as you have all the links you need without another ship.
the eos would make a great balanced utility ship aswell with 4 mids it can work in some ewar/ assistance mods while still giving a decent amount of contribution to DPS. |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
531
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 13:47:00 -
[1361] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote: Its 785 v 702. You need links in the fits to be taken seriously.
Dude, if anything running links on grid should not be taken seriously... As long as there is the option of OGB, that's going to continue to be the proper way to provide links.
So please don't sit here and tell people that fitting these ships w/o links is not serious because it does not make any sense.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
532
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 13:58:00 -
[1362] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:FOZZIE !!!
are you still reading this or what??
cargobays need sorting out..
+1!
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7364
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 14:08:00 -
[1363] - Quote
Vulfen wrote:@ CCP Fozzie
I can understand the reluctance to add any additional slots to the CS but they do need one. Otherwise a Navy BS can match it for usefullness in a fleet.
So here's my idea;
Allow Command ships to fit 3 rigs, and give it 450 Calibration.
This means your not going to mess up the amount of utility on the ship to make it the out and out best.
Keep in mind that the damage bonuses the CS get is equivalent to an extra highslot. These ships don't need an extra slot to compete, and I have no problem with a Navy BS being of similar value to a no-link CS in many situations. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7364
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 14:11:00 -
[1364] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Vulfen
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 14:39:00 -
[1365] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vulfen wrote:@ CCP Fozzie
I can understand the reluctance to add any additional slots to the CS but they do need one. Otherwise a Navy BS can match it for usefullness in a fleet.
So here's my idea;
Allow Command ships to fit 3 rigs, and give it 450 Calibration.
This means your not going to mess up the amount of utility on the ship to make it the out and out best. Keep in mind that the damage bonuses the CS get is equivalent to an extra highslot. These ships don't need an extra slot to compete, and I have no problem with a Navy BS being of similar value to a no-link CS in many situations.
Sorry foozie, i ,meant a "NAVY BCs" not BS can match the CSs and i dont have any issues with the damage on any of them but i think they could do with a utility slot extra on them all. or the extra rig to allow people to seal up those pesky resistance holes that can arrive because you have nerfed the gang links sumwhat |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7369
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 14:42:00 -
[1366] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
451
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 14:45:00 -
[1367] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7369
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 14:54:00 -
[1368] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 14:54:00 -
[1369] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Dav Varan wrote: Its 785 v 702. You need links in the fits to be taken seriously.
Dude, if anything running links on grid should not be taken seriously... As long as there is the option of OGB, that's going to continue to be the proper way to provide links. So please don't sit here and tell people that fitting these ships w/o links is not serious because it does not make any sense.
CCP Fozzie wrote: For years one of the most hotly discussed issues surrounding warfare links is their ability to apply bonuses to fleet members anywhere in the same solar system. We will not be changing this aspect of the feature in Odyssey 1.1. There are some serious technical hurdles to adjusting this aspect of the features, which are being worked on as we speak but for which we are not currently ready to announce an ETA.
^^ Taken from the links thread I take this to mean that while it won't happen in this patch the commands we are talking about the balance of here are going to be required to be on grid to link in the near future. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
451
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 14:59:00 -
[1370] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. |
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
153
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:02:00 -
[1371] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
plsnotplsnotplsnot.
The first wonderful fit that jumped into my eyes atleast has around 16 CPU leftover - and two nanos. Any major adjustment and it needs implants :| Many other decent fits also just fit right now using some trickery, can't that be generously overlooked?
Claymore is fine.... really, just ~ fine GÖ½ I only correct my own spelling. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
532
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:05:00 -
[1372] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:
^^ Taken from the links thread I take this to mean that while it won't happen in this patch the commands we are talking about the balance of here are going to be required to be on grid to link in the near future.
I'm not exactly sure what you're quoted fozzie point was suppose to relay...
The reality is that until the links come on grid (forcefully), your best bet is to keep them off grid. Nothing has really changed in this regards compared to TQ. So again, I'm not sure what your point was.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7369
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:09:00 -
[1373] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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?
Well it has double the damage bonus of the Eagle, but otherwise their bonuses are the same yes.
The optimal range bonuses work especially well with rails in a gang support role, and 7.5 hybrid turrets isn't inconsiderable dps. You can fit three links, four 250mms, three magstabs and full tank+MWD, and deal 463 dps out to 41km while also providing links and having 153k ehp. That's not bad at all. 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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Oddsodz
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:10:00 -
[1374] - Quote
Still wish the EoS would lose that repping bonus and have something else in it's place. That is the ship that will be used in fleets with Logi. It's role will not be about DPS or how much damage it can put out. It's role will be to help it's fleet stay alive. And we all know how Active taking works in big fleet fights. Please get rid of it and put something else in there. Maybe even a Drone tanking bonus or a ship base speed bonus. Anything but the repping bonus. I Can understand the Astarte have a rep bonus. That is the ship for small gang and solo play. But EoS is a "FLEET" ship. And in the intended role. It will have logi fleet member's to rep him. So it needs no repping bonus. Please PLEASE think of something else for that please. |
Kara Vix
Sanford and Son Salvage
202
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:11:00 -
[1375] - Quote
Has the ship models changed yet and if so, any images? Curious minds want to know |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
451
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:12:00 -
[1376] - 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. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
532
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:13:00 -
[1377] - 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.
Drone bay fozzie drone bay... 250m3 means that your drones are going to be shot out from under you in no time when fighting anyone w/o an amoeba brain. Atm you don't even have a backup wave of heavies if you intend to fit any other types of drones which any sane person will do.
Give it 325m3 and I'll be "more" inclined to believe that they are well balanced.
also Fozzie, any word on current cargo holds for these ships? If they are not suppose to match their t1 parents via a balancing decision it's at least intended. Just wanted to make sure you did not overlook this.
Regardless, thanks for breathing some more life into the game with these changes.
|
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:16:00 -
[1378] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Dav Varan wrote:
^^ Taken from the links thread I take this to mean that while it won't happen in this patch the commands we are talking about the balance of here are going to be required to be on grid to link in the near future.
I'm not exactly sure what you're quoted fozzie point was suppose to relay... The reality is that until the links come on grid (forcefully), your best bet is to keep them off grid. Nothing has really changed in this regards compared to TQ. So again, I'm not sure what your point was.
Yeah I agree with you that at the moment OG is best of course it is. But I think this is the balance pass for Commands that will be on grid eventually.
for now run 6 links on your command at pos or stay aligned with stabs in the lows. all 8 commands are equal for current offgrid tactics theres no point discussing balance of ships that arnt in the fight.
But do you really think there's going to be another pass to balance commands when they are forced on grid ? I don't know but I assume that this balance pass is it ?
So discuss here the balance as command ships linking ongrid, because thats what there going to have to do Soon.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7369
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:19:00 -
[1379] - 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. also Fozzie, any word on current cargo holds for these ships? If they are not suppose to match their t1 parents via a balancing decision it's at least intended. Just wanted to make sure you did not overlook this. Regardless, thanks for breathing some more life into the game with these changes.
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7369
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:20:00 -
[1380] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
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. |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
533
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:10:00 -
[1411] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote: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.
Meh, just get a 250mm railgun Astarte with 2-3 dmg mods and fight serpentis. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1219
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:11:00 -
[1412] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: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? :)
not going to happen rise is from the future and has seen the only fleet docterine after 1.1 is ab shield eagles... they replaced the drake as the new fleet ship. /sarcasm There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1219
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:12:00 -
[1413] - Quote
Oddsodz wrote: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.
i am still hopping for a tech II logi frig with that bonus. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
122
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:13:00 -
[1414] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: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.
Well to be honest, the only time I used a T3 for PVE was a lolfit 5Bn isk proteus for solo c3 ratting. I did that just because the battleclinic community thought it was impossible.
Otherwise, I've only ever used T1 ships for making money and T1/2/3 ships for blowing stuff up. |
Frothgar
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
82
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:14:00 -
[1415] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: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.
The two links you added are tanking mods which add a substantial amount of tank to the setup. It really is an excessive amount of tank for anything.
Also comparing an armor ship to a shield one isn't really a fair comparison when you're looking at CPU. armor reps use a fraction of the CPU as a shield booster, but utilize more power grid. Shield based ships and missile boats usually have a substantial CPU difference over armor boats.
I'd suggest comparing it to the Deimos (Which is a teriffic ship) and you can really see the nuances in role differentiation. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
443
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:15:00 -
[1416] - 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. It's "nice" that it takes 3 module slots at a minimum (2x reppers and a cap booster) to equal a single XL-ASB's tanking potential. :balanced:
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1219
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:15:00 -
[1417] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Give it 325m3 and I'll be "more" inclined to believe that they are well balanced.
+1
true the eos only has 16 slots... it looses a slot due to drone "utility" if the eos does not have a big drone bay then it looses said "utility" and should either gain an extra slot or its 375m3 drone bay. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
122
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:15:00 -
[1418] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote: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. Meh, just get a 250mm railgun Astarte with 2-3 dmg mods and fight serpentis.
A single rep c-type LAR domi with EANM, DC and RAH will tank all sanctums while doing something like 900dps, and this was before the armour repair buff. I can't imagine why I would embarrass the crew of a T2 ship with this kind of work... |
Frothgar
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
82
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:22:00 -
[1419] - Quote
All things being said. I think the weakest two CS are the Absolution and the Astarte. Neither is going to be chasing down anything while plated, and the difficulties they would have applying damage with short range guns will be significant. The Astarte is still better than the Absolution because with rails it has some good options due to its falloff bonus and its Armor/Skirmish link options complement some degree of flexibility.
Both remind me of the old Deimos. Can't really run down much or escape when in trouble, poor tank, poor damage projection. Both get stuck in the situation of "You have to kill the enemy, or you're dead" In most PvP situations, that's a very bad place to be.
I have no problems with the Astarte having the falloff bonus of the Deimos because its frankly dead without it. I'm scratching my head as to why the Abso retains the cap use bonus when it has less turrets to feed and its precursor (Zealot) has an optimal range bonus. |
Valterra Craven
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:29:00 -
[1420] - Quote
Frothgar wrote: The two links you added are tanking mods which add a substantial amount of tank to the setup. It really is an excessive amount of tank for anything.
Also comparing an armor ship to a shield one isn't really a fair comparison when you're looking at CPU. armor reps use a fraction of the CPU as a shield booster, but utilize more power grid. Shield based ships and missile boats usually have a substantial CPU difference over armor boats.
I'd suggest comparing it to the Deimos (Which is a teriffic ship) and you can really see the nuances in role differentiation.
Ok fine, change the links to skirmish ones instead of armoured ones. They use the same amount of CPU as those do, and my point still stands. But since you want to compare like tanking ships the vulture and the eagle might be more fitting.
Vulture Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II
10MN Afterburner II Large Shield Booster II Shield Boost Amplifier II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Tracking Computer II, Tracking Speed Script
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 Skirmish Warfare Link - Evasive Maneuvers II Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers II
This has exactly enough CPU 675 of 681.
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
So the vulture can fit 5 guns, full tank, and 2 links... As I said the Astarte is lacking some CPU for its intended role.
Interestingly enough it also does less DPS than the eagle... lol |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
533
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:30:00 -
[1421] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote: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. Meh, just get a 250mm railgun Astarte with 2-3 dmg mods and fight serpentis. A single rep c-type LAR domi with EANM, DC and RAH will tank all sanctums while doing something like 900dps, and this was before the armour repair buff. I can't imagine why I would embarrass the crew of a T2 ship with this kind of work...
I'd imagine it could probably tank more dps than the domi (against serpentis/gurista) due to rep bonus combined with uber therm/kin and a smaller sig/higher speed.
In all honesty tho, you're probably right. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
124
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:32:00 -
[1422] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: So the vulture can fit 5 guns, full tank, and 2 links... As I said the Astarte is lacking some CPU for its intended role.
Not quite. You won't see a vulture in PVP with a single large shield booster.
It'll have buffer and there will be logistics supporting it. (2000dps tank per supporting basilisk). These ships are not designed for PVE perma-tanking. That tactic simply doesn't work in PVP. |
Alsyth
82
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:33:00 -
[1423] - Quote
General:
1. Capacitor is sad compared to HAC.
2. You nerfed the shield ones so they cannot fit dual XLASB without 10 fitting mods (and have problems even to fit a single XLASB). But all the armor ones can triple rep or even 1600+dual rep really easily, without even requiring fitting mods for some of them (and still getting 700dps except for the Damnation).
3. Damnation and Vulture still lack dps. No damage role for them. -Vulture with another 10% damage will look like a good ship, like a shield astarte or bigger Moa. -same for Damnation without HP bonus and with another 10% damage (to drones? so it feels Khanid like the Curse, and improve dronebay).
4. Damnation still the only one with enough HP to make it in bigger fleets. Absolution close second, all the others have much less EHP and much worse resists.
5. Current uselessness of HML really doesn't help the missile CS. Which all lack dps even with HAM compared to the others (Eos/Astarte/Abso/Sleipnir).
6. No intention of fixing the Nighthawk and its broken slot layout? Have you ever seen someone happy with this ship in pvp?
7. active bonus still a joke, you can get absolution to do a similar active tank than astarte... And end up with +30% EHP. Putting resistance bonus to all of them really is the best thing you could do... I don't know of many pilots who wouldn't LOVE to trade this active bonus to a resistance bonus. |
Valterra Craven
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:34:00 -
[1424] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: So the vulture can fit 5 guns, full tank, and 2 links... As I said the Astarte is lacking some CPU for its intended role.
Not quite. You won't see a vulture in PVP with a single large shield booster. It'll have buffer and there will be logistics supporting it. (2000dps tank per supporting basilisk). These ships are not designed for PVE perma-tanking. That tactic simply doesn't work in PVP.
Good thing I wasn't talking about PVP.... |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
303
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:35:00 -
[1425] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote: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. Meh, just get a 250mm railgun Astarte with 2-3 dmg mods and fight serpentis. A single rep c-type LAR domi with EANM, DC and RAH will tank all sanctums while doing something like 900dps, and this was before the armour repair buff. I can't imagine why I would embarrass the crew of a T2 ship with this kind of work...
Because the myrm hull looks boss. And I have command ships to 5 while I have never injected the galente battleship skill, but that could be fixed. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
124
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:36:00 -
[1426] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote: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. Meh, just get a 250mm railgun Astarte with 2-3 dmg mods and fight serpentis. A single rep c-type LAR domi with EANM, DC and RAH will tank all sanctums while doing something like 900dps, and this was before the armour repair buff. I can't imagine why I would embarrass the crew of a T2 ship with this kind of work... I'd imagine it could probably tank more dps than the domi (against serpentis/gurista) due to rep bonus combined with uber therm/kin and a smaller sig/higher speed. In all honesty tho, you're probably right.
The EOS would tank gurista sanctums with one arm tied behind it's back, while singing Bohemian Rhapsody and performing a pole dance.
If I saw it there though, I'd feel compelled to put it out of its misery...
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
124
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:38:00 -
[1427] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: So the vulture can fit 5 guns, full tank, and 2 links... As I said the Astarte is lacking some CPU for its intended role.
Not quite. You won't see a vulture in PVP with a single large shield booster. It'll have buffer and there will be logistics supporting it. (2000dps tank per supporting basilisk). These ships are not designed for PVE perma-tanking. That tactic simply doesn't work in PVP. Good thing I wasn't talking about PVP....
I think this is the point I am trying to make. The ship's intended role is fleet PVP only. Any usefulness in PVE is incidental at best.
|
Valterra Craven
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:57:00 -
[1428] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: So the vulture can fit 5 guns, full tank, and 2 links... As I said the Astarte is lacking some CPU for its intended role.
Not quite. You won't see a vulture in PVP with a single large shield booster. It'll have buffer and there will be logistics supporting it. (2000dps tank per supporting basilisk). These ships are not designed for PVE perma-tanking. That tactic simply doesn't work in PVP. Good thing I wasn't talking about PVP.... I think this is the point I am trying to make. The ship's intended role is fleet PVP only. Any usefulness in PVE is incidental at best.
I think you are forgetting the sandbox aspect of Eve which it seems the devs continually like to poop on. Regardless, comparing like fits there are some deficiencies in these boats CPU output. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
303
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 19:30:00 -
[1429] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:The EOS would tank gurista sanctums with one arm tied behind it's back, while singing Bohemian Rhapsody and performing a pole dance. If I saw it there though, I'd feel compelled to put it out of its misery...
I rat in ships I like to look at. If that means ratting in a tech 2 or tech 3 ship then that's what I do.
I can send you a screenshot if you want to feel compelled to come put it down. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
345
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 19:35:00 -
[1430] - Quote
Kind of surprised that CCP are actually intending for people to fit XLASBs on things that aren't battleships. I thought them being able to fit at all was just an unfortunate oversight. Being able to put the equivalent of about 5 LSEs in a single slot, without even the lol sig penalty, kind of crazy. WTB capless large armour repairer for my myrmidon.
Nerf plx, ASBs are stupid. |
|
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 19:43:00 -
[1431] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote: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.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1350
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 20:17:00 -
[1432] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Well it has double the damage bonus of the Eagle, but otherwise their bonuses are the same yes.
The optimal range bonuses work especially well with rails in a gang support role, and 7.5 hybrid turrets isn't inconsiderable dps. You can fit three links, four 250mms, three magstabs and full tank+MWD, and deal 463 dps out to 41km while also providing links and having 153k ehp. That's not bad at all. 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.
I'm quite sure if you tried doing some magic to switch one of those optimal bonuses on the Vulture to a damage bonus you would find that if you equalize ranges through ammo the damage bonus one outperforms the other one at all ranges.
Because of ammo and most fights being in a sub 100km range damage bonuses are simply a LOT better then an optimal bonus. Should give the vulture a 12,5% optimal bonus and a 5% damage bonus imo. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
SOL Ranger
Jaeger Squadron
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 23:17:00 -
[1433] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
I'm quite sure if you tried doing some magic to switch one of those optimal bonuses on the Vulture to a damage bonus you would find that if you equalize ranges through ammo the damage bonus one outperforms the other one at all ranges.
Because of ammo and most fights being in a sub 100km range damage bonuses are simply a LOT better then an optimal bonus. Should give the vulture a 12,5% optimal bonus and a 5% damage bonus imo.
Not only is this the case but you also gain reduced capacitor use at ranges as you move down the ammo tree, the same is true for lasers, any ship with a damage bonus will outperform a ship with an optimal bonus at the same range and even using less cap in the process. Adding to that the ship with a damage bonus will wipe the floor with the optimal bonused ship at close range whilst the only benefit for the one with optimal is it will do pitiful and quite meaningless damage at insane ranges nobody cares about.
Optimal bonus needs to be stronger in general, 12.5% would put it at an equal footing due to the capacitor benefits at long ranges for the damage bonused ships, you would still pick the damage bonused one for versatility. 15% optimal bonus per level would actually begin to make it worthwhile, at least marginally and situationally when comparing to a damage bonused ship using long range ammo.
What it needs is either 2x15% optimal bonuses or 15% optimal + 5% damage.
|
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
199
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 01:33:00 -
[1434] - Quote
The Nighthawk needs a low dropped in favor of a mid. A two-slot shield tank after prop/web/scram is laughable. Combine that with only two rig slots, and its tank is only marginally better than a Drake's.
The Claymore can afford to drop a mid in favor of a low, especially since it needs to lose a low slot to a Co-Processor II in order to fit an XLASB.
With the current slot setup, the Claymore can fit a stronger buffer than the Nighthawk without even making use of its booster tanking bonus. That's just stupid. If you think of an XLASB as buffer, the Claymore beats the Nighthawk by >25%.
It's also faster than the Nighthawk and has a smaller signature.
Honestly, there's no reason at all to use a Nighthawk over a Claymore. Hell, even the Damnation ends up looking mighty good as a missile boat by comparison. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
101
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 04:51:00 -
[1435] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:The Nighthawk needs a low dropped in favor of a mid. A two-slot shield tank after prop/web/scram is laughable. Combine that with only two rig slots, and its tank is only marginally better than a Drake's.
The Claymore can afford to drop a mid in favor of a low, especially since it needs to lose a low slot to a Co-Processor II in order to fit an XLASB.
With the current slot setup, the Claymore can fit a stronger buffer than the Nighthawk without even making use of its booster tanking bonus. That's just stupid. If you think of an XLASB as buffer, the Claymore can beat the Nighthawk by >25%.
It's also faster than the Nighthawk and has a smaller signature.
Honestly, there's no reason at all to use a Nighthawk over a Claymore. Hell, even the Damnation ends up looking mighty good as a missile boat by comparison.
You seem to have never set foot in one of these and the slot layout of the Nighthawk has always been 7/5/5.
I give you a hint, go to SiSi and create a fitting for passive shield recharge. There are modules for that purpose.
And after that, make an active tank fit. FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
Aplier Shivra
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 05:11:00 -
[1436] - Quote
Frothgar wrote:All things being said. I think the weakest two CS are the Absolution and the Astarte. Neither is going to be chasing down anything while plated, and the difficulties they would have applying damage with short range guns will be significant. The Astarte is still better than the Absolution because with rails it has some good options due to its falloff bonus and its Armor/Skirmish link options complement some degree of flexibility.
Both remind me of the old Deimos. Can't really run down much or escape when in trouble, poor tank, poor damage projection. Both get stuck in the situation of "You have to kill the enemy, or you're dead" In most PvP situations, that's a very bad place to be.
I have no problems with the Astarte having the falloff bonus of the Deimos because its frankly dead without it. I'm scratching my head as to why the Abso retains the cap use bonus when it has less turrets to feed and its precursor (Zealot) has an optimal range bonus.
I'd agree that the absolution needs some sort of damage application bonus to stay competitive, especially now that it's losing one turret (and thus 16% less cap use) and getting an extra utility high that can be used on a nosferatu, which would mostly negate the lack of cap use bonus. The Amarr's ships are already low on dps compared to the others, with the absolution at 10 effective turrets, compared to nighthawk's 11 launchers, astarte's 11 turrets, and sleipner's 11.25 turrets, with each of those ships also getting a damage application bonus, and astarte's hybrids still using less capacitor than absolution's lasers even after the 50% reduction. To remain significantly competitive at damage (and especially applied damage) to the other races, the absolution either needs it's RoF bonus bumped up to 7.5% like all the rest are getting (for 12 effective turrets but still no application bonus) or the cap use switched out to 7.5% tracking and 7.5% optimal (while still at 1 less effective turret dps than the rest). |
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
158
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 06:39:00 -
[1437] - Quote
Aplier Shivra wrote:
I'd agree that the absolution needs some sort of damage application bonus to stay competitive, especially now that it's losing one turret (and thus 16% less cap use) and getting an extra utility high that can be used on a nosferatu, which would mostly negate the lack of cap use bonus. The Amarr's ships are already low on dps relative to the others, with the absolution at 10 effective turrets, compared to nighthawk's 11 launchers, astarte's 11 turrets, and sleipner's 11.25 turrets, with each of those ships also getting a damage application bonus, and astarte's hybrids still using less capacitor than absolution's lasers even after the 50% reduction. To remain significantly competitive at damage (and especially applied damage) to the other races, the absolution either needs it's RoF bonus bumped up to 7.5% like all the rest are getting (for 12 effective turrets but still no application bonus) or the cap use switched out to 7.5% optimal and 5% tracking (while still at 1 less effective turret dps than the rest).
Like i said earlier, anyone calculated how much removing the cap bonus from the absolution would hurts it?
And how low on dps the absolution really is? I'm gettin 950dps with mine (3 faction heat sink). |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
30
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 06:57:00 -
[1438] - Quote
Aplier Shivra wrote: EDIT: also, imo, lasers in general need to have either their cap use brought down, or the hull bonuses that decrease cap use need to be stronger. I'm fine with the range/tracking tradeoffs as they are but it's not acceptable that my ship that is sacrificing a hull bonus slot to have its guns still require 50% more capacitor than a hybrid who's ship is still receiving a dps/application/tanking/whatever bonus. And our highest dps ammo having an additional 25% cap use penalty on top of that for what's otherwise the exact same stats? And even in perfect conditions, latency causing ammo switching to still take 2-3 seconds or more, pretty much negating half of the "instant ammo swap" that's supposed to be what makes lasers so godly enough to receive such harsh problems in every other aspect of their life? Weapons already fire at the very start of their cycle, how seriously hard can it be to program things so that if you right click and select a new ammo type during the "cooldown", it will start the next cycle with that ammo, instead of requiring 3 separate inputs from the player that all require a back-and-forth to the server which are all plagued by everyday latency as well as the server's 1-second update rate. Hell, it's not like the ammo swapping system isn't already in place, just instead of having each command handled by a separate player input, only have the initial player input start the process that has the "stop guns firing" code sequence end by starting the "remove ammo" which already leads into "load ammo" followed by the 0, 5, or 10 second delay as per weapon type, and finally have that go to the "start guns firing", all being handled automatically and by the server from just the one click by the player while guns were still in the "cooling down" phase of their cycle. You guys can even put in a 0.1 second delay between each command to give the server some breathing room and it will still feel instant enough to the player, and significantly better than having to wait for your gun to stop with the extra half cycle your client started it doing while the server was derping, navigate right click menus as fast as possible, wait for the client to recognize that the server has loaded the guns properly before it lets you start firing, and then finally hitting F1 again, during which time the target you were firing at has gone out of the range where standard is best for dps and is now in xray optimal range, but y'know what, it's ******* okay because you accidentally input one of your commands to your instant ammo swap turret TOO fast so none of it got recognized and you're actually still firing the microwave you had fitted before, so you'd have to go through the entire process AGAIN this time slowly drawing out every step just to make sure the game recognizes what you are doing, and this time going into multifrequency even though it would still be in laser's pitiful falloff just because you don't want to go through the whole damn process again when you know the frig will probably keep getting closer, all the while asking yourself why you don't just use autocannons that let you choose your damage type while their falloff curve naturally and automatically adjusts your damage to range and you can just leave in the short range/high damage ammo because it's only reducing their already nonexistent optimal range while leaving their actually significant range completely untouched and all the while using 0 capacitor on ships that have the exact same recharge rate. Yes, a nerve has been touched. /rant
OH MY GOD MY EYES IT BURNS!!!!!! |
Aplier Shivra
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 06:58:00 -
[1439] - Quote
Quote: Like i said earlier, anyone calculated how much removing the cap bonus from the absolution would hurts it?
And how low on dps the absolution really is? I'm gettin 950dps with mine (3 faction heat sink).
Removing the cap bonus and adding the nos would have a net reduction in cap recharge by around 3-4 cap/second for pulse using multifrequency, you can make that up with a single rig or cap recharger (or half a cap recharger if you already have several cap mods). Compared to what could be a 50% optimal bonus that is stacking penalty immune, I'd take the optimal any day of the week. Two tracking comps and you're still halfway into falloff for that much.
My abso is 1 skill away from perfect dps (the weapon specializations at 5), and it's at 1016 turret dps (4 faction heat sinks and T2 burst aerator). A similarly fit Astarte on live is doing 1361 dps, while their guns are using 1.5 cap/second compared to my 3.4 cap, and they get to use mediums drones instead of lights. Astartes will also be getting a very slight increase to effective turrets (10.9375 up to 11) with 1.1. |
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 07:02:00 -
[1440] - Quote
IGÇÖm basically going to analyze the Command ships for everything theyGÇÖre worth in this lengthy post by explaining how the balance is non-exisitant, and how youGÇÖve basically screwed yourselves over with this patch by overreaching and not defining roles for ship classes. IGÇÖm going to do this by starting with the 2 winners for command from what I consider the FC perspective. By this I mean, IGÇÖve chatted with multiple FCGÇÖs from Multiple alliances and the same conclusions are basically always met.
The Winners:
Absolution for large fleet concepts Claymore for small fleet concepts
Why the Absolution wins in large fleet doctrines hands down:
Most people in EVE fail to realize how much DPS beams put out pre 1.1 buff. Beams were actually a small falloff in DPS using the closer range ammunitions over pulses from the git go. When you introduced a 25% damage boost for 1.1, you basically put Beams at or in some cases surpassing pulses in DPS projection, basically nullifying any reason for medium pulse use. Beam Absolution now does 700-800 DPS out to 19km optimal, and 400 dps out to 71km optimal. Mix that with a 185k ehp tank, cruiser tracking abilities and the free mids and close range tech 2 ammo to boost tracking a **** ton, and you have a mammoth beast that will be hard to match at any class of ship in game. ItGÇÖs range is basically enough, hp run in the top tier of needs, itGÇÖs dps is more than enough, and itGÇÖs resist are stellar, making the logistics network awesomeGǪ ItGÇÖs also one of the few ships that can easily hide itGÇÖs bonuses within the fleet doctrine itself providing a distinct advantage.
Beam Abso has become so good, and the price is reasonable enough with the reduced cost of rigs compared to BS and the lower general cost of fittings that it can basically match most BS fleets in efficiency and HP while dominating the Logistics battle.
IGÇÖm going into more detail as it compare it to the other 6 losers in a minute.
Why the Claymore wins in small fleet doctrines.
The Claymore has become one of the only ships in game that can put a reasonable investment into itGÇÖs fittings/implants and develop grossly OP local tank equal to anywhere from 2-8 logistics worth of repairs in burst outrageously high for small fleet warfare.
It offers up capacitor free offensive firepower, uniform damage application across all 4 types of damage, a high capacity drone bay, 2 utility high slots that are easy to fitGǪ and on top of all that, another easy to hide bonus platform within the group.
Again, IGÇÖm going to analyze this ship further in the loser section:
And the losersGǪ.
Nighthawk: This guy loses for so many reasons that you were warned about back with the heavy missile nerf, and far more. As a close range brawler, it gets outmatched by the Claymore in every wayGǪ agility, damage applications, mid slot options, vastly inferior local tank, no speed or agility, no real sense of itself, smaller drone bay/projection, and horrid resist layout.
As a long range platform, it gets outmatched by the Absolution because it has hardly any speed advantage, getGÇÖs matched pretty well at distance for DPS applicationGǪ assuming no firewall, getGÇÖs horrifically beaten on DPS if the Absolutions land closer than max range, has less tank than the Absolutions, and an inferior resist layout.
Sure, it could hide itGÇÖs bonuses you dedicated a fleet doctrine to it, but with all the above, why in gods name would you. And before you state that missiles always hitGǪ. You donGÇÖt get firewalls or what webs and competence do for turrets since you refuse to do anything about the tracking formula.
Sleipnir: Only thing this guy has left to offer is alphaGǪ. And WTF. If I wanted an alpha fleet, I would much rather chose a shield or armor loki doctrine, a Tempest or Maelstrom fleet, or a Tornado fleet. All of those options beat it defensively, offensively, and in most cases, based on cost as well.
As for Autocannon platforms, with the nerfs incoming to Tracking enhancers and the other options for far less price, again, why would you chose this role. For similar range projection, you have the Claymore offering up so much more.
Vulture: The Vulture dies out simply because of the Abso. The Vulture vs Abso tanking gap is diminishing quite a bit with the changes, the Vulture gets easily matched by the Abso for DPS projection from 40-70, gets dominated inside that range, has a much higher sig bloom, hardly any advantage on speed, and no real reason for use.
The range projection is silly to match to the Eagle when the small DPS drop does not account for the EagleGÇÖs huge defensive advantage in an AB shield HAC platform, nor does the general use of a Vulture fleet make sense when compared to Rohks or NagaGÇÖs.
Because you basically have to use this as a boosting platform only, you canGÇÖt really hide the ship in a fleet of many. And as a solo platform, letGÇÖs just not even bother discussing how bad it fails.
Astarte: YouGÇÖd think this guy was pretty awesome mix of DPS and tank until you realize just how drastic the difference is between it and the Claymore:
The Claymore can exceed almost any Astarte fit by about 20k EHP, while out tanking it with an XLASB by anywhere from 2 to 8 times higher local tank. Based on current market price, I overheated a Claymore to get it to 15,000 DPS local rep for 880ish million ISK while still projecting ~700 DPS. Best I could do on an Astarte was about 2000-2500 leaving room for only 1 Mag stab.
Sure you could argue that the Astarte has a few free mid slots, but again, that only really matters in 1v1, and really not enough to gain it any more than a novelty advantage since itGÇÖs slower, fatter, and dumber than the claymore.
As for long range rail Astarte canGÇÖt even begin to match the Abso or a Rail Talos either. So again, while it seems good on paper, when you start to look at the big picture, it really doesnGÇÖt. |
|
Aplier Shivra
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 07:03:00 -
[1441] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:Aplier Shivra wrote:
snip
Yes, a nerve has been touched. /rant
OH MY GOD MY EYES IT BURNS!!!!!!
I'm surprised that aside from it being a massive wall of text/run on sentence, I actually succeeded very well at grammar and spelling.
|
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 07:04:00 -
[1442] - Quote
.... continued
Eos:
YouGÇÖve heard so many complaints already about it, but the general summation is, if everyone can tell you why itGÇÖs inferior to the Astarte, then do you really need me to pile on more.
Damnation:
It just doesnGÇÖt do anything good other than tank compared to the othersGǪ and when you can hide an absolution in an abso fleet concept, it really doesnGÇÖt matter.
HereGÇÖs a list or reasons why these ships and a lot of your other changes are going to fail and why youGÇÖve seen so much negative backlash, especially for HACs and Commands:
Your tracking formula/mechanics suck (IGÇÖve offered up the solution to this with much positive feedback already)
Webs at range are severely OP (again, tracking formula issue more than anything)
Logistics are way OP and high resist ships only escalate this problem more.
And most importantly, You are not grasping the concept of what a ROLE means for ship classes.
You have far too many TECH 3s, HACS, BS, BCGÇÖs, Commands, Carriers for Christ sake, and even a few Faction Cruisers overlapping so much that it really comes down to which ship of all those litter can do it the best, obsoleeting anything and everything else by default. The only reason to use the others is not because they are better at somethingGǪ theyGÇÖre notGǪ itGÇÖs just a novelty role play moveGǪ. Or weGÇÖre out trolling.
YOU AT CCP HAVE TO GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR ASSES and actually fix the problems with core mechanics within the game. You are ******* up so bad on this level and trying to deliver content for no other purpose than to just say, GÇ£we did all these thingsGÇ¥ when really, you didnGÇÖt do jack **** because of the failure to deliver roles to this game.
For god sake, Fix the tracking formula, fix webs, Fix ECCM, Fix drones, and Develop real roles with new and unique ideas rather than this idiocy.
But we all know this wonGÇÖt happenGǪ so meh
~IGÇÖm Down (ironically, the account just ended renewal because of disgust) |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
199
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 07:17:00 -
[1443] - Quote
elitatwo wrote: You seem to have never set foot in one of these and the slot layout of the Nighthawk has always been 7/5/5.
I give you a hint, go to SiSi and create a fitting for passive shield recharge. There are modules for that purpose.
And after that, make an active tank fit.
I had a nice reply all written out, and then the forum ate it.
Just because the slot layout has always sucked doesn't mean it has to keep sucking. Even for passive shield recharge, another mid (for an LSE) is better than another low for an SPR, since the LSE gives you buffer and doesn't kill your capacitor.
If you want to start talking about active tanking, the Claymore wins handily due to its bonus.
But yeah, you're right, I guess people could choose a Nighthawk over a Claymore in the case where they want a ship that's easy to semi-afk PvE content with, due to the big passive shield recharge tank you can get. |
Aplier Shivra
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 07:26:00 -
[1444] - Quote
MJ Incognito wrote: The Claymore can exceed almost any Astarte fit by about 20k EHP, while out tanking it with an XLASB by anywhere from 2 to 8 times higher local tank. Based on current market price, I overheated a Claymore to get it to 15,000 DPS local rep for 880ish million ISK while still projecting ~700 DPS. Best I could do on an Astarte was about 2000-2500 leaving room for only 1 Mag stab.
Just want to point out that this is less of a ship-specific issue and more of how huge of a gap there is in general between shield tank and armor tank active mods that gets compounded on by many different aspects. A) Shields can actually fit oversized reppers B) The non-oversized shield mod already gives more hp/sec (large shield booster II gives 60 hp/sec compared to armor's 53/sec, or XL shield's 120/sec, which can fit on a medium ship and easily beats medium armor repper's 26/sec) C) higher resists from their adaptive resist mod which can also be overheated for even more, without requiring a month of (aptly named) compensation skills D) boost amplifiers as a way to further increase ehp gain on a different stacking penalty E) ancillery module requires no capacitor, and gist-type modules requiring drastically less cap F) crystal implants
edit: fixed some number |
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 07:37:00 -
[1445] - Quote
Aplier Shivra wrote:MJ Incognito wrote: The Claymore can exceed almost any Astarte fit by about 20k EHP, while out tanking it with an XLASB by anywhere from 2 to 8 times higher local tank. Based on current market price, I overheated a Claymore to get it to 15,000 DPS local rep for 880ish million ISK while still projecting ~700 DPS. Best I could do on an Astarte was about 2000-2500 leaving room for only 1 Mag stab.
Just want to point out that this is less of a ship-specific issue and more of how huge of a gap there is in general between shield tank and armor tank active mods that gets compounded on by many different aspects. A) Shields can actually fit oversized reppers B) The non-oversized shield mod already gives more hp/sec (large shield booster II gives 60 hp/sec compared to armor's 53/sec, or XL shield's 120/sec, which can fit on a medium ship and easily beats medium armor repper's 26/sec) C) higher resists from their adaptive resist mod which can also be overheated for even more, without requiring a month of (aptly named) compensation skills D) boost amplifiers as a way to further increase ehp gain on a different stacking penalty E) ancillery module requires no capacitor, and gist-type modules requiring drastically less cap F) crystal implants edit: fixed some number
Yes, but the big problem is Shields almost get it right... While armor basically blows from start to finish. I'd like to see a bit longer cooldown on ASB's and the limit to 1 per ship and then the concept of local shield tanking would be basically complete. Armor on the other hand has absolutely no positives and only get's used because it has to be on some ships.
I mean really, the claymore design is one of the few ships that actually seems to have a unique role and gets some interesting **** right.... The sad thing is, it just obsoletes basically every other close range, high speed solo or small gang platform out there by being so god damn perfect. Claymore has a powerful tank, but has that minute gap where it's defense almost totally drops.... that's a great flaw. Why is that **** not perfected and iterated on more in this game IHNFC.
And that really goes back to fixing core mechanics... something the devs refuse to do. The claymore is godawful OP IN THE EVE THEY'RE BUILDING... but it's actually almost just right IF they got a damn clue and fixed so much of the core problems in the game.
I just have no faith in them anymore after seeing the last 5 patches.
I'm tired of getting proven right for all the **** I get blasted for months early in these threads. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 07:51:00 -
[1446] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Chris Winter wrote:The Nighthawk needs a low dropped in favor of a mid. A two-slot shield tank after prop/web/scram is laughable. Combine that with only two rig slots, and its tank is only marginally better than a Drake's.
The Claymore can afford to drop a mid in favor of a low, especially since it needs to lose a low slot to a Co-Processor II in order to fit an XLASB.
With the current slot setup, the Claymore can fit a stronger buffer than the Nighthawk without even making use of its booster tanking bonus. That's just stupid. If you think of an XLASB as buffer, the Claymore can beat the Nighthawk by >25%.
It's also faster than the Nighthawk and has a smaller signature.
Honestly, there's no reason at all to use a Nighthawk over a Claymore. Hell, even the Damnation ends up looking mighty good as a missile boat by comparison. You seem to have never set foot in one of these and the slot layout of the Nighthawk has always been 7/5/5. I give you a hint, go to SiSi and create a fitting for passive shield recharge. There are modules for that purpose. And after that, make an active tank fit.
for this argument, to be valid, PVE hast to be a balanceing aspect. (and esp. a balanceing aspect for command ships!) many discussions and some dev post have shown that the balanceing is done around pvp so show me a passive shield tank used in pvp......
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
766
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 09:21:00 -
[1447] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:...balanceing is done around pvp so show me a passive shield tank used in pvp...... You mean the more than common shield/gank fits that were/are so popular as to creep onto ships with just 3 mids (partially replaced by ASB's now)?
PvP tanking is the same as PvE tanking in that it can either be localized (passive/active/buffer) or projected (dps) .. due to cheap bat-phones PvP tanking has been moving towards projected over the years as the kill must be achieved before the phone is picked up ... the passive (assuming you mean regen-tank) PvP tank as such died with the Drake/HML changes.
|
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 09:44:00 -
[1448] - Quote
Maximus Andendare 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. It's "nice" that it takes 3 module slots at a minimum (2x reppers and a cap booster) to equal a single XL-ASB's tanking potential. :balanced:
XLASB tank needs a co-pro to fit when your oversizing on a cruiser/bc hull you also need a source of cap for a real comparision, small injector will do.
XLASB + co-pro + small injector has similar sustainable tank and cap availability to Med Injector + Dual Mar.
with my skills lvl 4 command it came out at 115 dps on a CLaymore XLASB and 112dps on an EOS Med inj Dual rep.
Rigs in those layout were EOS em hard and nano bot CLAY overclock / kin hard.
Resists were pretty flat on both ships , but EOS has aabout a 7% edge in resists iirc.
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
155
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 09:44:00 -
[1449] - Quote
MJ Incognito wrote: Beam Absolution now does 700-800 DPS out to 19km optimal, and 400 dps out to 71km optimal. Mix that with a 185k ehp tank, cruiser tracking abilities and the free mids and close range tech 2 ammo to boost tracking a **** ton, and you have a mammoth beast that will be hard to match at any class of ship in game. ItGÇÖs range is basically enough, hp run in the top tier of needs, itGÇÖs dps is more than enough, and itGÇÖs resist are stellar, making the logistics network awesomeGǪ ItGÇÖs also one of the few ships that can easily hide itGÇÖs bonuses within the fleet doctrine itself providing a distinct advantage. [...] Nighthawk: This guy loses for so many reasons that you were warned about back with the heavy missile nerf, and far more. As a close range brawler, it gets outmatched by the Claymore in every wayGǪ agility, damage applications, mid slot options, vastly inferior local tank, no speed or agility, no real sense of itself, smaller drone bay/projection, and horrid resist layout. [...] The Claymore can exceed almost any Astarte fit by about 20k EHP, while out tanking it with an XLASB by anywhere from 2 to 8 times higher local tank. Based on current market price, I overheated a Claymore to get it to 15,000 DPS local rep for 880ish million ISK while still projecting ~700 DPS. Best I could do on an Astarte was about 2000-2500 leaving room for only 1 Mag stab. [...] As for long range rail Astarte canGÇÖt even begin to match the Abso or a Rail Talos either. So again, while it seems good on paper, when you start to look at the big picture, it really doesnGÇÖt.
My personal fascination with the claymore comes from it's ability to blend into a classic nano-roam (vagas, artycynas, ABCs, etc.), so while those posted tankstats are archivable, it seems to me that compromises are to be done to an extent. Experimenting with fits, I personally had more success (using T2 modules) tanking things with a large SB and two op. solidifiers compared to an XL setup with fitting modules. Best thing - on TQ, it tanks double GÖÑ The main advantage of the claymore is nano, it goes 2km/s with no imps but the skirmish mindlink, with it's announced costs of less than 100mil - ship is most likely bought with one in it's cargo for emergency-plug-in :)
The Beam abso is great, ye. Can't say otherwise, it got multi to compete with the usual scorch, and then all those other crystals. 150k EHP with 680dps at ~20k is decent at least. (380dps at ~65k using aurora, negelecting tracking)
I strongly disagree with the nighthawk. It's certainly not the kind of ship that moves around a lot, nor a ship to active tank. It seems as if the right way to tank it would be 'brick', which also leaves you with substantial passive shield recharge - when doing nothing but boosting, tanking and dps - i.E. no tackle - you get your ridiculous values already. Mobility is bad, but I'd guess still sufficient (~1km/s is the worst around, but oh so many ships aren't any faster), with the clear option of using a claymore, if the mobility is needed and no huge dps will be incoming (or can be avoided thanks to velocity)
I really can't follow on why the Eos is crap, it got amazing dps while also running double med-neuts, it still got decent dps, while running a plate+dualrepfit, it has wonderful dps using a buffer-link-ion-fit with two DDAs. Four mids are quite anemic, but it already is a decent ship on SiSi as it stands. I only correct my own spelling. |
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 09:55:00 -
[1450] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:MJ Incognito wrote: Beam Absolution now does 700-800 DPS out to 19km optimal, and 400 dps out to 71km optimal. Mix that with a 185k ehp tank, cruiser tracking abilities and the free mids and close range tech 2 ammo to boost tracking a **** ton, and you have a mammoth beast that will be hard to match at any class of ship in game. ItGÇÖs range is basically enough, hp run in the top tier of needs, itGÇÖs dps is more than enough, and itGÇÖs resist are stellar, making the logistics network awesomeGǪ ItGÇÖs also one of the few ships that can easily hide itGÇÖs bonuses within the fleet doctrine itself providing a distinct advantage. [...] Nighthawk: This guy loses for so many reasons that you were warned about back with the heavy missile nerf, and far more. As a close range brawler, it gets outmatched by the Claymore in every wayGǪ agility, damage applications, mid slot options, vastly inferior local tank, no speed or agility, no real sense of itself, smaller drone bay/projection, and horrid resist layout. [...] The Claymore can exceed almost any Astarte fit by about 20k EHP, while out tanking it with an XLASB by anywhere from 2 to 8 times higher local tank. Based on current market price, I overheated a Claymore to get it to 15,000 DPS local rep for 880ish million ISK while still projecting ~700 DPS. Best I could do on an Astarte was about 2000-2500 leaving room for only 1 Mag stab. [...] As for long range rail Astarte canGÇÖt even begin to match the Abso or a Rail Talos either. So again, while it seems good on paper, when you start to look at the big picture, it really doesnGÇÖt.
My personal fascination with the claymore comes from it's ability to blend into a classic nano-roam (vagas, artycynas, ABCs, etc.), so while those posted tankstats are archivable, it seems to me that compromises are to be done to an extent. Experimenting with fits, I personally had more success (using T2 modules) tanking things with a large SB and two op. solidifiers compared to an XL setup with fitting modules. Best thing - on TQ, it tanks double GÖÑ The main advantage of the claymore is nano, it goes 2km/s with no imps but the skirmish mindlink, with it's announced costs of less than 100mil - ship is most likely bought with one in it's cargo for emergency-plug-in :) The Beam abso is great, ye. Can't say otherwise, it got multi to compete with the usual scorch, and then all those other crystals. 150k EHP with 680dps at ~20k is decent at least. (380dps at ~65k using aurora, negelecting tracking) I strongly disagree with the nighthawk. It's certainly not the kind of ship that moves around a lot, nor a ship to active tank. It seems as if the right way to tank it would be 'brick', which also leaves you with substantial passive shield recharge - when doing nothing but boosting, tanking and dps - i.E. no tackle - you get your ridiculous values already. Mobility is bad, but I'd guess still sufficient (~1km/s is the worst around, but oh so many ships aren't any faster), with the clear option of using a claymore, if the mobility is needed and no huge dps will be incoming (or can be avoided thanks to velocity) I really can't follow on why the Eos is crap, it got amazing dps while also running double med-neuts, it still got decent dps, while running a plate+dualrepfit, it has wonderful dps using a buffer-link-ion-fit with two DDAs. Four mids are quite anemic, but it already is a decent ship on SiSi as it stands. You can read the rest of this thread for the Eos explanations as there are so many.
Nighthawk has to move b/c it's damage application is limited heavily by the nerf to HML's and the terrible speed, short range of HAMs. But it can't move for **** either way. It's tank is "good" but in no way compares to the beam abso dominance, nor the 50 million other missile platforms that just do it all better. Tengu, Cerb, Caracal, and Claymore are both the obvious choices for for Medium Sized missile platforms and the Nighthawk does nothing to really cope with any of those other ships advantages..... as for tank, the claymore can beat it hands down on active tank and virtually tie it on passive.... so your point there is naught.
Claymore has a massive versatility of fitting choices and styles, there's no doubt. But when you find out how easy it is to customize around certain fits, it will naturally fall into a specific category for most players. Not to mention, it does it easier and far better than any of the active armor reppers while still having more speed, and no capacitor issues from weapons or boosters. |
|
Kane Fenris
NWP
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 10:08:00 -
[1451] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:...balanceing is done around pvp so show me a passive shield tank used in pvp...... You mean the more than common shield/gank fits that were/are so popular as to creep onto ships with just 3 mids (partially replaced by ASB's now)? PvP tanking is the same as PvE tanking in that it can either be localized (passive/active/buffer) or projected (dps) .. due to cheap bat-phones PvP tanking has been moving towards projected over the years as the kill must be achieved before the phone is picked up ... the passive (assuming you mean regen-tank) PvP tank as such died with the Drake/HML changes.
buffer isnt the same as passive shield
if you had read the post i quoted it would be clear to you cause he said nighthawk slot layout is good cause of the mods needed for passive recharge fit... |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 10:10:00 -
[1452] - Quote
After reviewing all ships I can say that CCP Fozzie just made Sleipnir a bit tankier hurricane. I really don't like this tbh. Solo sleipnirs are gone :( |
S1dy
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 10:55:00 -
[1453] - 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.
I absolutely don't understand your goal here... Is this any aprils fool or something like that? Tell me Fozzie, what is this thread for if you ignore EVERY post that is made here?! The whole thread is full with statements saying the Damnation is fine as it is and should get - if any - other trade offs than tank. And now you made this... No we have no Command Ship tanky enough for large fleets.
Yeah, this balance is clearly the worst of all you made in the last 2 years. And it's thrilling you're absolutely NOT listening |
Kara Vix
Sanford and Son Salvage
202
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 10:56:00 -
[1454] - Quote
Rest in peace my lovely Nighthawk, over 2 years of flying you has come to an end Not only shall you be a joke amongst the other CS's but in time you will look like a Drake, adding insult to injury. But vengeance shall be mine /gets out voodoo dolls |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
766
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 11:33:00 -
[1455] - Quote
CCP Fozzie #917, p.46 wrote:I considered dropping the armor hp bonus from the Damnation, but in the end I think it's ok for it to have a strong identity, even if that identity makes it more popular than the others for large fleet warfare.
- Seven days later -
CCP Fozzie #1368, p.69 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. What happened during that week to make you see the light?
|
Peter Tjordenskiold
101
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 11:44:00 -
[1456] - 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.
Ohh, balancing means in huge fight like in Fountain fleets will be getting every time a headshot of a FC. I guess this will be a hillarious PVP experience or a fleet without bonus to secure the FC. It's looking to me that CCP is working on the next level how to crash the player accounts.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
130
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 11:53:00 -
[1457] - Quote
Peter Tjordenskiold wrote: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.
Ohh, balancing means in huge fight like in Fountain fleets will be getting every time a headshot of a FC. I guess this will be a hillarious PVP experience or a fleet without bonus to secure the FC. It's looking to me that CCP is working on the next level how to crash the player accounts.
Wait a minute. How big is a grid?
With some grid-fu it can me made to be enormous. Even when off-grid boosting is finally put to rest (a good thing), the command ship and its bodyguards can still be well out of range of any weaponry.
Sure it can be scanned down, but it can also move and be protected.
With a savvy FC it certainly won't be a candidate for a headshot.
|
Vulfen
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 11:55:00 -
[1458] - Quote
@ CCP Fozzie
Why is the damnation so weak?
The damnation can be out DPSed by what is supposed to be the ship directly below it, The Sacrilege.
There is no way a AHAC should be able to out DPS its CS counterpart.
I think the damnation needs to be a full brawler so loose the Velocity to missiles and add it 7.5% RoF and change the damage down to 7.5%. Maybe give it 200-500 more base armour and take the hit point bonus down to 5% to compensate for this change
Currently with its bonuses the way they are this ship is still only gona fill one main role in a fleet. that would bring it to a closer par with the other ships |
Anattha
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 12:20:00 -
[1459] - Quote
As i suppose - we will never see 4 med slot Absolution |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 12:24:00 -
[1460] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Forum deleted my long post about hp/s for armor reps and shield reps I'm too busy to do it all again but basically Astarte/ eos 2 t2 med reps cap booster and 2 rigs gets about 160hp/s Claymore with xl asb 360hp/s with crystals 500+ Xl t2 boosters are less somewhere around 200 and 360 with crystals All with less slots
Your quoting Burst tank for the Claymore. Sustainable tank = Burst Tank / 105 * 45
Sustainable Tank from Clay with your numbers is actually 154hp/s
I take it you used 2xT2 rigs to get that 360 ? So your going to need 1 x cpu in low ( with Meta4 fit ) or ( 2 x cpu in low to go t2 launchers ) and also an injector
5 slots for armor 5/6 slots for shield 160 reps for the armor 154 reps for the shield
Sounds pretty balanced to me.
|
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
766
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 12:26:00 -
[1461] - Quote
Peter Tjordenskiold wrote:Ohh, balancing means in huge fight like in Fountain fleets will be getting every time a headshot of a FC. I guess this will be a hillarious PVP experience or a fleet without bonus to secure the FC. It's looking to me that CCP is working on the next level how to crash the player accounts. Take a look around and tell me if you see ships other than the Command Ships that can field links while having considerably more EHP than even the 4x1600 Damnation .. get back to me when you see it (hint: they are bigger)
For massive blobs (offensive ones at least) CC's or even T3's will not be the optimal choice due to the risk of being 'head shotted' as you mention, but there are other options hitherto unexplored due to off-grid functionality.
Off/On/Tangential-to topic: Why not add a CC level link bonus to the activation of the Triage module (think Rorqual deploy bonus)? |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 13:12:00 -
[1462] - Quote
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.
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
452
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 13:19:00 -
[1463] - 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. |
Ludi Burek
Toilet Emergency JIHADASQUAD
248
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 15:06:00 -
[1464] - Quote
Why won't you finally ungimp the Absolution and give it the 4th mid? Would that be so bad?
The turret reduction plus the damage buff to compensate is a step in the right direction but it needs to go further. Drop another turret and buff the damage to remain the same. Now add this high slot to mid slots.
Really this ship wants to be worth it but it has been bad for years and sadly doesn't appear to be improving in a meaningful way. It virtually remains the same.
Edit: And now that it is using less cap due to less guns, replace that dreadful laser cap use bonus with something better like tracking, range whatever. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
131
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 15:51:00 -
[1465] - Quote
I have just tried a triple-rep astarte vs 2 navy 'phoons on sisi.
The astarte was not able to hold its overheated tank for longer than 2 cycles of the dual medium capacitor boosters.
I don't think it's going to survive in a skirmish Fozzie... It either needs to be able to fit LARs, or it needs better resistances.
It's just too vulnerable against more than 1 opponent at the moment.
|
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
306
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 16:32:00 -
[1466] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Peter Tjordenskiold wrote:Ohh, balancing means in huge fight like in Fountain fleets will be getting every time a headshot of a FC. I guess this will be a hillarious PVP experience or a fleet without bonus to secure the FC. It's looking to me that CCP is working on the next level how to crash the player accounts. Take a look around and tell me if you see ships other than the Command Ships that can field links while having considerably more EHP than even the 4x1600 Damnation .. get back to me when you see it (hint: they are bigger) For massive blobs (offensive ones at least) CC's or even T3's will not be the optimal choice due to the risk of being 'head shotted' as you mention, but there are other options hitherto unexplored due to off-grid functionality. Off/On/Tangential-to topic: Why not add a CC level link bonus to the activation of the Triage module (think Rorqual deploy bonus)?
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Using a carrier as a subcap command ship is bad, and you should feel bad for suggesting it. The FC's command ship has to be as maneuverable as the rest of the fleet or else he's going to fleet warp everyone else away and he's going to get caught, or he's going to be unable to keep pace with the rest of the fleet if it's anything other than a immobile sentry domi fleet.
Additionally, adding a bonus to a triage module is a waste. In the fountain war the lifespan of a carrier in triage was best measured in seconds, which is hardly acceptable for a FC who's trying to direct a fleet.
It's fairly obvious that your experience in large fleet combat is lacking and your knowledge about what characteristics a FC needs are off.
/lol 4x1600 plate fits...if you don't have high resists your logi aren't going to be able to hold when you get focused |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
452
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 16:41:00 -
[1467] - 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. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
156
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 18:25:00 -
[1468] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I have just tried a triple-rep astarte vs 2 navy 'phoons on sisi.
The astarte was not able to hold its overheated tank for longer than 2 cycles of the dual medium capacitor boosters.
I don't think it's going to survive in a skirmish Fozzie... It either needs to be able to fit LARs, or it needs better resistances.
It's just too vulnerable against more than 1 opponent at the moment.
So you cannot solotank two ships known for their crazy damage-application SIMULTANIOUSLY while sitting under two heavyneuts in an ACTIVE tanked ship while potentially being painted and webbed. Dude, two navy BS against your command ship... I only correct my own spelling. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
131
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 18:40:00 -
[1469] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I have just tried a triple-rep astarte vs 2 navy 'phoons on sisi.
The astarte was not able to hold its overheated tank for longer than 2 cycles of the dual medium capacitor boosters.
I don't think it's going to survive in a skirmish Fozzie... It either needs to be able to fit LARs, or it needs better resistances.
It's just too vulnerable against more than 1 opponent at the moment.
So you cannot solotank two ships known for their crazy damage-application SIMULTANIOUSLY while sitting under two heavyneuts in an ACTIVE tanked ship while potentially being painted and webbed. Dude, two navy BS against your command ship...
Relax Lloyd,
I am not suggesting that the astarte should be able to perma-tank them. I was sure that it would go down, but I am concerned that it went down a little too quickly to be a viable skirmish command ship
It was not capped out, it simply could not tank the damage for longer than 44 seconds.
That is not enough time for help to arrive.
|
Peter Tjordenskiold
101
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 19:13:00 -
[1470] - Quote
I'm just asking who needs all the command ships for PVE? Give some love to 0.0. At least one shield CS should have a shield bonus like the Damnation for armor. |
|
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 20:10:00 -
[1471] - Quote
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. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
452
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 20:39:00 -
[1472] - 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. |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 20:53:00 -
[1473] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Forum deleted my long post about hp/s for armor reps and shield reps I'm too busy to do it all again but basically Astarte/ eos 2 t2 med reps cap booster and 2 rigs gets about 160hp/s Claymore with xl asb 360hp/s with crystals 500+ Xl t2 boosters are less somewhere around 200 and 360 with crystals All with less slots Your quoting Burst tank for the Claymore. Sustainable tank = Burst Tank / 105 * 45 Sustainable Tank for Clay with your numbers is actually 154hp/s I take it you used 2xT2 rigs to get that 360 ? So your going to need 1 x cpu in low ( with Meta4 fit ) or ( 2 x cpu in low to go t2 launchers ) and also an injector 5 slots for armor 5/6 slots for shield 160 reps for the armor 154 reps for the shield Sounds pretty balanced to me.
I used no rigs for any of the shield numbers Only for armor And no sustainable is higher than that, but burst being an option is a huge deal, especially when u have the same sustainability but the same time having a huge burst tank,so yes that is why shield tankers almost always tank more I use both armor and shield (active tanking) and shield tanking is by far better in this regard, especially with oversized modules, especially with crystals, but it's less about that and more about these ships and attempting to balance these ships The eos is subpar by far, dps is "ok" and tank is meh, the only reason to use it over other ships in this lineup would be ... I'm not quite sure, being less of a threat than the Astarte next to you? And no project able dps is not it, having you heavies easily picked off with only 2 sets is laughable, using only medium drones is laughable, and as present sentries are not viable, and I'm not sure if they should be, literally anything the eos can do the Astarte can do slightly better, excluding tank, which will now be equal The eos is not super out of balance like it once was, but it IS a little too weak |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 20:59:00 -
[1474] - 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.
This is a very nice idea, would be quite interesting too see a combined bonus with some stuff like that 5% armor rep +5% armor rep speed 10% rep speed 5% cap reduction of reps Etc Could make quite interesting fits +1 |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
188
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 23:43:00 -
[1475] - 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.
I am sorry but what?!
I guess you guys just hate boosting so much you dont want anyone to actually use links, despite all the happy posting you guys did about large fleet fights in the past now you are doing everything you can to make command ships into.. I dont know what.
Give us a shield damnation (as in give us a damnation level tank on a shield ship as well)
DONT take away the one command ship that can actually survive in large fleet fights. The more I read about your command ship changes makes me VERY unhappy about my 15.8 million SP in leadership. Whats the point of all that training when I will get headshotted instantly and spend the rest of the fight in station.. every single time.
as to any.. you mad bro?
Yes. I am mad, but I am a girl so not a bro.. so shove it :P
|
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
309
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 00:08:00 -
[1476] - Quote
You see if he nerfs boosting hard enough then logistics will become useless, and fleets will turn into DPS vs EHP which is a lot easier to balance. It's all about eliminating variables from an equation. |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
188
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 00:12:00 -
[1477] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote: You see if he nerfs boosting hard enough then logistics will become useless, and fleets will turn into DPS vs EHP which is a lot easier to balance. It's all about eliminating variables from an equation.
*chuckles* that is true :) |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
134
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 00:29:00 -
[1478] - Quote
Lady Naween wrote: We understand boosting is good, too good atm. Which is why it is being toned down, and I dont think anyone has any issues with this. Boosting needs to be fixed. But for the love of the Amarr empire we need some tools to survive more then 2 seconds on grid.
I think Fozzie understands the concerns of fleet boosters very well Lady Naween. At the moment, even though I am no expert on fitting amarr ships I can fit a 200,000 ehp damnation using just the T2 mods available in the sisi station.
I don't think anyone would say that a 200,000 ehp battleship was "weak", even though it has a significantly larger sig radius than the damnation.
With deadspace/faction hardeners I imagine we'll see damnations with 400,000 ehp, which is getting close to being as strong as a carrier when the signature radius is taken into account.
I can't see that the damnation is in danger of being one-shotted at the moment, and I am sure Fozzie has no intention of making it thus.
My concern is that if I ever meet one, I'll have to treat it like I would a double-plated proteus... with the greatest respect and care.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1361
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 02:18:00 -
[1479] - Quote
I support the removal of all bonuses that make ships semi-unkillable. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
269
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 02:47:00 -
[1480] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:The EOS would tank gurista sanctums with one arm tied behind it's back, while singing Bohemian Rhapsody and performing a pole dance. If I saw it there though, I'd feel compelled to put it out of its misery...
...what... I don't even... +1 cause it made me laugh
TrouserDeagle wrote:Kind of surprised that CCP are actually intending for people to fit XLASBs on things that aren't battleships. I thought them being able to fit at all was just an unfortunate oversight. Being able to put the equivalent of about 5 LSEs in a single slot, without even the lol sig penalty, kind of crazy. WTB capless large armour repairer for my myrmidon.
Nerf plx, ASBs are stupid.
ASBs are fine, because they aren't 5 shield extenders. ASBs are an active tank module, and they can be overwhelmed by enough DPS, or wasted by pilot error, or never activated because of pilot error.
Also, the only good ASB is the XL variant, and that's because there is no XL shield extender, as was proven by the fact that you compared an XL module to a Large module. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
Anattha
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 02:51:00 -
[1481] - Quote
Then i just support 4 med slot absolution...because it finally does not correspond to its name |
Goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
495
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 03:19:00 -
[1482] - Quote
So if my math is right my 955dps Sleipnir that that could burst tank 2000dps for 60 seconds is going to become a 780dps Battlecruiser with a T2 Invul built in, that wont be able to fit the ASB burst tank (lost CPU and PG) and on top of that it lost 3 light drones as well.
Great another ship I can throw away thanks to the tieracide, I have lost 5 ships I loved to fly through this, after I lose this one I guess I will do what everyone else says and just go find something else to play.
Edit; Oh but the good news is an Autocannon ship will now be able to target out to 70km cause what Autocannons needed was an extra 25km of lock range.
Things that keep me up at night;-á Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state,-áOnce you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another. |
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
245
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 03:54:00 -
[1483] - Quote
I don't think command ships, in their combat roles, are quite where they need to be, tbh. This is obviously just opinion, but I think they should be above strategic cruisers in a pure combat role, and currently...well, that isn't the case. thhief ghabmoef |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
309
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 05:35:00 -
[1484] - Quote
It would be neat if the eos could fit guns into all 6 high slots. Not because of balance, but so that when it gets changed to the myrm model it has 6 guns. |
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 05:53:00 -
[1485] - 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.
ok so it will be useless as on grid command ship. Can i now have a sweet fleet amour HAM brawler since the new Sacri will fail at that role? +5 rate of fire to missiles? Please? No crappy bonuses? Please again?
EDIT: Either 7,5 RoF or 6th luncher for god's sake... stupid me. |
Vulfen
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 07:19:00 -
[1486] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote: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. ok so it will be useless as on grid command ship. Can i now have a sweet fleet amour HAM brawler since the new Sacri will fail at that role? +5 rate of fire to missiles? Please? No crappy bonuses? Please again?
@ CCP Fozzie
Why is the damnation so weak?
The damnation can be out DPSed by what is supposed to be the ship directly below it, The Sacrilege.
There is no way a AHAC should be able to out DPS its CS counterpart.
I think the damnation needs to be a full brawler so loose the Velocity to missiles and add it 7.5% RoF and change the damage down to 7.5%. Maybe give it 200-500 more base armour and take the hit point bonus down to 5% to compensate for this change
Currently with its bonuses the way they are this ship is still only gona fill one main role in a fleet. that would bring it to a closer par with the other ships |
The Spod
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 07:30:00 -
[1487] - Quote
A command ship is a fleet boostin specialist variant. It should never be as strong in combat as a navy battlecruiser. A regular battlecruiser ability is even pushing it, because the links have the potential of making a single ship worth a dozen in fleets.
The changes look good for all purposes except the tankability/gank ratio. Build the 50% hp bonuses into all ships and remove one or two effective turrets in compensation. EoS can live with 100 bandwidth. Reinforce CS as what they have become: a tough nut to crack whose boosts make you take a decision whether to kill it first or not. Don't have them compete in damage dealing with hac, BC, BS and other damage focused roles. |
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 08:01:00 -
[1488] - Quote
The Spod wrote:A command ship is a fleet boostin specialist variant. It should never be as strong in combat as a navy battlecruiser. A regular battlecruiser ability is even pushing it, because the links have the potential of making a single ship worth a dozen in fleets.
The changes look good for all purposes except the tankability/gank ratio. Build the 50% hp bonuses into all ships and remove one or two effective turrets in compensation. EoS can live with 100 bandwidth. Reinforce CS as what they have become: a tough nut to crack whose boosts make you take a decision whether to kill it first or not. Don't have them compete in damage dealing with hac, BC, BS and other damage focused roles.
I can see your point, but since CCP clearly doesnGÇÖt want to do this, then I would love to fly a Damnation as a heavy brawler before CCP finds a new "brilliant" role for it. If the +10 hp bonus is gone than i want a dmg bonus instead and not some other crap. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
156
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 11:05:00 -
[1489] - Quote
The Spod wrote:A command ship is a fleet boostin specialist variant. It should never be as strong in combat as a navy battlecruiser. A regular battlecruiser ability is even pushing it, because the links have the potential of making a single ship worth a dozen in fleets.
The changes look good for all purposes except the tankability/gank ratio. Build the 50% hp bonuses into all ships and remove one or two effective turrets in compensation. EoS can live with 100 bandwidth. Reinforce CS as what they have become: a tough nut to crack whose boosts make you take a decision whether to kill it first or not. Don't have them compete in damage dealing with hac, BC, BS and other damage focused roles.
I disagree, as having (as oh so many others) used command ships near exclusively as pimped up battlecruisers. If at all, the current 6 mids on the vulture and the 10% bufffer bonus the damnation has on the pro-side are just hints that THAT ship is your tanky fleetbrick.
I can't recall ever seeing Abso/Eos/Astarte/Sleipnir on grid -boosting - before like ever. Why would you want to pidgeonhole all those ships down into one role again :( As for the skillreqs, command ships take ages longer to train compared to navy BCs and are a god bit more expensive (like 170 to 250mil average against 220 to 320 latest I checked), why shouldn't they be able to compete with navy BCs? I only correct my own spelling. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
30
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 11:25:00 -
[1490] - Quote
The Problem is T2 is for specialized Roles and to be honest i can hardly see the specialized in the Command Ship changes, its just one Brick, and 7 Navy BC with option to more then one Warfare Link. |
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
140
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 11:29:00 -
[1491] - Quote
I think the answer to that is that the design team perceive that the game is a better one when players must make trade-offs in their decision making.
I happen to agree here.
If you make a CS more powerful than a navy BC in all respects, there's no reason to choose a navy BC once you can fly a CS, which obsoletes a whole line of ships.
As it stands, if you want good tank and fleet boosts, you choose a CS. If you want ultra-dps at the cost of tank and links, you choose a navy BC.
That seems reasonable to me.
|
Serenity Eon
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 11:30:00 -
[1492] - Quote
Vulfen wrote:Cassius Invictus wrote: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. ok so it will be useless as on grid command ship. Can i now have a sweet fleet amour HAM brawler since the new Sacri will fail at that role? +5 rate of fire to missiles? Please? No crappy bonuses? Please again? @ CCP Fozzie Why is the damnation so weak? The damnation can be out DPSed by what is supposed to be the ship directly below it, The Sacrilege. There is no way a AHAC should be able to out DPS its CS counterpart. I think the damnation needs to be a full brawler so loose the Velocity to missiles and add it 7.5% RoF and change the damage down to 7.5%. Maybe give it 200-500 more base armour and take the hit point bonus down to 5% to compensate for this change Currently with its bonuses the way they are this ship is still only gona fill one main role in a fleet. that would bring it to a closer par with the other ships
I agree with this, However I would remove the 10% hit point bonus instead. this would put the damnation on par with other CS and would remove any disparity between them. Either give all command ships a 10% hit point buffer, or remove it completely, simple as that.
Edit: No one likes flying a brick that does jack DPS :( |
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 11:59:00 -
[1493] - Quote
Serenity Eon wrote:
I agree with this, However I would remove the 10% hit point bonus instead. this would put the damnation on par with other CS and would remove any disparity between them. Either give all command ships a 10% hit point buffer, or remove it completely, simple as that.
Edit: No one likes flying a brick that does jack DPS :(
Hallelujah to you my brother! |
Goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
499
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:11:00 -
[1494] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I think the answer to that is that the design team perceive that the game is a better one when players must make trade-offs in their decision making.
I happen to agree here.
If you make a CS more powerful than a navy BC in all respects, there's no reason to choose a navy BC once you can fly a CS, which obsoletes a whole line of ships. But dedicating 4 months of training in addition to the BC skills should grant you a ship more powerful than any BC.
Quote:As it stands, if you want good tank and fleet boosts, you choose a CS. If you want ultra-dps at the cost of tank and links, you choose a navy BC.
you mean if you want paper tank and ultra DPS you fly the Teir 3 BC, after all that's what they were designed for.
Things that keep me up at night;-á Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state,-áOnce you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
453
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:43:00 -
[1495] - 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. |
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
167
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:48:00 -
[1496] - Quote
Serenity Eon wrote: I agree with this, However I would remove the 10% hit point bonus instead. this would put the damnation on par with other CS and would remove any disparity between them. Either give all command ships a 10% hit point buffer, or remove it completely, simple as that.
Edit: No one likes flying a brick that does jack DPS :(
Oh god. Must be a troll. A really bad one. I just lost faith in humanity. |
Serenity Eon
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 13:02:00 -
[1497] - Quote
bloodknight2 wrote:Serenity Eon wrote: I agree with this, However I would remove the 10% hit point bonus instead. this would put the damnation on par with other CS and would remove any disparity between them. Either give all command ships a 10% hit point buffer, or remove it completely, simple as that.
Edit: No one likes flying a brick that does jack DPS :(
Oh god. Must be a troll. A really bad one. I just lost faith in humanity.
Hypocrisy at its finest :P |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1229
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 13:15:00 -
[1498] - Quote
I am at work right now. so unable to do a proper link of eft fit. but i have to say i had a bunch of fun last night in an Astarte on SISI.
this was my first attempt at fitting and i wanted to go big everything.
high: 1 med nuet 1 med nos 5 nuetron blaster II
mid: 10 mwd 10 ab scram medium cap booster (800)
lows: MAAR dcu II 1600 plate II 2 energy adaptive membrain II RCU II
Rigs: 2 pg rigs
drones: 5 ecm 600 5 warrior II
now upon reflection i can allways drop to ions and then can take advantage of the rigs... but it was allot of fun. i killed a deimos then a cane then a curse.
I also used one of those active tanking pills that made the tank really good. the 1600 allows me to reload the MAAR.
i do have to say the nos was allot of help to keep my mods running bettween cap boosters. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
140
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 13:41:00 -
[1499] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I think the answer to that is that the design team perceive that the game is a better one when players must make trade-offs in their decision making.
I happen to agree here.
If you make a CS more powerful than a navy BC in all respects, there's no reason to choose a navy BC once you can fly a CS, which obsoletes a whole line of ships. But dedicating 4 months of training in addition to the BC skills should grant you a ship more powerful than any BC. Quote:As it stands, if you want good tank and fleet boosts, you choose a CS. If you want ultra-dps at the cost of tank and links, you choose a navy BC.
you mean if you want paper tank and ultra DPS you fly the Teir 3 BC, after all that's what they were designed for.
The 4 months of training gets you: all ships in fleet have better armour resistances so they live longer all ships in fleet fly faster all ships in fleet have a smaller signature radius so they live longer
... and various combinations of links ...
That's equivalent to an extra, say 3 slots on all the ships in the fleet (being conservative). For this I feel my training has been worthwhile.
paper tank: The comparison was drawn between a navy brutix and an astarte. The navy brutix can field an 80k ehp buffer while delivering 1000 overheated outgoing dps. This is by no means a paper tank.
The talos is not in a comparable class.
|
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 16:12:00 -
[1500] - Quote
Just let the cs how they are but allow all ships to fit these gang modules while the fleet cs still got the extra bonus. If people want to fit gang modules on the field cs instead of weapons, they can do it or if they dont want to fly the other one.
give amarr a bit more laser damage & tank give gallente bit more dronebay and dronedamge or something like that give caldari a bit more missile damage, no one will fit hybrid weapons on a tanky vulture really give minmatar a bit more agility and speed + scanresolution etc.
To nerf shield on armor ships and armor on shield ships to make this more real is OK. To boost so much locking range on a cs is not that optimal in my opinion, u have other stuff/things for that. Why nerf or boost pg and cpu so hard? How can i fit the damnation with serveral plates now :) Really make small changes please.
+ some smaller adjust. like sensor strength |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4520
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 17:28:00 -
[1501] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:I am at work right now. so unable to do a proper link of eft fit. but i have to say i had a bunch of fun last night in an Astarte on SISI.
this was my first attempt at fitting and i wanted to go big everything.
high: 1 med nuet 1 med nos 5 nuetron blaster II
mid: 10 mwd 10 ab scram medium cap booster (800)
lows: MAAR dcu II 1600 plate II 2 energy adaptive membrain II RCU II
Rigs: 2 pg rigs
drones: 5 ecm 600 5 warrior II
now upon reflection i can allways drop to ions and then can take advantage of the rigs... but it was allot of fun. i killed a deimos then a cane then a curse.
I also used one of those active tanking pills that made the tank really good. the 1600 allows me to reload the MAAR.
i do have to say the nos was allot of help to keep my mods running bettween cap boosters.
It's been patiently explained to me how the new NOS mechanic nerfs them into complete uselessness... especially against same size or smaller targets... regardless of how much cap your ship burns (and certainly on any ship using a Neut or a Cap Booster).
Nice to see practical use proving them wrong. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 17:34:00 -
[1502] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
Can you please explain why that applies only to T2 hulls while T1 have no issues with fittings? Or it's a some sort of an achievement after months of training? |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4520
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 17:47:00 -
[1503] - Quote
Cyaron wars wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. Can you please explain why that applies only to T2 hulls while T1 have no issues with fittings? Or it's a some sort of an achievement after months of training? That's to fit 3 links. Fitting two is easier, but if you want to go the full Monty there will be some sacrifices here and there to be made.
Unless you're trying to say that T1 ships can max every aspect of their fit with no sacrifices, including mounting 2 or 3 links? To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:18:00 -
[1504] - Quote
I am not talking about particular case, I am talking about concept that Fozzie is mentioning - Sacrifice something to get another thing. Nearly every T2 ship already has that and will face same issue in future while T1 ships can fit best mods for them. I mean guns, tank mods etc.Dual ASB cyclone has to use less fitting mods like co-processor while dual ASB claymore with T2 hams is impossible to fit even with T2 PG rig and RCU, you just won't have CPU to fit anything else. Also active tanked vagabond with 4 med slots is dumbest thing I ever seen. Also shield ships are able to fit X-large boosters while armor are limited by reps of their class like med for cruiser/BC. Same goes for Dual ASB ships vs single AAR ships. If CCP wants to keep concept of "sacrifice" running, then they should apply it to ALL ships across the board. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7395
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:25:00 -
[1505] - Quote
Cyaron wars wrote:I am not talking about particular case, I am talking about concept that Fozzie is mentioning - Sacrifice something to get another thing. Nearly every T2 ship already has that and will face same issue in future while T1 ships can fit best mods for them. I mean guns, tank mods etc.Dual ASB cyclone has to use less fitting mods like co-processor while dual ASB claymore with T2 hams is impossible to fit even with T2 PG rig and RCU, you just won't have CPU to fit anything else. Also active tanked vagabond with 4 med slots is dumbest thing I ever seen. Also shield ships are able to fit X-large boosters while armor are limited by reps of their class like med for cruiser/BC. Same goes for Dual ASB ships vs single AAR ships. If CCP wants to keep concept of "sacrifice" running, then they should apply it to ALL ships across the board.
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
448
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:33:00 -
[1506] - Quote
Cyaron wars wrote:I am not talking about particular case, I am talking about concept that Fozzie is mentioning - Sacrifice something to get another thing. Nearly every T2 ship already has that and will face same issue in future while T1 ships can fit best mods for them. I mean guns, tank mods etc.Dual ASB cyclone has to use less fitting mods like co-processor while dual ASB claymore with T2 hams is impossible to fit even with T2 PG rig and RCU, you just won't have CPU to fit anything else. Also active tanked vagabond with 4 med slots is dumbest thing I ever seen. Also shield ships are able to fit X-large boosters while armor are limited by reps of their class like med for cruiser/BC. Same goes for Dual ASB ships vs single AAR ships. If CCP wants to keep concept of "sacrifice" running, then they should apply it to ALL ships across the board. Don't forget that for the most part, T2 ships can do something "special" that T1 can't. So, while T1 can do with having more fitting vs T2, it can't ever offer that "something special" that T2 can.
I do have to agree with you, however, regarding some questionable "balancing" choices, like allowing oversized, capless and not limited to 1 for XLASBs but limiting armor tanking to cap-intensive, only same class, limited to 1 per ship on AARs. At the same time, though, there's some value in some limitations. I mean look at how 1600 plates are more or less required on anything cruiser-sized and larger. Since that's the case, why even have 800mm in the game? Along those same lines, who has ever used a 50mm or 100mm plate?
Inherent differences with armor tanking vs shield tanking are good things. They'll be better things when resist bonuses for armor don't outclass active tanking by leaps and bounds.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Valterra Craven
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:39:00 -
[1507] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: 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.
That explains everything then... /threadover.
I thought that icnarnia taught you guys something... namely that pissing off your player base constantly was a sure fire way to lose business...
I don't understand the logic in making player investment in the game less worthwhile. It deifies all common sense.
I'm by no means saying that fitting t2 ships should be easy... what I am saying is that it should be easier than it is when considering all fitting skills to 5...
What exactly is the cost benefit analysis here...? Spending more time and money to get less just doesn't add up.
Edit: At least now I understand WHY you are making the choices you are with this pass since the rest of my questions in the link thread weren't able to. |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:40:00 -
[1508] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Cyaron wars wrote:I am not talking about particular case, I am talking about concept that Fozzie is mentioning - Sacrifice something to get another thing. Nearly every T2 ship already has that and will face same issue in future while T1 ships can fit best mods for them. I mean guns, tank mods etc.Dual ASB cyclone has to use less fitting mods like co-processor while dual ASB claymore with T2 hams is impossible to fit even with T2 PG rig and RCU, you just won't have CPU to fit anything else. Also active tanked vagabond with 4 med slots is dumbest thing I ever seen. Also shield ships are able to fit X-large boosters while armor are limited by reps of their class like med for cruiser/BC. Same goes for Dual ASB ships vs single AAR ships. If CCP wants to keep concept of "sacrifice" running, then they should apply it to ALL ships across the board. 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.
Well, I can say that even max skilled pilot cannot fit dual ASB Claymore. Not that I am stuck on particular ship, but I for example love to fly my dualasb sleipnir and engage gangs. In future I won't be able to do so even if I will spend trillions of ISK on fitting mods and implants. I admit that dualasb is kinda crap but that's only thing that keeps me alive against everything else, I would gladly fly dualrep eos or Astarte but unfortunately those ships even with rep bonus and 2x reps running cannot compete with ASB. So this patch is killing one of the best balanced solo ship ever making it yet another part in blob warfare. This is what I will never understand, you are putting 2 ships for each race doing same thing but with different guns. If we are speaking about uniqueness then why you are putting them doing same stuff? You really think anyone actually cares about links putting extra dps on field? I doubt it. Let's take Damnation with it's bonuses. Damn enyo can outdps that ship. What Damnation suppose to do in small gang? Apply it's 300 dps?? or tank them all to death? Why don't u just split them as they were before? They were not amazing but were still better compared to what they will become now. You could leave Caymore as command ship while leaving more combat role to sleipnir, you could do same to every other ship and slightly boosting armor reps for them.
Just to show you what that ship is capable off see this link and tell me if it will be able to do anything like that after you will tweak it? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
453
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:42:00 -
[1509] - 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. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7396
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:48:00 -
[1510] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
453
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:53:00 -
[1511] - 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. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
311
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:53:00 -
[1512] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
The problem with this approach is that you lose any kind of flexibility while fitting because ships are designed to have very tight specific fits.
But that's just my opinion. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7397
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:58:00 -
[1513] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. The problem with this approach is that you lose any kind of flexibility while fitting because ships are designed to have very tight specific fits. But that's just my opinion.
Except that we don't design the fitting values with specific fits in mind (although we do tend to come up with a bunch of example fits internally to make sure we're not too far off the mark with fittings).
One of the great things about EVE is that you can do all kinds of crazy stuff with fittings and it can often work. T2 just requires a bit more SP and player experience to understand how to take advantage of it, that's all. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 19:01:00 -
[1514] - Quote
CCP has his ideas and thats its, simple.
I am over all dissapointed of these changes, sad ccp.
Give us back 2 cs roles, one for fast engagments with high dps, decent tank and the possibilty to fit very well with high SP. On the other hand, take the cs role with high resistance tank and gankboni or with some utility-tools like good neuts. By the way that about gang modul fo more damage? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
453
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 19:06:00 -
[1515] - 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. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 19:10:00 -
[1516] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. The problem with this approach is that you lose any kind of flexibility while fitting because ships are designed to have very tight specific fits. But that's just my opinion.
I have to admit i can life with that because T2 should be specialized, if i want a flexibel Ship i choose Faction Stuff or T3.
The Problem is i cant see the specialized function as Fleet Booster in Command Ships, because we dont have any ships besides the Damnation because they choose Damage over Durability which is strange and because of the new Navy BCs this role is already taken.
After OGB is removed, Command Ships should be the FIRST and the LAST Ship in a fight, regardless of Gang or Fleet but you cant boosting until the end, you got shot down first, because of Damage AND Booster in combination with average defense you will always the first target because of the insanly high value, regardless of gang or fleet.
This is in my opinion the complete opposite of specialized. |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
235
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 19:34:00 -
[1517] - Quote
The Nighthawk still needs more fitting and the low slot needs to be moved to the midslot for Christs sake.
CCP Fozzie wrote: 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.
Specialization? You have got to be kidding me, the role bonus and configuration is the specialize, I fail to see how making the fitting gimped compared to Tier 1 is ideal.
You made Command ships to be able to gank, tank, and command, or one or the other. How are supposed to do that if you don't give us the means to do so. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1230
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 19:47:00 -
[1518] - Quote
Cyaron wars wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Cyaron wars wrote:I am not talking about particular case, I am talking about concept that Fozzie is mentioning - Sacrifice something to get another thing. Nearly every T2 ship already has that and will face same issue in future while T1 ships can fit best mods for them. I mean guns, tank mods etc.Dual ASB cyclone has to use less fitting mods like co-processor while dual ASB claymore with T2 hams is impossible to fit even with T2 PG rig and RCU, you just won't have CPU to fit anything else. Also active tanked vagabond with 4 med slots is dumbest thing I ever seen. Also shield ships are able to fit X-large boosters while armor are limited by reps of their class like med for cruiser/BC. Same goes for Dual ASB ships vs single AAR ships. If CCP wants to keep concept of "sacrifice" running, then they should apply it to ALL ships across the board. 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. Well, I can say that even max skilled pilot cannot fit dual ASB Claymore. Not that I am stuck on particular ship, but I for example love to fly my dualasb sleipnir and engage gangs. In future I won't be able to do so even if I will spend trillions of ISK on fitting mods and implants. I admit that dualasb is kinda crap but that's only thing that keeps me alive against everything else, I would gladly fly dualrep eos or Astarte but unfortunately those ships even with rep bonus and 2x reps running cannot compete with ASB. So this patch is killing one of the best balanced solo ship ever making it yet another part in blob warfare. This is what I will never understand, you are putting 2 ships for each race doing same thing but with different guns. If we are speaking about uniqueness then why you are putting them doing same stuff? You really think anyone actually cares about links putting extra dps on field? I doubt it. Let's take Damnation with it's bonuses. Damn enyo can outdps that ship. What Damnation suppose to do in small gang? Apply it's 300 dps?? or tank them all to death? Why don't u just split them as they were before? They were not amazing but were still better compared to what they will become now. You could leave Caymore as command ship while leaving more combat role to sleipnir, you could do same to every other ship and slightly boosting armor reps for them. Just to show you what that ship is capable off see this link and tell me if it will be able to do anything like that after you will tweak it?
does the duel asb fit on the slip work with 220's or duel 180's?
true an enyo can out dps a damnation but then again how much ehp does that enyo have? is it close to 300k ehp?
astarte is does not shine in duel rep... it fits much better MAAR+1600 tank...
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1230
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 19:49:00 -
[1519] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. The problem with this approach is that you lose any kind of flexibility while fitting because ships are designed to have very tight specific fits. But that's just my opinion. Except that we don't design the fitting values with specific fits in mind (although we do tend to come up with a bunch of example fits internally to make sure we're not too far off the mark with fittings). One of the great things about EVE is that you can do all kinds of crazy stuff with fittings and it can often work. T2 just requires a bit more SP and player experience to understand how to take advantage of it, that's all.
do not worry i still lub yeah! just let me know when the rattlesnake will loose its missile velocity bonus and gain a drone tracking/optimal range bonus...
also why on g-ds green earth does the eos have one less slot but only 250m3 drone bay? There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 20:19:00 -
[1520] - Quote
jeah plesae give eos a bigger dronebay and not these damn tracking bonuses lol absolutopn damage is also quite awful against the astarte with like 800-900dps np. |
|
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
353
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 20:23:00 -
[1521] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: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? Command ships are command ships. They are different just like Logistics, HACs, Dreads, Titans etc. are different across races
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4217
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 20:49:00 -
[1522] - Quote
I'm opening a petition to inform CCP Fozzies account has been hacked. No way these posts are from the real CCP Fozzie. . |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4217
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 20:52:00 -
[1523] - Quote
Florian Kuehne wrote:absolutopn damage is also quite awful against the astarte with like 800-900dps np. Astarte has to be at point blank rage to apply that DPS. What range does the Absolution need to be at in order to apply its DPS? . |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1230
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 20:58:00 -
[1524] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:I'm opening a petition to inform CCP Fozzies account has been hacked. No way these posts are from the real CCP Fozzie.
why not? afaik he is on his way back to T.Dot for vaca and to come to the event... so chances are he is loaded on booze and having a good time on the plane home. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1230
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 21:00:00 -
[1525] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Florian Kuehne wrote:absolutopn damage is also quite awful against the astarte with like 800-900dps np. Astarte has to be at point blank rage to apply that DPS. What range does the Absolution need to be at in order to apply its DPS?
when ever i read point blank range it reminds me of duck hunter back in the day when i would put the gun up to the screen to make sure i did not miss. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 21:04:00 -
[1526] - Quote
even with null m u have more dps than the absolution and this by equal range |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4217
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 23:39:00 -
[1527] - Quote
Florian Kuehne wrote:even with null m u have more dps than the absolution and this by equal range What is the applied DPS between the two ships outside of scram range? . |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
145
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 23:57:00 -
[1528] - Quote
surely that depends on the fits?
Isn't the absolution designed to be a fleet booster, with a great deal more ehp but less need to apply damage, and the astarte an armour skirmish booster with a requirement to move, tank and deal damage where possible?
I don't think you can compare raw numbers in the same situation because these ships are designed for very different roles.
|
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
79
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 00:03:00 -
[1529] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. The problem with this approach is that you lose any kind of flexibility while fitting because ships are designed to have very tight specific fits. But that's just my opinion. Except that we don't design the fitting values with specific fits in mind (although we do tend to come up with a bunch of example fits internally to make sure we're not too far off the mark with fittings). One of the great things about EVE is that you can do all kinds of crazy stuff with fittings and it can often work. T2 just requires a bit more SP and player experience to understand how to take advantage of it, that's all.
This explains a lot. I think its a little odd though. I would think that T2 should have enough fitting to fit a complete T2 fit without fitting mods. Top tier weapons, a prop mod, and some kind of defense. Or downgraded weapons, a prop mod, and a strong defense. I think in a lot of cases its in that range but often T2 ships seem to be making to many sacrifices even with what I would consider basic fits, but now at least I know why.
I hope CCP comes out with that ring mining moon goo soon, cause the farther this re-balancing goes it seems less and less worth it to put up the extra cost for the benefit of T2 over T1. If it was really only 2x the cost for 25% better that would be fine but in many cases its 10x the cost for 10% better. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
81
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 02:30:00 -
[1530] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:surely that depends on the fits?
Isn't the absolution designed to be a fleet booster, with a great deal more ehp but less need to apply damage, and the astarte an armour skirmish booster with a requirement to move, tank and deal damage where possible?
I don't think you can compare raw numbers in the same situation because these ships are designed for very different roles.
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. |
|
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 06:42:00 -
[1531] - Quote
well the fleet bosster should be the damnation and not the absolution but ccp is trying to force this dumb decision.
On Sisi i got on the Absolution(both ships with 3x Damagemod) like 750dps or so on short range(Confl M) while the Astarte with Void m got over 1000dps, even with null m over 700 dps. Scorch M on the absol give u about 530.
I think this is a quite big difference. |
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
1459
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 09:40:00 -
[1532] - Quote
I still wish commandships just dropped 150km range command probes instead of giving out bonuses as a ship http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
156
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 10:15:00 -
[1533] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:surely that depends on the fits?
Isn't the absolution designed to be a fleet booster, with a great deal more ehp but less need to apply damage, and the astarte an armour skirmish booster with a requirement to move, tank and deal damage where possible?
I don't think you can compare raw numbers in the same situation because these ships are designed for very different roles.
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.
The Abso is very decent using both pulses and beams. Pulses got the tracking, beams got (using vanilla 2 heatsinks) 620 dps at 18k, 360dps at ~60k. It really isn't terrible. Advantage of Pulses: You can even take some smartbombs (with fitting acrobatics) or neuts/nos along!
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 I only correct my own spelling. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
767
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 10:35:00 -
[1534] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:...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 Doesn't that go triple for the Absolution with its less drones, less tracking, less midslots, less tank, less everything really .. except Scorch range?
Absolution is in a bad place if it is to be the dps/vanguard hull, granted the Devs may have laser changes in mind and thus deliberately underbuffing the hull, but if that is the case then we really ought to know.
PS: Scorch has been used to justify sub-par performance of practically all laser hulls since forever which is just plain wrong. If I had the choice between fun competitive ships and a narrow niche (projection only) single ammo type I'd choose the former every day of the week .. (read: Nerf Scorch already so that Amarr can get rid of that damn crutch once and for all). |
Alsyth
83
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 10:36:00 -
[1535] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: 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.
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.
So armor ones are really easy to fit, shield ones are a nightmare unless you go for the passive fit. And you end up with less EHP than armor CS which still has 2 MAR+cap booster...
By making fitting -very- tight for shield CS with passive fits you just totally ruined their active tanking fits, while armor can still do both effectively (at the same time if they downgrade guns, without a fitting mod even!).
Nighthawk slot layout is still waiting for a fix... |
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 10:37:00 -
[1536] - Quote
The astarte got bonus for falloff range btw so it has quite a good range in comparison to the abso. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
533
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 12:52:00 -
[1537] - Quote
Give the Abso 11 relative turrets like the astarte... |
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 13:07:00 -
[1538] - 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.
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
Quote: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) So I gather from the description, the nighthawk is to be used as a battlecruiser only not a command ship? Even once link fitting requirements are lowered (with all lv 5's) you need to drop 3 launchers to fit 3 links, 4 if you want to fit an MWD and give it a little survivability by putting a mediocre tank on it. Now if you don't care about DPS or HP they will work well but I thought the idea of the rebalancing ( for want of actually calling it what it is - a massive nerf, to an already below par T2 ship) was in line with the plan to remove off grid boosting. Unless of course there are plans to "rebalance" them again when off grid boosting is removed. If not, simply scrap warfare link bonuses for caldari and give the command ships a usable bonus instead. You want to make them usable - slot layout, 7h, 6m, 4 l and give back the bonus to rapid light missiles. It would still be a mediocre command ship but would at least be usable. ( I for 1 can't afford to fly 300+ mil throw away ships)
NB; It might be a nice idea if you did some fitting tests before releasing these upcoming changes. The plan is to have command ships boosting ongrid in the future?? Try to make sure they are capable of dealing "some" DPS and have the ability to fit a tank relevant to the risk they will face being the primary target of every encounter. For large scale fleets this is probably not an issue but not everyone wants to fly in 2000 man fleets. Try balancing them to suit the average fleet of say + - 100, where the boosting ship is required to do more than just sit there getting reps to stay alive as long as possible.. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
150
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 13:33:00 -
[1539] - Quote
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.
|
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
667
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 13:48:00 -
[1540] - 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.
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?
OMG when can i get a pic here
|
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
150
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 14:05:00 -
[1541] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote: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. 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?
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.
|
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 14:28:00 -
[1542] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: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 |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
150
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 14:44:00 -
[1543] - Quote
Capt Canada wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: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
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?
|
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 14:47:00 -
[1544] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote: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. 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? 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. 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. The idea should be to get all command ships usable, the current imbalance is too wide but rather than nerfing the damnation down, all command ships should receive a buff to make using them in a combat situation viable. Justifiable numbers would be nearly impossible unless you also have set fleet makeup and numbers. |
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 15:13:00 -
[1545] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Capt Canada wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: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 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? It's not really about an exact number, it's more about fitting trade offs, base PG of 900 compared to the next lowest of 1100 (claymore). These 2 ships have basically the same fitting and role requirements. Claymore has all round better attributes, with good skills you can actually use all the highs (3 links 4 launchers) and have 6 usable mid slots and the option to use rig slots for something other than fitting mods. I'd like to have a caldari command ship I can use for something other than anoms. 5 lows is a waste, 7h 6 m 4 l
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
151
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 15:19:00 -
[1546] - Quote
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:
The numbers are with a siege warfare implant, bad drone skills, and no other implants for drugs - but include the siege boosts.
Nighthawk: high slots: 3 siege boosters, 4 heavy missiles, navy scourge med slots: EM ward II, infvuln II, LSB II x 2, 10mn MWD (meta-3) low slots: DC II, ballistic control II x 2, nanofiber II, PDU II rigs: T1 field extenders (I dont have the skills for T2)
Stats: EHP: 122,395 (unheated) Resists: 81/93/89/81 (unheated) shield recharge: 55hp/s = approx 250dps peak (unheated)
damage output (for me): 300dps to 54km. This will increase with better skills to about 400 i think (unheated).
122k ehp does not suggest to me that this ship will die immediately - it's the same as a battleship.
I'd be happy to take this in a moderately-sized shield fleet. No, it's not going to survive massive alpha from 2000 ships. I guess it's designed for durability in a smaller fleet with some logi. If that is the design goal, then it has met its targets. If the design goal is "massive fleet alpha" then it has probably not.
So, some questions:
Q1: what are your design goals? What size alpha do you need to counter? Q2: Does the ship meet the criteria while providing link boosts?
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?
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
533
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 15:36:00 -
[1547] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
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?
It's my understanding that the old "Field Commands" are still buggy when fitting multiple links. I thought this was fixed but in the case of the NH it seems to not be.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
152
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 15:47:00 -
[1548] - Quote
I've reported it to the ISD Help fella since the bug reporting system is itself bugged |
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
171
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 15:51:00 -
[1549] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:
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.
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)
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
767
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 17:01:00 -
[1550] - Quote
Capt Canada wrote:...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... Only one thing will save links from alpha when they come on grid, adopting a pragmatic approach by having enough baskets for ones eggs. Look at the command redundancy built into modern armies, order givers start appearing all the way down at a squad level whereas in Eve we have gotten accustomed to having one big cheese.
Of course that paradigm change that is necessitated by eventual on-grid change will force CCP to cook up a more fluid way of assigning boosters as they should be expected to be near top of primary lists, if only to test tanks and having to manually assign boosters throughout a fight will drive people mad(der). Another thing that might help on the extreme end of the scale is the Spectrum Breaker, a novel idea when they introed it but it kind of fizzled. Redesign/fix it and add a bonus to its use on CC's, effectively making them immune to pure alpha headshots.
The self same paradigm change is the reason why ALL the CC's should be on roughly equal footing when it comes to damage/application/tanking which is simply not the case with Damnation being the odd one out with even less output than its HAC counterpart but being able to brick itself.
In other words: It is impossible to balance anything to function on the large scale without unbalancing it on all other scales, so paradigms (read: fleet compositions) must be reevaluated and CCP must develop ways/means to ease that shift.
Luckily for CCP the heavy load won't come until links actually are to come on-grid so they have oodles of time to do the napkin dance and sketch out a solution .. but unless we are all willing to go through another CC balance pass when that glorious day arrives the fact that they are coming on-grid should be included in any and all deliberations this time around (all comes down to Dev time as with most things ) |
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
156
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 18:12:00 -
[1551] - Quote
bloodknight2 wrote:Alsyth wrote:
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.
http://i52.tinypic.com/1zwypsg.jpgOne 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)
I'd like to note that, while the ASB-fits are just better buffer-over-time fits, a classic dual-MAR/plate hybrid-fit has a good chance of creating insane amounts of EHP over the course of a fight. Dual-MAR on an armorlink-eos (bringing that one with such a tank on the field is not that unrealistic) hands you a ship tanking 1.3k EHP on paper, or a tenth of your actual buffer every ~6 seconds. Also has 130k EHP and literally no dps.
A much more reasonable approach for a rather all-purpose fit would still leave you with 3 links, a plate and an ancil MAR, repairing around 40k with each magazine, while capusage is so minimal it barely matters. I only correct my own spelling. |
Grutpig Cloudwalker
The Skulls
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 18:56:00 -
[1552] - Quote
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. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
152
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 19:05:00 -
[1553] - Quote
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...
|
Goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
503
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 19:05:00 -
[1554] - 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. 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.
Things that keep me up at night;-á Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state,-áOnce you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
767
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 19:10:00 -
[1555] - Quote
bloodknight2 wrote:Alsyth wrote:
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.
http://i52.tinypic.com/1zwypsg.jpgOne 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) You are missing his point I think, he is talking about the horribleness of CCP not letting him fit double oversized mods with room to spare for everything else when the armour hulls can fit appropriately sized mods with little to no sacrifices.
He is one of the many people who thinks that the point of tiericide is to buff everything in sight when it is "merely" a great big balance pass which includes module size/fitting discrepancies .. oversizing has been a scourge and I for one am glad it is being addressed although they are too cautious for my taste
Just wait until T3's get their turn in the wringer and the various 100mn fits are nerfed into extinction .. that is when the real fun starts
|
Grutpig Cloudwalker
The Skulls
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 19:54:00 -
[1556] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote: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. 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.
I am assuming that 200+ sized fleets in most cases would fight other fleets of similar sizes. And when such big fleets are focus firing the CS, it would buy him a few extra seconds at best.
I also proposed extra HP for a reason, as all it does is buy you some time. It doesnt improve your Active tanking capabilities much. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
34
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 20:08:00 -
[1557] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: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...
Sry, but you missed the entire Problem, we dont want unkillable Command Ships, we just dont want to die first every time you Warp on Grid. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
200
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 21:21:00 -
[1558] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: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 ...
That's nice.
Now do basically the same thing for the Claymore, and you'll end up with a significantly better ship. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
456
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 21:24:00 -
[1559] - 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. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
767
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 21:54:00 -
[1560] - Quote
Grutpig Cloudwalker wrote:Regarding the EHP issue of command ships especially in massive battles, I would suggest the following... Server must be keeping track of who/how many are receiving boosts at any given time for it to assign said bonuses .. just add 0.25-0.50% primary EHP buffer (shield/armour) per ship being boosted ... run a survey every five minutes or whichever is prudent to conserve hamster lives.
Basically use the scaling which is responsible for breaking EHP bonuses when applied "raw" to prevent same.
NB: That is contingent on the way boosters are assigned remaining relatively as is, ie. only one per 'level'. |
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
155
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 23:52:00 -
[1561] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: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 ...
That's nice. Now do basically the same thing for the Claymore, and you'll end up with a significantly better ship.
The claymore has different link bonuses. It's not a comparable ship as it serves a different purpose.
Furthermore:
a. define better b. better at what? c. under what circumstances?
Any why can't you do it? Why do you want me to fit your ship for you?
|
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
194
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 05:36:00 -
[1562] - Quote
I love how Fozzie just keeps skirting the issue we bring up.
Really Fozzie
TALK TO US!
I guess you guys just hate boosting so much you dont want anyone to actually use links, despite all the happy posting you guys did about large fleet fights in the past now you are doing everything you can to make command ships into.. I dont know what.
Give us a shield damnation (as in give us a damnation level tank on a shield ship as well)
DONT take away the one command ship that can actually survive in large fleet fights. The more I read about your command ship changes makes me VERY unhappy about my 15.8 million SP in leadership. Whats the point of all that training when I will get headshotted instantly and spend the rest of the fight in station.. every single time.
as to any.. you mad bro?
Yes. I am mad, but I am a girl so not a bro.. so shove it :P
Really, there is no need for both command ships of each race to be a dps monster. A role I think is odd for a command ship but it seems many want it. Fine, let the old field command ships do that, fleet command ships should be.. COMMAND ships.. for fleets. and the only one we can use now is the damnation.. (until you nerf it).. and really.. is that good balance? ONE viable ship.. and no the answer isnt to nerf the damnation, normally I would say.. yes nerfing one ship is better then boosting 3. but in this case if you nerf the damnation it does become useless. Give us the tools to have large fun fleet fights. If you nerf the damnation all you will see is more offgrid stuff (Until you totally remove that then we have to find other ways around the fact that a nerfed damnation is useless).
Really why cant you actually come out here and discuss it with us Fozzie? Explain to us why you feel the damnation should be the only usabable fleet ship (something you said before that you where happy it was the only one) andnow you want to nerf it. Explain yourself or you will see us still being mad at you. Come on Fozzie!! Be a human being and talk to us. We really aren't unreasonable, we WANT to be on field and have fun. But not if we got a HUGE target on our head AND no means to survive it.
We understand boosting is good, too good atm. Which is why it is being toned down, and I dont think anyone has any issues with this. Boosting needs to be fixed. But for the love of the Amarr empire we need some tools to survive more then 2 seconds on grid.
|
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
34
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 07:11:00 -
[1563] - Quote
Give Damnation a RoF bonus in place of the hp one and buff the base hp up to Absolution levels, only ship to get a hp bonus is just a terrible idea, and its dps currently is appauling. The only armor missle CS does terrible damage which is really dissapointing for us Khanid lovers |
S1dy
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 11:37:00 -
[1564] - Quote
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. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
157
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 11:39:00 -
[1565] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: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...
Sry, but you missed the entire Problem, we dont want unkillable Command Ships, we just dont want to die first every time you Warp on Grid.
With respect, a command ship that can survive big-fleet alpha sounds to me like an unkillable ship since as soon as it's yellow-boxed it will call reps on itself.
It is patiently obvious that on some scale, fleet alpha will overwhelm any ship. Whether it's a battleship, command ship or titan.
The question is not, "should it be able to withstand alpha". The question should be, "how much alpha do we want it to be able to withstand?"
If you can put a number on that then you can ask the devs to make it happen.
At the moment, that number for an amarr command ship is something like 250k, and for a caldari one somewhat less (although these numbers are affected positively by faction and deadspace tank).
As it stands, if you want a fleet command ship to withstand 1 million hit points of damage, then it's going to have to be a carrier or titan.
So. Give the devs a number and argue a case for it. Terms such as "big fleets", "huge alpha" are subjective and meaningless to a designer. He needs concrete numbers.
|
S1dy
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 12:02:00 -
[1566] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: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...
Sry, but you missed the entire Problem, we dont want unkillable Command Ships, we just dont want to die first every time you Warp on Grid. With respect, a command ship that can survive big-fleet alpha sounds to me like an unkillable ship since as soon as it's yellow-boxed it will call reps on itself. It is patiently obvious that on some scale, fleet alpha will overwhelm any ship. Whether it's a battleship, command ship or titan. The question is not, "should it be able to withstand alpha". The question should be, "how much alpha do we want it to be able to withstand?" If you can put a number on that then you can ask the devs to make it happen. At the moment, that number for an amarr command ship is something like 250k, and for a caldari one somewhat less (although these numbers are affected positively by faction and deadspace tank). As it stands, if you want a fleet command ship to withstand 1 million hit points of damage, then it's going to have to be a carrier or titan. So. Give the devs a number and argue a case for it. Terms such as "big fleets", "huge alpha" are subjective and meaningless to a designer. He needs concrete numbers.
You suck my friend. First you should read the whole thread before spamming with this ****. I would bet there are at least 30 ebtries stating a number: It should be like the Damnation is on TQ right now. And there ar tradeoffs to do, for sure. We never stated we wanna have an overpimped ship that won't die in a fire and does descent DPS. We just want ships that are in every race able to tank as much as the Damnation does right now. See my entry just before yours.
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
456
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 12:03:00 -
[1567] - 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. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
767
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 12:26:00 -
[1568] - Quote
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.
|
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 12:30:00 -
[1569] - Quote
The Eos shoud have a bit more hp and dronebay and its fine. If its to high, then u have a better Domi in small. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
456
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 12:47:00 -
[1570] - 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. |
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
157
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 12:53:00 -
[1571] - Quote
S1dy wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: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...
Sry, but you missed the entire Problem, we dont want unkillable Command Ships, we just dont want to die first every time you Warp on Grid. With respect, a command ship that can survive big-fleet alpha sounds to me like an unkillable ship since as soon as it's yellow-boxed it will call reps on itself. It is patiently obvious that on some scale, fleet alpha will overwhelm any ship. Whether it's a battleship, command ship or titan. The question is not, "should it be able to withstand alpha". The question should be, "how much alpha do we want it to be able to withstand?" If you can put a number on that then you can ask the devs to make it happen. At the moment, that number for an amarr command ship is something like 250k, and for a caldari one somewhat less (although these numbers are affected positively by faction and deadspace tank). As it stands, if you want a fleet command ship to withstand 1 million hit points of damage, then it's going to have to be a carrier or titan. So. Give the devs a number and argue a case for it. Terms such as "big fleets", "huge alpha" are subjective and meaningless to a designer. He needs concrete numbers. You suck my friend. First you should read the whole thread before spamming with this ****. I would bet there are at least 30 ebtries stating a number: It should be like the Damnation is on TQ right now. And there ar tradeoffs to do, for sure. We never stated we wanna have an overpimped ship that won't die in a fire and does descent DPS. We just want ships that are in every race able to tank as much as the Damnation does right now. See my entry just before yours.
Forgive me for sucking. I do not see you state a number. "as much as the damnation does now" depends on many factors. Skills, modules etc. So it is not a number by which we can measure performance, otherwise known as a "metric".
For example, have you tried to fit up a caldari command ship and then overheated the invulnerability fields, or fitted navy versions, or deadspace? Presumably in a large fleet engagement, this is what will be fitted.
Do that and check the numbers. I think you might be surprised how much alpha these ships will withstand.
Fearing that I labour my point, please state exactly how much alpha tolerance is "enough". Then measure each ship's performance against that metric. Then decide whether the ships (and I) suck.
/MC |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
157
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 13:13:00 -
[1572] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: Forgive me for sucking. I do not see you state a number. "as much as the damnation does now" depends on many factors. Skills, modules etc. So it is not a number by which we can measure performance, otherwise known as a "metric".
For example, have you tried to fit up a caldari command ship and then overheated the invulnerability fields, or fitted navy versions, or deadspace? Presumably in a large fleet engagement, this is what will be fitted.
Do that and check the numbers. I think you might be surprised how much alpha these ships will withstand.
Fearing that I labour my point, please state exactly how much alpha tolerance is "enough". Then measure each ship's performance against that metric. Then decide whether the ships (and I) suck.
/MC
Actually a nighthawk linkbrick has around 200k EHP, it really isn't that terible given that reps land on the start of a cycle. I only correct my own spelling. |
Serenity Eon
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 13:33:00 -
[1573] - 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.
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? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
456
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 13:34:00 -
[1574] - 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. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
119
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 13:51:00 -
[1575] - Quote
I my opinion the "new" NH is not really better than the old. If I have done the maths right, it loses some DPS (1.75*5 < 1.5*6), is still bonused on kin only (for half of the DPS-boni) and will have issues with PG and now even more with CPU.
it would be great if that could be fixed, esp. with the recent nerf to HML ... I remember there was some discussion around that and one point was "we have to rebalance HML first and then we can rebalance the ships which use it around HML". Where and when will this be done?
When I checked Eve-kill today I saw that *everything* I predicted about the effects of said HML nerf and "buff" of other stuff was true - there is no more Caldari missile PvP in BC or BS class. Before there was the Drake, now there is ... nothing. While the Cane is still there .... nerf Caldari some more please :) People said to me I was too pessimistic about the results of those nerfs, and there will be Drake/HAM now rocking - i was sure there wont be Drake-HAM in numbers, and obviously I was right. CCP, screw us over and over again, I am sure in the long run many people will be too annoyed to carry on. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
534
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 14:43:00 -
[1576] - Quote
Serenity Eon wrote:
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?
I can guarantee you, without question, that your suggestion would make some of the most Overpowered ships in the game.
If 10% hp bonuses are to be applied to more ships than the damnation, these ships must sacrifice dps.
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 14:52:00 -
[1577] - Quote
Your clearly right, but i am not interested in some pointless number munch, the Command Ship is intended to Support a a Gang or Fleet, CCP Fozzie make them average Defense but hardhitting BCs that can sacrifie some DPS to get more kinds of Boost Bonuses.
Thats nice really but thats not the Problem, the real Problem is the Value of the Ship on Grid, at some specific Point when a Fleet is able to headshot Good buffered Targets they only survive long enough because they arent dangerous enough.
But Look at the Command Ship, it does have high priority, because of Good damage (which can be ignoried in Fleet fights), average EHP in combination with high value Booster bonuses.
If you can headshot one target and weaken a whole fleet, you can be sure your dead before leaving warp.
You need a Solution? Change the Fleet Boosting Mechanic itself, not only nerfing the numbers Up and Down. |
S1dy
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 15:07:00 -
[1578] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Forgive me for sucking. I do not see you state a number. "as much as the damnation does now" depends on many factors. Skills, modules etc. So it is not a number by which we can measure performance, otherwise known as a "metric".
For example, have you tried to fit up a caldari command ship and then overheated the invulnerability fields, or fitted navy versions, or deadspace? Presumably in a large fleet engagement, this is what will be fitted.
Do that and check the numbers. I think you might be surprised how much alpha these ships will withstand.
Fearing that I labour my point, please state exactly how much alpha tolerance is "enough". Then measure each ship's performance against that metric. Then decide whether the ships (and I) suck.
/MC
Ok, so while you asked for numbers, here are 2 reasonable fits - without imps, without links, without drugs, without overheat and with the second balance pass of the Command Ships, but with Damnation still having its 50% HP bonus:
Damnation:
http://i.imgur.com/BcLlyUL.jpg
194.807 EHP, 365 m/s, 265 m signature, 96 DPS
Vulture:
http://i.imgur.com/OjcuerB.jpg
117.968 EHP, 408 m/s, 367 m signature, 96 DPS
The Vulture is just for comparison reasons - to show you that there are right now no shield alternatives to the Damnation's tankability. The Nighthawk got nearly the same tank as the Vulture.
So, the Damnation as seen in the picture is what i call well balanced for what Command Ships are proposed for in large scale fleets. Nearly 200.000 EHP without anything, 245.000 EHP with their own links and 364.000 EHP with Slave-Set is enough to withstand a heavy alpha if there's enough logistics in the background. This is the range I'm talking about - every race should get a ship that's able to get nearly the same EHP values with reasonable fits. And here the weapon bonuses are obsolete, because most pilots won't ever fit turrets/launcher because the slots are needed for other tools that are more important in this scale.
Though Command Ships were and will be used for PvE and solo or small scale, too, it's the reason why i stated here to divide both Command Ships into one for greater medium scale and large scale and one for everything that's smaller. Take the large scale ship and install a brick tank, take away every weapon bonuses and change them into something that's usefull for large scale fleets/FC's - I made a few examples in my linked post. Take the small scale ship and install DPS based bonuses on them and give them only medium tank (that's reasonable for the ship size).
If CCP does it this way every PvP fleet size (and of course PvE) gets a Command Ship that's well enough to achieve its role as a bonus ship without dying instantly or being useless if used as an ongrid ship (or in anomalies/missions). |
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 15:16:00 -
[1579] - Quote
I dont know why they do the changes like that because if you want damage and a decent buffer, go normal or faction battlecruiser.
A commandship should be something special for the fleet, so like usefull bonuses, better ability to fit into your gang. At this point, ccp want to give us more viable fittings but instead they nerfing it like the damnation (nerfing pg & cpu and giving really dumb bonuses). |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
767
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 15:29:00 -
[1580] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: Vulture - trade an optimal range bonus for shield HP Eos - trade armour rep for armour HP Sleipnir - trade shield boost bonus for armour HP
And where is the sacrifice? Take a long look at the Damnation again and see what the brick bonus costs .. then apply similar hamstringing to the hulls you want the bonus applied, after you are done ask yourself if you would ever fly it outside 'Da Blob'.
Serenity Eon wrote: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? You are both completely missing the point, EHP will not save you on grid almost regardless of the amount. Weekend fleet size has octupled the past five years so that 1000+ is the norm for the shin-digs .. considering that it takes just ~30 alpha boats to knock down 1/4M HP there is just no way in Hell that you will ever have enough EHP for it to matter.
If you should somehow be successful in convincing the Devs that CC's get to retain their combat prowess and have a brick bonus thrown on top, where does that put everything smaller (hull and fleet size)? How do you propose one goes about fighting a ship with 800+ dps and 250+k EHP in anything other than a similar or bigger ship .. BC and down would essentially be obsolete for small gang/solo work, just when things got interesting after the tiericide passes (ISK has never been an obstacle for min/maxing FoTM monkeys).
Random alternative #XX: - CC's have zero align time (insta-warp) and links work in warp. Probably not possible to separate agility from warp but it solves the issue, even if it would be as annoying to be a CC pilot as it is babysitting for the nouveau rich.
Very short: EHP is not answer. |
|
S1dy
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 15:45:00 -
[1581] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:You are both completely missing the point, EHP will not save you on grid almost regardless of the amount. Weekend fleet size has octupled the past five years so that 1000+ is the norm for the shin-digs .. considering that it takes just ~30 alpha boats to knock down 1/4M HP there is just no way in Hell that you will ever have enough EHP for it to matter.
If you should somehow be successful in convincing the Devs that CC's get to retain their combat prowess and have a brick bonus thrown on top, where does that put everything smaller (hull and fleet size)? How do you propose one goes about fighting a ship with 800+ dps and 250+k EHP in anything other than a similar or bigger ship .. BC and down would essentially be obsolete for small gang/solo work, just when things got interesting after the tiericide passes (ISK has never been an obstacle for min/maxing FoTM monkeys).
Random alternative #XX: - CC's have zero align time (insta-warp) and links work in warp. Probably not possible to separate agility from warp but it solves the issue, even if it would be as annoying to be a CC pilot as it is babysitting for the nouveau rich.
Very short: EHP is not answer.
You're wrong, in both ways: EHP is an answer. I was with many large fleets in the past and often realized how hard it is to kill a Damnation. But I've seen a lot of Vultures/Nighthawks dying. It's right, there's a critical point by that every ship will fall whether there are logistics and bonuses or not. But this special cases are still very rare.
On the other hand, like I stated a few times already, DPS on Command Ships is nearly useless in this battle sizes because every pilot that's intelligent enough fits no turrets/launches into the highlots. They are used for more important tools.
You're right saying there should be no ship able to pull off 800 DPS and tank with 250.000 EHP. That's absolutely overpowered and makes no sense for a balance. There should be a tradeoff, in both ways. Though I'm repeating myself, just do a brick tank Command Ship and a second one doing DPS. That would be fair enough.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
157
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 15:59:00 -
[1582] - Quote
S1dy wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Forgive me for sucking. I do not see you state a number. "as much as the damnation does now" depends on many factors. Skills, modules etc. So it is not a number by which we can measure performance, otherwise known as a "metric".
For example, have you tried to fit up a caldari command ship and then overheated the invulnerability fields, or fitted navy versions, or deadspace? Presumably in a large fleet engagement, this is what will be fitted.
Do that and check the numbers. I think you might be surprised how much alpha these ships will withstand.
Fearing that I labour my point, please state exactly how much alpha tolerance is "enough". Then measure each ship's performance against that metric. Then decide whether the ships (and I) suck.
/MC Ok, so while you asked for numbers, here are 2 reasonable fits - without imps, without links, without drugs, without overheat and with the second balance pass of the Command Ships, but with Damnation still having its 50% HP bonus: Damnation:http://i.imgur.com/BcLlyUL.jpg194.807 EHP, 365 m/s, 265 m signature, 96 DPS Vulture:http://i.imgur.com/OjcuerB.jpg117.968 EHP, 408 m/s, 367 m signature, 96 DPS The Vulture is just for comparison reasons - to show you that there are right now no shield alternatives to the Damnation's tankability. The Nighthawk got nearly the same tank as the Vulture. So, the Damnation as seen in the picture is what i call well balanced for what Command Ships are proposed for in large scale fleets. Nearly 200.000 EHP without anything, 245.000 EHP with their own links and 364.000 EHP with Slave-Set is enough to withstand a heavy alpha if there's enough logistics in the background. This is the range I'm talking about - every race should get a ship that's able to get nearly the same EHP values with reasonable fits. And here the weapon bonuses are obsolete, because most pilots won't ever fit turrets/launcher because the slots are needed for other tools that are more important in this scale. Though Command Ships were and will be used for PvE and solo or small scale, too, it's the reason why i stated here to divide both Command Ships into one for greater medium scale and large scale and one for everything that's smaller. Take the large scale ship and install a brick tank, take away every weapon bonuses and change them into something that's usefull for large scale fleets/FC's - I made a few examples in my linked post. Take the small scale ship and install DPS based bonuses on them and give them only medium tank (that's reasonable for the ship size). If CCP does it this way every PvP fleet size (and of course PvE) gets a Command Ship that's well enough to achieve its role as a bonus ship without dying instantly or being useless if used as an ongrid ship (or in anomalies/missions).
now fit links and overheat the shield hardeners. it's a command ship, not a brawler. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
767
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 16:03:00 -
[1583] - Quote
S1dy wrote:You're wrong, in both ways: EHP is an answer. I was with many large fleets in the past and often realized how hard it is to kill a Damnation. But I've seen a lot of Vultures/Nighthawks dying. It's right, there's a critical point by that every ship will fall whether there are logistics and bonuses or not. But this special cases are still very rare. You are assuming the meta stays the same through one of the most extensive mechanic shake-ups in Eve history. What do you think the FC response will be to +25% everything platforms coming on grid? Want to wager that alpha capability, even just a handful of squads, will be added to every fleet alongside the mandatory logistics, bubblers etc.? So while 1/4M EHP is enough today when the ship merely has to survive to complete a single warp, it will be hopelessly inadequate when it has to stay with its boosting clients.
S1dy wrote:Though I'm repeating myself, just do a brick tank Command Ship and a second one doing DPS. That would be fair enough. If we go that route then what is the point of this?
The reason for starting the CC pass was to remove the fleet/field distinction not to deepen it. We should strive towards having something for all ships to do at all levels of play, not create hulls that are either game-breakingly OP or tear-inducingly bad in one situation or another. |
S1dy
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 16:04:00 -
[1584] - Quote
EDIT: Sorry for double post |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 16:11:00 -
[1585] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:S1dy wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Forgive me for sucking. I do not see you state a number. "as much as the damnation does now" depends on many factors. Skills, modules etc. So it is not a number by which we can measure performance, otherwise known as a "metric".
For example, have you tried to fit up a caldari command ship and then overheated the invulnerability fields, or fitted navy versions, or deadspace? Presumably in a large fleet engagement, this is what will be fitted.
Do that and check the numbers. I think you might be surprised how much alpha these ships will withstand.
Fearing that I labour my point, please state exactly how much alpha tolerance is "enough". Then measure each ship's performance against that metric. Then decide whether the ships (and I) suck.
/MC Ok, so while you asked for numbers, here are 2 reasonable fits - without imps, without links, without drugs, without overheat and with the second balance pass of the Command Ships, but with Damnation still having its 50% HP bonus: Damnation:http://i.imgur.com/BcLlyUL.jpg194.807 EHP, 365 m/s, 265 m signature, 96 DPS Vulture:http://i.imgur.com/OjcuerB.jpg117.968 EHP, 408 m/s, 367 m signature, 96 DPS The Vulture is just for comparison reasons - to show you that there are right now no shield alternatives to the Damnation's tankability. The Nighthawk got nearly the same tank as the Vulture. So, the Damnation as seen in the picture is what i call well balanced for what Command Ships are proposed for in large scale fleets. Nearly 200.000 EHP without anything, 245.000 EHP with their own links and 364.000 EHP with Slave-Set is enough to withstand a heavy alpha if there's enough logistics in the background. This is the range I'm talking about - every race should get a ship that's able to get nearly the same EHP values with reasonable fits. And here the weapon bonuses are obsolete, because most pilots won't ever fit turrets/launcher because the slots are needed for other tools that are more important in this scale. Though Command Ships were and will be used for PvE and solo or small scale, too, it's the reason why i stated here to divide both Command Ships into one for greater medium scale and large scale and one for everything that's smaller. Take the large scale ship and install a brick tank, take away every weapon bonuses and change them into something that's usefull for large scale fleets/FC's - I made a few examples in my linked post. Take the small scale ship and install DPS based bonuses on them and give them only medium tank (that's reasonable for the ship size). If CCP does it this way every PvP fleet size (and of course PvE) gets a Command Ship that's well enough to achieve its role as a bonus ship without dying instantly or being useless if used as an ongrid ship (or in anomalies/missions). now fit links and overheat the shield hardeners. it's a command ship, not a brawler.
Still 40k less EHP... Edit: then an unlinked Damnation WITHOUT overheating... |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
157
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 16:24:00 -
[1586] - Quote
getting closer. what if we spend some cash on faction hardeners? foes that close the gap? |
S1dy
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 16:32:00 -
[1587] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:getting closer. what if we spend some cash on faction hardeners? foes that close the gap?
What if we spend the same into faction items for the Damnation!? Besides that nearly no one would spend that much money for a ship (read: Vulture!) that dies so fast right know. Go trolling in other forums. You don't know what you're talking about.
EDIT: Besides that you're missing my point, but oh well... |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 16:56:00 -
[1588] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:getting closer. what if we spend some cash on faction hardeners? foes that close the gap?
Why not using Officer Moduls and build a T1 BC with more EHP then a Damnnation... What is this some kind of Trolling?! |
Lucine Delacourt
The Covenant of Blood
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 18:10:00 -
[1589] - Quote
Just guessing but I think he was alluding to the fact that faction Invulns offer a higher resist bonus than a faction EANM. Which closes the eHP gap between shield CS's and the Damnation. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
534
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 18:14:00 -
[1590] - Quote
Lucine Delacourt wrote:Just guessing but I think he was alluding to the fact that faction Invulns offer a higher resist bonus than a faction EANM. Which closes the eHP gap between shield CS's and the Damnation.
Someone knows their modules :)
|
|
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 19:30:00 -
[1591] - Quote
Current vulture (so slightly less dps than the proposed vulture) T2 extender rigs (cheap now) 5% shield implant Dcu Caldari navy power diags x3 3 extenders b-type em hardener 2 t2 invulns Overheat an invuln and em hard and u get 379kehp (overheating for over 3 minutes) With the slight hp increase it will get u can get even closer to 400k With a prop mod it is decreased to 325-330 Faction invulns and prop mod 373-380k ehp And yes the big alliances can afford these modules
Not saying it doesn't need a slight buff but you need to actually fit some decent fits, eccm on a vulture with no guns? Wut... Probe launcher? Cyno? Good fc's won't have their booster using either
When will we see an update based on player feedback for all of these ships? Vulture should have the second optimal bonus changed to 5% optimal and damage Nighthawk needs work Eos needs work Abso and damnation both need work Claymore I hear needs a little bit of love but idk it seems quite good on sisi Havnt heard much or plastered with the sleip Astarte seems pretty good Cargo holds needa be a bit higher, dronebay on the eos Lol |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
158
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 19:50:00 -
[1592] - Quote
S1dy wrote: So, the Vulture gets overheated 133.959 EHP, with her own links 164.389 EHP.
Tell me: What's your point here?!
You Sir, are terrible at fitting ships for tanking. That's all I can see here. http://i.imgur.com/bsevzW4.jpg?1 this got links, and can possibly fit rails aswell. Just throwin' on some smartbombs cause whatever. Has a siege warfare mindlink. OH goes up to 260k - that's not all that bad compared to damnation and reps land 4 ticks earlier (3.6secs or so). I only correct my own spelling. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
39
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 20:15:00 -
[1593] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:S1dy wrote: So, the Vulture gets overheated 133.959 EHP, with her own links 164.389 EHP.
Tell me: What's your point here?!
You Sir, are terrible at fitting ships for tanking. That's all I can see here. http://i.imgur.com/bsevzW4.jpg?1 this got links, and can possibly fit rails aswell. Just throwin' on some smartbombs cause whatever. Has a siege warfare mindlink. OH goes up to 260k - that's not all that bad compared to damnation and reps land 4 ticks earlier (3.6secs or so).
Your fit gets jammed faster you can say "dideldum", but Target calling isnt important for Command Ships i guess? |
Icarus fall
research U
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 20:35:00 -
[1594] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote:S1dy wrote: So, the Vulture gets overheated 133.959 EHP, with her own links 164.389 EHP.
Tell me: What's your point here?!
You Sir, are terrible at fitting ships for tanking. That's all I can see here. http://i.imgur.com/bsevzW4.jpg?1 this got links, and can possibly fit rails aswell. Just throwin' on some smartbombs cause whatever. Has a siege warfare mindlink. OH goes up to 260k - that's not all that bad compared to damnation and reps land 4 ticks earlier (3.6secs or so). Your fit gets jammed faster you can say "dideldum", but Target calling isnt important for Command Ships i guess?
Nope command ships are to provide links. Let the FC call targets. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
158
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 20:35:00 -
[1595] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote:S1dy wrote: So, the Vulture gets overheated 133.959 EHP, with her own links 164.389 EHP.
Tell me: What's your point here?!
You Sir, are terrible at fitting ships for tanking. That's all I can see here. http://i.imgur.com/bsevzW4.jpg?1 this got links, and can possibly fit rails aswell. Just throwin' on some smartbombs cause whatever. Has a siege warfare mindlink. OH goes up to 260k - that's not all that bad compared to damnation and reps land 4 ticks earlier (3.6secs or so). Your fit gets jammed faster you can say "dideldum", but Target calling isnt important for Command Ships i guess?
If you're that desperate for ECCM, I'd rather suggest finding some utility mids for remote eccm instead of gimping tank. On the same page, what about dampening? Fly into a celestisfleet and get damped to a scanres of a sieged dread. Have fun target calling with that. Tl;Dr: Don't bother with local stuff on a shieldtanked CS.
I was unaware that the fleetbooster has to be the target caller. I only noticed a command position of some sort being required to tag/broadcast. I only correct my own spelling. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
39
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 20:39:00 -
[1596] - Quote
Thats the nice Thing in Eve you can be Booster and Fleet Commander for Target Calling at once, i know thats kinda scary, when they usualy sit behind a forcefield. |
Icarus fall
research U
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 20:43:00 -
[1597] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:Thats the nice Thing in Eve you can be Booster and Fleet Commander for Target Calling at once, i know thats kinda scary, when they usualy sit behind a forcefield.
Thats the nice Thing in Eve booster can just be booster and target caller can be someother toon in fleet. Eve has the flexibility to suit each needs. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
158
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 20:44:00 -
[1598] - Quote
Icarus fall wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:Thats the nice Thing in Eve you can be Booster and Fleet Commander for Target Calling at once, i know thats kinda scary, when they usualy sit behind a forcefield. Thats the nice Thing in Eve booster can just be booster and target caller can be someother toon in fleet. Eve has the flexibility to suit each needs.
From a certain scale on, the need for tank becomes more pressing though. I only correct my own spelling. |
Icarus fall
research U
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 20:48:00 -
[1599] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Icarus fall wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:Thats the nice Thing in Eve you can be Booster and Fleet Commander for Target Calling at once, i know thats kinda scary, when they usualy sit behind a forcefield. Thats the nice Thing in Eve booster can just be booster and target caller can be someother toon in fleet. Eve has the flexibility to suit each needs. From a certain scale on, the need for tank becomes more pressing though.
Could be but any largest fleet I've been in has had multiple people ready to lead fleet when the first one died. |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 20:49:00 -
[1600] - Quote
Your inexperience in organized fleets is showing If you want target call from booster fine go for it, rarely will people jam you, or if the enemy knows u are target caller bring remote eccm and remote sensor boosters Those modules are not uncommon in well organized fleets.......... Hell you can target call without locking Just have one or two people who will let you know how their tank is holding so u don't even have to lock anything Just sit there and watch lazer beams fly everywhere |
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
39
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 21:29:00 -
[1601] - Quote
You can organize Fleets in many ways, i cant See the problem with some Personal ECCM, because jamming the Target Caller is a common Thing and can be a real pain in the Ass.
Anyway its regardless if you use ECCM or any other Med Slot Module because you still have more disadventage with a Vulture then a Damnnation on the Grid. Less EHP with higher costs in fitting and isk, thats just pure inbalance and also dont solve the Problem that Damnnation and a half baked Caldari CS can handle Fleet fights. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
158
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 21:46:00 -
[1602] - Quote
so now that we have seen that the nighthawk and vulture can be built to withstand 350k of alpha, are we all a little happier?
;-)
/MC |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 21:48:00 -
[1603] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:You can organize Fleets in many ways, i cant See the problem with some Personal ECCM, because jamming the Target Caller is a common Thing and can be a real pain in the Ass.
Anyway its regardless if you use ECCM or any other Med Slot Module because you still have more disadventage with a Vulture then a Damnnation on the Grid. Less EHP with higher costs in fitting and isk, thats just pure inbalance and also dont solve the Problem that Damnnation and a half baked Caldari CS can handle Fleet fights.
The fittings are quite common in large fleets, or mid sized fleets/alliances... And if you are in a large fleet and you don't have semi competent people who can sy hey target isn't breaking lets switch, then idk what fleets ur in Does it make it more difficult absolutely But remote eccm-ing the fc is much better and doesn't sacrifice your tank...
There is a big difference between the damnation and vulture but not nearly as big and nasty as you say The vulture can get over 300k ehp very easily
And tho I don't agree with it the damnation is gonna get nerfed badly
And I do not agree with making the claymore and eos have an hp bonus Without the resist bonus it won't work, and u get an awkward ship with a rep and hp bonus which is weird Or just an hp bonus which is not that strong by itself |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
158
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 22:33:00 -
[1604] - Quote
to be fair the eos and astarte can be fitted with a 160k ehp buffer and a good active tank without spending much money. they're not exactly weak.
as mentioned, it's all a matter of tradeoffs.
as they stand, for the purpose they serve, they seem ok. tbh
|
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association Independent Faction
281
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 01:08:00 -
[1605] - Quote
Trying to make sense of 80 pages of ranting: so, what are Absolution and Damnation's new starts again?
The Most Interesting Player In Eve. |
Anattha
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 02:15:00 -
[1606] - Quote
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:Trying to make sense of 80 pages of ranting: so, what are Absolution and Damnation's new starts again? Abso still useless for pvp. Damnation still a fat brick. Will this stats are correct for you? |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 04:25:00 -
[1607] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:to be fair the eos and astarte can be fitted with a 160k ehp buffer and a good active tank without spending much money. they're not exactly weak.
as mentioned, it's all a matter of tradeoffs.
as they stand, for the purpose they serve, they seem ok. tbh
As of now there's no reason to use te eos over an Astarte unless u can't use t2 blasters but u can use t2 ogres Anything the eos can do the Astarte can do better without te fear of getting your (very) limited supply of drones killed And I've mentioned how the eos has -1 slot, which is standard blah blah but the other drone boats are comparable to their turret based counterparts, unlike the eos The eos IS lacking Not by an outrageous amount but it is lacking |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
160
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 07:13:00 -
[1608] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:to be fair the eos and astarte can be fitted with a 160k ehp buffer and a good active tank without spending much money. they're not exactly weak.
as mentioned, it's all a matter of tradeoffs.
as they stand, for the purpose they serve, they seem ok. tbh
As of now there's no reason to use te eos over an Astarte unless u can't use t2 blasters but u can use t2 ogres Anything the eos can do the Astarte can do better without te fear of getting your (very) limited supply of drones killed And I've mentioned how the eos has -1 slot, which is standard blah blah but the other drone boats are comparable to their turret based counterparts, unlike the eos The eos IS lacking Not by an outrageous amount but it is lacking
yes i think that's a fair point. it could use more drone space, and i agree that the mere presence of drones does not really justify the loss of a slot. I'd still be happy to take it on an armour roam though. For me its role would absolutely be boosting though. 4 links. Probably 3 armour and 1 skirmish
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
119
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 07:58:00 -
[1609] - Quote
Please BUFF the NH and dont nerf it even more ... DPS went down even more, and they were abysmal before. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
160
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 08:02:00 -
[1610] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Please BUFF the NH and dont nerf it even more ... DPS went down even more, and they were abysmal before.
They're not for brawling. They're for tanking huge alpha while boosting.
See above
|
|
Open Graves
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 10:43:00 -
[1611] - Quote
I want to add my support for hulls matching weapon systems. If Eos is going to be drone focused please make it a T2 Myrm not a Brutix and likewise for the other races. |
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet
88
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 11:35:00 -
[1612] - Quote
I cannot find the posting now, but Fozzie mentioned something about removing the +10% HP from Damnation. THere is an issue with FCs in large fleets being primaried who need survivability vs insane buffer tanks in small scale.
Idea: would it be a solution to allow Target Spectrum Breakers on Command Ships?
That would not affect smaller engagements so much, but add another defensive option for these key ships in large fleets. Then maybe a loss of that HP ship bonus could be compensated.
|
Serenity Eon
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 12:00:00 -
[1613] - Quote
Fozzie, can you give us an update? Please |
Alsyth
83
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 12:09:00 -
[1614] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote:I cannot find the posting now, but Fozzie mentioned something about removing the +10% HP from Damnation. THere is an issue with FCs in large fleets being primaried who need survivability vs insane buffer tanks in small scale.
Idea: would it be a solution to allow Target Spectrum Breakers on Command Ships?
That would not affect smaller engagements so much, but add another defensive option for these key ships in large fleets. Then maybe a loss of that HP ship bonus could be compensated.
Buff to armor only once again, and shield CS are in a far worse situation. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
535
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 12:28:00 -
[1615] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:to be fair the eos and astarte can be fitted with a 160k ehp buffer and a good active tank without spending much money. they're not exactly weak.
as mentioned, it's all a matter of tradeoffs.
as they stand, for the purpose they serve, they seem ok. tbh
As of now there's no reason to use te eos over an Astarte unless u can't use t2 blasters but u can use t2 ogres Anything the eos can do the Astarte can do better without te fear of getting your (very) limited supply of drones killed And I've mentioned how the eos has -1 slot, which is standard blah blah but the other drone boats are comparable to their turret based counterparts, unlike the eos The eos IS lacking Not by an outrageous amount but it is lacking
I generally agree with you on the eos vs astarte.
Something that no one has really mentioned is that the EOS also has worse cap regen than the Astarte however both of them have about 1/2 the cap regen of the deimos (wtf?). |
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 13:38:00 -
[1616] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: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:
The numbers are with a siege warfare implant, bad drone skills, and no other implants for drugs - but include the siege boosts.
Nighthawk: high slots: 3 siege boosters, 4 heavy missiles, navy scourge med slots: EM ward II, infvuln II, LSB II x 2, 10mn MWD (meta-3) low slots: DC II, ballistic control II x 2, nanofiber II, PDU II rigs: T1 field extenders (I dont have the skills for T2)
Stats: EHP: 122,395 (unheated) Resists: 81/93/89/81 (unheated) shield recharge: 55hp/s = approx 250dps peak (unheated)
damage output (for me): 300dps to 54km. This will increase with better skills to about 400 i think (unheated).
122k ehp does not suggest to me that this ship will die immediately - it's the same as a battleship.
I'd be happy to take this in a moderately-sized shield fleet. No, it's not going to survive massive alpha from 2000 ships. I guess it's designed for durability in a smaller fleet with some logi. If that is the design goal, then it has met its targets. If the design goal is "massive fleet alpha" then it has probably not.
So, some questions:
Q1: what are your design goals? What size alpha do you need to counter? Q2: Does the ship meet the criteria while providing link boosts?
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?
Yeah, sorry I stand corrected.. Seems I have a lot more training to be able to fly command ships at any level of competency. With the fit you linked and my skills (defence skills all at 5, heavy missile spec 4 warhead upgrades 4, command ships 4) specs are, 254 dps @ 58k, 79k EHP 101k with link boosts, 49% cap stable without MWD, peak shield recharge of 37hp p/s. Probably usable in a larger fleet situation, don't think I'd risk it in the size fleets I usually fly in though (20 to 30).
NB; I've had no issues with sisi running 3 links on the nighthawk. Try removing & refitting them, it worked for me. I have actually fitted all command ships on sisi, the nighthawk has by far, the worst spec's
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
161
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 13:49:00 -
[1617] - Quote
it's easy to get quickly concerned by the base numbers ccp have put out, and it's natural for all of us to want the ships we like flying to be not left behind. But when these ships are fitted up on the test server, they get pretty powerful. I would urge everyone to try it before posting comments here.
with deadspace gear on both, good skills and links, both the damnation and vulture/NH have similar ehp (about 400,000).
for their use as alpha-resisting fleet boosters there is no practical difference.
If we use them in other roles, for which they are not designed, we can'y really complain if they don't meet our expectations.
Similarly with the gallente/minny hulls - you can;t get them to anywhere near the fleet command EHP, because they are for skirmishing, for which they are surprisingly good, each in their own way.
None of these hulls will ever have spectacular damage projection, because it's not their role.
astarte gets close, but it's such a slow hulk of a ship with tiny range that alone it's never going to get near a target :-)
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
159
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 14:01:00 -
[1618] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Please BUFF the NH and dont nerf it even more ... DPS went down even more, and they were abysmal before.
Just regarding the offense, you're wrong. Damageoutput went up a lot. As exapmle, 4 launcers (and 3 links), 2 BCUs and rage for 520dps, or more extreme, 3 BCUs + t2 damagerig and hobgoblins II for 1000 flat dps at all V using rage. Nerfed so hard.... Also not a dreamfit, it's a superdrake with scrambler and some 110k EHP.
regards I only correct my own spelling. |
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 14:17:00 -
[1619] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: it's easy to get quickly concerned by the base numbers ccp have put out, and it's natural for all of us to want the ships we like flying to be not left behind. But when these ships are fitted up on the test server, they get pretty powerful. I would urge everyone to try it before posting comments here.
with deadspace gear on both, good skills and links, both the damnation and vulture/NH have similar ehp (about 400,000).
for their use as alpha-resisting fleet boosters there is no practical difference.
If we use them in other roles, for which they are not designed, we can'y really complain if they don't meet our expectations.
Similarly with the gallente/minny hulls - you can;t get them to anywhere near the fleet command EHP, because they are for skirmishing, for which they are surprisingly good, each in their own way.
None of these hulls will ever have spectacular damage projection, because it's not their role.
astarte gets close, but it's such a slow hulk of a ship with tiny range that alone it's never going to get near a target :-)
So the suggestion to give command ships a better chance of survival is to turn a 300mil ship into a 1.3 bill isk ship by fitting faction/deadspace mods? Now that isn't going to make them more of a juicy target is it? Looking at it from a small fleet/gang (15 to 20) point of view, faction dead space fit command ships = shi**y killboard for the owner. Yes having a command ship requires trade off's in fitting but should those trade off be, run a command ship or not?
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 14:37:00 -
[1620] - Quote
Capt Canada wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: it's easy to get quickly concerned by the base numbers ccp have put out, and it's natural for all of us to want the ships we like flying to be not left behind. But when these ships are fitted up on the test server, they get pretty powerful. I would urge everyone to try it before posting comments here.
with deadspace gear on both, good skills and links, both the damnation and vulture/NH have similar ehp (about 400,000).
for their use as alpha-resisting fleet boosters there is no practical difference.
If we use them in other roles, for which they are not designed, we can'y really complain if they don't meet our expectations.
Similarly with the gallente/minny hulls - you can;t get them to anywhere near the fleet command EHP, because they are for skirmishing, for which they are surprisingly good, each in their own way.
None of these hulls will ever have spectacular damage projection, because it's not their role.
astarte gets close, but it's such a slow hulk of a ship with tiny range that alone it's never going to get near a target :-)
So the suggestion to give command ships a better chance of survival is to turn a 300mil ship into a 1.3 bill isk ship by fitting faction/deadspace mods? Now that isn't going to make them more of a juicy target is it? Looking at it from a small fleet/gang (15 to 20) point of view, faction dead space fit command ships = shi**y killboard for the owner. Yes having a command ship requires trade off's in fitting but should those trade off be, run a command ship or not?
He is probably to Space Rich, to recognize this. |
|
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 14:38:00 -
[1621] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Capt Canada wrote:...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... Only one thing will save links from alpha when they come on grid, adopting a pragmatic approach by having enough baskets for ones eggs. Look at the command redundancy built into modern armies, order givers start appearing all the way down at a squad level whereas in Eve we have gotten accustomed to having one big cheese. Of course that paradigm change that is necessitated by eventual on-grid change will force CCP to cook up a more fluid way of assigning boosters as they should be expected to be near top of primary lists, if only to test tanks and having to manually assign boosters throughout a fight will drive people mad(der). Another thing that might help on the extreme end of the scale is the Spectrum Breaker, a novel idea when they introed it but it kind of fizzled. Redesign/fix it and add a bonus to its use on CC's, effectively making them immune to pure alpha headshots. The self same paradigm change is the reason why ALL the CC's should be on roughly equal footing when it comes to damage/application/tanking which is simply not the case with Damnation being the odd one out with even less output than its HAC counterpart but being able to brick itself. In other words: It is impossible to balance anything to function on the large scale without unbalancing it on all other scales, so paradigms (read: fleet compositions) must be reevaluated and CCP must develop ways/means to ease that shift. Luckily for CCP the heavy load won't come until links actually are to come on-grid so they have oodles of time to do the napkin dance and sketch out a solution .. but unless we are all willing to go through another CC balance pass when that glorious day arrives the fact that they are coming on-grid should be included in any and all deliberations this time around (all comes down to Dev time as with most things ) Yes as with most things in life, trying to get something done in 3 months that should take 6 or 9 months usually means shortcuts are taken and overall result is less than ideal. Often resulting in more time, energy, money etc spent fixing it at a later date than was originally needed.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
161
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 15:07:00 -
[1622] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:Capt Canada wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: it's easy to get quickly concerned by the base numbers ccp have put out, and it's natural for all of us to want the ships we like flying to be not left behind. But when these ships are fitted up on the test server, they get pretty powerful. I would urge everyone to try it before posting comments here.
with deadspace gear on both, good skills and links, both the damnation and vulture/NH have similar ehp (about 400,000).
for their use as alpha-resisting fleet boosters there is no practical difference.
If we use them in other roles, for which they are not designed, we can'y really complain if they don't meet our expectations.
Similarly with the gallente/minny hulls - you can;t get them to anywhere near the fleet command EHP, because they are for skirmishing, for which they are surprisingly good, each in their own way.
None of these hulls will ever have spectacular damage projection, because it's not their role.
astarte gets close, but it's such a slow hulk of a ship with tiny range that alone it's never going to get near a target :-)
So the suggestion to give command ships a better chance of survival is to turn a 300mil ship into a 1.3 bill isk ship by fitting faction/deadspace mods? Now that isn't going to make them more of a juicy target is it? Looking at it from a small fleet/gang (15 to 20) point of view, faction dead space fit command ships = shi**y killboard for the owner. Yes having a command ship requires trade off's in fitting but should those trade off be, run a command ship or not? He is probably to Space Rich, to recognize this.
Well look, if I was using a command ship on grid in a 200-man fleet then I think 2 billion to keep the command ship alive is a fairly sensible trade - it's a 10 million premium per ship.
If it's a 10-man defence fleet against a marauding pack of cruisers, then probably the T2-fitted ship is fine. The other guys are unlikely to be able to organise enough simultaneous damage to alpha it.
Once on-grid boosting is mandated, people will have a choice of command link ships that will look something like this:
100m T1 battlecruiser (120k ehp?) 250m T2 command ship with T2 mods (200k ehp) 300m-1.5Bn T2 command ship with varying levels of faction mods (200-400k ehp) 2Bn+ Carrier with various fittings (2.5m ehp) 60Bn+ Titan (60m ehp)
pay your money, take your chances. This is Eve. It's not a nice game. That's how we like it, right? |
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 15:34:00 -
[1623] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:Capt Canada wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: it's easy to get quickly concerned by the base numbers ccp have put out, and it's natural for all of us to want the ships we like flying to be not left behind. But when these ships are fitted up on the test server, they get pretty powerful. I would urge everyone to try it before posting comments here.
with deadspace gear on both, good skills and links, both the damnation and vulture/NH have similar ehp (about 400,000).
for their use as alpha-resisting fleet boosters there is no practical difference.
If we use them in other roles, for which they are not designed, we can'y really complain if they don't meet our expectations.
Similarly with the gallente/minny hulls - you can;t get them to anywhere near the fleet command EHP, because they are for skirmishing, for which they are surprisingly good, each in their own way.
None of these hulls will ever have spectacular damage projection, because it's not their role.
astarte gets close, but it's such a slow hulk of a ship with tiny range that alone it's never going to get near a target :-)
So the suggestion to give command ships a better chance of survival is to turn a 300mil ship into a 1.3 bill isk ship by fitting faction/deadspace mods? Now that isn't going to make them more of a juicy target is it? Looking at it from a small fleet/gang (15 to 20) point of view, faction dead space fit command ships = shi**y killboard for the owner. Yes having a command ship requires trade off's in fitting but should those trade off be, run a command ship or not? He is probably to Space Rich, to recognize this. Well look, if I was using a command ship on grid in a 200-man fleet then I think 2 billion to keep the command ship alive is a fairly sensible trade - it's a 10 million premium per ship. If it's a 10-man defence fleet against a marauding pack of cruisers, then probably the T2-fitted ship is fine. The other guys are unlikely to be able to organise enough simultaneous damage to alpha it. Once on-grid boosting is mandated, people will have a choice of command link ships that will look something like this: 100m T1 battlecruiser (120k ehp?) 250m T2 command ship with T2 mods (200k ehp) 300m-1.5Bn T2 command ship with varying levels of faction mods (200-400k ehp) 2Bn+ Carrier with various fittings (2.5m ehp) 60Bn+ Titan (60m ehp) pay your money, take your chances. This is Eve. It's not a nice game. That's how we like it, right? Now again here your talking about large fleets with multiple boosters?? With command ship hulls slowly creeping up in price your not going to get much of a ship for 300mil and a T2 fit with 200k ehp, your looking at only those with perfect skills flying them. Yes this is eve where even the under dog with less than perfect skills deserves a chance (if he or she is prepared to take the risk). But with everything from sov doctrines and ship balancing done using all level 5 skills as the base, anyone with less than 50 to 70 mil SP becomes kill board fodder .
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
535
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 15:53:00 -
[1624] - Quote
Capt Canada wrote: But with everything from sov doctrines and ship balancing done using all level 5 skills as the base, anyone with less than 50 to 70 mil SP becomes kill board fodder .
You can be more or less "maxed" on multiple sup class ships with far less than 50m sp...
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
162
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 16:09:00 -
[1625] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Capt Canada wrote: But with everything from sov doctrines and ship balancing done using all level 5 skills as the base, anyone with less than 50 to 70 mil SP becomes kill board fodder .
You can be more or less "maxed" on multiple sup class ships with far less than 50m sp...
I have 57 million skill points. I never fly an expensive ship in combat without all skills to V for that hull, and never use a weapon system in combat on an expensive ship until I am level 4+ in its specialisation, but that's just me.
Expensive for me means "more than 10 million isk"
My alt, Goody Twoshoes Virpio has been trained from birth to be a maxed scanning and fleet boosting alt. All other roles are secondary to him. He has something like 37 million skill points and is level 4 command ships. He started boosting in a drake and a cyclone, to great effect. He focussed on the T2 warfare links prior to focussing on T2 command ships.
He's also a perfect tengu pilot (yes, even I, loather of the tengu, use one for scouting in wormholes), however I cannot bring myself to commit 600m isk to an off-grid boosting tengu as I find the idea offensive.
With the new changes he'll be polishing off his command skills in order to get into a minny command ship for shield roams, and probably an Eos for armour work since he can become effective with drones more quickly than with blasters.
I'm looking forward to seeing on-grid boosting, aka "Putting your money where your mouth is."
|
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 17:00:00 -
[1626] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Capt Canada wrote: But with everything from sov doctrines and ship balancing done using all level 5 skills as the base, anyone with less than 50 to 70 mil SP becomes kill board fodder .
You can be more or less "maxed" on multiple sup class ships with far less than 50m sp... I have 57 million skill points. I never fly an expensive ship in combat without all skills to V for that hull, and never use a weapon system in combat on an expensive ship until I am level 4+ in its specialisation, but that's just me. Expensive for me means "more than 10 million isk" My alt, Goody Twoshoes Virpio has been trained from birth to be a maxed scanning and fleet boosting alt. All other roles are secondary to him. He has something like 37 million skill points and is level 4 command ships. He started boosting in a drake and a cyclone, to great effect. He focussed on the T2 warfare links prior to focussing on T2 command ships. He's also a perfect tengu pilot (yes, even I, loather of the tengu, use one for scouting in wormholes), however I cannot bring myself to commit 600m isk to an off-grid boosting tengu as I find the idea offensive. With the new changes he'll be polishing off his command skills in order to get into a minny command ship for shield roams, and probably an Eos for armour work since he can become effective with drones more quickly than with blasters. I'm looking forward to seeing on-grid boosting, aka "Putting your money where your mouth is."
Until off grid boosting is 100% removed there will not be on grid boosting except for the smallest of gangs who don't have any alts |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7408
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 20:06:00 -
[1627] - Quote
Another small set of changes based on what we're hearing from the Sisi feedback:
Nighthawk: +100 PWG +10 CPU
Sleipnir: +50 CPU Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
201
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 20:10:00 -
[1628] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Another small set of changes based on what we're hearing from the Sisi feedback:
Nighthawk: +100 PWG +10 CPU Useful, thanks--but what about the slot layout? This clears up (most of) the fitting issues the Nighthawk has, but it doesn't change the fact that the Claymore's slot layout makes it able to fit a much stronger shield tank... |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
457
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 20:15:00 -
[1629] - 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. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7410
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 20:19:00 -
[1630] - Quote
I also want to quickly address the concern I'm seeing about my comment that we want to someday remove the +HP bonus from the Damnation.
To be clear, we are not removing the Damnation's HP bonus in Odyssey 1.1, as right now it helps the Damnation fill a useful role that would be lost if we removed it.
However in the long run, adding HP is not the solution to key ships being volleyed off the field. As EVE battles grow in numbers and coordination people are going to find a way to volley just about anything we design, and then we'll be right back where we started. We're not going to get into an escalating design battle against the dps and alpha of player fleets.
The solution to the problem is to sidestep it by reducing reliance on a few lynchpin ships. The reason that command ships have this problem while other key fleet ships (like logistics, recons or dictors) don't is because people can bring redundant numbers of those other classes. When we get the capability to remove offgrid links our plan is to also replace the way links apply so that losing one key ship won't mean you need to take your ball and go home. Now of course command ships are larger, more expensive and skill intensive than those other key classes, so it will still make sense for them to have significantly better tanks than a recon ship. However at that point the perceived need to have over 300k EHP will be significantly lessened.
At the same time we are continuing to push more viable gang boosting options into lower brackets of SP and isk requirements. Many of you will have noticed that one effect of the gang link changes is that T1 Battlecruisers will provide better bonuses, and a character with level 3 or 4 skills will be vastly improved compared to the current situation. There will still be significant benefits to training skills to 5 and upgrading to a Command Ship, but for people that can't afford to bring redundant Command Ships, redundant Battlecruisers will be a fine option.
I've also seen the idea expressed a few times to expand Target Spectrum Breakers to the Command Ships, and that's an idea I think has some serious merit. There likely isn't time to get it in for 1.1, but we'll investigate further and see what comes out. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7410
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 20:21:00 -
[1631] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
457
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 20:39:00 -
[1632] - 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. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
451
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 20:45:00 -
[1633] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I've also seen the idea expressed a few times to expand Target Spectrum Breakers to the Command Ships, and that's an idea I think has some serious merit. There likely isn't time to get it in for 1.1, but we'll investigate further and see what comes out. I hate to point out what you already know, but this would eat up yet another midslot (in addition to command processors).
edit: Also, wouldn't this just cause problems when the TSB breaks a lock from a friendly logi? Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
159
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 20:48:00 -
[1634] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: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'
noo... just less pimp to make it fit. I only correct my own spelling. |
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
763
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 20:53:00 -
[1635] - Quote
So when is the post about drones coming that was promissed during AT? Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
451
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 20:58:00 -
[1636] - Quote
Bubanni wrote:So when is the post about drones coming that was promissed during AT? SoonGäó. But more realistically, we were supposed to have a thread on the Command Ship model changes that is "greyed out" now (since the thread doesn't exist), so where is that thread?
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
536
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 21:15:00 -
[1637] - 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
So fozzie, any explanation as to why HACs have significantly better cap recharge compared to commands?
Furthermore, can we get a fix to cap xfer bug so we can actually start testing some potential spider setups?
|
Valterra Craven
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 21:24:00 -
[1638] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.
Only if you want to fit short range low CPU mods with links. |
Grutpig Cloudwalker
The Skulls
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 21:30:00 -
[1639] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Another small set of changes based on what we're hearing from the Sisi feedback:
Nighthawk: +100 PWG +10 CPU Useful, thanks--but what about the slot layout? This clears up (most of) the fitting issues the Nighthawk has, but it doesn't change the fact that the Claymore's slot layout makes it able to fit a much stronger shield tank...
It would be nice if the Nighthawk got one less low and one more mid slot. Which would also make sense when/if it becomes a T2 Drake. |
Valfreyea
Zervas Aeronautics Tribal Band
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 21:41:00 -
[1640] - Quote
So,
About that tracking bonus on the Eos? Is that like a place-holder while you guys are brainstorming a bonus that wouldn't force you to make use of those four turret slots?
Also, is it possible for the Eos to get more drone bandwidth? After all, one of its bonuses specifies heavies, and you can hold only two flights of them, and no other drones. Unlike turrets, you can't really overheat drones for a damage boost, and they're quite vulnerable to being destroyed by other players. Heavy drones especially.
It would be nice if you could order your drones to overheat themselves :3
|
|
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
1071
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 21:49:00 -
[1641] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:
edit: Also, wouldn't this just cause problems when the TSB breaks a lock from a friendly logi?
Potential negative side effects from using an AOE module, who would have thought? Rifterlings pirate corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang operations. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
1071
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 21:52:00 -
[1642] - Quote
Valfreyea wrote:
It would be nice if you could order your drones to overheat themselves :3
Especially if they burned out in a minute or so and went dead in space, also taking your drone control facilities offline and killing your DPS.
Kind of like what happens when you overheat your guns/missiles too long. Rifterlings pirate corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang operations. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Webzy Phoenix
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 22:08:00 -
[1643] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Bubanni wrote:So when is the post about drones coming that was promissed during AT? SoonGäó. But more realistically, we were supposed to have a thread on the Command Ship model changes that is "greyed out" now (since the thread doesn't exist), so where is that thread? Oh yes, I am waiting impatiently for that thread!
I am looking forward to telling these guys how horrid their planned change to Nighthawk is. The current Nighthawk has a unique and sexy look... I want to keep it, not end up in a f**cking Drake with a new paint job!
The 'Black Drake' does look nice, and I would welcome it as a model for some other ship, but not the Nighthawk. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
162
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 22:22:00 -
[1644] - Quote
Webzy Phoenix wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Bubanni wrote:So when is the post about drones coming that was promissed during AT? SoonGäó. But more realistically, we were supposed to have a thread on the Command Ship model changes that is "greyed out" now (since the thread doesn't exist), so where is that thread? Oh yes, I am waiting impatiently for that thread! I am looking forward to telling these guys how horrid their planned change to Nighthawk is. The current Nighthawk has a unique and sexy look... I want to keep it, not end up in a f**cking Drake with a new paint job! The 'Black Drake' does look nice, and I would welcome it as a model for some other ship, but not the Nighthawk.
I'm not usually one to worry about the ship models, but I have to say I agree. The very presence of drakes in the game makes my skin crawl, since for the first 2 years of my game time they were simply uber-mega-overpowered ships that soured the whole experience of Eve.
My corporation mantra remains to this day, "all drakes must die"...
:-)
|
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 22:24:00 -
[1645] - Quote
All of them having the same cap/sec is just terrible and lame, I simply can't fathom why this has not been sorted.
Cap per Sec should be, from highest to lowest
Absolution > Astarte > Vulture > Eos > Damnation=Claymore=Sleipnir=Nighthawk
Max cap amount can sort of follow the "old trend(I don't see why, but not that much of a problem)"
This is a rather minor change that will help the cap heavy CS, it was just done for HACs now.(Apart from oddballs like Deimos and Sac due to the old mwd/cap rec bonus)
Please get this sorted for 1.1 else I'm fairly sure quite a few people will be quite disappointed.
The CS changes so far have been mediocre at best, please take the time to fix this issue atleast. |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 22:39:00 -
[1646] - Quote
Why does every single CS have the same cap recharge? Pretty sure the Absolution should have a higher recharge than a Sleipnir given, oh I don't know, the fact that lasers take a **** ton of cap, projectiles and ASB's require ZERO. But hey, call me crazy.
And why does a T2 BC have less recharge than a T2 Cruiser? |
Frothgar
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
82
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 22:48:00 -
[1647] - Quote
Hey Fozzie. The Cap usage bonus on the absolution is pretty pointless, especially with the fewer guns it has to fuel.
Any chance it could get the bonus partially folded into the base recharge, and then add some form of optimal range bonus?
It really has issues projecting damage since in medium size gangs its obliged to have a 1600 plate, and its laughably slow with no means to project damage. If you think 10%/Level is too much, perhaps 7.5 like the apoc? |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
536
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 22:51:00 -
[1648] - Quote
Phaade wrote:Why does every single CS have the same cap recharge? Pretty sure the Absolution should have a higher recharge than a Sleipnir given, oh I don't know, the fact that lasers take a **** ton of cap, projectiles and ASB's require ZERO. But hey, call me crazy.
And why does a T2 BC have less recharge than a T2 Cruiser?
I know I've already been bringing up this point in multiple threads but it's getting a quote because it needs to be addressed.
|
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 23:20:00 -
[1649] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Phaade wrote:Why does every single CS have the same cap recharge? Pretty sure the Absolution should have a higher recharge than a Sleipnir given, oh I don't know, the fact that lasers take a **** ton of cap, projectiles and ASB's require ZERO. But hey, call me crazy.
And why does a T2 BC have less recharge than a T2 Cruiser? I know I've already been bringing up this point in multiple threads but it's getting a quote because it needs to be addressed.
Have you even flown a beam absolution... I suggest you try it in small fleet or large fleet formation before saying that ship needs a range boost.
If the absolution got a range boost, it would quite possibly be the best sub-capital platform in game. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
536
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 23:24:00 -
[1650] - Quote
MJ Incognito wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Phaade wrote:Why does every single CS have the same cap recharge? Pretty sure the Absolution should have a higher recharge than a Sleipnir given, oh I don't know, the fact that lasers take a **** ton of cap, projectiles and ASB's require ZERO. But hey, call me crazy.
And why does a T2 BC have less recharge than a T2 Cruiser? I know I've already been bringing up this point in multiple threads but it's getting a quote because it needs to be addressed. Have you even flown a beam absolution... I suggest you try it in small fleet or large fleet formation before saying that ship needs a range boost. If the absolution got a range boost, it would quite possibly be the best sub-capital platform in game.
That quote was about cap recharge, not range
|
|
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 23:30:00 -
[1651] - 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 Fozzie, if your really basing these small changes on player feedback, PLEASE 7 highs, 6 mids, 4 lows for the nighthawk. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
536
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 23:33:00 -
[1652] - Quote
Capt Canada 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 Fozzie, if your really basing these small changes on player feedback, PLEASE 7 highs, 6 mids, 4 lows for the nighthawk.
"but that would make it too similar to the vulture!"
*looks at eos and astarte*.......
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
163
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 23:33:00 -
[1653] - Quote
Capt Canada 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 Fozzie, if your really basing these small changes on player feedback, PLEASE 7 highs, 6 mids, 4 lows for the nighthawk.
It ain't gonna happen. The design team have the caldari ships pegged as fleet boosters, not active tankers.
The nighthawk is no longer a superdrake. For that, look no further than the Claymore.
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1926
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 23:46:00 -
[1654] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I've also seen the idea expressed a few times to expand Target Spectrum Breakers to the Command Ships, and that's an idea I think has some serious merit. There likely isn't time to get it in for 1.1, but we'll investigate further and see what comes out.
whatever you do don't make random numbers a key factor of it. A working target spectrum breaker could be inverse ECM 2.0, and i can't imagine anybody with competitive playstyle would want yet another playerskill independent dice on the field. eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 01:27:00 -
[1655] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
However in the long run, adding HP is not the solution to key ships being volleyed off the field. As EVE battles grow in numbers..
At the same time we are continuing to push more viable gang boosting options into lower brackets of SP and isk requirements. Many of you will have noticed that one effect of the gang link changes is that T1 Battlecruisers will provide better bonuses, and a character with level 3 or 4 skills will be vastly improved compared to the current situation. There will still be significant benefits to training skills to 5 and upgrading to a Command Ship, but for people that can't afford to bring redundant Command Ships, redundant Battlecruisers will be a fine option.
I've also seen the idea expressed a few times to expand Target Spectrum Breakers to the Command Ships, and that's an idea I think has some serious merit. There likely isn't time to get it in for 1.1, but we'll investigate further and see what comes out.
I might be missing some thing really big here, could you explain how a T1 battlecruiser with low SP pilot is going to provide better bonuses? T1 battlecruiser can only fit 1 link, gets no specific ship bonuses to gang links. Lower SP pilots aren't going to be boosting for 2000 man fleets, they will be the small fleet / gang boosters. Lower SP pilot, with all level four skills for gang links is only getting the base boost from the gang link (lvl 4 skills means no leadership implants), how is that any better than it is now?? Maybe T1 battlecruisers could get a small fixed bonus to 1 link, which only works with T1 links?? It could still be used by higher skill pilots but the bonus is negated if the pilot fits a T2 link or has leadership implants.
Target spectrum breakers on command ships?? Why?? All your doing is giving the enemy a chance to relock you faster than your logi can. Unless the Target Spectrum Breaker can be scripted to work only on a targeted ship it will probably be more of a hindrance than help.
NB; there is a bug in SISI, when I use "strip fitting" to try it on another ship, yes the ship gets its fittings stripped but they do not appear in items hanger, all the fitted modules are gone. I tried re-logging, seems the eve gods needed my modules.
|
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 01:55:00 -
[1656] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Capt Canada 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 Fozzie, if your really basing these small changes on player feedback, PLEASE 7 highs, 6 mids, 4 lows for the nighthawk. "but that would make it too similar to the vulture!" *looks at eos and astarte*....... Swap them around, the Vulture would benefit more from a 5th lowslot over the nighthawk. Also, I may be 1 of the last, but I like missiles.
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Capt Canada wrote: Fozzie, if your really basing these small changes on player feedback, PLEASE 7 highs, 6 mids, 4 lows for the nighthawk.
It ain't gonna happen. The design team have the caldari ships pegged as fleet boosters, not active tankers. The nighthawk is no longer a superdrake. For that, look no further than the Claymore. Hmmm, ok that being the answer, why have the nighthawk at all?? most of what I've read and seen on sisi says the nighthawk is totally inferior for its intended role, just get rid of it.. Or better still, fix it. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
120
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 03:12:00 -
[1657] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Please BUFF the NH and dont nerf it even more ... DPS went down even more, and they were abysmal before. They're not for brawling. They're for tanking huge alpha while boosting. See above
I am perfectly aware what CS are for. Still there is no need to severerly gimp the NH in DPS-aspects in comparison to other CS! I want the NH to be fixed and afterwards on par or even on top of the rest - Caldari deserve a good ship for sure. Btw, did someone notice how the Drake ceased to exist as a combatship like it used to do before? Exactly how I predicted .... now no one with their brains set right seems to pvp in a Drake anymore ... but yeah, go on and nerf everything more :)
|
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 04:55:00 -
[1658] - Quote
Fozzie what about people who got all skills on V like me? I can fly all cs with 3 races. I want to have something that i trained all to V. To skill to lvl4 is not a big deal, please give older players more cool stuff.
And again, what about gang modules who boosts damage? Or tracking bonuses(not from logistics). |
Goldensaver
Perkone Caldari State
221
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 05:39:00 -
[1659] - Quote
Capt Canada wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
However in the long run, adding HP is not the solution to key ships being volleyed off the field. As EVE battles grow in numbers..
At the same time we are continuing to push more viable gang boosting options into lower brackets of SP and isk requirements. Many of you will have noticed that one effect of the gang link changes is that T1 Battlecruisers will provide better bonuses, and a character with level 3 or 4 skills will be vastly improved compared to the current situation. There will still be significant benefits to training skills to 5 and upgrading to a Command Ship, but for people that can't afford to bring redundant Command Ships, redundant Battlecruisers will be a fine option.
I've also seen the idea expressed a few times to expand Target Spectrum Breakers to the Command Ships, and that's an idea I think has some serious merit. There likely isn't time to get it in for 1.1, but we'll investigate further and see what comes out.
I might be missing some thing really big here, could you explain how a T1 battlecruiser with low SP pilot is going to provide better bonuses? T1 battlecruiser can only fit 1 link, gets no specific ship bonuses to gang links. Lower SP pilots aren't going to be boosting for 2000 man fleets, they will be the small fleet / gang boosters. Lower SP pilot, with all level four skills for gang links is only getting the base boost from the gang link (lvl 4 skills means no leadership implants), how is that any better than it is now?? Maybe T1 battlecruisers could get a small fixed bonus to 1 link, which only works with T1 links?? It could still be used by higher skill pilots but the bonus is negated if the pilot fits a T2 link or has leadership implants. Target spectrum breakers on command ships?? Why?? All your doing is giving the enemy a chance to relock you faster than your logi can. Unless the Target Spectrum Breaker can be scripted to work only on a targeted ship it will probably be more of a hindrance than help. NB; there is a bug in SISI, when I use "strip fitting" to try it on another ship, yes the ship gets its fittings stripped but they do not appear in items hanger, all the fitted modules are gone. I tried re-logging, seems the eve gods needed my modules. As far as I can tell, in that quote he's talking about how the average T1 BC will be better at boosting than it was before the patch. What with the lower emphasis on skills and mindlinks to have a proper booster, you can be closer to peak with a T1 BC than you could before.
Hell, after this you won't absolutely require a mindlink since it's going from 50% increase to only 25%. You won't need perfect level 5's. It all makes it better, of course. But it's not going to be nearly as bad as today where a level 1 skill doesn't get you the mindlink and only gets you a 2.2% increase to resists for example. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 06:11:00 -
[1660] - Quote
Phaade wrote:Why does every single CS have the same cap recharge? Pretty sure the Absolution should have a higher recharge than a Sleipnir given, oh I don't know, the fact that lasers take a **** ton of cap, projectiles and ASB's require ZERO. But hey, call me crazy.
And why does a T2 BC have less recharge than a T2 Cruiser?
That's average recharge, look at the recharge rates and total cap for each and then apply skills. You get some pretty major differences. Peak recharge on the Amarr ships with a decently skilled character is going to be worlds better than either of the Minmattar ships, which by comparison have an absolutely anemic capacitor total.
Capt Canada wrote: I might be missing some thing really big here, could you explain how a T1 battlecruiser with low SP pilot is going to provide better bonuses? T1 battlecruiser can only fit 1 link, gets no specific ship bonuses to gang links. Lower SP pilots aren't going to be boosting for 2000 man fleets, they will be the small fleet / gang boosters. Lower SP pilot, with all level four skills for gang links is only getting the base boost from the gang link (lvl 4 skills means no leadership implants), how is that any better than it is now?? Maybe T1 battlecruisers could get a small fixed bonus to 1 link, which only works with T1 links?? It could still be used by higher skill pilots but the bonus is negated if the pilot fits a T2 link or has leadership implants.
Target spectrum breakers on command ships?? Why?? All your doing is giving the enemy a chance to relock you faster than your logi can. Unless the Target Spectrum Breaker can be scripted to work only on a targeted ship it will probably be more of a hindrance than help.
NB; there is a bug in SISI, when I use "strip fitting" to try it on another ship, yes the ship gets its fittings stripped but they do not appear in items hanger, all the fitted modules are gone. I tried re-logging, seems the eve gods needed my modules.
T1 BCs are going to provide better bonuses than before the changes, not better than a fully fitted and skilled Command Ship, meaning that for a newbie who's getting into BCs on his way to command ships and boosting for his friends' small gang roam he's going to have more of an impact than pre-1.1
Command Ships are still going to be better, but it's not going to be the exponentially better of pre-1.1 where between skills, implants, and the command ship/T3 boost, BC links are barely noticeable and you don't get nearly the full effect until your pilot is maxed as a booster.
Given how quickly Logi ships and Triage carriers lock I can hardly see a BS gang re-locking you before they can. As he said though, it's just something they're considering.
That bug report probably belongs in the bugs thread, not the CS thread where no one related to bug-hunting is going to see it. |
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
770
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 07:40:00 -
[1661] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:...However in the long run, adding HP is not the solution to key ships being volleyed off the field. As EVE battles grow in numbers and coordination people are going to find a way to volley just about anything we design, and then we'll be right back where we started. We're not going to get into an escalating design battle against the dps and alpha of player fleets. Common sense from an Eve Dev, what is the world coming to!
CCP Fozzie wrote:The solution to the problem is to sidestep it by reducing reliance on a few lynchpin ships. The reason that command ships have this problem while other key fleet ships (like logistics, recons or dictors) don't is because people can bring redundant numbers of those other classes. When we get the capability to remove offgrid links our plan is to also replace the way links apply so that losing one key ship won't mean you need to take your ball and go home. Any ideas as to how to go about it? Assuming you mean a mechanic that will remove the necessity of FC to manually assign boosters every time one drops, watchlist system that is depleted as a fight goes on? Tagging all link ships and letting server determine which is better (based on what links dropped)? .. will it play nice with squads/wings and if not is fleet interface going on the make-over show? Common sense is awesome, but be careful, once you start down that path there is no going back and you'll start seeing weird and irrational things at every corner
CCP Fozzie wrote:At the same time we are continuing to push more viable gang boosting options into lower brackets of SP and isk requirements.... You teasing with a frig based link platform perchance? If not ... could you?
CCP Fozzie wrote:I've also seen the idea expressed a few times to expand Target Spectrum Breakers to the Command Ships, and that's an idea I think has some serious merit. There likely isn't time to get it in for 1.1, but we'll investigate further and see what comes out. Just make sure it is fixed beforehand .. we don't want a situation where a logi wing can immunize a CC just by locking it.
PS: "A few times" .. you are dissing my forum whoring!!111
Would love a Devblog detailing the thought processes going into the on-/offgrid work, it is a change that will have a bigger impact than the introduction of POS back in the day as it affects Eve on all levels. If nothing else, your deranged braintrust (ie. the playerbase) might have ideas as to how to get around specific/general obstacles so abuse it/us.
Cade Windstalker wrote:That's average recharge, look at the recharge rates and total cap for each and then apply skills. You get some pretty major differences. Peak recharge on the Amarr ships with a decently skilled character is going to be worlds better than either of the Minmattar ships, which by comparison have an absolutely anemic capacitor total. They all have 4.5 per second .. that number is a straight division of cap and recharge so applying skills won't change it much as proportions will remain the same. Seems like they just took the old number and tweaked numbers on field hulls upwards to have a bigger pool on them regardless of weaponry and bonuses to active tanking .. actually kind of strange. Considering that active tanking is wanted on the smaller scale and tank relevant slots remain static there ought to be significant differences (read: Abso needs much MOAR! and Astarte need a little moar!) to account for weaponry, bonuses and slots available for cap (ie. injector). |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
52
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 07:48:00 -
[1662] - Quote
So i guess, this "Rebalance" is Command Ships 1.5 not 2.0? |
Rukia Taika
Dueces Wyld
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 08:22:00 -
[1663] - Quote
Trying to think of a constructive way to say this about the Command ship changes and the Strategic cruiser changes. Great seeing that the command ship are back at the forefront for what they do compare to a strategic cruiser boosting.
Just one tiny problem I noticed. The strategic cruiser has enough CPU to fit 6 links with no CPU upgrades, Rigs or implants including it having several Command Processors on it where with the Command ship you need 2 CPU rigs, a couple of CPU upgrades and the implant to fit 2 command processors, and 6 links and still not enough CPU to fit the silly thing. Some Extra CPU for the Command Ship would be nice.
Yes I know I am trying to fit it with the appropriate links for the command ship and seeing the changes I like them still but I also feel that the changes will affect the Armor Incursion Community who has always been suffering where as the Siege changes have no serious change to them.
Come on CCP get your head out of each others butt and remember that the armor tankers do not rely on the condom but love going bare back. |
Vulfen
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 08:26:00 -
[1664] - Quote
@ CCP Fozzie
I have a question, though slightly off topic, but does relate to these changes
People who fly command ships tend to have good implant and booster skills, to combine them together to make the CS a better ship whether it be for DPS or tank.
Currently there are no implants in the game that affect drones. Any thoughts on whether or not we are going to get some?
id like to see ones like;
increase drone hp increase drone RoF or in ewar drones case cycle time increase tacking maybe a set of faction implants that allow for longer drone control range
i also believe there should be a single "officer implant" that increases Fighter and Fighter Bomber damage, id like to see this as a rare drop from the Super at the end of incursions.
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
138
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 08:42:00 -
[1665] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: To be clear, we are not removing the Damnation's HP bonus in Odyssey 1.1, as right now it helps the Damnation fill a useful role that would be lost if we removed it.
Well, technically there already is a dedicated 'Command' ship for large scale fleet combat. It's not very popular, though . |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
99
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 09:00:00 -
[1666] - Quote
No news on the Nighthawk slot layout, eh? I haz a sad.
As nothing's been said about it at all, I'd expect that there's still internal debate going on at CCP's end regarding it, otherwise Fozzie would've just come out and said, "Nope, not changing the Nighthawk's slot layout at this time. We feel the NH is competitive as-is." or something to that effect. Since that hasn't been said, but nothing's been mentioned in favor of the idea either, that tells me that it's still under discussion within the balancing team. I.E. there's still hope. |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 09:40:00 -
[1667] - Quote
Wrayeth wrote:No news on the Nighthawk slot layout, eh? I haz a sad. As nothing's been said about it at all, I'd expect that there's still internal debate going on at CCP's end regarding it, otherwise Fozzie would've just come out and said, "Nope, not changing the Nighthawk's slot layout at this time. We feel the NH is competitive as-is." or something to that effect. Since that hasn't been said, but nothing's been mentioned in favor of the idea either, that tells me that it's still under discussion within the balancing team. I.E. there's still hope.
It seems that the NH was designed around needing a RCU or PDU. It does this without sacrifice as it basically has 1 useless low anyway. You then end up with a ship that has enough grid but is basically a slot down over other layouts.
It needs to be much closer to the Clay fittings wise so that there are choices to be made when fitting.
6:4 layout and 1000 grid would give a ship that has potential.
em/inv/scram/web/prop/injector/booster or lse
Still not enough mids for all thats needed but at leasst the ship is not totally compromised when trying to fit tackle.
Shield tankers need mids.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
120
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 09:54:00 -
[1668] - Quote
I agree here, and apart from that the NH needs more DPS too. Its been nerfed in DPS (do the maths, 5*1.75 < 6*1.5!) and its DPS have been poor even before the HML nerf (!), and now it should be nerfed down even more. Give it similar DPS to other ships, and make it able to use all its slots with a reasonable layout. The PG and CPU buff are good though, now one more med, one less low and DPS on par with the rest (or even on top - there is no reason for a Caldari ship to be NOT best in its class in something, right?) |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
159
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 10:23:00 -
[1669] - Quote
I'd also be very interested what the reasons are for the vulture having a 6/4 and the nighthawk having a 5/5 slot-layout regarding turrets and missiles. Claymore and Sleipnir demonstrate very impressively how to make use of those respective slots to favor their intended weapon system. While shield+missiles don't really benefit from the 5th low and beyond (unless nano makes sense), as seen on 2 XL-ASB Nscorps with cargo expanders, if for once no corpoc is needed. The Vulture on the other side is really pushed into a linking-focus, as 4 lows (3, subtracting the DCU) is hardly worth a shield-turret-ship's attention.
Not stating that they are currently broken or bad, just that the tendency seems awkward. With the recent PG-increase announced on terms of the nighthawk, the former premier usage appeared to be stuffing PDUs in those lows to actually make it fit, you now got 1-2 lows for really random usage. Going through the history of excess lowslots on missile ships, I can barely remember anything besides nanos, fitting mods and cargo expanders to have ever reliably filled a missile ship's lows. If that's a hidden wink at missile-TEs... \o/ - though I doubt that's the case.
I could imagine well that even a 6/4 nighthawk might be terryfying on a smallscale-confrontation, but so are sleipirs and oh so many others, I'd also not think that such a change would impact the largest of fleets, the ship names vulture/nighthawk would just be switched out in fleet, just with the nighthawk now appearing in 2-3 man roams aswell (as LSE, EM-ward, invuln, point+WEB, mwd would be supported)
As for the Eos, a fifth mid would be a total boner, but would also just turn it into a simply superior myrmidon :( I only correct my own spelling. |
Janeway84
Masters Of Destiny Pride Before Fall
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 10:50:00 -
[1670] - Quote
Hmm looks ok ish but Imo they should add the extra mid slot so you could fit a web or a TP so you can have full tackle fit. But i guess NH can work like that too in a decent fleet w supporting ships
EOS really should have 200 m3 more drone bay so it can stay in a fight longer in a skirmish against decent oponents who will shoot them drones down.. |
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
167
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 11:08:00 -
[1671] - Quote
Janeway84 wrote:Hmm looks ok ish but Imo they should add the extra mid slot so you could fit a web or a TP so you can have full tackle fit. But i guess NH can work like that too in a decent fleet w supporting ships EOS really should have 200 m3 more drone bay so it can stay in a fight longer in a skirmish against decent oponents who will shoot them drones down..
No, this would obsolete all other drone ships. the purpose of the command ships is to support dps ships, not to replace them. They are all deliberately gimped for this reason.
|
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 11:09:00 -
[1672] - Quote
Janeway84 wrote:Hmm looks ok ish but Imo they should add the extra mid slot so you could fit a web or a TP so you can have full tackle fit. But i guess NH can work like that too in a decent fleet w supporting ships EOS really should have 200 m3 more drone bay so it can stay in a fight longer in a skirmish against decent oponents who will shoot them drones down..
I don't think I have ever seen anyone win a fight by shooting drones in anything other than a 1v1. Given that you destroy the ship you stop the drones anyway I think you should amend that statement.
EOS really should have 200 m3 more drone bay so it can stay in a fight longer in a skirmish against drone shooting nubsters.
375 bay size should do it fine. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
160
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 11:39:00 -
[1673] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:Janeway84 wrote:Hmm looks ok ish but Imo they should add the extra mid slot so you could fit a web or a TP so you can have full tackle fit. But i guess NH can work like that too in a decent fleet w supporting ships EOS really should have 200 m3 more drone bay so it can stay in a fight longer in a skirmish against decent oponents who will shoot them drones down.. I don't think I have ever seen anyone win a fight by shooting drones in anything other than a 1v1. Given that you destroy the ship you stop the drones anyway I think you should amend that statement. EOS really should have 200 m3 more drone bay so it can stay in a fight longer in a skirmish against drone shooting nubsters. 375 bay size should do it fine.
*launches navy ogres* - *sees enemy gang shoot his drones for the first 30 seconds of a fight* - *launches second set, remaining enemies are sadpanda*
I only correct my own spelling. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3290
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 11:56:00 -
[1674] - Quote
It's a bit strange that the slow Eos was not turned into a sentry ship, which has been proven to be a working concept in PVP now as well.
It's certainly better than before, but it might work better with Gardes than Ogres. Or at least expand the speed and tracking bonus to all moving drones- I don't see myself filling the drone bay with just heavies, and once they are down/sucked back in to deal with smaller ships, it loses quite a bit of applied dps.
It remains a bit confused ship in terms of bonuses.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
167
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 12:00:00 -
[1675] - Quote
form a fleet on sisi. take it to the front line. use cases will begin to come clear. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
161
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 12:11:00 -
[1676] - Quote
Roime wrote:It's a bit strange that the slow Eos was not turned into a sentry ship, which has been proven to be a working concept in PVP now as well.
It's certainly better than before, but it might work better with Gardes than Ogres. Or at least expand the speed and tracking bonus to all moving drones- I don't see myself filling the drone bay with just heavies, and once they are down/sucked back in to deal with smaller ships, it loses quite a bit of applied dps.
It remains a bit confused ship in terms of bonuses.
As far as our beloved wh-space is concerned, heavies are well protected against smartbombs atleast in direct vicinity of a wormhole. Given the combination with a chance at skirmish links, the mwd-bonus to heavies also looks quite favorable. Given a scenario as some ***hat bumping you off the hole, and especially away from sentries, might force you to jump while abandonning your sentries, which cannot occur for heavies. In null, the concept of sentries in a smallgang (and you'd surely use a damnation beyond that) is somewhat flawed, and it's direct concurrence for being a fleetship is given by the sentry-bonused Ishtar, that also got damage mitigation by size speaking in its favor.
I believe that by having no sentry bonus for the Eos nothing has been lost.
I can totally follow up on you gazing at a tracking bonus to med/small drones, that would be somewhere between fantastic and gorgeous. Though with web/scram on a frigate, the applied dps from Ogres is existant and in case of berzerkers, not even bad at all. I only correct my own spelling. |
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 12:14:00 -
[1677] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Capt Canada wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
However in the long run, adding HP is not the solution to key ships being volleyed off the field. As EVE battles grow in numbers..
At the same time we are continuing to push more viable gang boosting options into lower brackets of SP and isk requirements. Many of you will have noticed that one effect of the gang link changes is that T1 Battlecruisers will provide better bonuses, and a character with level 3 or 4 skills will be vastly improved compared to the current situation. There will still be significant benefits to training skills to 5 and upgrading to a Command Ship, but for people that can't afford to bring redundant Command Ships, redundant Battlecruisers will be a fine option.
I've also seen the idea expressed a few times to expand Target Spectrum Breakers to the Command Ships, and that's an idea I think has some serious merit. There likely isn't time to get it in for 1.1, but we'll investigate further and see what comes out.
I might be missing some thing really big here, could you explain how a T1 battlecruiser with low SP pilot is going to provide better bonuses? T1 battlecruiser can only fit 1 link, gets no specific ship bonuses to gang links. Lower SP pilots aren't going to be boosting for 2000 man fleets, they will be the small fleet / gang boosters. Lower SP pilot, with all level four skills for gang links is only getting the base boost from the gang link (lvl 4 skills means no leadership implants), how is that any better than it is now?? Maybe T1 battlecruisers could get a small fixed bonus to 1 link, which only works with T1 links?? It could still be used by higher skill pilots but the bonus is negated if the pilot fits a T2 link or has leadership implants. Target spectrum breakers on command ships?? Why?? All your doing is giving the enemy a chance to relock you faster than your logi can. Unless the Target Spectrum Breaker can be scripted to work only on a targeted ship it will probably be more of a hindrance than help. NB; there is a bug in SISI, when I use "strip fitting" to try it on another ship, yes the ship gets its fittings stripped but they do not appear in items hanger, all the fitted modules are gone. I tried re-logging, seems the eve gods needed my modules. As far as I can tell, in that quote he's talking about how the average T1 BC will be better at boosting than it was before the patch. What with the lower emphasis on skills and mindlinks to have a proper booster, you can be closer to peak with a T1 BC than you could before. Hell, after this you won't absolutely require a mindlink since it's going from 50% increase to only 25%. You won't need perfect level 5's. It all makes it better, of course. But it's not going to be nearly as bad as today where a level 1 skill doesn't get you the mindlink and only gets you a 2.2% increase to resists for example. Edit: also, it'll take 100 less PG to fit so less gimping on the fit.
|
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 12:15:00 -
[1678] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Capt Canada wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
However in the long run, adding HP is not the solution to key ships being volleyed off the field. As EVE battles grow in numbers..
At the same time we are continuing to push more viable gang boosting options into lower brackets of SP and isk requirements. Many of you will have noticed that one effect of the gang link changes is that T1 Battlecruisers will provide better bonuses, and a character with level 3 or 4 skills will be vastly improved compared to the current situation. There will still be significant benefits to training skills to 5 and upgrading to a Command Ship, but for people that can't afford to bring redundant Command Ships, redundant Battlecruisers will be a fine option.
I've also seen the idea expressed a few times to expand Target Spectrum Breakers to the Command Ships, and that's an idea I think has some serious merit. There likely isn't time to get it in for 1.1, but we'll investigate further and see what comes out.
I might be missing some thing really big here, could you explain how a T1 battlecruiser with low SP pilot is going to provide better bonuses? T1 battlecruiser can only fit 1 link, gets no specific ship bonuses to gang links. Lower SP pilots aren't going to be boosting for 2000 man fleets, they will be the small fleet / gang boosters. Lower SP pilot, with all level four skills for gang links is only getting the base boost from the gang link (lvl 4 skills means no leadership implants), how is that any better than it is now?? Maybe T1 battlecruisers could get a small fixed bonus to 1 link, which only works with T1 links?? It could still be used by higher skill pilots but the bonus is negated if the pilot fits a T2 link or has leadership implants. Target spectrum breakers on command ships?? Why?? All your doing is giving the enemy a chance to relock you faster than your logi can. Unless the Target Spectrum Breaker can be scripted to work only on a targeted ship it will probably be more of a hindrance than help. NB; there is a bug in SISI, when I use "strip fitting" to try it on another ship, yes the ship gets its fittings stripped but they do not appear in items hanger, all the fitted modules are gone. I tried re-logging, seems the eve gods needed my modules. As far as I can tell, in that quote he's talking about how the average T1 BC will be better at boosting than it was before the patch. What with the lower emphasis on skills and mindlinks to have a proper booster, you can be closer to peak with a T1 BC than you could before. Hell, after this you won't absolutely require a mindlink since it's going from 50% increase to only 25%. You won't need perfect level 5's. It all makes it better, of course. But it's not going to be nearly as bad as today where a level 1 skill doesn't get you the mindlink and only gets you a 2.2% increase to resists for example. Edit: also, it'll take 100 less PG to fit so less gimping on the fit. I'm not so sure, in fact all the changes to gang links is going to put more emphasis the need for mind links and unless the skill requirements for these ( currently specialization 5) is going to change then the only benefit coming to T1 BC's running a link will be the lower fitting requirements. In fact at a squad boost level (small gang) 1 link with specialization 4 will actually provide less of a boost than it does now. The difference between lvl 1 specialization and level 2, remapped for leadership skill training with +4 implants is 2hrs 13 mins. So the fact the link is unavailable until level 2 is pretty much a mute point.
|
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3290
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 13:02:00 -
[1679] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:
As far as our beloved wh-space is concerned, heavies are well protected against smartbombs atleast in direct vicinity of a wormhole. Given the combination with a chance at skirmish links, the mwd-bonus to heavies also looks quite favorable. Given a scenario as some ***hat bumping you off the hole, and especially away from sentries, might force you to jump while abandonning your sentries, which cannot occur for heavies. In null, the concept of sentries in a smallgang (and you'd surely use a damnation beyond that) is somewhat flawed, and it's direct concurrence for being a fleetship is given by the sentry-bonused Ishtar, that also got damage mitigation by size speaking in its favor.
I believe that by having no sentry bonus for the Eos nothing has been lost.
I can totally follow up on you gazing at a tracking bonus to med/small drones, that would be somewhere between fantastic and gorgeous. Though with web/scram on a frigate, the applied dps from Ogres is existant and in case of berzerkers, not even bad at all.
I'm not really worried about smarties against HP-bonused heavies, they are more vulnerable to turret and missile damage, and since everybody knows the limited amount of Eos drone bay, it's a no-brainer to pop them before even going for the rep-bonused hull itself. There's a good chance the Eos only has one spare heavy, rest is only dmg-bonused meds and lights.
I've been in many situations where I had to jump thru a hole before heavies (and even scouts) didn't have time to make it back to the bay.
I did think of the Ishtar, as it's quite obvious that the Eos doesn't really have a place in an Ishtar fleet, at least not dealing damage. Which is sad since it's the drone command ship.
Current Domi with 10% bonus to tracking does apply decent damage to small ships with heavies, idk how well the 7.5% works- the difference to non-tracking bonused heavies is neglible or situational, and Eos doesn't have the slots to fit Omnis like Domi. The speed bonus might have a saying, hope someone does proper testing on SiSi :)
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Conci Furiram
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 13:54:00 -
[1680] - Quote
There's 84 pages so I don't know if this has been suggested:
The Armor types have a ship that gets super tank; the Damnation with 10% hitpoint bonus. Where's the equivalent Shield ship? I think they should change the Vulture; there really is no need for double MHT optimal range bonuses...
Vulture: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range ----> 10% bonus to all Shield hitpoints 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 3% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and Information Warfare links |
|
Sparkus Volundar
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
62
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 14:04:00 -
[1681] - Quote
Thanks for the updates Fozzie.
I still think the NH would be best ballanced around having 6 mids though.
Regards, Sparks
Sparkus Volundar wrote:Hello,
Thanks for all the work on everything of late.
I think the premier shield tanking race command ships should follow the Drake and have of 6 mids (e.g. like the Claymore). The Nighthawk will also be shooting missiles like the Drake after all.
It makes no sense to me to have the Caldari missile command ship mirror the hybrid weapon T1 battlecruiser model of 5 mids while the hybrid weapon T2 command ship has 6 mids. Nighthawk still seems to suffer from the old tier issue of being based on the lower tier BC hull.
My suggestion would be to move one low to a mid.
Regards, Sparks
Applied Creations is recruiting. Mystic Volundar says, "It could be you! " |
Alsyth
83
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 14:13:00 -
[1682] - Quote
Thank you for listening regarding Sleipnir CPU.
Claymore still struggles. Nighthawk slot layout still prevent it from being really good.
I hope your acknowledgement that the EHP problem for CS in big fleets comes from them being "unique" in a way logis or other ship aren't will lead you to consider something like: -make best links automatically boost the fleet no matter what. -use fleet hierarchy only for wing-warps & such, not for bonuses.
This way bringing 10 CS on grid in a fight will be possible, killing them will be possible but time-consuming, yet rewarding in case of success.
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
162
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 14:41:00 -
[1683] - Quote
Alsyth wrote: I hope your acknowledgement that the EHP problem for CS in big fleets comes from them being "unique" in a way logis or other ship aren't will lead you to consider something like: -make best links automatically boost the fleet no matter what. -use fleet hierarchy only for wing-warps & such, not for bonuses.
From what the last devposts reads, boosting will be something close to AoE, or being in the vicinity as a condition to receive them. As such, secondary bonding to a hierarchy won't (I guess that's what was hinted at) be needed anymore, so a hp-bonus on a linkship wouldn't be necessary anymore, as 'redundancy' starts kicking in. I only correct my own spelling. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
179
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 15:15:00 -
[1684] - Quote
Conci Furiram wrote:There's 84 pages so I don't know if this has been suggested:
The Armor types have a ship that gets super tank; the Damnation with 10% hitpoint bonus. Where's the equivalent Shield ship? I think they should change the Vulture; there really is no need for double MHT optimal range bonuses...
Vulture: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range ----> 10% bonus to all Shield hitpoints 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 3% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and Information Warfare links The only thing I agree with you on is that the "Caldari" double 10% ! range bonus should go. The extreme range bonusing on the corm and harpy and on the missile boats are overdone. It is a stupid attempt to give short range weapon platforms on these ships a different flavor, but most people simply end up making fleet snipers out of them that no other fleet comp can come close to.
As for the hp alternative, you've got to be kidding. Sure have the hp bonus, but only if it also reduces your shield regen to zero. Otherwise it will just become the worst pve monstrosity ever in the game. "Look at me mom I can't ever die to the npcs blah blah . ."
Noemi Nagano wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Please BUFF the NH and dont nerf it even more ... DPS went down even more, and they were abysmal before. They're not for brawling. They're for tanking huge alpha while boosting. See above I am perfectly aware what CS are for. Still there is no need to severerly gimp the NH in DPS-aspects in comparison to other CS! I want the NH to be fixed and afterwards on par or even on top of the rest - Caldari deserve a good ship for sure. Btw, did someone notice how the Drake ceased to exist as a combatship like it used to do before? Exactly how I predicted .... now no one with their brains set right seems to pvp in a Drake anymore ... but yeah, go on and nerf everything more :) So, someone points out the obvious reason why dps is secondary on these ships, and you don't seem to get it. They are meant to be pvp support ships, not a pve-ers wet dream.
Also, Good to see you haven't lost your lack of perspective. After 3 years of Drake dominance cry us all a river Noemi. It is still a decent ship. But everyone abandoned it because it was no longer simple cheap and easy mode. Also, Talwar and Caracal say "hi and missiles are fine" btw. That eve-kill top twenty is looking healthier than it has ever looked. Such a mix of ship sizes, races, and weapon types. And the raw number variance is very small from number 1 to number 20, let alone number 2 or 3. So, good riddance to Drakes Online. Now if we can only avoid Cerbs Online. |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 15:37:00 -
[1685] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I agree here, and apart from that the NH needs more DPS too. Its been nerfed in DPS (do the maths, 5*1.75 < 6*1.5!) and its DPS have been poor even before the HML nerf (!), and now it should be nerfed down even more. Give it similar DPS to other ships, and make it able to use all its slots with a reasonable layout. The PG and CPU buff are good though, now one more med, one less low and DPS on par with the rest (or even on top - there is no reason for a Caldari ship to be NOT best in its class in something, right?)
Did you fail math in school? Atleast get stuff right before whining |
Frothgar
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
82
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 16:04:00 -
[1686] - Quote
I think some folks are greatly underestimating just what a pig the four armor command ships become when you add a 1600 plate (Which is mandatory since 60k EHP and an active rep is not cutting it for anything over 5 people) 10mn MWDs really don't give that much oomph, add in Trimarks and you're going to have some serious problems.
Long story short. You're only ~200m/sec faster than a plated baddon. And when using pulses you're dealing ~70% of the damage with 30% of the range. The irony is the 1600 Astarte is probably never going to be able to escape from a megathron either.
Rails/Beams are really your only option because they don't have the speed to chase anything down, and you're limited to 20km. While the Railstarte has some chance of fitting LR guns and 2 links, its still reaaaaaally tight.
The Damnation is still the only viable one for fleet fights, the shield ships can kite and outrange stuff just fine, and probably didn't need any fitting help to boot.
What is your plan for the other armor ships to make them viable in fleet fights? It just seems like they're all stuck in the position of the old Deimos which is you're slower than your counterparts, but you have to scram them and kill them otherwise you're dead.
They all need some form of damage projection, you can probably pull it off with the Eos with sentries and focus on all out buffer. I just don't see any role for the Absolution and Astarte except a subpar active tank lowsec ganker. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4219
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 16:23:00 -
[1687] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I've also seen the idea expressed a few times to expand Target Spectrum Breakers to the Command Ships, and that's an idea I think has some serious merit. There likely isn't time to get it in for 1.1, but we'll investigate further and see what comes out. Nice.
Out of curiosity have you contemplated the idea of introducing cruiser and frigate versions of the TSB? The module is still young so to speak and needs a tad bit more tweaking (lower CPU and capacitor usage), but I do like the idea of a module acts as a counter to the standard alpha and brick tank we see in almost every form of fleet fighting. . |
Vorgx
THE FINAL STAND The Final Stand.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 16:28:00 -
[1688] - Quote
I have to say that i was excited when i heard about the CS changes, now that i read the changes i understand that i will not use them anymore, they are pretty mediocre ships that not worth the isk.
sadface for this totally fail changes |
mine mi
Boinas Rojas Gentlemen's Agreement
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 16:30:00 -
[1689] - Quote
For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship. |
Frothgar
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
82
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 16:51:00 -
[1690] - Quote
WTB Marauder CS ^_^ |
|
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
201
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 17:15:00 -
[1691] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Capt Canada 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 Fozzie, if your really basing these small changes on player feedback, PLEASE 7 highs, 6 mids, 4 lows for the nighthawk. It ain't gonna happen. The design team have the caldari ships pegged as fleet boosters, not active tankers. The nighthawk is no longer a superdrake. For that, look no further than the Claymore. Except that 6/4 is better for fleet boosting since you can fit a stronger buffer, while 5/5 is fine for active since you need a coproc for the XLASB anyway. Drake is 6/4, Cyclone is 5/5. The Nighthawk and Claymore are backwards. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
172
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 17:23:00 -
[1692] - Quote
mine mi wrote:For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship.
can't you put links in carriers and supercaps? |
mine mi
Boinas Rojas Gentlemen's Agreement
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 17:47:00 -
[1693] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:mine mi wrote:For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship. can't you put links in carriers and supercaps? supers has its own problems,'s keep out of this.
|
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 17:56:00 -
[1694] - Quote
The eos is just in a sad spot ATM 250 dronebay is too small, (adding 200 is a little too much) And it still is just lacking when it comes to being compared to other commandships especially the Astarte Even when I mwd around in an eos the ogres can't keep up with me... And this whole hacs have more regen than commandships is just weird and wrong As somebody pointed out the abso should have highest cap regen etc etc It's like ccp is just too timid with these ships.... And btw these ships are meant to be combat ships if you choose them to be Not strictly links |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
172
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 18:07:00 -
[1695] - Quote
mine mi wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:mine mi wrote:For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship. can't you put links in carriers and supercaps? supers has its own problems,'s keep out of this.
from the points of view of resisting alpha and giving boost, they're the most powerful players, no?
sure it's a lot of cash to risk, but do you want to win or not? what was the cost to TEST for example, of losing Fountain? sometimes you just have to go all in.
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 18:35:00 -
[1696] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:mine mi wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:mine mi wrote:For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship. can't you put links in carriers and supercaps? supers has its own problems,'s keep out of this. from the points of view of resisting alpha and giving boost, they're the most powerful players, no? sure it's a lot of cash to risk, but do you want to win or not? what was the cost to TEST for example, of losing Fountain? sometimes you just have to go all in.
You are just cripling more and more possibilites throught your "Warfare Links for Fleets belongs to Caps only" opinion.
I dont get it why your view is so capital centered... |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
172
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 18:38:00 -
[1697] - Quote
because if you want your link booster to absorb the alpha of a 2000 man fleet (which seems to be some people's concern), you really have little choice... |
Captain Organs
Veldspar Industries Brave Collective
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 19:35:00 -
[1698] - Quote
Why Fozzie have you tormented me so long with no link to the model changes? Is it happening? Is it not? I can't take it anymore. D:
PS. I don't want to lose my laser chicken |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 20:36:00 -
[1699] - Quote
Captain Organs wrote:Why Fozzie have you tormented me so long with no link to the model changes? Is it happening? Is it not? I can't take it anymore. D:
PS. I don't want to lose my laser chicken Current NH Sleip and Abso look much better now than they would if hulls get changed, I seriously hope they dont change the models
And id be happy to get a reply from DEVS why the capless and caphungry CS have the same cap/sec. |
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 21:16:00 -
[1700] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:because if you want your link booster to absorb the alpha of a 2000 man fleet (which seems to be some people's concern), you really have little choice...
I think the concern atm is that it can't absorb the alpha of 16 dudes.... so even in a 250 man max fleet fight.... it dies way to easily.
General rule of thumb is that if you can't take about 50 ships worth of alpha.... you remove any skill for a max fleet to alpha through you and let just about anyone do it.
The issue with tank comes back to the stupid nature of Logistics ships. ALL SHIPS deserve more hp and local tank and logistics really need a considerable nerf. EVE needs to implement a degrading HP system into combat where logistics cannot repair a ship to 100% health.
I would say that shields and armor need to have a base recharge cap amount that affects where their max hp can return to. This would help a ship survive with logistics, but degrade over time when receiving constant DPS. It keeps value with logistics, but removes this unbreakable bullshit in fleet fights.
Recharges could be something like 2 minutes with similar peaks and valleys as the normal shield and capacitor recharge rates now.... only these would affect max cap and not current cap.
|
|
Webzy Phoenix
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 21:37:00 -
[1701] - Quote
Doed wrote:Captain Organs wrote:Why Fozzie have you tormented me so long with no link to the model changes? Is it happening? Is it not? I can't take it anymore. D:
PS. I don't want to lose my laser chicken Current NH Sleip and Abso look much better now than they would if hulls get changed, I seriously hope they dont change the models And id be happy to get a reply from DEVS why the capless and caphungry CS have the same cap/sec. Plan is to change Nighthawk model to that of a black Drake...
Apparently because we don't have enough Drake models in the game already and the perfect look of the current Nighthawk is problematic in some way. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
324
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 22:12:00 -
[1702] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:mine mi wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:mine mi wrote:For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship. can't you put links in carriers and supercaps? supers has its own problems,'s keep out of this. from the points of view of resisting alpha and giving boost, they're the most powerful players, no? sure it's a lot of cash to risk, but do you want to win or not? what was the cost to TEST for example, of losing Fountain? sometimes you just have to go all in.
So you're proposing to have subcap fleet booster be ships that can't move with the rest of the fleet?
That's some weapons grade stupid. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
172
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 22:47:00 -
[1703] - Quote
I am not necessarily proposing anything, just highlighting the fact that there are more options than warping/cynoing your fleet booster into weapons range of your enemy.
Another option is to put it on grid 250+ km from your enemy's guns. Then keep it moving, guard it, and have more than one so you have some redundancy.
If you want your fleet booster in weapons range, that's up to you. I dont, unless it's as strong as a supercap!
Really guys, you don't see the marines parachuting their field command post onto the enemy positions, why do it with a spaceship?
On grid boosting will require tactical solutions - for both sides in the conflict.
Adapt and survive...
|
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
1083
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 23:05:00 -
[1704] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: On grid boosting will require tactical solutions - for both sides in the conflict.
Adapt and survive...
Don't bring that logic in here, sonny Jim. These people want God Ships, and they want them now. Rifterlings pirate corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang operations. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
172
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 23:10:00 -
[1705] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: On grid boosting will require tactical solutions - for both sides in the conflict.
Adapt and survive...
Don't bring that logic in here, sonny Jim. These people want God Ships, and they want them now.
Ain't that the truth...
|
Vegine
Sphere Foundation
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 23:27:00 -
[1706] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Domanique Altares wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: On grid boosting will require tactical solutions - for both sides in the conflict.
Adapt and survive...
Don't bring that logic in here, sonny Jim. These people want God Ships, and they want them now. Ain't that the truth... except....that eos's got a heavy drone bonus that's starring at SOME PEOPLE in the eye up close.
I mean, REALLY CLOSE.
did I mention close???? |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
172
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 23:35:00 -
[1707] - Quote
Vegine wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Domanique Altares wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: On grid boosting will require tactical solutions - for both sides in the conflict.
Adapt and survive...
Don't bring that logic in here, sonny Jim. These people want God Ships, and they want them now. Ain't that the truth... except....that eos's got a heavy drone bonus that's starring at SOME PEOPLE in the eye up close. I mean, REALLY CLOSE. did I mention close????
Both gallente and minmatar command ships are designed (i.e. have bonuses and slots that favour) small scale skirmish pvp.
Both amarr and caldari command ships have bonuses and slots that guide them towards larger fleet fights at longer ranges.
Fair or not, that's the way it is. The question is, can we use these material facts to our advantage in the game or not. The first of us who finds a way will tend to win more fights.
Sisi is here for us. Now is the time for us to figure it out - before it gets really expensive on TQ!
|
Vegine
Sphere Foundation
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 23:41:00 -
[1708] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:[quote=Vegine][quote=Mournful Conciousness][quote=Domanique Altares][quote=Mournful Conciousness] Sisi is here for us. Now is the time for us to figure it out - before it gets really expensive on TQ!
too late for EOS it seems :P price already almost doubled (so did my investment).
But it got me thinking, if they do a complete drone revamp later, would they have to come back and visit these drone bonuses again? or they should just do them together to save some headaches... |
Jim Lopau
C.L.A.S.H Outlaw Horizon.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 00:08:00 -
[1709] - Quote
Vegine wrote:[But it got me thinking, if they do a complete drone revamp later, would they have to come back and visit these drone bonuses again? or they should just do them together to save some headaches...
see hull resists
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
172
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 00:10:00 -
[1710] - Quote
Vegine wrote: too late for EOS it seems :P price already almost doubled (so did my investment).
But it got me thinking, if they do a complete drone revamp later, would they have to come back and visit these drone bonuses again? or they should just do them together to save some headaches...
I think it's easy to miss some of the advantages of the EOS because on paper the Astarte looks better, however...
The astarte can project damage for 5km. It could fit railguns but it has no tracking bonus to them so on balance I expect that it will be used as a boosting brawler (and by some, just a heavy brawler although I think there are better options).
The EOS can project damage theoretically out to 60km (or more with a DLA). Now I know drones take time to travel, and I know that in a 1v1 they get shot. But in (say) a 5v5 there's no time to be shooting drones. You're too busy calling primaries or saving your skin. Now the EOS also has the "useless" tracking bonus, but that's not so useless if it's being applied to the new more powerful railguns, particularly when backed up with heavy drones (I know, they'll take 20 seconds to get to target, but fights are often much longer than that). Not to mention the massive utility of EC-900 drones. Those guys play hell with ships' target locking. Even with recent changes to sensor strengths. They effectively remove one opposing ship from the fight until you are ready to take hime down.
So it seems to me that the Astarte is a reasonable option for close-in fighting, and the EOS is a better option for keeping the command ship at range, or countering a fleet that has ranged damage projection.
People have been complaining about the lack of a low slot on both ships, or the small (ish) drone bay (me included to begin with), in the same way as they have about the nighthawk's slot layout. but I think many of these posts are made because people are thinking of these ships in the old (pre 1.1) terms of just being brawlers (or in the case of the nighthawk, a capless PVE ship).
In the new world, these ships have very strong boosting bonuses and most of their utility will come from that. Damage application is a bonus but not the whole story as it used to be.
I think the price movements in TQ probably represent the quiet 'smart' money folk who have seen this truth, while others have an uninformed whinge here in the forums.
|
|
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
324
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 00:37:00 -
[1711] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I think it's easy to miss some of the advantages of the EOS because on paper the Astarte looks better, however...
The astarte can project damage for 5km. It could fit railguns but it has no tracking bonus to them so on balance I expect that it will be used as a boosting brawler (and by some, just a heavy brawler although I think there are better options).
The EOS can project damage theoretically out to 60km (or more with a DLA). Now I know drones take time to travel, and I know that in a 1v1 they get shot. But in (say) a 5v5 there's no time to be shooting drones. You're too busy calling primaries or saving your skin. Now the EOS also has the "useless" tracking bonus, but that's not so useless if it's being applied to the new more powerful railguns, particularly when backed up with heavy drones (I know, they'll take 20 seconds to get to target, but fights are often much longer than that). Not to mention the massive utility of EC-900 drones. Those guys play hell with ships' target locking. Even with recent changes to sensor strengths. They effectively remove one opposing ship from the fight until you are ready to take hime down.
If what you're saying here is true at all then the navy vexor must be pwning noobs currently in PvP, because the eos is esentially a boosting navy vexor. |
Cage Man
251
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 00:38:00 -
[1712] - Quote
I still believe the night hawk needs another med slot. The drake gets 6 mids and 3 rigs. This combination still makes the drake a better choice for pvp if you not interested in the command links. Sliepner is a lot better than its T1 counterpart.. the Nh is not, and even after the change will probably still not be. The thick plottens... |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
538
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 00:49:00 -
[1713] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I think the price movements in TQ probably represent the quiet 'smart' money folk who have seen this truth, while others have an uninformed whinge here in the forums.
It probably has allot more to do with the fact that it's going to be the preferred ogb for armor as it has ideal bonuses and far less to do with it's "amazing combat performance"
|
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
1083
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 00:59:00 -
[1714] - Quote
Cage Man wrote: This combination still makes the drake a better choice for pvp if you not interested in the command links.
Not interested in gang links. Is upset when gang link ship doesn't work as well for non gang link activities. Rifterlings pirate corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang operations. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3293
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 07:06:00 -
[1715] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: I think the price movements in TQ probably represent the quiet 'smart' money folk who have seen this truth, while others have an uninformed whinge here in the forums.
Patch time speculation has very little to do with ship performance, everybody wants to try the new shiny and you'll make a killing in the first weeks. Also remember that the Eos was a practically unsellable item earlier, the hulls just didn't move and the old price reflected that.
Quote:So it seems to me that the Astarte is a reasonable option for close-in fighting, and the EOS is a better option for keeping the command ship at range, or countering a fleet that has ranged damage projection.
Eos could have been a ranged option with sentries.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
173
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 08:04:00 -
[1716] - Quote
Roime wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: I think the price movements in TQ probably represent the quiet 'smart' money folk who have seen this truth, while others have an uninformed whinge here in the forums.
Patch time speculation has very little to do with ship performance, everybody wants to try the new shiny and you'll make a killing in the first weeks. Also remember that the Eos was a practically unsellable item earlier, the hulls just didn't move and the old price reflected that. Quote:So it seems to me that the Astarte is a reasonable option for close-in fighting, and the EOS is a better option for keeping the command ship at range, or countering a fleet that has ranged damage projection. Eos could have been a ranged option with sentries.
if it had been given a sentry drone range bonus, it would have been seen as a mega-buffered dominix with a smaller sig radius, gang links and good self-repair (You can get more EHP on an EOS than a domi).
They're already nerfing the domi's sentry bonus because it's OP.
You can still put sentries on it, with 2 DLAs, a couple of omnis and a target painter it's going to be a real PITA to anything within 100km.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
19
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 08:12:00 -
[1717] - Quote
Vorgx wrote:I have to say that i was excited when i heard about the CS changes, now that i read the changes i understand that i will not use them anymore, they are pretty mediocre ships that not worth the isk.
sadface for this totally fail changes
Because buffing them pretty much across the board, giving them quite generous fittings, and making it so they can all fit three links is "mediocre" compared to before when there were a total of 3 command ships worth flying in any situation?
We're looking at ships that can, finally, directly compete with T3s for damage, compete up to a point on tank, and finally boost better. What, exactly, were you hoping for? Mini-doomday devices and 2-million base EHP each?
Cage Man wrote:I still believe the night hawk needs another med slot. The drake gets 6 mids and 3 rigs. This combination still makes the drake a better choice for pvp if you not interested in the command links. Sliepner is a lot better than its T1 counterpart.. the Nh is not, and even after the change will probably still not be.
Your definition of "better" confuses me... we have better damage, better resists, better fittings, more cargo space, an applied damage bonus...
In-fact the only thing I can find that's worse is the inertia modifier, by a grand old .01x which is, overall, not worth complaining about.
Even with 5 mids you can fit a far better tank than the Drake and with the extra fittings you have the option of some truely hilarious ASB fits like the one Fozzie posted earlier.
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:The eos is just in a sad spot ATM 250 dronebay is too small, (adding 200 is a little too much) And it still is just lacking when it comes to being compared to other commandships especially the Astarte Even when I mwd around in an eos the ogres can't keep up with me... And this whole hacs have more regen than commandships is just weird and wrong As somebody pointed out the abso should have highest cap regen etc etc It's like ccp is just too timid with these ships.... And btw these ships are meant to be combat ships if you choose them to be Not strictly links
You're forgetting how cap regen bonuses work, so when you apply skills, recharge mods, rigs, ect the Command Ships end up with a higher cap recharge because they have far more total capacitor than the HACs and the Abso ends up with the highest cap regen after skills are applied because of its higher cap pool.
The EOS has a nice bonus to drone hitpoints to mitigate damage, and another to MWD velocity so it shouldn't be losing drones at much of a rate unless you're using the thing to 1v1 that, for some odd reason, wants to give you more time to neut it out and/or is ignoring your gun damage for silly reasons. It's also beating out the Myrm by being able to hold and field 2 full flights of Heavy Drones so I'm not sure what the issue is, unless you somehow feel it should be a mini-Dominix, which... is really not needed.
mine mi wrote:For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship.
If you read Fozzie's post back here in the thread you'll note that they are not planning for an arms race to see who can alpha capital-tanked command ships first.
|
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 08:42:00 -
[1718] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Vorgx wrote:I have to say that i was excited when i heard about the CS changes, now that i read the changes i understand that i will not use them anymore, they are pretty mediocre ships that not worth the isk.
sadface for this totally fail changes Because buffing them pretty much across the board, giving them quite generous fittings, and making it so they can all fit three links is "mediocre" compared to before when there were a total of 3 command ships worth flying in any situation? We're looking at ships that can, finally, directly compete with T3s for damage, compete up to a point on tank, and finally boost better. What, exactly, were you hoping for? Mini-doomday devices and 2-million base EHP each? Cage Man wrote:I still believe the night hawk needs another med slot. The drake gets 6 mids and 3 rigs. This combination still makes the drake a better choice for pvp if you not interested in the command links. Sliepner is a lot better than its T1 counterpart.. the Nh is not, and even after the change will probably still not be. Your definition of "better" confuses me... we have better damage, better resists, better fittings, more cargo space, an applied damage bonus... In-fact the only thing I can find that's worse is the inertia modifier, by a grand old .01x which is, overall, not worth complaining about. Even with 5 mids you can fit a far better tank than the Drake and with the extra fittings you have the option of some truely hilarious ASB fits like the one Fozzie posted earlier. Eldrith Jhandar wrote:The eos is just in a sad spot ATM 250 dronebay is too small, (adding 200 is a little too much) And it still is just lacking when it comes to being compared to other commandships especially the Astarte Even when I mwd around in an eos the ogres can't keep up with me... And this whole hacs have more regen than commandships is just weird and wrong As somebody pointed out the abso should have highest cap regen etc etc It's like ccp is just too timid with these ships.... And btw these ships are meant to be combat ships if you choose them to be Not strictly links You're forgetting how cap regen bonuses work, so when you apply skills, recharge mods, rigs, ect the Command Ships end up with a higher cap recharge because they have far more total capacitor than the HACs and the Abso ends up with the highest cap regen after skills are applied because of its higher cap pool. The EOS has a nice bonus to drone hitpoints to mitigate damage, and another to MWD velocity so it shouldn't be losing drones at much of a rate unless you're using the thing to 1v1 that, for some odd reason, wants to give you more time to neut it out and/or is ignoring your gun damage for silly reasons. It's also beating out the Myrm by being able to hold and field 2 full flights of Heavy Drones so I'm not sure what the issue is, unless you somehow feel it should be a mini-Dominix, which... is really not needed. mine mi wrote:For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship. If you read Fozzie's post back here in the thread you'll note that they are not planning for an arms race to see who can alpha capital-tanked command ships first.
% is % regardless of the base numbers, be it 50000 cap or 500 cap 4.5 cap/sec will be the same, adding bonuses from skills and its still the exact same % behind the hacs. It simply baffles me how bad many people on these forums are at math.
But whatever, where is the Claymores 7.5% dmg bonus it should have instead of one of the RoF bonuses?
And still nothing regarding cap recharge is downright pathetic by CCP, in all honesty.
The cap reliant weapon ones should have 5-15% better cap, abso getting the biggest boost, astarte 2nd then vulture and lastly eos, capless ones are ok as it is now.
And no, they dont need more cap recharge than Sac and Deimos. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3293
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 09:02:00 -
[1719] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
if it had been given a sentry drone range bonus, it would have been seen as a mega-buffered dominix with a smaller sig radius, gang links and good self-repair (You can get more EHP on an EOS than a domi).
They're already nerfing the domi's sentry bonus because it's OP.
You can still put sentries on it, with 2 DLAs, a couple of omnis and a target painter it's going to be a real PITA to anything within 100km.
Well, except you can't get more EHP out of the Eos than the Domi, especially not when fit to hit with drones out to 100km. Which, with three links, runs into CPU issues requiring you to drop the tank even more, or just settle with less range. In any case it does less damage, as Domi can use shorter range sentries to reach 100km.
Mindlinked, max buffer Eos with T2 trimarks boosting itself tops out at 220K EHP omni, all tank triple plate Domi in same fleet gets 243K EHP. Ofc racial resists give the edge clearly to Eos against kin/therm damage (350 vs 220), but against explosive the Domi has over 100K more EHP.
It's not a very good choice for a sentry fleet, at least not being with the main fleet and contributing to damage. It's probably not bad at shaking off tackle, tho, so it might still work when links come to grid.
Anyway, I'll take it as a T2 Myrm with great links- slow, tanky and can deal with most ships in and under it's size class in 1vs1 situations, and looks rather strong for armor brawler gang boosting. Very nice rep stats with just one MAAR, while still sporting BS-class buffer :)
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
178
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 12:23:00 -
[1720] - Quote
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? |
|
Vulfen
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 12:29:00 -
[1721] - Quote
Doed wrote:
The cap reliant weapon ones should have 5-15% better cap, abso getting the biggest boost, astarte 2nd then vulture and lastly eos, capless ones are ok as it is now.
And no, they don't need more cap recharge than Sac and Deimos.
they really don't need a cap bonus ffs. have u flown an abso? taking it down from 6 to 5 guns will save it plenty of cap, and the new fittings give you the chance to fit a NoS just to make it completely stable. the only time you'll have cap issues on an abso is when your MWDing.
these ships are not supposed to be able to do everything and fit links with ease. you have to choose your fittings carefully to take up a role. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
354
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 12:32:00 -
[1722] - 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?
If you ever actually fit launchers in those slots, you're terrible. |
Vulfen
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 12:33:00 -
[1723] - 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?
Simple,
The Abso is a focused turret ship, always has been The EOS's guns are actually it secondary weapon, the drones are primary
Also it helps to keep the models the same as previous ones when 6/7 slots are taken up by weapons as thats what the BC hulls were originally designed for (lazy CCP)
|
seth Hendar
I love you miners
167
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 12:44:00 -
[1724] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I think it's easy to miss some of the advantages of the EOS because on paper the Astarte looks better, however...
The astarte can project damage for 5km. It could fit railguns but it has no tracking bonus to them so on balance I expect that it will be used as a boosting brawler (and by some, just a heavy brawler although I think there are better options).
The EOS can project damage theoretically out to 60km (or more with a DLA). Now I know drones take time to travel, and I know that in a 1v1 they get shot. But in (say) a 5v5 there's no time to be shooting drones. You're too busy calling primaries or saving your skin. Now the EOS also has the "useless" tracking bonus, but that's not so useless if it's being applied to the new more powerful railguns, particularly when backed up with heavy drones (I know, they'll take 20 seconds to get to target, but fights are often much longer than that). Not to mention the massive utility of EC-900 drones. Those guys play hell with ships' target locking. Even with recent changes to sensor strengths. They effectively remove one opposing ship from the fight until you are ready to take hime down. If what you're saying here is true at all then the navy vexor must be pwning noobs currently in PvP, because the eos is esentially a boosting navy vexor. shhhh, don't talk about the navy vexor, it is fine where it is, leave him where it belongs, in the hands of ppl who know to use it
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?
because COMMAND SHIP |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
173
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 12:48:00 -
[1725] - Quote
navy vexor is my favourite little brawler. once I figured out how to fit the high slots I was surprised CCP allowed it onto TQ... :-) |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
457
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 12:52:00 -
[1726] - 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. |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
169
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 12:54:00 -
[1727] - Quote
MJ Incognito wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:because if you want your link booster to absorb the alpha of a 2000 man fleet (which seems to be some people's concern), you really have little choice... I think the concern atm is that it can't absorb the alpha of 16 dudes.... so even in a 250 man max fleet fight.... it dies way to easily. General rule of thumb is that if you can't take about 50 ships worth of alpha.... you remove any skill for a max fleet to alpha through you and let just about anyone do it. The issue with tank comes back to the stupid nature of Logistics ships. ALL SHIPS deserve more hp and local tank and logistics really need a considerable nerf. EVE needs to implement a degrading HP system into combat where logistics cannot repair a ship to 100% health. I would say that shields and armor need to have a base recharge cap amount that affects where their max hp can return to. This would help a ship survive with logistics, but degrade over time when receiving constant DPS. It keeps value with logistics, but removes this unbreakable bullshit in fleet fights. Recharges could be something like 2 minutes with similar peaks and valleys as the normal shield and capacitor recharge rates now.... only these would affect max cap and not current cap. i'm sorry but i don't know ANY subcap able to survive that much alpha
10 alphanado is what is required to alpha any subcap at around 100 km, only time someone survived the alpha, was a 3 plated badon, but the 2nd volley got rid of it, so to be SURE, 20 nado would alpha ANY subcap.
i agree that the CS need a bit more survivability, but the numbers you are talking here are a bit too high, we need them able to survive better than actually, not be unkillable!
what i think a CS should be, is a big tank, providing boost, and not that great dps, an ALL V CS with a correct tank whould not reach a T1 CBC dps, i.e no more than 500 for an armor, no more than 650-700 for a shield one (talking here with t2 fittings / no implants) |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
169
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 12:57:00 -
[1728] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:navy vexor is my favourite little brawler. once I figured out how to fit the high slots I was surprised CCP allowed it onto TQ... :-) did you tried a shield / sentry nano one?
give it a shot, worth it
perfect as DPS support for small fleets, first time i brought mine to our little roam, everyone laught at me...then we fought some dudes..then they saw the KM.
now they train for a navy vexor ^^
we plan on coupling them with some scythe fleet, the combo will be .....interesting |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
173
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 12:59:00 -
[1729] - Quote
just for a laugh, yesterday I fitted up a max-alpha-resist vulture with a-types, links and mind link.
then I overheated the invulnerability fields.
Guess how much EHP it had?
spoiler below....
~650K ehp |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 13:01:00 -
[1730] - Quote
I for myself like the Command Ship changes and i am really excited about the New Eos and yeah i know they shouldnt be a Capital in BC size... but, i am kinda sad that in near Future the Command Ship in this incomming Form will not be like my Old Damnnation.
On the other Hand flying the Damnnation as bait in a small Gang or the Eos as Command Brawler is ******* epic.
The only downside in my opinion is there will be more and more Focus on Capitals in Fleet Fights and i am Little Bit sick and tired of these massiv cap blobs, but thats Eve Online i guess...
|
|
seth Hendar
I love you miners
169
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 13:09:00 -
[1731] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:I for myself like the Command Ship changes and i am really excited about the New Eos and yeah i know they shouldnt be a Capital in BC size... but, i am kinda sad that in near Future the Command Ship in this incomming Form will not be like my Old Damnnation.
On the other Hand flying the Damnnation as bait in a small Gang or the Eos as Command Brawler is ******* epic.
The only downside in my opinion is there will be more and more Focus on Capitals in Fleet Fights and i am Little Bit sick and tired of these massiv cap blobs, but thats Eve Online i guess...
Oh and btw, give the Eos some more Dronebay... Come on CCP you can do it!! +1, more drone bay and a myrm based hull is required for a gallente CS drone boat |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
538
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 13:19:00 -
[1732] - Quote
Vulfen wrote:
Simple,
The Abso is a focused turret ship, always has been The EOS's guns are actually it secondary weapon, the drones are primary
It's really not that "simple" considering the astarte is a "Focused turret ship" and it gets 2 launchers... I'd say the astarte is actually an eve more focused turret ship compared to the abso as it has 11 effective turrets compared to 10.
As for the eos, you're right on the money tho. (it still should get 325m3 drone bay tho)
So yeah, give the absolution 11 effective turrets (copy pasta astarte gun bonuses) and this is solved. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
538
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 13:20:00 -
[1733] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:just for a laugh, yesterday I fitted up a max-alpha-resist vulture with a-types, links and mind link.
then I overheated the invulnerability fields.
Guess how much EHP it had?
spoiler below....
~650K ehp
Damnation can get well over 1m HP in a similar setup and it has a significantly smaller sig.
So while your super vulture most certainly is a brick and will eat lots of alpha, it's still nothing compared to a damnation.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
174
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 13:42:00 -
[1734] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:just for a laugh, yesterday I fitted up a max-alpha-resist vulture with a-types, links and mind link.
then I overheated the invulnerability fields.
Guess how much EHP it had?
spoiler below....
~650K ehp Damnation can get well over 1m HP in a similar setup and it has a significantly smaller sig. So while your super vulture most certainly is a brick and will eat lots of alpha, it's still nothing compared to a damnation.
That's a fair point. Another fair point is that the vulture can command a shield fleet consisting of cruise-missile-bearing battleships that can project 1000dps out to something like 200km.
I cannot think of an armour fleet that can do that (let's consider only subcaps for a moment).
So it's possible that a hypothetical vulture-led fleet could have a number of minutes of risk-free dps against a hypothetical damnation-led fleet.
I'm not here to argue which ship is strongest, I think what I am saying is that an FC has to look at the whole package when planning his battle.
Distance is tank, dps is tank, tank is tank and outsmarting your opponent is tank.
It is never as simple as just comparing the numbers of one aspect of 2 ships.
Anyway, I just wanted to post that number since up till now, I hadn't seen anyone else do it - and man-oh-man there's been a lot of whining about 'huge', 'too much', 'not enough' and 'shield fleets are doomed' without any evidence to back those claims.
Specifically, the claim that 20 tornados would alpha any command ship. It's just not true.
To alpha the a-type vulture you'd need (correct me if I got this wrong) 55 stationary tornados, all hitting in the precise moment between the first yellow-box and the first logi reps landing. If there are multiple logis already on the comand ship (there are going to be, right?) those 55 volleys need to land within approximately half a second. That just is not realistic.
It's going to have to be more like 150 tornados, or maybe even 200. And that's assuming you didn't stealth-bomb them before fielding your command ship. We all know that those 200 tornados can be erased with (let's say) 7 bombers instantaneously. Should we say that tornados are useless? That they need a 200k buffer? That bombers should be nerfed?
Good FCs will think it through. They won't get too excited by the numbers of a given ship. They'll see the macro picture, and the importance of individual acts of strategic merit. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
538
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 14:23:00 -
[1735] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Specifically, the claim that 20 tornados would alpha any command ship. It's just not true.
No doubt, there is always tons of unfounded over exaggeration in these threads, and the quote above obviously highlights one.
However, those saying that a Deimos can be volley'd by 3 nados are also grossly exaggerating.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
174
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 14:30:00 -
[1736] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Specifically, the claim that 20 tornados would alpha any command ship. It's just not true.
No doubt, there is always tons of unfounded over exaggeration in these threads, and the quote above obviously highlights one. However, those saying that a Deimos can be volley'd by 3 nados are also grossly exaggerating.
maybe not volleyed but certainly killed by them, no doubt mate. One of my deimoses was whacked by a 'nado and ishtar (bouncers + TP) pair.
I came back for the ishtar and managed to get him alone. He had neuts and an active shield tank. Took AGES to eventually kill him and it was by no means easy.
And have you seen the guy on sisi who flies the active shield-tanked deimos? He showed me his fit in confidence so I won't repeat it here. That thing is *absolutely* unkillable. Not because it's a deimos, but because it's an active shield tank on a T2 cruiser hull. Any of the HACs could fit that same fit.
If the deimos is overpowered, so are all shield boosters (apologies for bleeding this into the wrong thread).
Eve just ain't a fair game. Now, let's go kill someone :-)
|
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
178
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 14:32:00 -
[1737] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote: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? If you ever actually fit launchers in those slots, you're terrible.
Nah, it wasn't about fitting missiles on it, but simply why it has 2 "unused" hi slot when it "badly" needs a fourth med.
The absolution doesn't need a nos (not like it will be useful anymore after the incoming nos change...) and with one less turret, it will have even more cap. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
179
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 14:43:00 -
[1738] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:just for a laugh, yesterday I fitted up a max-alpha-resist vulture with a-types, links and mind link.
then I overheated the invulnerability fields.
Guess how much EHP it had?
spoiler below....
~650K ehp Damnation can get well over 1m HP in a similar setup and it has a significantly smaller sig. So while your super vulture most certainly is a brick and will eat lots of alpha, it's still nothing compared to a damnation. That's a fair point. Another fair point is that the vulture can command a shield fleet consisting of cruise-missile-bearing battleships that can project 800+dps out to something like 250km. I cannot think of an armour fleet that can do that (let's consider only subcaps for a moment). . . . edit: he're one example of a ship that delivers 800dps to 250km: [Raven, long range] Ballistic Control System II x 3 Signal Amplifier II Damage Control II Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script x2 Adaptive Invulnerability Field II x2 EM Ward Amplifier II Large Shield Extender II x 2 Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Cruise Missile x 6 [Empty High slot] Large Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst I 250km range has been superfluous for quite a while now since probing and warping will realistically negate anything over 150km. However that only means those ravens could be nano'd and have more resists, instead of all the lock range and weapon range mods and rigs (or maybe even a prop mod which you forgot), so your point is still valid. Shield is nowhere near inferior. |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 14:57:00 -
[1739] - Quote
bloodknight2 wrote:Nah, it wasn't about fitting missiles on it, but simply why it has 2 "unused" hi slot when it "badly" needs a fourth med.
The absolution doesn't need a nos (not like it will be useful anymore after the incoming nos change...) and with one less turret, it will have even more cap.
Have you considered that the command ships just might have utility highs for oh, I dunno, command links or something? |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
538
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 15:04:00 -
[1740] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:bloodknight2 wrote:Nah, it wasn't about fitting missiles on it, but simply why it has 2 "unused" hi slot when it "badly" needs a fourth med.
The absolution doesn't need a nos (not like it will be useful anymore after the incoming nos change...) and with one less turret, it will have even more cap. Have you considered that the command ships just might have utility highs for oh, I dunno, command links or something?
If you want to provide links, get a damnation or brick eos. Absolution is not a good choice in regards to it's competition.
|
|
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 15:10:00 -
[1741] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:just for a laugh, yesterday I fitted up a max-alpha-resist vulture with a-types, links and mind link.
then I overheated the invulnerability fields.
Guess how much EHP it had?
spoiler below....
~650K ehp
a-type are for paupers. Get Estamel's or Get out. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
174
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 15:27:00 -
[1742] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:just for a laugh, yesterday I fitted up a max-alpha-resist vulture with a-types, links and mind link.
then I overheated the invulnerability fields.
Guess how much EHP it had?
spoiler below....
~650K ehp a-type are for paupers. Get Estamel's or Get out.
Yup, 850k EHP with Estamel's
So that's 300 tornados then.
Is it even possible to get 300 people in eve to even look at the screen at the same time without running off to the toilet, eat, do their homework, argue with their wives, beat their children and generally enrage an FC?
Nah, that Vulture is as safe as houses...
|
Mister Vee
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
93
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 15:39:00 -
[1743] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I also want to quickly address the concern I'm seeing about my comment that we want to someday remove the +HP bonus from the Damnation.
To be clear, we are not removing the Damnation's HP bonus in Odyssey 1.1, as right now it helps the Damnation fill a useful role that would be lost if we removed it.
However in the long run, adding HP is not the solution to key ships being volleyed off the field. As EVE battles grow in numbers and coordination people are going to find a way to volley just about anything we design, and then we'll be right back where we started. We're not going to get into an escalating design battle against the dps and alpha of player fleets.
The solution to the problem is to sidestep it by reducing reliance on a few lynchpin ships. The reason that command ships have this problem while other key fleet ships (like logistics, recons or dictors) don't is because people can bring redundant numbers of those other classes. When we get the capability to remove offgrid links our plan is to also replace the way links apply so that losing one key ship won't mean you need to take your ball and go home. Now of course command ships are larger, more expensive and skill intensive than those other key classes, so it will still make sense for them to have significantly better tanks than a recon ship. However at that point the perceived need to have over 300k EHP will be significantly lessened.
I simply don't agree with this at all. We have had extremely large scale fights not long ago and it proved that current damnation hp is in a very balanced place. The current problem is that only the damnation hits the ehp sweet spot, while it's completely impossible for a vulture to achieve the same survivability. Not to mention the claymore...
Nobody is asking for a hp buff over current damnation levels. Just that shield gets the same benefit. Skirmish also needs something similar, since so much is balanced around the entire fleet having skirmish bonus - without it, bombers would be even more overpowered and sig tanking doctrines would die.
Also, if a 4000+ man fight is something you want to escalate rather than thin down, I have serious concerns about the long-term vision of sov/fleet warfare. There is no hardware strong enough to make fights of that scale actually enjoyable (10% tidi for hours and hours is not). |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
457
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 15:45:00 -
[1744] - 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. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
174
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 15:49:00 -
[1745] - Quote
Mister Vee wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:I also want to quickly address the concern I'm seeing about my comment that we want to someday remove the +HP bonus from the Damnation.
To be clear, we are not removing the Damnation's HP bonus in Odyssey 1.1, as right now it helps the Damnation fill a useful role that would be lost if we removed it.
However in the long run, adding HP is not the solution to key ships being volleyed off the field. As EVE battles grow in numbers and coordination people are going to find a way to volley just about anything we design, and then we'll be right back where we started. We're not going to get into an escalating design battle against the dps and alpha of player fleets.
The solution to the problem is to sidestep it by reducing reliance on a few lynchpin ships. The reason that command ships have this problem while other key fleet ships (like logistics, recons or dictors) don't is because people can bring redundant numbers of those other classes. When we get the capability to remove offgrid links our plan is to also replace the way links apply so that losing one key ship won't mean you need to take your ball and go home. Now of course command ships are larger, more expensive and skill intensive than those other key classes, so it will still make sense for them to have significantly better tanks than a recon ship. However at that point the perceived need to have over 300k EHP will be significantly lessened. I simply don't agree with this at all. We have had extremely large scale fights not long ago and it proved that current damnation hp is in a very balanced place. The current problem is that only the damnation hits the ehp sweet spot, while it's completely impossible for a vulture to achieve the same survivability. Not to mention the claymore... Nobody is asking for a hp buff over current damnation levels. Just that shield gets the same benefit. Skirmish also needs something similar, since so much is balanced around the entire fleet having skirmish bonus - without it, bombers would be even more overpowered and sig tanking doctrines would die. Also, if a 4000+ man fight is something you want to escalate rather than thin down, I have serious concerns about the long-term vision of sov/fleet warfare. There is no hardware strong enough to make fights of that scale actually enjoyable (10% tidi for hours and hours is not).
See previous post, vulture can get 800k ehp (for a price).
CCP are working on the scalability of their server blades. It is very possible to rebuild the eve servers to enable 4000-man fights in real time. Doing so requires re-architecting their software to allow a system's mechanics to be parallelised across multiple servers. This is normally done via a messaging system like Solace, 49 West, etc.
Eve is an old game and unfortunately currently has a single-threaded architecture - about as far from the parallel model as you can get. They are working on it though, slowly (and I imagine carefully). I read just recently that they are splitting out the calculation of skill/module effects to another server and just publishing back the final stats to the system blade, thus saving many thousands of calculations each time someone re-ships, loses a ship, gains a skill or gets podded.
I have done this kind of work in the financial industry. It's *hard* and takes time.
But I think they'll get there.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
355
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 15:53:00 -
[1746] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:@ 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?
Requesting a few thousand grid for the armour ones so they can fit LAARs. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
457
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 16:01:00 -
[1747] - 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. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
175
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 16:11:00 -
[1748] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Harvey James wrote:@ 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? Requesting a few thousand grid for the armour ones so they can fit LAARs.
single LAAR will just about fit on an eos if you use an ACR and a reactor control. not much else... |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 16:12:00 -
[1749] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Requesting a few thousand grid for the armour ones so they can fit LAARs.
Requesting extra-large shield extenders equivalent to 1600 plate plz
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
356
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 16:17:00 -
[1750] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Requesting a few thousand grid for the armour ones so they can fit LAARs. Requesting extra-large shield extenders equivalent to 1600 plate plz
You already have extra large shield extenders, and they don't even have the lol sig penalty. |
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 16:31:00 -
[1751] - Quote
The main question is, how far will the Number for Fleet Battle rise.
If its a infinite Number, the only "simple" Solution is to increase the Ship values directly to the Fleet size. Which sounds nice but does have horrific impact on smaller Fleets.
On the other hand, if its infinite without modifieable Fleet Bonus, the brute force will sooner or later overcome all boundaries, which a simple EHP fittet Ship cant survive.
In my opinion the only way to handle this problem in mid-terms is to reduce the Value of the Fleet Booster, if "no one" cares about, it simply increase the survivability, but i dont hope it means they simply reduce the Gang Link Bonus... |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
175
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 16:44:00 -
[1752] - Quote
Increasing the tank of a fleet booster in proportion to the fleet size is just not sensible.
Look, the fact is that fleet boosters are, for fleets up to a certain size, legitimate strategic targets - just like logistics and EWAR.
But once my fleet is big enough that I can alpha anything, Whether your fleet does or doesn't have a fleet booster is actually irrelevant. I'll alpha your ships anyway, and I'll leave your fleet booster until last. Since to me, he's the least threatening.
If my fleet is that size, I'll also ignore your logistics and your ewar. I'll just kill your damage dealers as fast as I can, after I've headshotted your FC and his 2ic. They are by far the most dangerous things on the field, because they are human minds that contain nothing other than the fervent desire to whelp my fleet.
So it turns out that tactics must change as the scale of any encounter changes. This is OK. It's just life.
Ninjas are great in small skirmishes. In the battle of the Somme, they're just bodies.
|
|
ISD Cura Ursus
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
196
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 16:47:00 -
[1753] - Quote
Duplicate post deleted. ISD Cura Ursus Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 16:57:00 -
[1754] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Increasing the tank of a fleet booster in proportion to the fleet size is just not sensible.
Look, the fact is that fleet boosters are, for fleets up to a certain size, legitimate strategic targets - just like logistics and EWAR.
But once my fleet is big enough that I can alpha anything, Whether your fleet does or doesn't have a fleet booster is actually irrelevant. I'll alpha your ships anyway, and I'll leave your fleet booster until last. Since to me, he's the least threatening.
If my fleet is that size, I'll also ignore your logistics and your ewar. I'll just kill your damage dealers as fast as I can, after I've headshotted your FC and his 2ic. They are by far the most dangerous things on the field, because they are human minds that contain nothing other than the fervent desire to whelp my fleet.
So it turns out that tactics must change as the scale of any encounter changes. This is OK. It's just life.
Ninjas are great in small skirmishes. In the battle of the Somme, they're just bodies.
And thats "the Problem" in long term everything will just got killed, because EHP (and other Ship values) are finite but the fleet size will be infinite.
At this point there is no tactics anymore just survival of the largest/strongest, but thats just not Eve, if would be survival of the fittest.
Sure, i admit, this may be far away from now but it something it should be addressed.
|
Valfreyea
Zervas Aeronautics
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 18:47:00 -
[1755] - Quote
Could the Eos get that turret bonus changed to something relevant to either drones or active tanking? The four turrets are supposed to be secondary to drones, so that bonus just feels rather out of place. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
178
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 18:59:00 -
[1756] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Increasing the tank of a fleet booster in proportion to the fleet size is just not sensible.
Look, the fact is that fleet boosters are, for fleets up to a certain size, legitimate strategic targets - just like logistics and EWAR.
But once my fleet is big enough that I can alpha anything, Whether your fleet does or doesn't have a fleet booster is actually irrelevant. I'll alpha your ships anyway, and I'll leave your fleet booster until last. Since to me, he's the least threatening.
If my fleet is that size, I'll also ignore your logistics and your ewar. I'll just kill your damage dealers as fast as I can, after I've headshotted your FC and his 2ic. They are by far the most dangerous things on the field, because they are human minds that contain nothing other than the fervent desire to whelp my fleet.
So it turns out that tactics must change as the scale of any encounter changes. This is OK. It's just life.
Ninjas are great in small skirmishes. In the battle of the Somme, they're just bodies.
And thats "the Problem" in long term everything will just got killed, because EHP (and other Ship values) are finite but the fleet size will be infinite. At this point there is no tactics anymore just survival of the largest/strongest, but thats just not Eve, if would be survival of the fittest. Sure, i admit, this may be far away from now but it something it should be addressed.
To defeat a larger force, one must simply study history. Look at the tactics of guerrillas, insurgents, spies, commandos.
Eve has its equivalents.
Wings of stealth bombers are immune to the size of the opposing fleet. In fact, the bigger the fleet the more effective and cost-effective they are. They are the tactical nukes of Eve.
Having 2000 ships on grid on both sides is equivalent to the trench warfare tactics on the first world war - expensive.
The recent Fountain war was a victory for a more organised alliance, not necessarily a stronger military superpower. It paid off for Mittani because he had his sh*t together while TEST was in internal disarray.
Fleets may become larger, but there's even a point where that no longer scales. 4 x 2000-man fleets can conquer 4 times the territory of a 1x8000 man fleet. Why would you field such a large fleet? It's inefficient.
If you enemy did, wouldn't you be better off conquering his territory at 4 times the rate he was conquering yours? Meeting him head on would simply be leaving your alliance's fate to the roll of a dice - that's not sensible.
as the technological, political and military conditions change, so must our tactics.
This is the Art of War.
|
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 21:42:00 -
[1757] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:The main question is, how far will the Number for Fleet Battle rise.
If its a infinite Number, the only "simple" Solution is to increase the Ship values directly to the Fleet size. Which sounds nice but does have horrific impact on smaller Fleets.
On the other hand, if its infinite without modifieable Fleet Bonus, the brute force will sooner or later overcome all boundaries, which a simple EHP fittet Ship cant survive.
In my opinion the only way to handle this problem in mid-terms is to reduce the Value of the Fleet Booster, if "no one" cares about, it simply increase the survivability, but i dont hope it means they simply reduce the Gang Link Bonus...
Hi meet a role.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=271316&find=unread
That suggestion allows for the potential to create ships capable of surviving alpha while limiting tank over long duration damage. I would suggest the Devs read it and understand that you can actually create balance between ship classes in new and unique ways.... god forbid you ever actually do your jobs in an innovative capacity.
It's a shame other games thought of this idea first. |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 22:19:00 -
[1758] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Vegine wrote: too late for EOS it seems :P price already almost doubled (so did my investment).
But it got me thinking, if they do a complete drone revamp later, would they have to come back and visit these drone bonuses again? or they should just do them together to save some headaches...
I think it's easy to miss some of the advantages of the EOS because on paper the Astarte looks better, however... The astarte can project damage for 5km. It could fit railguns but it has no tracking bonus to them so on balance I expect that it will be used as a boosting brawler (and by some, just a heavy brawler although I think there are better options). The EOS can project damage theoretically out to 60km (or more with a DLA). Now I know drones take time to travel, and I know that in a 1v1 they get shot. But in (say) a 5v5 there's no time to be shooting drones. You're too busy calling primaries or saving your skin. Now the EOS also has the "useless" tracking bonus, but that's not so useless if it's being applied to the new more powerful railguns, particularly when backed up with heavy drones (I know, they'll take 20 seconds to get to target, but fights are often much longer than that). Not to mention the massive utility of EC-900 drones. Those guys play hell with ships' target locking. Even with recent changes to sensor strengths. They effectively remove one opposing ship from the fight until you are ready to take hime down. So it seems to me that the Astarte is a reasonable option for close-in fighting, and the EOS is a better option for keeping the command ship at range, or countering a fleet that has ranged damage projection. People have been complaining about the lack of a low slot on both ships, or the small (ish) drone bay (me included to begin with), in the same way as they have about the nighthawk's slot layout. but I think many of these posts are made because people are thinking of these ships in the old (pre 1.1) terms of just being brawlers (or in the case of the nighthawk, a capless PVE ship). In the new world, these ships have very strong boosting bonuses and most of their utility will come from that. Damage application is a bonus but not the whole story as it used to be. I think the price movements in TQ probably represent the quiet 'smart' money folk who have seen this truth, while others have an uninformed whinge here in the forums.
There's a lot wrong in this post IMO Heavy drones are silly fragile and easy to kill, you can kill lights with medium blasters, so if you have a set of ec-900 then any heavy you lose is automatic reduction in your already limited dps Yes heavies can travel but are still stupid slow, I outrun my own heavies with a mwd, so the 20 (or 30) seconds for them to travel and to do what, apply limited dps because the target is not webbed and the drones will lag behind, the rail Astarte can switch from target to target instantly, all the while doing more dps, yes you 4 unbonused rails will have better tracking than the 11 effective rails of te Astarte
And the devs have specifically stated they want these ships to be able to be full fledged combat ships if you want them to be, not solely links
Even with another slot the eos is worse than the Astarte, I've flown the eos on sisi and get nothing but frustration wishing I was in an Astarte... 10 heavies and that is all is stupid vulnerable to being picked off, if I face an eos in a small gang fight of 5 or 10 I will go after the drones that he cannot afford to lose
The eos needa work to be done on it I like the uniqueness of making this a heavy drone boat but I wish the tracking included sentries, which are so much more viable on this ship ATM.... It doesn't have enough dronebay It needs it equal to the Ishtar domi etc
Yes prices are going up but that's because there arnt as many out there and it takes a long time to build, and anything buffed will get an increased price The reason why it's going up so high is because of the initial barrier of trying to invent blueprints and actually make them That and te time to make them is what makes it such a huge price jump Economicz sir |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 22:38:00 -
[1759] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Vorgx wrote:I have to say that i was excited when i heard about the CS changes, now that i read the changes i understand that i will not use them anymore, they are pretty mediocre ships that not worth the isk.
sadface for this totally fail changes Because buffing them pretty much across the board, giving them quite generous fittings, and making it so they can all fit three links is "mediocre" compared to before when there were a total of 3 command ships worth flying in any situation? We're looking at ships that can, finally, directly compete with T3s for damage, compete up to a point on tank, and finally boost better. What, exactly, were you hoping for? Mini-doomday devices and 2-million base EHP each? Cage Man wrote:I still believe the night hawk needs another med slot. The drake gets 6 mids and 3 rigs. This combination still makes the drake a better choice for pvp if you not interested in the command links. Sliepner is a lot better than its T1 counterpart.. the Nh is not, and even after the change will probably still not be. Your definition of "better" confuses me... we have better damage, better resists, better fittings, more cargo space, an applied damage bonus... In-fact the only thing I can find that's worse is the inertia modifier, by a grand old .01x which is, overall, not worth complaining about. Even with 5 mids you can fit a far better tank than the Drake and with the extra fittings you have the option of some truely hilarious ASB fits like the one Fozzie posted earlier. Eldrith Jhandar wrote:The eos is just in a sad spot ATM 250 dronebay is too small, (adding 200 is a little too much) And it still is just lacking when it comes to being compared to other commandships especially the Astarte Even when I mwd around in an eos the ogres can't keep up with me... And this whole hacs have more regen than commandships is just weird and wrong As somebody pointed out the abso should have highest cap regen etc etc It's like ccp is just too timid with these ships.... And btw these ships are meant to be combat ships if you choose them to be Not strictly links You're forgetting how cap regen bonuses work, so when you apply skills, recharge mods, rigs, ect the Command Ships end up with a higher cap recharge because they have far more total capacitor than the HACs and the Abso ends up with the highest cap regen after skills are applied because of its higher cap pool. The EOS has a nice bonus to drone hitpoints to mitigate damage, and another to MWD velocity so it shouldn't be losing drones at much of a rate unless you're using the thing to 1v1 that, for some odd reason, wants to give you more time to neut it out and/or is ignoring your gun damage for silly reasons. It's also beating out the Myrm by being able to hold and field 2 full flights of Heavy Drones so I'm not sure what the issue is, unless you somehow feel it should be a mini-Dominix, which... is really not needed. mine mi wrote:For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship. If you read Fozzie's post back here in the thread you'll note that they are not planning for an arms race to see who can alpha capital-tanked command ships first.
No, that's not how cap bonuses work, if it starts with a higher cap regen after a percentage based skill bonus it will end with a higher cap regen after skills are involved
Also 4 unbonused guns are hilariously bad, and if you have used this ship you would know how easy it is to lose your drones in small engagements, without the heavies which are easy to kill, it is a sitting duck, the hp bonus doesn't help enough I'd rather see a 5-10% drone hp bonus per level than a turret tracking bonus Or a 7.5% tracking only bonus to sentries no range bonus
A side note The eos gets 152k ehp buffer no slaves The domi gets 188k ehp no slaves To mournful who said the eos has more ehp you are wrong
Also with doing that you can barely fit 4 electrons But the domi can fit heavy and medium neuts or guns
The current eos will not be a good sentry boat, as is, it needs a tracking bonus at minimum, I wouldn't add a range bonus to sentries though, we saw what the domi with a 10% tracking and range could do 7.5% tracking would be nice for sentries
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 22:52:00 -
[1760] - Quote
Doed wrote:% is % regardless of the base numbers, be it 50000 cap or 500 cap 4.5 cap/sec will be the same, adding bonuses from skills and its still the exact same % behind the hacs. It simply baffles me how bad many people on these forums are at math.
But whatever, where is the Claymores 7.5% dmg bonus it should have instead of one of the RoF bonuses?
And still nothing regarding cap recharge is downright pathetic by CCP, in all honesty.
The cap reliant weapon ones should have 5-15% better cap, abso getting the biggest boost, astarte 2nd then vulture and lastly eos, capless ones are ok as it is now.
And no, they dont need more cap recharge than Sac and Deimos.
One, why should it have a damage bonus instead of a ROF bonus? Medium arty don't need more alpha.
Two, I decided to poke around at various ships and discovered a couple of interesting things, one you are correct about cap recharge, the bonuses end up with the same recharge rate, however there's actually very little cap recharge difference between Amarr ships and other ships, they make up for it with laser cap use bonuses and having larger overall capacitor which allows them to be more resistant to neuts and fire longer before running out.
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:No, that's not how cap bonuses work, if it starts with a higher cap regen after a percentage based skill bonus it will end with a higher cap regen after skills are involved
Also 4 unbonused guns are hilariously bad, and if you have used this ship you would know how easy it is to lose your drones in small engagements, without the heavies which are easy to kill, it is a sitting duck, the hp bonus doesn't help enough I'd rather see a 5-10% drone hp bonus per level than a turret tracking bonus Or a 7.5% tracking only bonus to sentries no range bonus
A side note The eos gets 152k ehp buffer no slaves The domi gets 188k ehp no slaves To mournful who said the eos has more ehp you are wrong
Also with doing that you can barely fit 4 electrons But the domi can fit heavy and medium neuts or guns
The current eos will not be a good sentry boat, as is, it needs a tracking bonus at minimum, I wouldn't add a range bonus to sentries though, we saw what the domi with a 10% tracking and range could do 7.5% tracking would be nice for sentries
I stand corrected on the cap mechanics, though I stand by the idea that the Amarr ships don't need more cap recharge when they have more total cap.
I agree with the tracking bonus being a tad superfluous but I'm also not sure what I'd put in its place and I don't think the EOS, even with the tracking bonus, is in a terrible spot. A Sentry bonus would make it a tiny and probably better Dominix while simultaneously preventing it from making use of the extra mobility that a CS gets over a Domi, a second drone damage/HP bonus would probably be OP.
Maybe something like a drone control range bonus or a ship agility bonus?
I also don't think that direct comparisons between the Domi and the Eos are really fair or useful. You're going to bring the Eos for different reasons than the Dominix and the Eos will still have better local tank potential as well as better remote rep effectiveness than the Domi because of its resists as well as the potential to speed tank.
Yes, after the Alliance Tourney the Domi is fleet flavor of the month now, but turning the Eos into the new flavor of the month is a bad idea. |
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
181
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 23:13:00 -
[1761] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote: A side note The eos gets 152k ehp buffer no slaves The domi gets 188k ehp no slaves To mournful who said the eos has more ehp you are wrong
It's considerably more if you include the effect of the links, and over time the MAR (if you opt for one) adds a lot more ehp than a 1600 plate, how much more will depend on incoming dps. However, I'm not going to split hairs.
The point I hope I made was that a sentry tracking and range bonus on the EOS runs the risk of obsoleting the dominix, or at least treading firmly on its toes, and CCP clearly regard the current dominix's bonus as worrisome.
I like the idea of a speed or agility bonus on the Eos. I think a few people have mentioned it. It is skirmishing ship after all, or at least that's what the gang link bonuses suggest.
|
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
328
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 23:40:00 -
[1762] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I like the idea of a speed or agility bonus on the Eos. I think a few people have mentioned it. It is skirmishing ship after all, or at least that's what the gang link bonuses suggest.
The eos is as much a skirmishing ship as the absolution is an EWAR platform. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
182
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 23:46:00 -
[1763] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I like the idea of a speed or agility bonus on the Eos. I think a few people have mentioned it. It is skirmishing ship after all, or at least that's what the gang link bonuses suggest. The eos is as much a skirmishing ship as the absolution is an EWAR platform.
Forgive me, what i meant to say was that the EOS is a ship designed to give on-grid bonuses to arnour skirmishers. But if it itself is as slow as a beached whale, it runs the risk of becoming more of a liability than a boost. So a a speed or agility bonus would be welcome.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
540
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 00:01:00 -
[1764] - Quote
Eldrith's suggestion for the EOS of dropping turret tracking bonus for a drone hp bonus is pretty ******* good. |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 00:19:00 -
[1765] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I like the idea of a speed or agility bonus on the Eos. I think a few people have mentioned it. It is skirmishing ship after all, or at least that's what the gang link bonuses suggest. The eos is as much a skirmishing ship as the absolution is an EWAR platform. Forgive me, what i meant to say was that the EOS is a ship designed to give on-grid bonuses to arnour skirmishers. But if it itself is as slow as a beached whale, it runs the risk of becoming more of a liability than a boost. So a a speed or agility bonus would be welcome.
|
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 00:27:00 -
[1766] - Quote
Omg the forum ate my long post again.....ugh Long story short a 10% and 5% drone damage bonus would be op, doing more dps than an Astarte without hams but less with hams
The current drone effectiveness is 1.5x and a 10%+5% is 1.875x but a 5%+7.5%(one could be just for heavies) gets 1.718x effectiveness, which would close the gap between the eos and Astarte but not put the eos overtop, but would make it worth not having more than 250 drone bay and -1 slot
There's a lot of options but this current eos is meh All other done ships can compete with their turret/missile counterparts but te eos does not
And also if it gets a sentry bonus let it only be tracking not also range
Possible bonuses for eos 7.5% rep 7.5% drone(or just heavy drone) dmg and hp 7.5%heavy tracking and mwd speed 5% drone or heavy(opposite of other bonus) dmg and hp
Or you could change heavy tracking to drone tracking and mwd speeds (so it helps only sentry tracking not range)-helps mitigate it stepping on domi toes, tho the Ishtar already does that like a champ
There's so many things that could make this ship awesome but it's so meh atm |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
29
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 02:23:00 -
[1767] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Omg the forum ate my long post again.....ugh Long story short a 10% and 5% drone damage bonus would be op, doing more dps than an Astarte without hams but less with hams
The current drone effectiveness is 1.5x and a 10%+5% is 1.875x but a 5%+7.5%(one could be just for heavies) gets 1.718x effectiveness, which would close the gap between the eos and Astarte but not put the eos overtop, but would make it worth not having more than 250 drone bay and -1 slot
There's a lot of options but this current eos is meh All other done ships can compete with their turret/missile counterparts but te eos does not
And also if it gets a sentry bonus let it only be tracking not also range
Possible bonuses for eos 7.5% rep 7.5% drone(or just heavy drone) dmg and hp 7.5%heavy tracking and mwd speed 5% drone or heavy(opposite of other bonus) dmg and hp
Or you could change heavy tracking to drone tracking and mwd speeds (so it helps only sentry tracking not range)-helps mitigate it stepping on domi toes, tho the Ishtar already does that like a champ
There's so many things that could make this ship awesome but it's so meh atm
Are you sure bonuses on the same ship off of two different attributes would stack that way?
What about a 15% bonus on the Command Ships attribute and moving the other two bonuses to Battlecruisers?
Also are you comparing against Blaster or Rails Eos? For fairness I think it should probably fall somewhere between the two since drones actually have really good damage projection compared to short-range guns but can also be destroyed which means they should have a little more DPS than long-range guns.
I think more than anything the Eos needs to find a place that's somewhat distinct from the Ishtar and the Dominix without stepping on or being over shadowed by either one, which puts it in a little bit of a precarious position in terms of combat potential and balance. |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 03:06:00 -
[1768] - Quote
Your first two statements are a little confusing
But I compared the blaster eos vs blaster Astarte, although a rail Astarte does more dps than a rail+ ogre eos
And let's not forget how rails switch targets instantly And no heavies have terrible damage projection Unless you have something webbed drones will not keep up, they naturally loop around and fall behind because they try orbiting at a slow speed instead of mwding an keeping up, so often time your dps is drastically reduced because of heavy drones super short ranges, and the ai thinking slow boating at 5-6km away is ok So instead o full damage you get much much less, idk how much less and is love to know, but even vs some webbed thins I found my ogres missing completely over and over
I will probably only ever use an eos because it will hopefully be shaped like a myrm Tho I've used te eos before for smal gang pvp People didn't know what to do with themselves
|
Serenity Eon
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 06:03:00 -
[1769] - Quote
Fozzie, why the hell does every ship have the same capacitor recharge rate (4.5cap/sec) ? The Absolution NEEDS!!! I repeat NEEDS!!! An increased cap recharge rate or an extra midslot. In its Current state it's nothing more than a gimped astarte, which does more DPS and has superior cap stability. Infact i would say its the weakest CS in the game. Are you really that blind to see the obvious jeeze |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4219
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 07:06:00 -
[1770] - Quote
Serenity Eon wrote:Fozzie, why the hell does every ship have the same capacitor recharge rate (4.5cap/sec) ? The Absolution NEEDS!!! I repeat NEEDS!!! An increased cap recharge rate or an extra midslot. In its Current state it's nothing more than a gimped astarte, which does more DPS and has superior cap stability. Infact i would say its the weakest CS in the game. Are you really that blind to see the obvious jeeze Optimal range and falloff of Absolution compared to Astarte? . |
|
Serenity Eon
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 07:16:00 -
[1771] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Serenity Eon wrote:Fozzie, why the hell does every ship have the same capacitor recharge rate (4.5cap/sec) ? The Absolution NEEDS!!! I repeat NEEDS!!! An increased cap recharge rate or an extra midslot. In its Current state it's nothing more than a gimped astarte, which does more DPS and has superior cap stability. Infact i would say its the weakest CS in the game. Are you really that blind to see the obvious jeeze Optimal range and falloff of Absolution compared to Astarte?
Also inferior, because the Astarte has the luxury of mid slots for tracking computers, while the Abso does not (needed for cap rechargers/boosters). the Astarte also has a falloff bonus |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
29
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 08:38:00 -
[1772] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Your first two statements are a little confusing
But I compared the blaster eos vs blaster Astarte, although a rail Astarte does more dps than a rail+ ogre eos
And let's not forget how rails switch targets instantly And no heavies have terrible damage projection Unless you have something webbed drones will not keep up, they naturally loop around and fall behind because they try orbiting at a slow speed instead of mwding an keeping up, so often time your dps is drastically reduced because of heavy drones super short ranges, and the ai thinking slow boating at 5-6km away is ok So instead o full damage you get much much less, idk how much less and is love to know, but even vs some webbed thins I found my ogres missing completely over and over
I will probably only ever use an eos because it will hopefully be shaped like a myrm Tho I've used te eos before for smal gang pvp People didn't know what to do with themselves
I'm assuming you're referring to these:
Cade Windstalker wrote:Are you sure bonuses on the same ship off of two different attributes would stack that way?
What about a 15% bonus on the Command Ships attribute and moving the other two bonuses to Battlecruisers? Yeah, sorry, on reflection they lack context and are a bit ambiguous. I'm referring to the 10% bonus and 5% bonus to damage off different ship skills that you were talking about stacking multiplicatively instead of additively.
The 15% also refers to the damage bonuses but combining them into a single bonus off of the Command Ships skill.
Regarding drone behavior:
So, CCP admits drones need a re-work, and apparently this is coming "soon"(tm)
WARNING LITERAL AND LIBERAL USE OF SPREADSHEETS AHEAD
I love to theory craft, so I looked up the numbers. All Small, Medium, and Large drones, regardless of size, have a 1000 optimal range and then some falloff, which is determined entirely by drone size category. Small is 2000, Medium is 3000, Large is 4000.
Their tracking, orbit velocity, and MWD velocity is determined by their size and type, with T2 and 'Augmented' drones tied for highest orbital velocity. Oh and for some reason Light drones have a Signature Resolution of 25 and the other two have 125.
Per this article on the Uni-Wiki Large Drones try and orbit at 1000 meters from their target and actually manage about 1200 meters. With Drone Sharpshooting this doesn't really matter very much since you get +5% per level which puts them well within optimal but for the purposes of the spreadsheet I just cooked up I'm not going to include drone skills or modules because that gets messy.
Target is going to be a rough average of the new Command Ship sig radii at 250m.
Okay, that last bit is no longer true, I was curious so I added ways to adjust tracking, optimal, ect.
Pics of the spreadsheet at the end, or maybe a Google Drive link if the formulas still work.
Long story short you lose fairly little DPS even from Heavy Drones against a stationary target. About ~8% on Ogre 2 and ~4.7% on an Fed Navy Ogre, though the Ogre 2 still does marginally more damage than the Fed Navy Ogre.
If we assume the target is moving about 200m/s then the Fed Navy Ogres start performing slightly better than the Ogre 2s, though the difference is still marginal. For reference, before it was 1 damage in favor of the Ogre 2, now it's 2 damage in favor of the Fed Navy Ogre per volley. Keep in mind this is base damage so that gets a bit higher with drone skills, but not much higher and it's still a very tiny difference.
With a target going 200m/s the drones should still be able to orbit fairly well though so their MWDs shouldn't be kicking in much. In-fact now that I think about it they'll probably only be "orbiting" at 100 m/s since they'll be using the other 200m/s to keep up with the target, meaning this should actually improve drone tracking. May require further testing. For the purposes of these numbers and the spreadsheet though assume that "ship velocity" is being added directly to the drones' traversal.
Anyways...
It's worth noting that with 200m/s added to their traversal the Ogre 2s are losing about 20% of their total damage and the Fed Navy Ogres are losing about 15%.
Now lets see what happens when they shoot and MWD.
Now the Ogre 2 is losing about 45% DPS and the Fed Navy Ogre is losing only 35%, and that's without taking into account the likely increased orbital range which means we'll lose some damage in falloff. The Fed Navy Ogres are now doing 6 more damage per volley, which adds up considerable with skills, ship bonus, and 5 drones, especially since we're talking about a much smaller overall amount of damage.
With an Omni Tracking Link we get about 32% loss on the Ogre 2s and 24% on the Fed Navy Ogres and the damage difference is down to ~3.6 in favor of the Fed Navy Ogres.
LITERAL SPREADSHEETS END HERE
So, from this we can conclude that if you skipped ahead for a conclusion you should read my work, because it's not that simple.
Okay, seriously, a rough conclusion is that you're probably not actually losing that much DPS against anything Battlecruiser sized and up and against a ABing cruiser you're still marginally better off with Heavy drones rather than Mediums or Lights.
None of this takes into account for killing the drones, any sort of prop mod, or the occasional insanity of the Eve Drone AI, it's just my best guess and a little bit of someone else's testing.
Here's a link to the spreadsheet. Yes, it's currently only for Gallente drones.
As for the Eos, I think another 7.5% bonus to Tracking and Optimal of Heavy Drones (or all drones) would be unique and rather interesting given these numbers. |
Aplier Shivra
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 10:40:00 -
[1773] - Quote
Serenity Eon wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Serenity Eon wrote:Fozzie, why the hell does every ship have the same capacitor recharge rate (4.5cap/sec) ? The Absolution NEEDS!!! I repeat NEEDS!!! An increased cap recharge rate or an extra midslot. In its Current state it's nothing more than a gimped astarte, which does more DPS and has superior cap stability. Infact i would say its the weakest CS in the game. Are you really that blind to see the obvious jeeze Optimal range and falloff of Absolution compared to Astarte? Also inferior, because the Astarte has the luxury of mid slots for tracking computers, while the Abso does not (needed for cap rechargers/boosters). the Astarte also has a falloff bonus
Don't forget to add that astarte can use faction antimatter and still do better dps even in falloff than conflag at optimal, with double the tracking. Or use null and do the same dps as conflag at same optimal, but with much better falloff, and still much better tracking. All while using half as much capacitor to fire it's turrets, after Absolution's hull bonus to cap use. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
540
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 10:45:00 -
[1774] - Quote
Serenity Eon wrote:Fozzie, why the hell does every ship have the same capacitor recharge rate (4.5cap/sec) ? The Absolution NEEDS!!! I repeat NEEDS!!! An increased cap recharge rate or an extra midslot. In its Current state it's nothing more than a gimped astarte, which does more DPS and has superior cap stability. Infact i would say its the weakest CS in the game. Are you really that blind to see the obvious jeeze
I would not say "it's the worst" but I do agree with you that cap recharge on commands needs another look at. Hacs having significantly better cap recharge seems stupid, all of the commands having exactly the same cap recharge seems even more stupid.
Furthermore, we can't even get an idea of fleet cap stability on sisi atm because the skill for "capacitor transmitters" has been broken since the name change to the module. It has been bug reported 20+ times by myself and others and still manages to elude fixing even over the past 3 sisi patches.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
188
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 10:52:00 -
[1775] - Quote
They changes the name to "capacitor transmitters"???? That's just ridiculous. A capacitor is a *device* for storing energy. It's the energy that is transmitted, not the capacitor.
Idiotic! :-(
|
Aplier Shivra
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 10:57:00 -
[1776] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:They changes the name to "capacitor transmitters"???? That's just ridiculous. A capacitor is a *device* for storing energy. It's the energy that is transmitted, not the capacitor.
Idiotic! :-(
If i'm not mistaken, that was the old name, and the new one is "energy transfer array", but sisi still thinks it goes by the old name |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
540
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 11:01:00 -
[1777] - Quote
Aplier Shivra wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:They changes the name to "capacitor transmitters"???? That's just ridiculous. A capacitor is a *device* for storing energy. It's the energy that is transmitted, not the capacitor.
Idiotic! :-(
If i'm not mistaken, that was the old name, and the new one is "energy transfer array", but sisi still thinks it goes by the old name
Energy transfer array is the old name :/.
I'm with mourn on this one, the new name is ******* stooopid. (oh yeah, and it broke the game too)
|
Aplier Shivra
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 11:04:00 -
[1778] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Energy transfer array is the old name :/.
I'm with mourn on this one, the new name is ******* stooopid. (oh yeah, and it broke the game too)
how did sisi manage to go through 3 patches with the new name without it hitting live yet? doesn't it only get patched once every few months?? |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
540
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 11:06:00 -
[1779] - Quote
Aplier Shivra wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Energy transfer array is the old name :/.
I'm with mourn on this one, the new name is ******* stooopid. (oh yeah, and it broke the game too)
how did sisi manage to go through 3 patches with the new name without it hitting live yet? doesn't it only get patched once every few months??
I'm going to go with "magical unicorns, and pedo bronies" as the answer to your question.
|
Aplier Shivra
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 11:09:00 -
[1780] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Aplier Shivra wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Energy transfer array is the old name :/.
I'm with mourn on this one, the new name is ******* stooopid. (oh yeah, and it broke the game too)
how did sisi manage to go through 3 patches with the new name without it hitting live yet? doesn't it only get patched once every few months?? I'm going to go with "magical unicorns, and pedo bronies" as the answer to your question. In all seriousness tho, I have no fuckin idea (lol), and sisi has been updated at least 3 times since the 1.1 change.
Yup, new name is horrible, just like command ship's cap recharge rate
wtb CCP rise for command ship buffs
(love you for everything else, fozzie, but that capacitor is just killing us) |
|
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
183
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 11:46:00 -
[1781] - Quote
Serenity Eon wrote:Fozzie, why the hell does every ship have the same capacitor recharge rate (4.5cap/sec) ? The Absolution NEEDS!!! I repeat NEEDS!!! An increased cap recharge rate or an extra midslot. In its Current state it's nothing more than a gimped astarte, which does more DPS and has superior cap stability. Infact i would say its the weakest CS in the game. Are you really that blind to see the obvious jeeze
I disagree with the cap recharge rate. The absolution has enough cap. In fact, i think it is one of the most "cap stable" amarr ship using laser. My abso has 3m of cap with everything on (6 lasers, faction MWD, point + web), but i agree, it really needs a fourth med slot. I don't care if CCP remove the 2 "unused" high slot and put one med slot instead. |
Aplier Shivra
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 13:03:00 -
[1782] - Quote
bloodknight2 wrote:Serenity Eon wrote:Fozzie, why the hell does every ship have the same capacitor recharge rate (4.5cap/sec) ? The Absolution NEEDS!!! I repeat NEEDS!!! An increased cap recharge rate or an extra midslot. In its Current state it's nothing more than a gimped astarte, which does more DPS and has superior cap stability. Infact i would say its the weakest CS in the game. Are you really that blind to see the obvious jeeze I disagree with the cap recharge rate. The absolution has enough cap. In fact, i think it is one of the most "cap stable" amarr ship using laser. My abso has 3m of cap with everything on (6 lasers, faction MWD, point + web), but i agree, it really needs a fourth med slot. I don't care if CCP remove the 2 "unused" high slot and put one med slot instead.
It barely has enough base recharge to keep its guns firing. Being the "most" cap stable amarr ship because it runs out at 3 minutes instead of 2 is just a matter of max cap pool, not the actual recharge rate. Compare that "stability" to all the other command ships, who dont have to spend their entire cap recharge just on guns, and then against the shield ships who can use ASBs for cap-free rep, and finally try to make a half decent active tank fit, and you'll see how huge of a discrepancy there is in cap stability. I'd imagine those minmy ships are just desperate to find more things to throw their capacitor away for. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
164
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 13:19:00 -
[1783] - Quote
Agree that there is no reason for CS to be fully dependent on cap boosters. Give it aswell the ridicusously small holds on those CS that actually NEED cap (eos/astarte, ABSOLUTION 300little... keeps your buffertanked ship running for a couple minutes, given that you plan on using those utility highs for neutralizers)
Doubt as much cap as HACs would be necessary, but steps forward needs to be done. From a tendency, a ship should be able to run guns, hardeners/fields and links stable, ideally a bit beyond. As of now, two invulns are pressing you down to 50-60% already.
Slowly people recognize the advantage of having a solid capacitor, with command ships being quite dependent on cap to fulfill their primary job (having links running), are there considerations to either drastically drop Link-activation costs towards the DCU level? Or just increase the cap?
Afterall, you're bringing them on grid instead of hiding them, yet now you'll be punished because A FRIG CAN NEUT YOU. <.< "When we're done with links you won't recognize them" - CCP Fozzie |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
540
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 13:52:00 -
[1784] - Quote
I think bringing average Command cap recharge to around 5.7/s would be a pretty reasonable proposal. Give the abso around 6.5, Astarte/eos/vulture around 5.8-6.0, Sleipnir/claymore/damnation/nh around 5.0/s to 5.5/s.
There is no reason the sac should have more cap regen than the abso, and there is no reason the deimos should have more than the astarte/eos. |
Aplier Shivra
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 13:56:00 -
[1785] - Quote
Well, sacrilege had a random capacitor bonus as one of it's hull bonuses, and when rebalancing the hacs, Rise felt generous and decided to remove that as a hull bonus and give the sac a real hull bonus, but leave the increased cap regen as a part of sac's base numbers.
Whereas Fozzie is sitting behind his computer slowly and evily laughing at how he is forcing command ship pilots to make very difficult decisions regarding how to spend their limited capacitor on. |
Valfreyea
Zervas Aeronautics The Unthinkables
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 14:55:00 -
[1786] - Quote
I agree with everything Cade Windstalker says. Remove the turret bonus and consider another drone bonus for heavies (or hell, in general) with either more speed, tracking, or range. I mean, if you're going to pigeonhole the Eos into heavies drones, then at least make them viable for combat, since opponents will be pretty much expecting Ogres to get dropped after the changes.
Perhaps contemplate boosting Heavy drone health as well, since they're easily tracked and destroyed. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
191
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 15:06:00 -
[1787] - Quote
Not as evil as the horrible developer giving skills and modules ridiculous childish names. I just can't get past this. I spend hours of my life living in the scientific wonderland of Eve and now they're giving all my stuff play-school names?
spaceship piloting? A pilot is a noun. It's a ship or light for providing guidance. It's not a verb. The verb is "command", "control", "guide", "operate", even "fly". It should be "starship command" or "spaceship (at a push) command".
"capacitor transferer"? Do me a favour and f*ck right off! "Energy Transfer Array" is the correct name.
Someone in CCP needs to take a long, hard shamefaced look at themselves, and then pick up a book and educate themselves.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
540
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 15:28:00 -
[1788] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Not as evil as the horrible developer giving skills and modules ridiculous childish names. I just can't get past this. I spend hours of my life living in the scientific wonderland of Eve and now they're giving all my stuff play-school names?
spaceship piloting? A pilot is a noun. It's a ship or light for providing guidance. It's not a verb. The verb is "command", "control", "guide", "operate", even "fly". It should be "starship command" or "spaceship (at a push) command".
"capacitor transferer"? Do me a favour and f*ck right off! "Energy Transfer Array" is the correct name.
Someone in CCP needs to take a long, hard shamefaced look at themselves, and then pick up a book and educate themselves.
ahahahaha, yes!
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
775
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 15:29:00 -
[1789] - Quote
Aplier Shivra wrote:Well, sacrilege had a random capacitor bonus as one of it's hull bonuses, and when rebalancing the hacs, Rise felt generous and decided to remove that as a hull bonus and give the sac a real hull bonus, but leave the increased cap regen as a part of sac's base numbers.... He did far more than that .. he removed the Sacrilege 25% bonus and effectively applied it to ALL the hulls, recharge rate changes as follows: Sacrilege -24% Zealot - 15% (WTF!) Deimos -33% (hahahaha) Ishtar -21% Cerberus -30% Eagle -24% Vagabond -27% Muninn -24%
So he was indeed generous, enough to give the Sacrilege bonus to everyone without giving anything to the Sacrilege in return
Command recharges are a tad low considering they are expected to run links .. but since they are not on-grid as of yet I am more than willing to let it slide as they will have to get a second, third, fourth pass once that fateful day arrives so there is ample time to sort it.
|
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 20:09:00 -
[1790] - Quote
So i would say:
Eos: -bigger dronebay or something in that way like ur changes now. (maybe drones in the eos dont need full cargo/bandwith...) -better drone bonuses like trackingspeed for heavies but if you plan to rework drones, then hope its quite good in this way too
Damnation: - DONT change the 10% hp per level OR create something really shiny like reduced damage over a perid of time like small siege mode or someting, ofc with fuel etc. - dont nerf pg wtf (rip 1600plate) - let the ship be a tank ship and dont try to force some bad missiles bonuses plz, same for other tankships like vulture, claymore etc.
Astarte: -pretty beast with the changes
Absolution: - not enough dps and/or cap in comparision to the astarte
= important notes to the changes, but plz LET THE TANK CS TANK CS AND DPS CS THE DPS CS !!! |
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 22:32:00 -
[1791] - Quote
Florian Kuehne wrote:So i would say:
Eos: -bigger dronebay or something in that way like ur changes now. (maybe drones in the eos dont need full cargo/bandwith...) -better drone bonuses like trackingspeed for heavies but if you plan to rework drones, then hope its quite good in this way too
Damnation: - DONT change the 10% hp per level OR create something really shiny like reduced damage over a perid of time like small siege mode or someting, ofc with fuel etc. - dont nerf pg wtf (rip 1600plate) - let the ship be a tank ship and dont try to force some bad missiles bonuses plz, same for other tankships like vulture, claymore etc.
Astarte: -pretty beast with the changes
Absolution: - not enough dps and/or cap in comparision to the astarte
= important notes to the changes, but plz LET THE TANK CS TANK CS AND DPS CS THE DPS CS !!!
Please do us all a favor and clean this up for grammar and clarity, it's halfway to unreadable as it is right now.
Eos: No idea what you're talking about with "not needing full bandwidth" since with 125 bandwidth it can control the max number of any size of drone already making such a bonus pointless.
It already has a tracking bonus for Heavies, we're talking about the Hybrids tracking bonus that seems a little out of place.
Damnation: No idea where you got the idea for some weird sort of Command siege mod. They've also said repeatedly the 10% HP bonus isn't going anywhere.
For the fittings it's gone from absurdly spacious fittings to still quite generous, especially with high skills and the potential for fitting mods.
Also no idea what you mean with "bad missile bonuses", it's always missiles and missile bonuses, it just gained a bonus like all the other ships and already has two raw tanking bonuses, the most of any ship in the game.
Absolution: see next post for a long form explanation.
The short one is no, it trades cap for damage projection, tracking, instant ammo swapping, and tank. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 22:37:00 -
[1792] - Quote
Aplier Shivra wrote:Serenity Eon wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Serenity Eon wrote:Fozzie, why the hell does every ship have the same capacitor recharge rate (4.5cap/sec) ? The Absolution NEEDS!!! I repeat NEEDS!!! An increased cap recharge rate or an extra midslot. In its Current state it's nothing more than a gimped astarte, which does more DPS and has superior cap stability. Infact i would say its the weakest CS in the game. Are you really that blind to see the obvious jeeze Optimal range and falloff of Absolution compared to Astarte? Also inferior, because the Astarte has the luxury of mid slots for tracking computers, while the Abso does not (needed for cap rechargers/boosters). the Astarte also has a falloff bonus Don't forget to add that astarte can use faction antimatter and still do better dps even in falloff than conflag at optimal, with double the tracking. Or use null and do the same dps as conflag at same optimal, but with much better falloff, and still much better tracking. All while using half as much capacitor to fire it's turrets, after Absolution's hull bonus to cap use.
So, I was curious how true some of these claims actually were and what the various drawbacks and penalties were to Medium Lasers vs Medium Hybrids. I didn't want to get into Projectiles because, well, those are just a bit too different from one or the other of these weapons and a lot of the contention here is about cap use, which doesn't apply to Projectiles.
Thankfully in terms of range and cap-use the ammo for the two is pretty much lock-step, at least in Tech 1. So Multi-Frequency has the same effect on Optimal and Cap Use as Antimatter does, ect. The damage is a little different but that's to be somewhat expected.
Anyways, here's the spreadsheet. It's a lot more basic than my drones one but that's partly because I didn't want to start drawing erroneous comparisons, like between, say, fittings and tracking, where I'd have to bring in the ships to make it a really fair comparison. The second column of calculations takes into account the 50% cap use reduction from the Absolution but only for the lasers so the hybrids columns are going to be identical. The last column is the tracking multiplied by the optimal range. This precise number is used in the tracking formula and represents how effectively these weapons track at their optimal. The higher the number, the better the tracking at the weapon's optimal range.
First, yes, the cap use on lasers is pretty lousy, especially for the largest sizes, but the tracking at optimal on Blasters doesn't hold up very well either, meaning they need to fight in falloff to come close to the tracking efficiency on Lasers, which severely reduces their DPS (or get an optimal bonus, but no one's yelling about Blaster Eagles yet so I'm not touching that one).
(all numbers without mods) Plus lasers, especially Pulse Lasers, get a lot more variation in engagement range than Blasters do. Medium Blasters, cut off around 15k Optimal + Falloff while Pulse with Scorch stretches out to a grand old 28km. Beams have a bit more overlap with Rails but still manage to have comparable ranges but with the better tracking to apply damage better at those ranges (seriously, rail tracking sucks).
Last, I fit out two Myrmidons in EFT with the largest medium Blasters and Pulse Lasers to get base damage with max skills for 5 turrets. Then I multiplied by the respective damage bonuses for the Astarte and the Absolution to get the damage for these ships.
- Heavy Neutron w Null- Base Damage: 203 Astarte Damage: 383.796875 Optimal: 6.3 Falloff (with bonus): 13
- Heavy Pulse w Conflag- Base Damage: 232 Absolution Damage: 435 Optimal: 7.5 Falloff: 5
Result: Void wins out to 5.5 km which should be expected. The Conflag does better damage than Null without taking tracking into account out to around 9.5k, then the falloff bonused Blasters win out to about 13 at which point Scorch kicks in and wins the rest of the way.
Moral of the story, don't pick a fight with a Blaster boat at 0, it's not going to end well.
Other thoughts:
Lasers in general could probably use a glance over from CCP. They trade lousy cap for a lot of bonuses but the trade off itself may be too steep, especially if every ship running them ends up needing a cap use bonus. However, I don't think they're in as bad of a spot as Hybrids were back before the Hybrid buff and they're certainly still useable and have a role to fill.
To everyone complaining that the Absolution sucks: stop looking at situations that blatantly favor the ship you're comparing against and start thinking how to fit and engage your target in a way that benefits the ship you're using. |
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 04:33:00 -
[1793] - Quote
You dont know what ideas are?
They said that they want to take away the 10% HP per level of the damnation, you may missed the important ccp statements. Dude, you should try to read what other persons write thanks. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 04:56:00 -
[1794] - Quote
Florian Kuehne wrote:You dont know what ideas are?
They said that they want to take away the 10% HP per level of the damnation, you may missed the important ccp statements. Dude, you should try to read what other persons write thanks.
No, they've said they don't like how dominant it is but they are not planning on taking it away, they are planning on changing boosting so it's no longer necessary.
Pay careful attention to the bold bit. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
62
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 05:38:00 -
[1795] - Quote
Florian Kuehne wrote:You dont know what ideas are?
They said that they want to take away the 10% HP per level of the damnation, you may missed the important ccp statements. Dude, you should try to read what other persons write thanks.
Stop being an arrogant brat and Start Reading more then the OP and LP, thank you. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1149
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 06:16:00 -
[1796] - Quote
So I am on Sisi right now. Been fitting up the various Command Ships.
Finally got around to the Sleipnir.
Has anyone combat tested one? Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
775
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 06:47:00 -
[1797] - Quote
Yes, the bolded part is where he reiterates that it will in fact be removed .. just not in Odear 1.1. He also basically commits himself himself to a second CC (doubt they'll bother with Damn only) pass when the on-grid change is a bit more tangible.
Or perhaps you think he is malicious/dumb enough to first make it redundant (ie. no necessary) and then leave it in? He, as most Devs, is neither of those .. just misguided at times |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 07:10:00 -
[1798] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Yes, the bolded part is where he reiterates that it will in fact be removed .. just not in Odear 1.1. He also basically commits himself himself to a second CC (doubt they'll bother with Damn only) pass when the on-grid change is a bit more tangible. Or perhaps you think he is malicious/dumb enough to first make it redundant (ie. no necessary) and then leave it in? He, as most Devs, is neither of those .. just misguided at times
I am, in-fact, almost done with developer school :D
I'm taking that to mean that it's probably going to be re-evaluated but may or may go away. Either way it's not going anywhere right now. At a guess whether or not it goes away in the future is going to depend on whether or not the ship is still extremely dominant after they institute the OGB changes or if drops off sharply in popularity. If it drops off it'll probably get a buff, if it remains extremely popular over other command ships it might get a nerf, or it could kind of fall into line and nothing happens with it if the bonus is still deemed popular and useful to the meta without being game breaking.
Either way though this is all months out and we'll likely see a lot of other changes between here and there. |
Klendatu Niban
Stealth Tactics and Reconnaissance Service Rebel Alliance of New Eden
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 08:02:00 -
[1799] - Quote
Reading that small gangs get nerfed more than large fleets by the decrease in fleet booster strength, what about the following idea:
The fleet booster bonus should be coupled to the amount of fleet members. The more members in fleet, the smaller the bonus for the single ship. See it a kind of stacking penalty.
This way small fleets could get maximum bonus or minor boost penalties per ship than large fleets. If large fleets want higher bonus, they would have to devide the fleet and/or install more ships with boosters.
The fleet leader could give his bonuses to, say, 50 members, each receiving only a bit of the original bonus. The wing commanders and squad commanders could use ships that "refresh" the bonus or add other bonuses.
This way a large fleet has to take significant efforts to keep their bonuses up.
Another thought is that only the booster ship and the hierachie level below gets full bonus, each sub-level down the ships get half of the upper level. e.g. a fleet commander boosting wings boosts each wing commander with 100% of the original bonus, the squad commanders get 1/2 the bonus and the squad members get only 1/4 of the fleet booster bonusses.
The wing commanders can give their own boosts to 100% to the squad commanders and 50% to the squad members etc.
How is that? |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 08:48:00 -
[1800] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Not as evil as the horrible developer giving skills and modules ridiculous childish names. I just can't get past this. I spend hours of my life living in the scientific wonderland of Eve and now they're giving all my stuff play-school names?
spaceship piloting? A pilot is a noun. It's a ship or light for providing guidance. It's not a verb. The verb is "command", "control", "guide", "operate", even "fly". It should be "starship command" or "spaceship (at a push) command".
"capacitor transferer"? Do me a favour and f*ck right off! "Energy Transfer Array" is the correct name.
Someone in CCP needs to take a long, hard shamefaced look at themselves, and then pick up a book and educate themselves.
Cap is a word used by the player base to describe the content of a ships capacitor.
No one say I'm running out of energy please send me some. No they say I'm running out of cap please send me some. or my ship ran out of cap or I didn't have enough cap to activate my guns. etc etc
I don't think I have ever heard anyone on comms describe cap as energy in years.
So cap transferer seems a better name, its now in line with other engineering modules that directly affect cap.
|
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
33
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 09:06:00 -
[1801] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Not as evil as the horrible developer giving skills and modules ridiculous childish names. I just can't get past this. I spend hours of my life living in the scientific wonderland of Eve and now they're giving all my stuff play-school names?
spaceship piloting? A pilot is a noun. It's a ship or light for providing guidance. It's not a verb. The verb is "command", "control", "guide", "operate", even "fly". It should be "starship command" or "spaceship (at a push) command".
"capacitor transferer"? Do me a favour and f*ck right off! "Energy Transfer Array" is the correct name.
Someone in CCP needs to take a long, hard shamefaced look at themselves, and then pick up a book and educate themselves.
Cap is a word used by the player base to describe the content of a ships capacitor. No one say I'm running out of energy please send me some. No they say I'm running out of cap please send me some. or my ship ran out of cap or I didn't have enough cap to activate my guns. etc etc I don't think I have ever heard anyone on comms describe cap as energy in years. So cap transferer seems a better name, its now in line with other engineering modules that directly affect cap.
Seconded, I fly a Basi fairly regularly and I don't think it'll even take much for me to switch from saying "ET up" to "CT up".
Word tags make things much easier on new players from a usability standpoint, if I'm helping a newbie and he asks about energy modules being able to tell him to search "Capacitor" in the Market or in EFT is very useful.
Spaceship Command, while cooler sounding, is potentially ambiguous. I'm sure there's someone floating around who will say that if a new player can't figure that out they shouldn't be playing Eve, but Eve is a very complex game for someone just diving in and it's easy to get overloaded on information and make silly assumptions. I've spent enough time in Eve University to watch more newbies than I can count go from awe-struck and confused new pilot to seasoned vet to know that any sort of "filter" on the first day will be a bad one.
Also now having typed that all up it occurs to me this entire discussion doesn't belong in this thread >.> |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
166
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 09:11:00 -
[1802] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:So I am on Sisi right now. Been fitting up the various Command Ships.
Finally got around to the Sleipnir.
Has anyone combat tested one?
It's quite magnificent. Mostly like the old sleip, but dual S-large ASB isn't attractive anymore, though classic X-large with dualcapboost seems to be the new way. For gangs, more the dual-med-neut / single ASB/LSE seems to be useful.
regards "When we're done with links you won't recognize them" - CCP Fozzie |
Janeway84
Masters Of Destiny Pride Before Fall
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 12:51:00 -
[1803] - Quote
Valfreyea wrote:I agree with everything Cade Windstalker says. Remove the turret bonus and consider another drone bonus for heavies (or hell, in general) with either more speed, tracking, or range. I mean, if you're going to pigeonhole the Eos into heavies drones, then at least make them viable for combat, since opponents will be pretty much expecting Ogres to get dropped after the changes.
Perhaps contemplate boosting Heavy drone health as well, since they're easily tracked and destroyed.
Awesome idea imo
But imo should do it like 100 m3 increase in drone bay + instead of 10% hp increase of drone hp make it 15% perhaps.
Just some random ideas.
|
Valterra Craven
101
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 13:54:00 -
[1804] - Quote
Janeway84 wrote:Valfreyea wrote:I agree with everything Cade Windstalker says. Remove the turret bonus and consider another drone bonus for heavies (or hell, in general) with either more speed, tracking, or range. I mean, if you're going to pigeonhole the Eos into heavies drones, then at least make them viable for combat, since opponents will be pretty much expecting Ogres to get dropped after the changes.
Perhaps contemplate boosting Heavy drone health as well, since they're easily tracked and destroyed. Awesome idea imo But imo should do it like 100 m3 increase in drone bay + instead of 10% hp increase of drone hp make it 15% perhaps. Just some random ideas.
Here's a random drone idea to make heavies really useful that CCP hasn't thought of before.
Change the turret tracking bonus on the EOS too.....
A drone signature reduction bonus. :) |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
541
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 13:55:00 -
[1805] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Not as evil as the horrible developer giving skills and modules ridiculous childish names. I just can't get past this. I spend hours of my life living in the scientific wonderland of Eve and now they're giving all my stuff play-school names?
spaceship piloting? A pilot is a noun. It's a ship or light for providing guidance. It's not a verb. The verb is "command", "control", "guide", "operate", even "fly". It should be "starship command" or "spaceship (at a push) command".
"capacitor transferer"? Do me a favour and f*ck right off! "Energy Transfer Array" is the correct name.
Someone in CCP needs to take a long, hard shamefaced look at themselves, and then pick up a book and educate themselves.
Cap is a word used by the player base to describe the content of a ships capacitor. No one say I'm running out of energy please send me some. No they say I'm running out of cap please send me some. or my ship ran out of cap or I didn't have enough cap to activate my guns. etc etc I don't think I have ever heard anyone on comms describe cap as energy in years. So cap transferer seems a better name, its now in line with other engineering modules that directly affect cap.
I think it's literally time to link literally the most relevant debate evar!
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/15/living/literally-definition
But in all honestly, simply because the player base misuses a term does not mean the devs should bend over backwards and change module names to literally make no sense.
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1149
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 14:26:00 -
[1806] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:So I am on Sisi right now. Been fitting up the various Command Ships.
Finally got around to the Sleipnir.
Has anyone combat tested one? It's quite magnificent. Mostly like the old sleip, but dual S-large ASB isn't attractive anymore, though classic X-large with dualcapboost seems to be the new way. For gangs, more the dual-med-neut / single ASB/LSE seems to be useful. regards
The Sleipnir has always been to me more of a machine that terrifies solo players, or even very small gangs. Yeah, it has more tank now, with the resist boosts, and the shield booster buff (but a lot of ship fits are getting a repper/booster buff with the new repper/booster stats), but the ship is taking a big hit in DPS (10.00 effective guns vs 11.6667), and losing that 8th slot really hurts it's utility at the same time.
Plus I was having, and still am, having issues, when comparing it to the EOS. I realize I will get toasted for comparing apples and oranges, but from a strict DPS point of view, the EOS with a pair of 250 rails, 3 drone damage mods, and Ogre II's does virtually identical ONPAPER damage ( I am looking at the fitting window on Sisi) to the Sleipnir fitted with 5 425's and 2 HAM's, and 3 Gyro's. Which I could live with, but I can also fit a wicked buffer tank on the EOS and FOUR links, while the Sleipnir to achieve that damage (856) uses all 7 high slots.
And if someone from CPP reads this, for god's sakes, DON'T take this as reason to nerf the EOS. Instead, buff the Sleipnir. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
541
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 15:35:00 -
[1807] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
(10.00 effective guns vs 11.6667), and losing that 8th slot really hurts it's utility at the same time.
It actually has 11.25 effective turrets not 10 ontop of the fact that it gets this dmg out of 5 guns instead of 7 meaning that your comment about the loss of the 8th high hurting it's utility is wrong as the ship now has 2 utility high slots rather than 1.
Also, while it's lost dps in terms of eft, the move from rof to all dmg means that in the short term, it's going to do more dps compared to the older sleipnir. Alpha from arty setup is also higher. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
328
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 15:36:00 -
[1808] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:The Sleipnir has always been to me more of a machine that terrifies solo players, or even very small gangs. Yeah, it has more tank now, with the resist boosts, and the shield booster buff (but a lot of ship fits are getting a repper/booster buff with the new repper/booster stats), but the ship is taking a big hit in DPS (10.00 effective guns vs 11.6667), and losing that 8th slot really hurts it's utility at the same time.
It's remedial math time.
Damage bonuses are multiplicative. That means that the first bonus raises the damage from 5 turrets to 7.5 effective turrets. The second 50% damage bonus raises 7.5 effective turrets to 11.25 effective turrets. The ship now has 2 utility high slots after fitting max turrets instead of just one, so it's actually gaining a utility high slot.
Ultimately, I really don't know what you're going on about. The sleip is losing a small amount of DPS (~3.5%) and is gaining a utility high slot and some base resists. This is hardly the epic nerf you're trying to make it out to be. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
209
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 15:42:00 -
[1809] - Quote
EDIT: posted without thinking - that bit was deleted.
You *can* put 3 drone damage mods on an EOS, but it's not going to tank anything other than Guristas NPCs... A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
112
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 16:15:00 -
[1810] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:EDIT: posted without thinking - that bit was deleted.
You *can* put 3 drone damage mods on an EOS, but it's not going to tank anything other than Guristas NPCs...
And Serpentis, the green dudes in the Syndicate asteroid belts
FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
210
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 16:21:00 -
[1811] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:EDIT: posted without thinking - that bit was deleted.
You *can* put 3 drone damage mods on an EOS, but it's not going to tank anything other than Guristas NPCs... And Serpentis, the green dudes in the Syndicate asteroid belts
Oh well, that's fine then. We've found a role for the EOS!
It's a 200m isk rat-catcher :)
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
328
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 17:53:00 -
[1812] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:elitatwo wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:EDIT: posted without thinking - that bit was deleted.
You *can* put 3 drone damage mods on an EOS, but it's not going to tank anything other than Guristas NPCs... And Serpentis, the green dudes in the Syndicate asteroid belts Oh well, that's fine then. We've found a role for the EOS! It's a 200m isk rat-catcher :)
Now I understand what the tracking bonus is for. Throw blasters on an eos and clear guristas tackle frigs quickly. The role is falling into place, this is an epic guristas ratting ship to replace the ishtar.
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
166
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 23:56:00 -
[1813] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: The Sleipnir has always been to me more of a machine that terrifies solo players, or even very small gangs. Yeah, it has more tank now, with the resist boosts, and the shield booster buff (but a lot of ship fits are getting a repper/booster buff with the new repper/booster stats), but the ship is taking a big hit in DPS (10.00 effective guns vs 11.6667), and losing that 8th slot really hurts it's utility at the same time.
Plus I was having, and still am, having issues, when comparing it to the EOS. I realize I will get toasted for comparing apples and oranges, but from a strict DPS point of view, the EOS with a pair of 250 rails, 3 drone damage mods, and Ogre II's does virtually identical ONPAPER damage ( I am looking at the fitting window on Sisi) to the Sleipnir fitted with 5 425's and 2 HAM's, and 3 Gyro's. Which I could live with, but I can also fit a wicked buffer tank on the EOS and FOUR links, while the Sleipnir to achieve that damage (856) uses all 7 high slots.
And if someone from CPP reads this, for god's sakes, DON'T take this as reason to nerf the EOS. Instead, buff the Sleipnir.
Quite the opposite. By using but five highs for turrets you now got two medium neuts. Also the easier fitting by using only 5 modules, you don't have to sacrifice three cows anymore to fit artillery.
Quote: [Sleipnir, single ASB] Internal Force Field Array I Republic Fleet Gyrostabilizer Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II
Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400 Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Processor Overclocking Unit II Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer II
Hornet EC-300 x5
It's a little tight, but ammo consumption is now of that sort that you reload once for damage type, and afterwards you could burn all the way through a proteus buffer without reloading :) Aside from that, I fitted that up before that last CPU adjustment, means that the CPU-rig can be switched for a t2 therm/explo-rig and that RF gyro can be switched for a regular T2. Sleipnirs have been attractive before, the acceptable speed (especially linked some 2.3km/s OH) and damageoutput basically stays as is, but utility got increased.
When going for smallscale brawlfits, you can stuff two med neuts, a cap booster or ASB and medium or top tier guns on pretty much any of these. "When we're done with links you won't recognize them" - CCP Fozzie |
Goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
517
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 00:22:00 -
[1814] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
( I am looking at the fitting window on Sisi) to the Sleipnir fitted with 5 425's and 2 HAM's, and 3 Gyro's.
Strange I am seeing 953dps, guns only Hail ammo(Fitting window on sisi) No drones.
Edit; Ah I have implants in, ignore DPS.
Things that keep me up at night;-á Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state,-áOnce you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
229
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 00:44:00 -
[1815] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Aplier Shivra wrote:Well, sacrilege had a random capacitor bonus as one of it's hull bonuses, and when rebalancing the hacs, Rise felt generous and decided to remove that as a hull bonus and give the sac a real hull bonus, but leave the increased cap regen as a part of sac's base numbers.... He did far more than that .. he removed the Sacrilege 25% bonus and effectively applied it to ALL the hulls, recharge rate changes as follows: Sacrilege -24% Zealot - 15% (WTF!) Deimos -33% (hahahaha) Ishtar -21% Cerberus -30% Eagle -24% Vagabond -27% Muninn -24% So he was indeed generous, enough to give the Sacrilege bonus to everyone without giving anything to the Sacrilege in return Command recharges are a tad low considering they are expected to run links .. but since they are not on-grid as of yet I am more than willing to let it slide as they will have to get a second, third, fourth pass once that fateful day arrives so there is ample time to sort it. by the same logic it removed the speed bonus to the vaga and added it to the hull, doing the same thing to other hulls like cerb, deimos, and sacrilege via mass reduction, making the "boost" less meaningful.
one thing that comes out of this it is seems like the deimos got a collection of hidden boosts
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 01:30:00 -
[1816] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
( I am looking at the fitting window on Sisi) to the Sleipnir fitted with 5 425's and 2 HAM's, and 3 Gyro's.
Strange I am seeing 953dps, guns only Hail ammo(Fitting window on sisi) No drones. Edit; Ah I have implants in, ignore DPS.
Everyone does realize that the fitting window is going to take into account skills, right? Meaning that your numbers may vary from either someone else's numbers or from the "maxed" numbers for the fit...
To mare wrote:all this rebalancing started well but the far it goes the more it sound like overall nerfs to everything except gallente ships
Read more diverse opinions, there isn't a single command ship here that's legitimately ending up worse off overall than it was before these changes. The Gallente ships are going to show high DPS because blasters are high damage guns, but they suffer from extremely short range and can be completely negated by various combinations of range, e-war, cap-warfare, and simply out-tanking the enemy. |
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 02:42:00 -
[1817] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I am not necessarily proposing anything, just highlighting the fact that there are more options than warping/cynoing your fleet booster into weapons range of your enemy.
Another option is to put it on grid 250+ km from your enemy's guns. Then keep it moving, guard it, and have more than one so you have some redundancy.
If you want your fleet booster in weapons range, that's up to you. I dont, unless it's as strong as a supercap!
Really guys, you don't see the marines parachuting their field command post onto the enemy positions, why do it with a spaceship?
On grid boosting will require tactical solutions - for both sides in the conflict.
Adapt and survive...
Now you've opened the next can of worms can I run with it.. When off grid boosting is removed, what will constitute "offgrid" if you can land your boosters 250k from the fight (just out of a good sniper fleets range) will they be considered as being ongrid as far as boosting is concerned? If for example "ongrid" means within lock range / weapons range then you have a real problem unless using capitals (for lock range) for boosting. If grids were to stay as they are now, it really poses no problems but if grids are modified to enable the removal of off grid boosting then sitting your booster 250k off would mean no boosts as technically he is offgrid. I can't see the point of removing off grid boosting if all your going to do is let them sit outside the battle, albeit visible but essentially offgrid. Boosting at range eg; 250k is quite viable in a larger fleet where you can have a couple of logi and dedicated combat ships to guard the boosters while they orbit the battle. I was thinking, with these changes the CS was meant to be a part of the fleet and actually be involved in the fight. Probably well off the mark. Maybe a dev could give an example of what "ongrid" will be once offgrid boosting is removed. I know it is not something planned for the near future but for those who fly CS or plan on it, knowing what will constitute "ongrid" would be nice.
|
Hookswoop Skydance
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 05:45:00 -
[1818] - Quote
To mare wrote:all this rebalancing started well but the far it goes the more it sound like overall nerfs to everything except gallente ships Funny... I would say the Eos is the most worthless turd in a bowl full of other turds. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
36
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 06:56:00 -
[1819] - Quote
Capt Canada wrote: Now you've opened the next can of worms can I run with it.. When off grid boosting is removed, what will constitute "offgrid" if you can land your boosters 250k from the fight (just out of a good sniper fleets range) will they be considered as being ongrid as far as boosting is concerned? If for example "ongrid" means within lock range / weapons range then you have a real problem unless using capitals (for lock range) for boosting. If grids were to stay as they are now, it really poses no problems but if grids are modified to enable the removal of off grid boosting then sitting your booster 250k off would mean no boosts as technically he is offgrid. I can't see the point of removing off grid boosting if all your going to do is let them sit outside the battle, albeit visible but essentially offgrid. Boosting at range eg; 250k is quite viable in a larger fleet where you can have a couple of logi and dedicated combat ships to guard the boosters while they orbit the battle. I was thinking, with these changes the CS was meant to be a part of the fleet and actually be involved in the fight. Probably well off the mark. Maybe a dev could give an example of what "ongrid" will be once offgrid boosting is removed. I know it is not something planned for the near future but for those who fly CS or plan on it, knowing what will constitute "ongrid" would be nice.
Big quote, tiny response. You should read this post by CCP Fozzie in this other thread which goes into where they want command ships to go and what the problems with them at present are.
I believe you can infer answers or at least general direction of answers to all of your questions from that post.
Capt Canada wrote:With all the talk about utility highs, ability to fit neuts etc.. You guys do know these are meant to be command ships not elite pvp boats. Try fitting the ship for its intended role and stop complaining about how useful or not, they are for solo pvp. Yes they are and will continue to be used for other things than fleet boosting but if you fly a hulk to a frigate gang fight, don't complain when it doesn't perform. That is not its intended role..
These are still meant to be viable for small to medium gangs though, which means they should be able to contribute meaningfully to the fight. If they can contribute to a fight while running links in a small to medium gang then they can lose the links for something else in a solo situation, or missions, or incursions, or scan sites, ect. Since we don't have any other T2 Battlecruiser hulls saying these ships should only be good at one thing is a bit silly. |
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:56:00 -
[1820] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Capt Canada wrote: Now you've opened the next can of worms can I run with it.. When off grid boosting is removed, what will constitute "offgrid" if you can land your boosters 250k from the fight (just out of a good sniper fleets range) will they be considered as being ongrid as far as boosting is concerned? If for example "ongrid" means within lock range / weapons range then you have a real problem unless using capitals (for lock range) for boosting. If grids were to stay as they are now, it really poses no problems but if grids are modified to enable the removal of off grid boosting then sitting your booster 250k off would mean no boosts as technically he is offgrid. I can't see the point of removing off grid boosting if all your going to do is let them sit outside the battle, albeit visible but essentially offgrid. Boosting at range eg; 250k is quite viable in a larger fleet where you can have a couple of logi and dedicated combat ships to guard the boosters while they orbit the battle. I was thinking, with these changes the CS was meant to be a part of the fleet and actually be involved in the fight. Probably well off the mark. Maybe a dev could give an example of what "ongrid" will be once offgrid boosting is removed. I know it is not something planned for the near future but for those who fly CS or plan on it, knowing what will constitute "ongrid" would be nice.
Big quote, tiny response. You should read this post by CCP Fozzie in this other thread which goes into where they want command ships to go and what the problems with them at present are. I believe you can infer answers or at least general direction of answers to all of your questions from that post. Capt Canada wrote:With all the talk about utility highs, ability to fit neuts etc.. You guys do know these are meant to be command ships not elite pvp boats. Try fitting the ship for its intended role and stop complaining about how useful or not, they are for solo pvp. Yes they are and will continue to be used for other things than fleet boosting but if you fly a hulk to a frigate gang fight, don't complain when it doesn't perform. That is not its intended role.. These are still meant to be viable for small to medium gangs though, which means they should be able to contribute meaningfully to the fight. If they can contribute to a fight while running links in a small to medium gang then they can lose the links for something else in a solo situation, or missions, or incursions, or scan sites, ect. Since we don't have any other T2 Battlecruiser hulls saying these ships should only be good at one thing is a bit silly. Well, unless there is something hidden in the post you linked it doesn't really address what I have put forth
2nd; did you actually read the whole post or just the 1st line?? And, did you know you were linking a post from page 82 of this thread?? If you look really carefully, I posted just before and after the dev post you highlighted, which in part prompted me to ask the questions I have.
So in your opinion, should we have command ships that are good at solo pvp at the expense of usability as boosters?
If you had actually read even half this thread you would see 90% of my posts relate to small gang/fleet use of CS.
A command ship will be just that, you can still use them to run missions or scan sites etc without links, they just won't be as good at it as they are now due to their focus being switched to that of boosters rather than elite solo pvp/pve boats. As for incursion fleets, what do you think the fleet boosters for them will be flying??
NB; If you could please highlight where I stated or even inferred CS should only be good at 1 thing?? As you brought it up, why should a T2 battlecruiser be the only T2 ship with dual roles?? You want a ship that has numerous roles get a T3 cruiser, they are specifically designed to fill multiple roles and with the right skills do their job very well.
Please if your going to troll do it to someone else. |
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
217
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 09:07:00 -
[1821] - Quote
Capt Canada wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I am not necessarily proposing anything, just highlighting the fact that there are more options than warping/cynoing your fleet booster into weapons range of your enemy.
Another option is to put it on grid 250+ km from your enemy's guns. Then keep it moving, guard it, and have more than one so you have some redundancy.
If you want your fleet booster in weapons range, that's up to you. I dont, unless it's as strong as a supercap!
Really guys, you don't see the marines parachuting their field command post onto the enemy positions, why do it with a spaceship?
On grid boosting will require tactical solutions - for both sides in the conflict.
Adapt and survive...
Now you've opened the next can of worms can I run with it.. When off grid boosting is removed, what will constitute "offgrid" if you can land your boosters 250k from the fight (just out of a good sniper fleets range) will they be considered as being ongrid as far as boosting is concerned? If for example "ongrid" means within lock range / weapons range then you have a real problem unless using capitals (for lock range) for boosting. If grids were to stay as they are now, it really poses no problems but if grids are modified to enable the removal of off grid boosting then sitting your booster 250k off would mean no boosts as technically he is offgrid. I can't see the point of removing off grid boosting if all your going to do is let them sit outside the battle, albeit visible but essentially offgrid. Boosting at range eg; 250k is quite viable in a larger fleet where you can have a couple of logi and dedicated combat ships to guard the boosters while they orbit the battle. I was thinking, with these changes the CS was meant to be a part of the fleet and actually be involved in the fight. Probably well off the mark. Maybe a dev could give an example of what "ongrid" will be once offgrid boosting is removed. I know it is not something planned for the near future but for those who fly CS or plan on it, knowing what will constitute "ongrid" would be nice. With all the talk about utility highs, ability to fit neuts etc.. You guys do know these are meant to be command ships not elite pvp boats. Try fitting the ship for its intended role and stop complaining about how useful or not, they are for solo pvp. Yes they are and will continue to be used for other things than fleet boosting but if you fly a hulk to a frigate gang fight, don't complain when it doesn't perform. That is not its intended role..
250km is outside the range of most weaponry (but not ravens with cruise missiles). but that's ok. Correct tactical positioning of your command post is part of warfare.
The point is that once it's on grid it's part of the fight. It's quite possible to get a ship near it because you can see it. And once you've got a ship within weapons range, other ships can warp to the first ship.
So, getting a command ship to the grid outside weapons range is one thing. Keeping it that way is another entirely. This is a good thing, because it gives the pilot of the command ship something to do: i.e. staying out of weapons range while keeping the links running as much as possible. That's not going to be so easy.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 09:34:00 -
[1822] - Quote
IGÇÖve just realized that the absolution will have 2 utility hi but still has only 3 meds... Seriously is that ok for you CCP Fozzie? WonGÇÖt be able to fit anything into the second high slot but I canGÇÖt get additional mid instead. Call me dumb but I donGÇÖt see any logic in that... |
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 09:51:00 -
[1823] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Capt Canada wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I am not necessarily proposing anything, just highlighting the fact that there are more options than warping/cynoing your fleet booster into weapons range of your enemy.
Another option is to put it on grid 250+ km from your enemy's guns. Then keep it moving, guard it, and have more than one so you have some redundancy.
If you want your fleet booster in weapons range, that's up to you. I dont, unless it's as strong as a supercap!
Really guys, you don't see the marines parachuting their field command post onto the enemy positions, why do it with a spaceship?
On grid boosting will require tactical solutions - for both sides in the conflict.
Adapt and survive...
Now you've opened the next can of worms can I run with it.. When off grid boosting is removed, what will constitute "offgrid" if you can land your boosters 250k from the fight (just out of a good sniper fleets range) will they be considered as being ongrid as far as boosting is concerned? If for example "ongrid" means within lock range / weapons range then you have a real problem unless using capitals (for lock range) for boosting. If grids were to stay as they are now, it really poses no problems but if grids are modified to enable the removal of off grid boosting then sitting your booster 250k off would mean no boosts as technically he is offgrid. I can't see the point of removing off grid boosting if all your going to do is let them sit outside the battle, albeit visible but essentially offgrid. Boosting at range eg; 250k is quite viable in a larger fleet where you can have a couple of logi and dedicated combat ships to guard the boosters while they orbit the battle. I was thinking, with these changes the CS was meant to be a part of the fleet and actually be involved in the fight. Probably well off the mark. Maybe a dev could give an example of what "ongrid" will be once offgrid boosting is removed. I know it is not something planned for the near future but for those who fly CS or plan on it, knowing what will constitute "ongrid" would be nice. With all the talk about utility highs, ability to fit neuts etc.. You guys do know these are meant to be command ships not elite pvp boats. Try fitting the ship for its intended role and stop complaining about how useful or not, they are for solo pvp. Yes they are and will continue to be used for other things than fleet boosting but if you fly a hulk to a frigate gang fight, don't complain when it doesn't perform. That is not its intended role.. 250km is outside the range of most weaponry (but not ravens with cruise missiles). but that's ok. Correct tactical positioning of your command post is part of warfare. The point is that once it's on grid it's part of the fight. It's quite possible to get a ship near it because you can see it. And once you've got a ship within weapons range, other ships can warp to the first ship. So, getting a command ship to the grid outside weapons range is one thing. Keeping it that way is another entirely. This is a good thing, because it gives the pilot of the command ship something to do: i.e. staying out of weapons range while keeping the links running as much as possible. That's not going to be so easy. I agree with you here but my question still stands as far as what is considered ongrid, will links be tied to a specific range? With grids as they are now, ongrid can vary greatly from system to system. Yes keeping the links running and staying out of range poses problems. Add to that most of the command ships are about as maneuverable as a snail on wet glass and yes managing CS is not going to be easy. More an interesting challenge :P |
To mare
Advanced Technology
229
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 09:58:00 -
[1824] - Quote
Hookswoop Skydance wrote:To mare wrote:all this rebalancing started well but the far it goes the more it sound like overall nerfs to everything except gallente ships Funny... I would say the Eos is the most worthless turd in a bowl full of other turds. its going to be what all the gallente drone user asked in the last 5 years, it have its 5 bonused heavy drones back
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 10:08:00 -
[1825] - Quote
Capt Canada wrote:These are still meant to be viable for small to medium gangs though, which means they should be able to contribute meaningfully to the fight. If they can contribute to a fight while running links in a small to medium gang then they can lose the links for something else in a solo situation, or missions, or incursions, or scan sites, ect. Since we don't have any other T2 Battlecruiser hulls saying these ships should only be good at one thing is a bit silly. Well, unless there is something hidden in the post you linked it doesn't really address what I have put forth
2nd; did you actually read the whole post or just the 1st line?? And, did you know you were linking a post from page 82 of this thread?? If you look really carefully, I posted just before and after the dev post you highlighted, which in part prompted me to ask the questions I have.
So in your opinion, should we have command ships that are good at solo pvp at the expense of usability as boosters?
If you had actually read even half this thread you would see 90% of my posts relate to small gang/fleet use of CS.
.....
NB; If you could please highlight where I stated or even inferred CS should only be good at 1 thing?? As you brought it up, why should a T2 battlecruiser be the only T2 ship with dual roles?? You want a ship that has numerous roles get a T3 cruiser, they are specifically designed to fill multiple roles and with the right skills do their job very well.
Please if your going to troll do it to someone else.[/quote]
I read the entire thing, I said 'other thread' because I was confusing that for a different saved post that actually was from a different thread than the FaID thread it pertained to. Oops
This is the relevant paragraph to what you're talking about:
CCP Fozzie wrote:The solution to the problem is to sidestep it by reducing reliance on a few lynchpin ships. The reason that command ships have this problem while other key fleet ships (like logistics, recons or dictors) don't is because people can bring redundant numbers of those other classes. When we get the capability to remove offgrid links our plan is to also replace the way links apply so that losing one key ship won't mean you need to take your ball and go home. Now of course command ships are larger, more expensive and skill intensive than those other key classes, so it will still make sense for them to have significantly better tanks than a recon ship. However at that point the perceived need to have over 300k EHP will be significantly lessened.
With regards to "how on-grid is on-grid?" we can sum this up as "it won't matter". Having your CS on-grid but far away from the rest of your support fleet is a bigger risk to your boosts than having many distributed links and therefore command ships mixed into the rest of the fleet. Since we can at least surmise that "on-grid" has to mean literally rendering in-space to both fleets then that answers your question.
With the popularity of Battlecruiser fleets especially it becomes easy to have several primary command ships and then hide redundant backup links on-field among the rest of the DPS ships or simply have enough well-tanked command ships on field that it becomes impractical to try and DPS them all down rather than reducing enemy DPS.
Either way you're likely better off than sitting a CS off on the edge of the grid where it's potentially susceptible to grid-fu, cloaked warp-ins, and you don't have your full logistics support there to try and keep it online.
Capt Canada wrote:A command ship will be just that, you can still use them to run missions or scan sites etc without links, they just won't be as good at it as they are now due to their focus being switched to that of boosters rather than elite solo pvp/pve boats. As for incursion fleets, what do you think the fleet boosters for them will be flying??
Have you actually run the stats on these between their current state on TQ and the revamp? Every ship is gaining either tank or DPS or both, between the 4th bonus and the full T2 resists applying to the pure DPS focused ships. The loss of extra guns on some is made up for added damage and they're flat out gaining in tanking potential, along with 2 utility high slots if they choose not to fit links meaning probe launchers, neuts, NOS, cloak, or any number of other fun options open up for these non-boosting roles.
I also never said that they should see their role as boosters reduced. The former DPS only ships are now much better at boosting and overall the entire class is gaining pretty significant buffs to their boosts with the second link type bonus, improved fittings for links, and extra tank. |
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 11:14:00 -
[1826] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:I read the entire thing, I said 'other thread' because I was confusing that for a different saved post that actually was from a different thread than the FaID thread it pertained to. Oops This is the relevant paragraph to what you're talking about: CCP Fozzie wrote:The solution to the problem is to sidestep it by reducing reliance on a few lynchpin ships. The reason that command ships have this problem while other key fleet ships (like logistics, recons or dictors) don't is because people can bring redundant numbers of those other classes. When we get the capability to remove offgrid links our plan is to also replace the way links apply so that losing one key ship won't mean you need to take your ball and go home. Now of course command ships are larger, more expensive and skill intensive than those other key classes, so it will still make sense for them to have significantly better tanks than a recon ship. However at that point the perceived need to have over 300k EHP will be significantly lessened. With regards to "how on-grid is on-grid?" we can sum this up as "it won't matter". Having your CS on-grid but far away from the rest of your support fleet is a bigger risk to your boosts than having many distributed links and therefore command ships mixed into the rest of the fleet. Since we can at least surmise that "on-grid" has to mean literally rendering in-space to both fleets then that answers your question. Yeah sorry but no.. I'm not talking about the rare occasion when you have 300 or 400 people in system and 10 to 20 boosters, I'm talking about the average to small fleet where there are at best 2 or 3 boosters. Being on grid as it stands now can be from 200 to 400 or 500km depending on the system.
Quote:With the popularity of Battlecruiser fleets especially it becomes easy to have several primary command ships and then hide redundant backup links on-field among the rest of the DPS ships or simply have enough well-tanked command ships on field that it becomes impractical to try and DPS them all down rather than reducing enemy DPS.
Either way you're likely better off than sitting a CS off on the edge of the grid where it's potentially susceptible to grid-fu, cloaked warp-ins, and you don't have your full logistics support there to try and keep it online. So again here your talking about large fleets, don't worry about small gangs or fleets, why should they have the benefit of boosters
Quote:
Have you actually run the stats on these between their current state on TQ and the revamp? Every ship is gaining either tank or DPS or both, between the 4th bonus and the full T2 resists applying to the pure DPS focused ships. The loss of extra guns on some is made up for added damage and they're flat out gaining in tanking potential, along with 2 utility high slots if they choose not to fit links meaning probe launchers, neuts, NOS, cloak, or any number of other fun options open up for these non-boosting roles.
I also never said that they should see their role as boosters reduced. The former DPS only ships are now much better at boosting and overall the entire class is gaining pretty significant buffs to their boosts with the second link type bonus, improved fittings for links, and extra tank.
Nighthawk, Tq 3363 armour 4805 shield, bonuses BC 5%ROF 4$ resist, bonuses CS 5% kinetic damage, 5% explosive velocity. Nighthawk revamped, 3200 armour, 5500 shield, bonuses BC 7.5% kinetic damage, 4% resists Bonus CS 7.5% ROF 5% explosion radius. Yes, a little more shield and the bonus makes up for the loss of 1 launcher, has less capacitor than tq albeit with a 41 second faster recharge and still has 1 pretty much useless lowslot. The poor vulture I feel suffered just as much with a dual range bonus, 4% to resists and 10% damage. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
217
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 11:33:00 -
[1827] - Quote
Capt Canada wrote:I agree with you here but my question still stands as far as what is considered ongrid, will links be tied to a specific range? With grids as they are now, ongrid can vary greatly from system to system. Yes keeping the links running and staying out of range poses problems. Add to that most of the command ships are about as maneuverable as a snail on wet glass and yes managing CS is not going to be easy. More an interesting challenge :P
I think just 'on the grid' is a reasonable approximation for 'close enough'. Grids start off with a 3-dimensional radius of something like 250km I think, and that region expands as ships get closer to the edge. In the course of a fleet fight I can imagine there might be enough time to grow the grid to be a few thousand km across, but not in the early stages which is arguably the most dangerous time for a command ship.
So I guess a reasonable strategy for a command ship is to warp to 200km from the nearest enemy ship with some logistics and a few thousand dps of bodyguard and start burning directly AWAY from the enemy, while the rest of your fleet interposes itself between you and the enemy.
You'd want to be aligned to something though for when the combat-probe-equipped cloaky frigate drops in 30km in your wake and provides a warp-in point for the rest of his fleet.
I suppose a possible counter is to have a trail of smartbomb battleships trailing behind the CS at 5km intervals, in order to auto-blap the scanner?
:-)
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 12:06:00 -
[1828] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Capt Canada wrote:I agree with you here but my question still stands as far as what is considered ongrid, will links be tied to a specific range? With grids as they are now, ongrid can vary greatly from system to system. Yes keeping the links running and staying out of range poses problems. Add to that most of the command ships are about as maneuverable as a snail on wet glass and yes managing CS is not going to be easy. More an interesting challenge :P I think just 'on the grid' is a reasonable approximation for 'close enough'. Grids start off with a 3-dimensional radius of something like 250km I think, and that region expands as ships get closer to the edge. In the course of a fleet fight I can imagine there might be enough time to grow the grid to be a few thousand km across, but not in the early stages which is arguably the most dangerous time for a command ship. So I guess a reasonable strategy for a command ship is to warp to 200km from the nearest enemy ship with some logistics and a few thousand dps of bodyguard and start burning directly AWAY from the enemy, while the rest of your fleet interposes itself between you and the enemy. You'd want to be aligned to something though for when the combat-probe-equipped cloaky frigate drops in 30km in your wake and provides a warp-in point for the rest of his fleet. I suppose a possible counter is to have a trail of smartbomb battleships trailing behind the CS at 5km intervals, in order to auto-blap the scanner? :-) I was actually thinking of smart bombs on the CS but battleships sounds better :P. The placement and care of CS will I think become easier once off grid boosting is removed and the current hierarchy of setting fleet boosts is simplified. Smaller fleets will need to rely on the tankier boosters as they are less likely to have the numbers for CS redundancy. Where as the large fleets can decide on a situational basis whether to have them on grid at range or in the midst of things. I see logi playing a more important role in both small and large fleets. I would like to hear something from the devs as to what plans they have for the eventual removal of off grid boosting. If gang links were limited by range it would certainly change the playing/battle field a lot. If links are fixed to range are the current proposed changes to CS going to work or will they need to be rebalanced again? Maybe thinking too far ahead but I plan on being around a while and forward planning is far better than hindsight.
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
166
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 12:39:00 -
[1829] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:IGÇÖve just realized that the absolution will have 2 utility hi but still has only 3 meds... Seriously is that ok for you CCP Fozzie? WonGÇÖt be able to fit anything into the second high slot but I canGÇÖt get additional mid instead. Call me dumb but I donGÇÖt see any logic in that...
Since you're from wormholes, try fitting
Quote:[Absolution, brick 3] 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Damage Control II Armor EM Hardener II Armor Thermic Hardener II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Medium 'Gattotte' Capacitor Booster, Navy Cap Booster 800 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Ancillary Current Router II
Hornet EC-300 x5
and tell me again that you can't make use of that second high. In case you've been aiming at beamfits: LR-guns and badass utility doesn't go hand-in-hand without fitting mods. With a little trickery, you achieve what I meant with 'can get great fits on each of those CS' :D
edit: in a regular fight though, it should run out of boosters within the first 15 minutes... "When we're done with links you won't recognize them" - CCP Fozzie |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
166
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 13:04:00 -
[1830] - Quote
Capt Canada wrote:
(Command ships only fleetuse)
A command ship will be just that, you can still use them to run missions or scan sites etc without links, they just won't be as good at it as they are now due to their focus being switched to that of boosters rather than elite solo pvp/pve boats. As for incursion fleets, what do you think the fleet boosters for them will be flying??
I laughed pretty hard right there. 'Command ships receiving major buffs regarding tank and mostly ammunition use / OH-profile, forgotten CS get lifted into the present and receive either damage at all or crucial boni to application (looking at nighthawk)' - 'CS nerfed for solo' // I really can't folow up on that. Please tell how a theoretical 5% decrease using (theoretical) biggest guns will lead to a nerf. They all got their fittings opened up a big lot in average, with only Claymore/Sleipnir now being a bit tight - which is good given what to much fittings could let you do in the past. Nighthawk might be tight aswell, but every regular decent fitting (your ASB scrublordfits won't work, just warning) fits without any issues whatsoever. Talking of every way of fitting up a nighthawk that still looks familiar to a drake)
It's wrong what you're stating. As for incursion fleets, OFC they will have offgrid CS now instead of T3s. But there are less people boosting incursions than orca-links in egyfe or POS-booster in Auga+Amamake, so yeah. "When we're done with links you won't recognize them" - CCP Fozzie |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
459
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 14:08:00 -
[1831] - 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. |
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 15:56:00 -
[1832] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Cassius Invictus wrote:IGÇÖve just realized that the absolution will have 2 utility hi but still has only 3 meds... Seriously is that ok for you CCP Fozzie? WonGÇÖt be able to fit anything into the second high slot but I canGÇÖt get additional mid instead. Call me dumb but I donGÇÖt see any logic in that... Since you're from wormholes, try fitting Quote:[Absolution, brick 3] 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Damage Control II Armor EM Hardener II Armor Thermic Hardener II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Medium 'Gattotte' Capacitor Booster, Navy Cap Booster 800 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Ancillary Current Router II
Hornet EC-300 x5
and tell me again that you can't make use of that second high. In case you've been aiming at beamfits: LR-guns and badass utility doesn't go hand-in-hand without fitting mods. With a little trickery, you achieve what I meant with 'can get great fits on each of those CS' :D edit: in a regular fight though, it should run out of boosters within the first 15 minutes...
Well this was actually my first idea for using highs. However abso, being a laser ship, is not as great with neuts as a pre-nerf hurricane was. This said there are some valid uses for those his slots. What I was actually pointing out, was the fact that while 2 highs are nice, a med slot is just vital to the abso as many have said before me. Just don't get it why it cant have it.
Ps. For God's sake give the caldari players a 6th mid slot for nighthawk...
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
776
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 16:43:00 -
[1833] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:Well this was actually my first idea for using highs. However abso, being a laser ship, is not as great with neuts as a pre-nerf hurricane was. This said there are some valid uses for those his slots. What I was actually pointing out, was the fact that while 2 highs are nice, a med slot is just vital to the abso as many have said before me. Just don't get it why it cant have it. .... As a laser ship it suffers the whiplash of Scorch, adding a 4th mid is a risky proposition balance wise as the stuff one can use an extra mid for is mindboggling. That is not to say that the call for utility => mid is not called for as it will end up borderline (ie. right side of border) but will increase the relative power manyfold in pretty much all situations. Alternative would be to add a gun slot, invalidating the arbitrary (there, I said it!!!!!) "2 slots for links" rule yet still making it worthwhile outside larger gangs/blobs.
What scares me is that the Dev in charge was a player who prided himself (and rightfully so) on doing everything with anything yet does not seem to understand what the main problem is with lasers ...
To Dev: Add a pure test version (ie. SiSi, only with no promises) of the medium and larger gatlings, if only to see how far that goes ... a thorough laser revision might not even be necessary if proper application options were available. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
166
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 17:39:00 -
[1834] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:However abso, being a laser ship, is not as great with neuts as a pre-nerf hurricane was.
So true... Really wish the basecap for the abso wouldn't be so terribly weak. Flew a Zealot, pewed a lot - went for an abso... meeeeeeeeh. "When we're done with links you won't recognize them" - CCP Fozzie |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
542
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 17:59:00 -
[1835] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Cassius Invictus wrote:However abso, being a laser ship, is not as great with neuts as a pre-nerf hurricane was.
So true... Really wish the basecap for the abso wouldn't be so terribly weak. Flew a Zealot, pewed a lot - went for an abso... meeeeeeeeh.
Agreed, I think it's safe to say that the cap recharge on all the Commands needs another pass. 4.5/s across all of them is "meh" at best.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 21:20:00 -
[1836] - Quote
Capt Canada wrote:Yeah sorry but no.. I'm not talking about the rare occasion when you have 300 or 400 people in system and 10 to 20 boosters, I'm talking about the average to small fleet where there are at best 2 or 3 boosters. Being on grid as it stands now can be from 200 to 400 or 500km depending on the system.
Neither am I, if you have a small fleet of, say, 20 people with Logi on both sides and they primary the command ships then you're making the very risky bet of applying DPS to probably the strongest tanks on the field and hoping you can burn through them fast enough that the enemy doesn't burn through your Logi or DPS boats first. Even if you succeed then the enemy will have likely taken out at least one of your non-command ships for every command ship of theirs that you take out and probably be part-way through another at the least.
I can't claim to have watched every match of the last Alliance Tournament, or even most of the matches, but I seem to recall targeting the obviously over-tanked ship to be a bad idea and a losing strategy for most teams.
Capt Canada wrote:So again here your talking about large fleets, don't worry about small gangs or fleets, why should they have the benefit of boosters
I was addressing one of your cases (a CS sitting off at the edge of a grid). Honestly I don't think any small fleet would do this. If they have the manpower to sit off protecting it then they have an even better chance of keeping it alive if it's with the rest of the fleet and providing DPS.
Capt Canada wrote:Nighthawk, Tq 3363 armour 4805 shield, bonuses BC 5%ROF 4$ resist, bonuses CS 5% kinetic damage, 5% explosive velocity. Nighthawk revamped, 3200 armour, 5500 shield, bonuses BC 7.5% kinetic damage, 4% resists Bonus CS 7.5% ROF 5% explosion radius. Yes, a little more shield and the bonus makes up for the loss of 1 launcher, has less capacitor than tq albeit with a 41 second faster recharge and still has 1 pretty much useless lowslot. The poor vulture I feel suffered just as much with a dual range bonus, 4% to resists and 10% damage.
Honestly, I love the new Vulture. It has a grand total of 200 less shield HP than the Nighthawk which is a tiny different, and the Nighthawk needs the extra shields more anyway since it's more likely to engage at shorter ranges.
The Vulture on the other hand is flat out gaining a massive DPS bump from TQ, keeps its damage projection, can still run two links, and gets a bonus to lock range. I think the first thing I'm going to do with it on TQ is run around with Blasters fitted enjoying my ability to project absurd DPS to 14+km with Null. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2013.08.25 00:22:00 -
[1837] - Quote
Please switch a low to a mid on the Nighthawk. |
Vulfen
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.25 05:12:00 -
[1838] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote:Cassius Invictus wrote:IGÇÖve just realized that the absolution will have 2 utility hi but still has only 3 meds... Seriously is that ok for you CCP Fozzie? WonGÇÖt be able to fit anything into the second high slot but I canGÇÖt get additional mid instead. Call me dumb but I donGÇÖt see any logic in that... Since you're from wormholes, try fitting Quote:[Absolution, brick 3] 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Damage Control II Armor EM Hardener II Armor Thermic Hardener II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Medium 'Gattotte' Capacitor Booster, Navy Cap Booster 800 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Ancillary Current Router II
Hornet EC-300 x5
and tell me again that you can't make use of that second high. In case you've been aiming at beamfits: LR-guns and badass utility doesn't go hand-in-hand without fitting mods. With a little trickery, you achieve what I meant with 'can get great fits on each of those CS' :D edit: in a regular fight though, it should run out of boosters within the first 15 minutes... Well this was actually my first idea for using highs. However abso, being a laser ship, is not as great with neuts as a pre-nerf hurricane was. This said there are some valid uses for those his slots. What I was actually pointing out, was the fact that while 2 highs are nice, a med slot is just vital to the abso as many have said before me. Just don't get it why it cant have it. Ps. For God's sake give the caldari players a 6th mid slot for nighthawk...
the abso is better balanced in a NoS setup, n btw if your gona fit one spend some cash... try the below for a fleet ship. The NoS can keep you cap stable, and you only need to pulse mwd between targets
[Absolution, pro cash] Damage Control II 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Corpum A-Type Energized Thermic Membrane Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Faint Warp Disruptor I Stasis Webifier II
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M Medium Nosferatu II Corpii A-Type Small Nosferatu
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Hornet EC-300 x5 |
Naomi Anthar
103
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 00:32:00 -
[1839] - Quote
What is this madness. Why damn Minmatar Sleipnir Command ship got 2 x 10% damage bonus and Absolution 5% RoF and 10% damage ... Not saying it's unfair ... ok it's unfair.
What you are literally doing here is justifying 10% cap usage bonus on Absolution. You could remove RoF bonus give 10% bonus as you did with Sleipnir ... and then since you removed one turret point ... then ... then ... then...
YES then you could remove super ****** cap usage bonus and give something real like optimal range (sleipnir got falloff) or tracking or anything useful.
|
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 01:33:00 -
[1840] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:What is this madness. Why damn Minmatar Sleipnir Command ship got 2 x 10% damage bonus and Absolution 5% RoF and 10% damage ... Not saying it's unfair ... ok it's unfair.
What you are literally doing here is justifying 10% cap usage bonus on Absolution. You could remove RoF bonus give 10% bonus as you did with Sleipnir ... and then since you removed one turret point ... then ... then ... then...
YES then you could remove super ****** cap usage bonus and give something real like optimal range (sleipnir got falloff) or tracking or anything useful.
Umm... I'd take an Absolution over a Sleipnir any day with the current patch.... solo or fleet. Abolution with beams dominates a Sleipnir with Auto's or Artillery. With pulses, it's even easier due to the lower cap drain and better tracking.
Sleipnir is garbage now b/c it doesn't fill any slot that 5-7 other ships do way better for lower cost or better defense. |
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
40
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 03:15:00 -
[1841] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:What is this madness. Why damn Minmatar Sleipnir Command ship got 2 x 10% damage bonus and Absolution 5% RoF and 10% damage ... Not saying it's unfair ... ok it's unfair.
What you are literally doing here is justifying 10% cap usage bonus on Absolution. You could remove RoF bonus give 10% bonus as you did with Sleipnir ... and then since you removed one turret point ... then ... then ... then...
YES then you could remove super ****** cap usage bonus and give something real like optimal range (sleipnir got falloff) or tracking or anything useful.
The main down-side of Lasers is their cap usage, which is why most Amarr ships get bonuses to cap use for lasers. It offsets some of the trade-off for those weapon systems. In exchange you get a great mix of tracking, range, and damage along with instant ammo switching.
Functionally it's very similar to the Falloff or Range bonuses on most Hybrid weapon ships or the falloff and ROF bonuses on most projectile ships (projectiles actually have kinda crap DPS by default).
Basically if you don't like cap usage bonuses don't fly Amarr. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
353
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 05:58:00 -
[1842] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
The main down-side of Lasers is their cap usage, which is why most Amarr ships get bonuses to cap use for lasers. It offsets some of the trade-off for those weapon systems. In exchange you get a great mix of tracking, range, and damage along with instant ammo switching.
Functionally it's very similar to the Falloff or Range bonuses on most Hybrid weapon ships or the falloff and ROF bonuses on most projectile ships (projectiles actually have kinda crap DPS by default).
Basically if you don't like cap usage bonuses don't fly Amarr.
It's actually a poor crutch dating back to when Lasers base stats were far superior relative to other weapons and the heavy cap useage was to stop any non bonused ship ever using lasers. They have woken up to this finally at the BS level and removed the cap useage 'benefit' from all the T1 BS and reduced the base cap useage of large lasers a bit to match, so it's now actually possible to use them on a ship without the -50% cap useage benefit.
They just have yet to fix this at the medium & Small levels. |
Dani Lizardov
Otbor Chereshka GaNg BaNg TeAm
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 06:13:00 -
[1843] - Quote
WOW so many experts here that I won't even try to quote you ...
1.st You want bonuses on GRID! In large scale fleet battles you think it will matter if you kill 1-2 command ships!?
I think you are wrong! Bonuses matter for specialized setups like Ahacs for example... For Mega's not so much or not at all!
2nd. You want bonuses on grid for small scale pvp! If you are not able to alpha that CS, it does not worth the time or the effort to attack the CS... witch is pretty much what we have now and what we had for the last few years ...
What will be different? Well command ships will give more boost then T3s. Since T3 gang ships are impossible to tank you will see more CS on fi Will that change anything?! NO
Remember! You wanted Links on the field. Now you will have to deal with CS.
A change that will change nothing!!! This changes were a waste of time.... Forced by losers, that cannot adapt or learn how to use the mechanic they already had.
The only good think squeezed in between are the multiracial links we will be able to combine. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
40
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 06:23:00 -
[1844] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: It's actually a poor crutch dating back to when Lasers base stats were far superior relative to other weapons and the heavy cap useage was to stop any non bonused ship ever using lasers. They have woken up to this finally at the BS level and removed the cap useage 'benefit' from all the T1 BS and reduced the base cap useage of large lasers a bit to match, so it's now actually possible to use them on a ship without the -50% cap useage benefit.
They just have yet to fix this at the medium & Small levels.
They still have pretty good stats overall and since I assume you're referring to [https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=224896] yous till end up with worse cap in the end after they remove the bonus... you just get something else in exchange for that.
I'll agree that medium lasers could maybe use a once over from the devs but I'm also not sure that would lead to the bonus being removed or changed to "something more useful" even if they did lower medium laser cap use by 10%, since all of the Command Ships seem to have a 'soft' bonus that is just a little less useful than the others. The exception to this is the Vulture that gets two range bonuses that, while not really soft individually given the weapons it mounts don't quite add up to, say, two full damage bonuses of usefulness.
If they were to swap it then it would probably be for range or tracking, but that would leave you with a much softer capacitor if you're trying to shoot and do anything else so you'd have to trade a tracking computer for a Cap Recharger or cap booster, which IMO is not a terribly good trade. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
545
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 13:14:00 -
[1845] - Quote
Come on fozzie, we need another pass on cap/s... There is no reason a deimos should have 6.2/s where an abso gets 4.5/s. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
431
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 13:45:00 -
[1846] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I suppose a possible counter is to have a trail of smartbomb battleships trailing behind the CS at 5km intervals, in order to auto-blap the scanner?
:-)
Assuming the scanner doesn't just fleetwarp his wing. Stranger things have happened.
|
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 14:23:00 -
[1847] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Honestly, I love the new Vulture. It has a grand total of 200 less shield HP than the Nighthawk which is a tiny different, and the Nighthawk needs the extra shields more anyway since it's more likely to engage at shorter ranges.
The Vulture on the other hand is flat out gaining a massive DPS bump from TQ, keeps its damage projection, can still run two links, and gets a bonus to lock range. I think the first thing I'm going to do with it on TQ is run around with Blasters fitted enjoying my ability to project absurd DPS to 14+km with Null.
Hmmm, I don't know, with my skills, fitting a Vulture and Ferox the same except no point and the need for a +3PG implant on ferox. Ferox has more dps and ehp but, 2000m less range. Isk for dps/ehp, I think I'd go with the ferox for a solo encounter. I don't have perfect skills but am pretty sure the numbers would be the same for someone with them. Just higher for both overall of course. Yes the vulture picked up a damage bonus but still deals considerably less damage than its T1 counterpart.
NB; before I get jumped on for comparing CS to T1 BC's, I was specifically addressing Cade's comment about the vulture as a solo ship.. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 19:03:00 -
[1848] - Quote
Capt Canada wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:
Honestly, I love the new Vulture. It has a grand total of 200 less shield HP than the Nighthawk which is a tiny different, and the Nighthawk needs the extra shields more anyway since it's more likely to engage at shorter ranges.
The Vulture on the other hand is flat out gaining a massive DPS bump from TQ, keeps its damage projection, can still run two links, and gets a bonus to lock range. I think the first thing I'm going to do with it on TQ is run around with Blasters fitted enjoying my ability to project absurd DPS to 14+km with Null.
Hmmm, I don't know, with my skills, fitting a Vulture and Ferox the same except no point and the need for a +3PG implant on ferox. Ferox has more dps and ehp but, 2000m less range. Isk for dps/ehp, I think I'd go with the ferox for a solo encounter. I don't have perfect skills but am pretty sure the numbers would be the same for someone with them. Just higher for both overall of course. Yes the vulture picked up a damage bonus but still deals considerably less damage than its T1 counterpart. NB; before I get jumped on for comparing CS to T1 BC's, I was specifically addressing Cade's comment about the vulture as a solo ship..
For a start you're wrong about the DPS, at least at the high end of the skill curve. With all 5s, Neutron 2s, and Antimatter (no other fittings or drones) the Ferox gets 310 and the Vulture gets 331. Not a huge DPS change but the Vulture is also picking up an extra 50% range (~14km vs 9.4km at all 5s) and T2 resist bonuses which shouldn't be under estimated. It also has better capacitor, betting fittings, needs fewer guns, and has more base shield HP.
I've never claimed it was a particularly fantastic solo boat compared to the other command ships and you'd probably need to be a very skilled PvPer to make use of it that way effectively, but in a small gang with Logi it can tank and project DPS far better than the Ferox and either boost the fleet with links or fit utility highs. |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
79
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 20:25:00 -
[1849] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Please switch a low to a mid on the Nighthawk.
QFT.
Why does a shield tanking CS need 5 low slots? They don't need speed and 4 damage mods is, well, repetitive and CPU heavy. |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
79
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 20:42:00 -
[1850] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Naomi Anthar wrote:What is this madness. Why damn Minmatar Sleipnir Command ship got 2 x 10% damage bonus and Absolution 5% RoF and 10% damage ... Not saying it's unfair ... ok it's unfair.
What you are literally doing here is justifying 10% cap usage bonus on Absolution. You could remove RoF bonus give 10% bonus as you did with Sleipnir ... and then since you removed one turret point ... then ... then ... then...
YES then you could remove super ****** cap usage bonus and give something real like optimal range (sleipnir got falloff) or tracking or anything useful.
The main down-side of Lasers is their cap usage, which is why most Amarr ships get bonuses to cap use for lasers. It offsets some of the trade-off for those weapon systems. In exchange you get a great mix of tracking, range, and damage along with instant ammo switching. Functionally it's very similar to the Falloff or Range bonuses on most Hybrid weapon ships or the falloff and ROF bonuses on most projectile ships (projectiles actually have kinda crap DPS by default). Basically if you don't like cap usage bonuses don't fly Amarr.
Wrong. Cap use bonuses are terrible, and if they are going to be true bonuses, they need to be something like 15%.
I'd take another damage / range / tank / speed bonus over that garbage any day. Especially when they give you a ROF bonus attached to laser cap usage, so, so, so stupid.
On top of that, Amarr ships don't even have better base capacitors anymore (in a lot of ship classes).
Lasers aren't significantly better than other weapon systems anymore. Their damage projection is great, but that's only because of Pulse lasers and Scorch; their tracking is horrendous (incredibly easy to get under even small pulse lasers). |
|
Naomi Anthar
103
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 20:46:00 -
[1851] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Come on fozzie, we need another pass on cap/s... There is no reason a deimos should have 6.2/s where an abso gets 4.5/s.
Are you insane ? Only gallente folks deserve "ANOTHER BALANCE PASS" - whenever they ask for it - they get it. Check previous balance topics - battleships for example.
Yeah let's be honest the times when gallente pilot can come to forum and just order his minions (CCP) to buff his ships are NOW.
This is outrageous ...
Dominix - overbuffed , Megathron - overbuffed(lol mid + low layout of NAVY APOC AND NAY GEDDON) , Vexor - overbuffed, Tristan - overbuffed , Algos overpowered from the very start , comet - overbuffed ... and so on ...
Now Deimos comes in with MUCH BETTER cap than Zealot (heavy laser cap use ?) , Absolution and many other ships. Not only cap usage. This is ridiculous.
I think if some gallente boy would come here and tell CCP to do another balance pass because they are not happy with EOS or Astarte - then we would see overbuffed gallente CS in few days.
CCP stop it !
And let's not forget incoming huge buffs to rails and reps - and let's think who will benefit from it most ?
CCP stop this madness - it's not true that gallente ships must outdamage , outtank, outlast and outrun other ships ... really. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
167
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 23:25:00 -
[1852] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote: This is outrageous ...
Dominix - overbuffed , Megathron - overbuffed(lol mid + low layout of NAVY APOC AND NAY GEDDON) , Vexor - overbuffed, Tristan - overbuffed , Algos overpowered from the very start , comet - overbuffed ... and so on ...
I won't doubt the comment on the dominix, it currently is strong all the way - as long as you don't need to move. Which is basically always for the way you deploy it.
The Vexor surely is a pwnmobile once you've worked your way through to t2 blasters and ogres. Ye it's moderately rewarding given that you need every skill there is that hasn't missile written on it. Compared though to the thorax (active-armor AB-Blasterboat / shield AB blasterboat), or to caracal (rapid lights frig killer) or rupture (still the most costefficient serious artyplatform), it certainly is just one direction of excellent.
Now this is ridiculous, Tristan is a freekill whenever you meet one, pop it's drones, apply damage from 6-8k and even a rifter kills it easy pezy. The Tristan is pretty comedylevel given that fielding drones against another frig (that normally pops a warrior/hobgoblin/ec-300 in 2 volleys) is flawed, and you will have terrible cards against any other pilot with a dronetab.
Algos is so slow, getting kited by a tempest. Only useful the same way a proteus is useful, in a blob against immobile targets.
Comet - It's a gallente frig. It's fragile as ****, does okayish damage (great on paper / nice in space), got jamdrones and goes quite fast. Though it neither touches the daredevil on the offensive nor the dramiel on the defensive side.
Simply put, Gallente ships are in good shape. Tristan/Algos are rather weak on their own.
Naomi Anthar wrote: Now Deimos comes in with MUCH BETTER cap than Zealot (heavy laser cap use ?) , Absolution and many other ships. Not only cap usage. This is ridiculous.
To add that the deimos used to have a capacitor bonus, as did the sacriledge. Cap did not fall from the sky, it's an old bonus (like on the sac) being built into the hull.Now also to mention that old AB Zealots never had issues with cap to boot, now they also don't have cap issues fitting some weirdo shieldbeamfits (55% stable, 2m00 mwd on). If you instead go for an active zealot, might question yourself why not a NOmen. Or fit a cap booster. Absolution shouldn't be mentioned, as it is a command ship (they didn't get their cap readjusted afaik). Also, even a muninn got more capacitor recharge then an absolution. "When we're done with links you won't recognize them" - CCP Fozzie |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
42
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 00:28:00 -
[1853] - Quote
Phaade wrote: Wrong. Cap use bonuses are terrible, and if they are going to be true bonuses, they need to be something like 15%.
I'd take another damage / range / tank / speed bonus over that garbage any day. Especially when they give you a ROF bonus attached to laser cap usage, so, so, so stupid.
On top of that, Amarr ships don't even have better base capacitors anymore (in a lot of ship classes).
Lasers aren't significantly better than other weapon systems anymore. Their damage projection is great, but that's only because of Pulse lasers and Scorch; their tracking is horrendous (incredibly easy to get under even small pulse lasers).
That's like saying the DPS bonuses on Projectile ships aren't a real bonus because those guns tend to have lower overall DPS, or the Falloff bonuses on hybrid boats because Blasters have low range. Many ship bonuses offset an otherwise painful downside of a weapon type.
For their range lasers have great tracking and even after the nerf Beam Lasers are going to have the best tracking of any long range weapon system and absolutely fantastic DPS. At Pulse Laser ranges Medium Blasters lose much of their DPS to falloff and flat out stop doing more than tickling past 20km even on a double range bonused ship like the Vulture or Eagle. If you end up fighting any sort of long-range weapons ship you try to get under his guns, if you end up fighting a shorter range ship you try and out-range him. The niche for Pulse Lasers is being able to out-range Blaster and Auto-cannon boats while dealing better DPS but also get in under the tracking of long-range ships without getting into web range.
In exchange they have somewhat crap capacitor use.
As I've said earlier though, the Mediums specifically could probably use a second look from CCP but looking at the numbers I doubt they would give them more than a 5-10% reduction if anything which wouldn't remove the usefulness of the cap bonus on medium ships. |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 06:34:00 -
[1854] - Quote
Is there any way that Cap bonus on Absolution could be rolled into special bonus. Laser ships almost always have one bonus less due to cap one it's kinda odd. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3302
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 10:27:00 -
[1855] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Command Ship model changes
Is this still coming?
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 11:25:00 -
[1856] - Quote
I dont think the Cap Bonus is a bad one, its just to low, imagine an all V Ship could reduce Laser near cap Free state it would be terrific!! |
El Geo
Pathfinders.
160
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 11:58:00 -
[1857] - Quote
I still can not understand the mentality of totally removing off grid boosts, unless you have some sort of convoluted plan which enables gangs of 2 or 3 players to provide assistance while taking on gangs of 10+ because at the moment its difficult enough trying to pull and separate players off their bigger gangs, let alone when they have gang links and you don't, which is exactly what slaying off grid boosts will do.
NB Yes, I occasionally use an off grid booster, sometimes I am that booster for a friend, more often than not I do not use them as they can be a pain in the ass to look after and get into position if dual boxing, if I have to bring them on grid its likely I will never use them at all UNLESS IN A LARGE GANG. path-+find-+er (pthfndr, p+ñth-)n. 1. One that discovers a new course or way, especially through or into unexplored regions.
http://www.youtube.com/user/EvEPathfinders/videos?view=0 |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
171
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 12:06:00 -
[1858] - Quote
El Geo wrote:I still can not understand the mentality of totally removing off grid boosts, unless you have some sort of convoluted plan which enables gangs of 2 or 3 players to provide assistance while taking on gangs of 10+ because [...]
I'd state this is a difficult task no matter how you look at it. If your opponents know what they are doing, you'll lose such a situation 10 out of 10 times.
"When we're done with links you won't recognize them" - CCP Fozzie |
Vulfen
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 12:07:00 -
[1859] - Quote
El Geo wrote:I still can not understand the mentality of totally removing off grid boosts, unless you have some sort of convoluted plan which enables gangs of 2 or 3 players to provide assistance while taking on gangs of 10+ because at the moment its difficult enough trying to pull and separate players off their bigger gangs, let alone when they have gang links and you don't, which is exactly what slaying off grid boosts will do.
NB Yes, I occasionally use an off grid booster, sometimes I am that booster for a friend, more often than not I do not use them as they can be a pain in the ass to look after and get into position if dual boxing, if I have to bring them on grid its likely I will never use them at all UNLESS IN A LARGE GANG.
They are not removing Off grid boosting, just nerfing it compared to on grid boosting. its the simple thing of risk = reward. its still viable to run some Off grid boosting and infact some will benfit from the t3 changes, for example if your currently running a Shield BC solo and have your links setup, currently you can fit a tengu with 5 links but 2 are unbonused, but now those 2 links will also be bonused, meaning you can set up a tengu to be hard to scan cloaky with boosts to Sheild boosting amount shield resists, web+point range bonus, speed bonus, and sig radius reduction.
off grid boosting is very important, and while mining ships have gang links aswell, they will not remove it otherwise Rouqal wrecks will stain the skies of new eden. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 12:13:00 -
[1860] - Quote
I thought the Goal would be to remove offgrid Boosting completly atleast for Combat related links?! |
|
Anattha
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 13:25:00 -
[1861] - Quote
Reading all posts here - i've strong opinion that the absolution is nearly perfect ship. Like most others amarrians ships. Mb we should nerf it a little bit? Tnk you CCP |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
548
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 14:04:00 -
[1862] - Quote
Anattha wrote:Reading all posts here - i've strong opinion that the absolution is nearly perfect ship. Like most others amarrians ships. Mb we should nerf it a little bit? Tnk you CCP
I needs better cap recharge, just like all the commands.
I know I sound like a broken record here, but a standardized 4.5/s cap recharge is simply foolish... They all need to be around the 5.5/s mark with higher cap using ships (absolution) getting even more.
Again, why does the deimos get 6.2/s cap, when the absolution gets 4.5/s.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4541
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 14:23:00 -
[1863] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Come on fozzie, we need another pass on cap/s... There is no reason a deimos should have 6.2/s where an abso gets 4.5/s. Are you insane ? Only gallente folks deserve "ANOTHER BALANCE PASS" - whenever they ask for it - they get it. Check previous balance topics - battleships for example. Yeah let's be honest the times when gallente pilot can come to forum and just order his minions (CCP) to buff his ships are NOW. This is outrageous ... Dominix - overbuffed , Megathron - overbuffed(lol mid + low layout of NAVY APOC AND NAY GEDDON) , Vexor - overbuffed, Tristan - overbuffed , Algos overpowered from the very start , comet - overbuffed ... and so on ... Now Deimos comes in with MUCH BETTER cap than Zealot (heavy laser cap use ?) , Absolution and many other ships. Not only cap usage. This is ridiculous. I think if some gallente boy would come here and tell CCP to do another balance pass because they are not happy with EOS or Astarte - then we would see overbuffed gallente CS in few days. CCP stop it ! And let's not forget incoming huge buffs to rails and reps - and let's think who will benefit from it most ? CCP stop this madness - it's not true that gallente ships must outdamage , outtank, outlast and outrun other ships ... really. I find it interesting that you completely overlook the buffs to other weapons systems and such that also apply to other races. I suppose that interferes with your agenda though.
Carry on. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
408
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 17:23:00 -
[1864] - Quote
Oh good, for a second there I thought the Eos might be useful, I'm glad to see CCP sticking with tradtion of horrible split weapon system bonuses on this ship. Can't have the Eos being a viable ship now can we. |
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 17:23:00 -
[1865] - Quote
ccp, before you show us the upcoming features/changes regarding Od 1.1 you may should read these tons of feadback of your players. For me personally, i didnt get answered simple questions or points which i dont like and want to discuss.
You guys have ideas and want to bring these changes, who cares about the feadback....so bad.
my fast summary of cs changes: ++every cs can fit links with bonus ++smaller adj. to all ships like armor based ships got less shield now etc. ++boosting little bit of damage things, sensor strength etc. to have a good difference between bc, navy bc and cs --every ship has same modul-bonuses --thery are no more 2 cs of each race, only one ship basicly --less fitting-possibilites like nerf pg on damnation etc., but also good points
I still want to have 2 type of cs, one with good bonus to fleet-modules, better possibility to tank and control a fleet. Second one with more damage and/or fitting-points to fit neuts etc. |
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 18:53:00 -
[1866] - Quote
Wow, theyre really going live with the nighthawk having 5 lows and 5 mids... sheesh |
Grutpig Cloudwalker
The Skulls
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 20:07:00 -
[1867] - Quote
It would be so much easier if they just put the NH in a trash can and started over: - Use Drake as a template - Add T2 resistances - Remove some launchers and the corresponding CPU/PG, give some bonus to the remaining ones - Add cap/CPU/PG worth 3 active links - Add ability to run 3 links with some bonuses - Hit save button. End result: T2 command ship version of a Drake.
And I guess the same should be done for most command ships, its just that the NH is in most desperate need.
There are plenty of issues with tiericide and T2 ships that's either been left behind or left too powerful. Easiest way to fix it is to start from scratch. |
Kevin Emoto
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
29
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 20:07:00 -
[1868] - Quote
Another great Minmatar is Fozzied to disuse...
Apparently you didn't learn from the cyclone...haven't seen one of those on the battlefield in months.
Minmatar are projectiles.... Caldari are missiles. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4544
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 21:07:00 -
[1869] - Quote
Kevin Emoto wrote:Another great Minmatar is Fozzied to disuse...
Apparently you didn't learn from the cyclone...haven't seen one of those on the battlefield in months.
Minmatar are projectiles.... Caldari are missiles. Translation: I have no idea whats going on, but I'm very upset about it. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
FleetAdmiralHarper
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 21:58:00 -
[1870] - Quote
now that fozzie has fixed the power grid issue on the nighthawk. it no longer needs that 5th low slot.. so even i would be ok with it going to medium.
then maybe i could fit some tackle or a prop mod on my NH instead of nothing but tank....
as for drake hull on the nighthawk... NO, missile ferox is SEXY! best ship in the game (visiually) imo. though the also need a missile rokh =P |
|
Hatsumi Kobayashi
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
267
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 22:18:00 -
[1871] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:IWhen we get the capability to remove offgrid links our plan is to also replace the way links apply so that losing one key ship won't mean you need to take your ball and go home.
Is this something that the CCP crew have trouble with due to a coding mess or something we can expect in the near future (tm)? Because I think we both agree that this is the definite solution to most of the CS problems. STANDING ON THE VERGE OF PROLAPSE |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
348
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 22:49:00 -
[1872] - Quote
Kevin Emoto wrote:Another great Minmatar is Fozzied to disuse...
Apparently you didn't learn from the cyclone...haven't seen one of those on the battlefield in months.
Minmatar are projectiles.... Caldari are missiles.
It's funny because the Minmatar missile ships are consistently better than the Caldari ones as of late, with exception of the Caracal. |
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 23:28:00 -
[1873] - Quote
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:IWhen we get the capability to remove offgrid links our plan is to also replace the way links apply so that losing one key ship won't mean you need to take your ball and go home. Is this something that the CCP crew have trouble with due to a coding mess or something we can expect in the near future (tm)? Because I think we both agree that this is the definite solution to most of the CS problems.
The old gang link system was exactly this... but they ditched it because it was a massive drain on resources. The only way they can fix it is if they assign gang boosters.... which totally defeats the purpose of what they are arguing for. Don't get your hopes up. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
241
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 23:30:00 -
[1874] - Quote
MJ Incognito wrote:Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:IWhen we get the capability to remove offgrid links our plan is to also replace the way links apply so that losing one key ship won't mean you need to take your ball and go home. Is this something that the CCP crew have trouble with due to a coding mess or something we can expect in the near future (tm)? Because I think we both agree that this is the definite solution to most of the CS problems. The old gang link system was exactly this... but they ditched it because it was a massive drain on resources. The only way they can fix it is if they assign gang boosters.... which totally defeats the purpose of what they are arguing for. Don't get your hopes up.
You'd be amazed what a little refactoring and the additional of parallel computing can do. Stay hopeful! :-)
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 23:31:00 -
[1875] - Quote
Grutpig Cloudwalker wrote:It would be so much easier if they just put the NH in a trash can and started over: - Use Drake as a template - Add T2 resistances - Remove some launchers and the corresponding CPU/PG, give some bonus to the remaining ones - Add cap/CPU/PG worth 3 active links - Add ability to run 3 links with some bonuses - Hit save button. End result: T2 command ship version of a Drake.
And I guess the same should be done for most command ships, its just that the NH is in most desperate need.
There are plenty of issues with tiericide and T2 ships that's either been left behind or left too powerful. Easiest way to fix it is to start from scratch.
Edit: Assume the Drake is fitted with 6 launchers + 1 link. Switch 2 launchers to 2 links, adjust CPU/PG/cap accordingly.
I am so very very glad you are not in charge of balance decisions at CCP. Doing this would produce the most over powered hull in the game.
Vulfen wrote:El Geo wrote:I still can not understand the mentality of totally removing off grid boosts, unless you have some sort of convoluted plan which enables gangs of 2 or 3 players to provide assistance while taking on gangs of 10+ because at the moment its difficult enough trying to pull and separate players off their bigger gangs, let alone when they have gang links and you don't, which is exactly what slaying off grid boosts will do.
NB Yes, I occasionally use an off grid booster, sometimes I am that booster for a friend, more often than not I do not use them as they can be a pain in the ass to look after and get into position if dual boxing, if I have to bring them on grid its likely I will never use them at all UNLESS IN A LARGE GANG. They are not removing Off grid boosting, just nerfing it compared to on grid boosting. its the simple thing of risk = reward. its still viable to run some Off grid boosting and infact some will benfit from the t3 changes, for example if your currently running a Shield BC solo and have your links setup, currently you can fit a tengu with 5 links but 2 are unbonused, but now those 2 links will also be bonused, meaning you can set up a tengu to be hard to scan cloaky with boosts to Sheild boosting amount shield resists, web+point range bonus, speed bonus, and sig radius reduction. off grid boosting is very important, and while mining ships have gang links aswell, they will not remove it otherwise Rouqal wrecks will stain the skies of new eden.
No, their long-term plan is to flat remove off-grid boosting but allow you to have multiple redundant links without juggling around the command chain to bring them into play. Per CCP Fozzie earlier in this thread. |
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 00:59:00 -
[1876] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
For a start you're wrong about the DPS, at least at the high end of the skill curve. With all 5s, Neutron 2s, and Antimatter (no other fittings or drones) the Ferox gets 310 and the Vulture gets 331. Not a huge DPS change but the Vulture is also picking up an extra 50% range (~14km vs 9.4km at all 5s) and T2 resist bonuses which shouldn't be under estimated. It also has better capacitor, betting fittings, needs fewer guns, and has more base shield HP.
I've never claimed it was a particularly fantastic solo boat compared to the other command ships and you'd probably need to be a very skilled PvPer to make use of it that way effectively, but in a small gang with Logi it can tank and project DPS far better than the Ferox and either boost the fleet with links or fit utility highs.
I agree, the max skill pilot is going to have much better gains from not only this but all CS changes. But with, say average skills of, CS 4, Blaster spec 4 and everything else 5 (my skills). Comparing the cost of the Vulture and the Ferox to the small difference in specs? Using T2 neutrons, standard antimatter, with no other damage mods fitted. Vulture 300mil, 208dps @ 10.3k, 5300 base shield, thermal 80, kinetic 70 Ferox 100mil, 249dps @ 9.5k, 5000 base shield, thermal 20, kinetic 40
I will be concentrating on all 5's for the CS. Without a remap I have 107 days to get all leadership and CS related skills to 5. Not long really in the scheme of things.
Cade Windstalker wrote: I think the first thing I'm going to do with it on TQ is run around with Blasters fitted enjoying my ability to project absurd DPS to 14+km with Null.
I was a little off the mark. My response was in relation to this comment and I, it seems incorrectly thought you were referring to solo pvp. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 01:38:00 -
[1877] - Quote
Capt Canada wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:
For a start you're wrong about the DPS, at least at the high end of the skill curve. With all 5s, Neutron 2s, and Antimatter (no other fittings or drones) the Ferox gets 310 and the Vulture gets 331. Not a huge DPS change but the Vulture is also picking up an extra 50% range (~14km vs 9.4km at all 5s) and T2 resist bonuses which shouldn't be under estimated. It also has better capacitor, betting fittings, needs fewer guns, and has more base shield HP.
I've never claimed it was a particularly fantastic solo boat compared to the other command ships and you'd probably need to be a very skilled PvPer to make use of it that way effectively, but in a small gang with Logi it can tank and project DPS far better than the Ferox and either boost the fleet with links or fit utility highs.
I agree, the max skill pilot is going to have much better gains from not only this but all CS changes. But with, say average skills of, CS 4, Blaster spec 4 and everything else 5 (my skills). Comparing the cost of the Vulture and the Ferox to the small difference in specs? Using T2 neutrons, standard antimatter, with no other damage mods fitted. Vulture 300mil, 208dps @ 10.3k, 5300 base shield, thermal 80, kinetic 70 Ferox 100mil, 249dps @ 9.5k, 5000 base shield, thermal 20, kinetic 40 I will be concentrating on all 5's for the CS. Without a remap I have 207 days to get all leadership and CS related skills to 5. Not long really in the scheme of things. Cade Windstalker wrote: I think the first thing I'm going to do with it on TQ is run around with Blasters fitted enjoying my ability to project absurd DPS to 14+km with Null.
I was a little off the mark. My response was in relation to this comment and I, it seems incorrectly thought you were referring to solo pvp.
Honestly if I'm going to go joy-riding in a Command Ship it's probably going to be in Incursions, though solo-PvP was a fair guess. I'm not quite rich enough to just toss about half a billion ISK down the tubes
Your damage numbers are a bit off though. I'm showing:
- Ferox: 310DPS with stock Antimatter and Neutron 2s at 3.4+6.3km (All 5s profile)
- Vulture 309 DPS with sotck Antimatter and Neutron 2s at 4.7+6.3km (All 5s but with Command Ships at 4 and the 40% damage bonus taken into account)
Note, damage is at optimal, Optimal+Falloff listed for range comparison.
Is this a huge boost in damage? No, but it's at least even with the Ferox and you get some decent bonuses out of the hull as well. I'm not sure if it's worth 3 Battlecruisers as a solo ship but it's probably worth it if you've got a limited number of pilots with the skills to fit and fly the thing effectively, at least as much as any Navy, Faction, or T2 ship is worth the massive price increase. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
245
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 01:52:00 -
[1878] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:I'm not sure if it's worth 3 Battlecruisers as a solo ship but it's probably worth it if you've got a limited number of pilots with the skills to fit and fly the thing effectively, at least as much as any Navy, Faction, or T2 ship is worth the massive price increase.
A caldari command ship with 3 shield links increases shield resistance by ~25% and repair rate by ~25%. Taking the two together gives about a 60% increase (ignoring stacking penalties for a moment) in the performance of any logistics ships or local shield tanks.
So if your fleet has 3 or more people in it, I'd say it is probably worth the expense. After all, in pvp money is rarely a problem - lack of pilots is, so it's sensible to maximise each pilot's effectiveness. A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
99
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 02:37:00 -
[1879] - Quote
Bullet Therapist wrote:Wow, theyre really going live with the nighthawk having 5 lows and 5 mids... sheesh
The loss of that one low amounts to the loss of 40 dps, or about 12-13%, but the gain in mid would account for on the order of 20% or so ehp, which is the primarily what CSs need. In the case of the NH, its the difference not being sure weather or not you want to use a drake, or actually spending the isk and taking the NH out for a spin.
This. Many times, this.
Fozzie, would you be able to provide us some insight as to the reason(s) behind this design decision? It would be very much appreciated. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 03:22:00 -
[1880] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:I'm not sure if it's worth 3 Battlecruisers as a solo ship but it's probably worth it if you've got a limited number of pilots with the skills to fit and fly the thing effectively, at least as much as any Navy, Faction, or T2 ship is worth the massive price increase. A caldari command ship with 3 shield links increases shield resistance by ~25% and repair rate by ~25%. Taking the two together gives about a 60% increase (ignoring stacking penalties for a moment) in the performance of any logistics ships or local shield tanks. So if your fleet has 3 or more people in it, I'd say it is probably worth the expense. After all, in pvp money is rarely a problem - lack of pilots is, so it's sensible to maximise each pilot's effectiveness.
Ah, sorry, I meant it "worth three drakes" as in how much fun and how many kills you can potentially get out of those three solo Ferox hulls vs that 1 solo Vulture. In terms of pilots it's definitely better to have people in the best ships possible for a fleet :) |
|
Huttan Funaila
Terminal Radioactivity Spaceship Samurai
207
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 04:11:00 -
[1881] - Quote
Are the model changes going in with 1.1 or are they being delayed? I'm not going to have cruiser construction 5 completed before the patch. |
Caroll Otsolen
Duck Sh1t Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 05:03:00 -
[1882] - Quote
I came back after 5 years and it is really sad to see that CCP the game start to be going to the **** hole. The complete game mechanic had been changed. Plus now also the ships that were still nice to play with get nerved. EVE-online is a nice game. Only that I that I feel sorry for is that CCP is the maker. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 05:09:00 -
[1883] - Quote
Caroll Otsolen wrote:I came back after 5 years and it is really sad to see that CCP the game start to be going to the **** hole. The complete game mechanic had been changed. Plus now also the ships that were still nice to play with get nerved. EVE-online is a nice game. Only that I that I feel sorry for is that CCP is the maker.
With all due respect, Eve is a FAR better game than it was 5 years ago and Command Ships were in a much worse place relative to other ships in the game than they are going to be after this patch.
If you want to go into more specific complaints there's probably an explanation or a refutation of most of them. This thread isn't the place for it though and your post would likely be removed. Post in a more appropriate place and link me
Also, Eve Online is CCP's game. It's oxymoronic to say that you somehow hate the devs but love the game that they made. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 06:17:00 -
[1884] - Quote
MJ Incognito wrote:Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:IWhen we get the capability to remove offgrid links our plan is to also replace the way links apply so that losing one key ship won't mean you need to take your ball and go home. Is this something that the CCP crew have trouble with due to a coding mess or something we can expect in the near future (tm)? Because I think we both agree that this is the definite solution to most of the CS problems. The old gang link system was exactly this... but they ditched it because it was a massive drain on resources. The only way they can fix it is if they assign gang boosters.... which totally defeats the purpose of what they are arguing for. Don't get your hopes up.
Can someone explain me the Old System please? |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 07:01:00 -
[1885] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:Can someone explain me the Old System please?
Preferably with sources since there's nothing in the Wiki history to suggest that fleets were introduced as anything other than the current system. |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 10:54:00 -
[1886] - Quote
So let's discuss new command ship bonuses and their cap. It's widely known that most of the time pvp fits on them will be actively tanked and with 4.5 cap per second they will be extremely vaurnable to neuting. Considering the price and training time you need to fly one that should be buffed by some amount to at least new HAC values. Now, considering ship bonuses:
Absolution: 1 tank bonus, 1 laser cap bonus (fitting?), 2 laser dps bonuses Nighthawk: 1 tank bonus, 1 missile explosion bonus, 2 missile dps bonuses Astarte: 1 tank bonus, 1 hybrid fallof bonus, 2 hybrid dps bonuses Sleipnir: 1 tank bonus, 1 projectile fallof bonus, 2 projectile dps bonuses
So, as you can see every dps oriented command ship got 1 tank bonus, 2 dps bonuses and 1 bonus related to main weapon that will either increase damage projection (Astarte & Sleipnir) or increase dps vs smaller/faster targets (Nighthawk) except Absolution that needs to have laser capacitor reduction just to be able to fire them. Now if lasers would have superior damage or tracking i would understand cap bonus on Absolution but like this, already worst turrets will be even worse, and they still use more cap bonused then hybrids. I would suggest to roll cap bonus into special bonus and to add one more dps oriented bonus like tracking (or anything else devs see fit).I personally wouldn't do anything to laser optimal and fallof because scorch. Lasers are so broken atm that even another dps bonus will not make them good and OP but it will be something until devs fix them.
So proposed change:
Absolution Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances 1-10% bonus to Medium Energy turret something Command Ships skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire 10%(+5) bonus Medium Energy Turret damage 3% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Information Warfare links Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules 10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use per level
Any thoughts? |
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
196
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 11:07:00 -
[1887] - Quote
raawe wrote: Any thoughts?
You forgot a fourth med slot and a hello kitty skin. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
180
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 11:19:00 -
[1888] - Quote
raawe wrote:So let's discuss new command ship bonuses and their cap. It's widely known that most of the time pvp fits on them will be actively tanked and with 4.5 cap per second they will be extremely vaurnable to neuting. Considering the price and training time you need to fly one that should be buffed by some amount to at least new HAC values. Now, considering ship bonuses:
Absolution: 1 tank bonus, 1 laser cap bonus (fitting?), 2 laser dps bonuses Nighthawk: 1 tank bonus, 1 missile explosion bonus, 2 missile dps bonuses Astarte: 1 tank bonus, 1 hybrid fallof bonus, 2 hybrid dps bonuses Sleipnir: 1 tank bonus, 1 projectile fallof bonus, 2 projectile dps bonuses
So, as you can see every dps oriented command ship got 1 tank bonus, 2 dps bonuses and 1 bonus related to main weapon that will either increase damage projection (Astarte & Sleipnir) or increase dps vs smaller/faster targets (Nighthawk) except Absolution that needs to have laser capacitor reduction just to be able to fire them. Now if lasers would have superior damage or tracking i would understand cap bonus on Absolution but like this, already worst turrets will be even worse, and they still use more cap bonused then hybrids. I would suggest to roll cap bonus into special bonus and to add one more dps oriented bonus like tracking (or anything else devs see fit).I personally wouldn't do anything to laser optimal and fallof because scorch. Lasers are so broken atm that even another dps bonus will not make them good and OP but it will be something until devs fix them.
So proposed change:
Absolution Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances 1-10% bonus to Medium Energy turret something Command Ships skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire 10%(+5) bonus Medium Energy Turret damage 3% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Information Warfare links Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules 10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use per level
Any thoughts?
You are very clingy to your perception of comparing hulls based on their bonus-layout. I for one believe there is more to that ship than just a bonus. Yet alone take a HPL and a 425mm AC, the pulse laser will work just fine using scorch without ever bothering for TEs, the AC won't hurt beyond 5km ever without them. So while other Hulls need modules to extend their range beyond the most basic, the abso surely does not (HPL covering all of the range that could e described with linked shiny tacklerange by using scorch, beams even start out with some 650dps on the abso ANYWHERE within pointrange, given your target is properly tackled.
The Current Abso got basically it needs, but capacitor. So one of your 3 mids is most likely going to be a cap booster, unless brawlfit with NOSes (I personally am more of a fan of dualmed neuts and a cap booster even with HPL, but apparently in lowsec they just fit NOSes).
A long time ago and then over and over again: That capacitoruse bonus for Amarrian Spaceships used to make them viable at all, the same way that autocannons without falloffbonus are near unbearable or railplatforms (as eagle/harpy) got double optimal bonus to punch rails up to compete with other BS longrange guns (95km range on harpies, significantly more on an eagle)
- I dislike the Absos damage growing beyond that what it can accomplish right now. For everything but solo or minigang, beams should become pretty standard for the abso, thanks to the ability to project their dps up to 60km, optimal to be mentioned., while aso covering the first 20km using IN multifreq. With a random scrubfit (plate, 2 hardeners, eanm, dcu, 2 heat sinks) you're still looking at some 620dps the first 20km. While having a tank to make a BS a jealous one. If you're really scrub and go for a third HS (personally like a TE/EM-Hardener a lot more), you can even punch the dps up a notch, realising something close to the 700s with multi and beams. Should be noted that beams got a really nice tracking.
As far as pvp fits go, expect 90% of the CS to be buffertanked. (Counting Sleips and Claymores with a single XL-ASB to the buffertanked ones), given the Astartes ongoing struggle with range and speed, don't expect it to be really used a lot in solosituations. Eos will most likely (or as I'd assume) be the one used for solo, as drones in general allow you to adapt quickly to the situation. The Sleipnir has been used a lot solo, and will continue to do so, as it's stats were nothing but mildly enhanced and fitting for some UBERconfigs removed.
Tl;dr: I believe that your particular suggestion isn't constructive for lowsec pvp afterall, absos are one of the more dominant ships in comparison already, will receive a stealthy mini cap buff anyways due to 5 instead of 6 guns, overall a ship that has everything you want for its playstyle, putting aside a strong enough capacitor to never be in need of a cap transfer, NOS or cap booster. "When we're done with links you won't recognize them" - CCP Fozzie |
Kogh Ayon
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 11:35:00 -
[1889] - Quote
Seems this crap going to be implemented in Odyssey 1.1
So Commandships is the point when the ship re-balancing go downhill?
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
247
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 12:08:00 -
[1890] - Quote
Kogh Ayon wrote:Seems this crap going to be implemented in Odyssey 1.1
So Commandships is the point when the ship re-balancing go downhill?
a statement like this needs a reasoned argument behind it, backed with numerical evidence and documented playtesting to be taken seriously.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
|
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 13:21:00 -
[1891] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:I'm not sure if it's worth 3 Battlecruisers as a solo ship but it's probably worth it if you've got a limited number of pilots with the skills to fit and fly the thing effectively, at least as much as any Navy, Faction, or T2 ship is worth the massive price increase. A caldari command ship with 3 shield links increases shield resistance by ~25% and repair rate by ~25%. Taking the two together gives about a 60% increase (ignoring stacking penalties for a moment) in the performance of any logistics ships or local shield tanks. So if your fleet has 3 or more people in it, I'd say it is probably worth the expense. After all, in pvp money is rarely a problem - lack of pilots is, so it's sensible to maximise each pilot's effectiveness. I would be more inclined to believe, if your fleet has less than 10 in it you would not run a 3 link CS, as the drop in dps to fit the 3rd link would be better overcome by running 2 links each on 2 CS's, as long as it were a T2 gang and isk isn't a consideration. For me, isk is always a consideration. As we were discussing the pros and cons for those with less than perfect skills (probably a fairly high % of players) regarding the use/usefulness of CS, your realistically looking at lower benefits than your quoted 60% considering the main bonus (3% strength per level) is tied to the CS skill. Having less than perfect skills for a CS makes them less than ideal in a lot of situations. The training bump from level 4 to all 5's is around 90 days to get T2 links and access to leadership implants. Plus another 30 for Cs 5 to get maximum benefit. Why both faction and T2 mind links have the same training requirements yet totally different attributes. Why not decrease the bonus of the T2 versions to say half that of factions and reduce the pre req to cybernetics 5 and warfare specialist 4. Might make the CS rebalance which essentially only benefits those with max skills a little more balanced. Making the training curve a little less painful as at level 4 specialization you could have a T2 mindlink while using an unbonused link on a T1 BC to give a slightly better fleet boost.
|
Leto Atal
LoneStar Industries Comatose Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 13:36:00 -
[1892] - Quote
So better DPS with fewer weapon slots. Improved tanking on an already strong set of hulls. Hell yes.
I'll take a slight nerf to the link bonuses in exchange for the ability to get two bonuses from one module in the Navy versions. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
550
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 13:47:00 -
[1893] - Quote
4.5/s cap regen across the whole lineup is still lazy fozzie... Not responding to any of the questions in regards to this cap recharge is even more lazy fozzie... Rise understands the concept of varying cap recharge as a balancing tool based on ship needs, why is it that you seem to be less than capable of this? *looks at BCs and Commands* |
James Selkirk
Moofus Security Industries
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 13:49:00 -
[1894] - Quote
Can any balancing compensate for the great big "Shoot Me!" sign command ships have in fleet actions? |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
50
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 15:23:00 -
[1895] - Quote
Kevin Emoto wrote:Another great Minmatar is Fozzied to disuse...
Apparently you didn't learn from the cyclone...haven't seen one of those on the battlefield in months.
Minmatar are projectiles.... Caldari are missiles.
be thankful at least you don't have shonky kin only bonuses on top of the general worthlessness of heavys.
|
Voi Ta
Terpene Conglomerate
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 17:22:00 -
[1896] - Quote
Hi, what about the skills? Pyfa shows me command ships will need all warfare skills to 5, but i fly command ship now and i have only one to 5. Does it mean i will have to skill them or shall we get skills for free? (as usual) Sorry for asking if it was answered earlier in this thread, but is is 94 pages now and i dont want to read it all :-) |
Mihnea Tepes
Astral Silence Shinjiketo
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 17:26:00 -
[1897] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:
And yes CHANGE the BC models. The EOS should have the Myrmidon Hull.
Yes indeed! |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
433
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 17:58:00 -
[1898] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:. When we get the capability to remove offgrid links our plan is to also replace the way links apply so that losing one key ship won't mean you need to take your ball and go home. Now of course command ships are larger, more expensive and skill intensive than those other key classes, so it will still make sense for them to have significantly better tanks than a recon ship. However at that point the perceived need to have over 300k EHP will be significantly lessened.
So what not only are they going to be ongrid they are going to have to run by squad? With a 250m mindlink in my head.
Not ******* likely.
|
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
197
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 18:15:00 -
[1899] - Quote
Voi Ta wrote:Hi, what about the skills? Pyfa shows me command ships will need all warfare skills to 5, but i fly command ship now and i have only one to 5. Does it mean i will have to skill them or shall we get skills for free? (as usual) Sorry for asking if it was answered earlier in this thread, but is is 94 pages now and i dont want to read it all :-)
Oh god...you can't be serious? Where the **** were you in the past 15 months? |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
332
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 18:19:00 -
[1900] - Quote
Onictus wrote:So what not only are they going to be ongrid they are going to have to run by squad? With a 250m mindlink in my head.
Not ******* likely.
The mindlinks are becoming significantly cheaper as they're moving to the LP stores. The estimate that was give was ~80m for the normal mindlinks, probably a lot more if you get the dual bonus ones.
As a sidenote I find it entertaining that they try to say that the economy is player driven, but they're pretty much admitting that they set the price of LP items. |
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 18:49:00 -
[1901] - Quote
raawe wrote:So, as you can see every dps oriented command ship got 1 tank bonus, 2 dps bonuses and 1 bonus related to main weapon that will either increase damage projection (Astarte & Sleipnir) or increase dps vs smaller/faster targets (Nighthawk) except Absolution that needs to have laser capacitor reduction just to be able to fire them. Now if lasers would have superior damage or tracking i would understand cap bonus on Absolution but like this, already worst turrets will be even worse, and they still use more cap bonused then hybrids. I would suggest to roll cap bonus into special bonus and to add one more dps oriented bonus like tracking (or anything else devs see fit).I personally wouldn't do anything to laser optimal and fallof because scorch. Lasers are so broken atm that even another dps bonus will not make them good and OP but it will be something until devs fix them.
Check your numbers, lasers have the best tracking of all long range guns on Beam Lasers and a fantastic mix of tracking and range on Pulse Lasers.
Beams also do better DPS than Rails or Arty and Pulse have better effective range than either Blasters or Autocannons for the damage they project at those ranges.
Please check your numbers before you post asking for something to be "fixed".
Leto Atal wrote:So better DPS with fewer weapon slots. Improved tanking on an already strong set of hulls. Hell yes.
I'll take a slight nerf to the link bonuses in exchange for the ability to get two bonuses from one module in the Navy versions.
You're not getting 2 bonuses off one module. Navy Mind Links allow you to bonus 2 different types of links off one implant.
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:4.5/s cap regen across the whole lineup is still lazy fozzie... Not responding to any of the questions in regards to this cap recharge is even more lazy fozzie... Rise understands the concept of varying cap recharge as a balancing tool based on ship needs, why is it that you seem to be less than capable of this? *looks at BCs and Commands*
As Fozzie pointed out, the majority of hulls in Eve right now have the same base cap regen with differing recharge time and max capacitor. We just didn't notice. The HACs are currently the exception to this.
Voi Ta wrote:Hi, what about the skills? Pyfa shows me command ships will need all warfare skills to 5, but i fly command ship now and i have only one to 5. Does it mean i will have to skill them or shall we get skills for free? (as usual) Sorry for asking if it was answered earlier in this thread, but is is 94 pages now and i dont want to read it all :-)
These skill changes already happened, you only need those to inject the skill, not fly the ship IIRC. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 20:16:00 -
[1902] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Onictus wrote:So what not only are they going to be ongrid they are going to have to run by squad? With a 250m mindlink in my head.
Not ******* likely.
The mindlinks are becoming significantly cheaper as they're moving to the LP stores. The estimate that was give was ~80m for the normal mindlinks, probably a lot more if you get the dual bonus ones. As a sidenote I find it entertaining that they try to say that the economy is player driven, but they're pretty much admitting that they set the price of LP items.
No.... those were estimates of the cost of said links based on their extensive internal economic data.
They know how much people charge per LP point for most items, what the demand for links is, and how much they are going to cost in the store.
This price will likely go up or down with demand and the economy in general over time, this is simply their estimate of the starting price based on current factors. |
Voi Ta
Terpene Conglomerate
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 20:32:00 -
[1903] - Quote
bloodknight2 wrote:Voi Ta wrote:Hi, what about the skills? Pyfa shows me command ships will need all warfare skills to 5, but i fly command ship now and i have only one to 5. Does it mean i will have to skill them or shall we get skills for free? (as usual) Sorry for asking if it was answered earlier in this thread, but is is 94 pages now and i dont want to read it all :-) Oh god...you can't be serious? Where the **** were you in the past 15 months? Well, your answer didnt help me much, sir. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
687
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 20:37:00 -
[1904] - Quote
Onictus wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:. When we get the capability to remove offgrid links our plan is to also replace the way links apply so that losing one key ship won't mean you need to take your ball and go home. Now of course command ships are larger, more expensive and skill intensive than those other key classes, so it will still make sense for them to have significantly better tanks than a recon ship. However at that point the perceived need to have over 300k EHP will be significantly lessened.
So what not only are they going to be ongrid they are going to have to run by squad? With a 250m mindlink in my head. Not ******* likely. If that's an issue you can always run without the mindlink, though that said, if you looked at the mindlink changes you'd see that they aren't going to be that expensive after 1.1 for the versions we have now. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
687
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 20:42:00 -
[1905] - Quote
Voi Ta wrote:bloodknight2 wrote:Voi Ta wrote:Hi, what about the skills? Pyfa shows me command ships will need all warfare skills to 5, but i fly command ship now and i have only one to 5. Does it mean i will have to skill them or shall we get skills for free? (as usual) Sorry for asking if it was answered earlier in this thread, but is is 94 pages now and i dont want to read it all :-) Oh god...you can't be serious? Where the **** were you in the past 15 months? Well, your answer didnt help me much, sir. Nothing is changing in 1.1 regarding the requirements. It already changed in 1.0. The dynamics of the change were explained long before that. Just keep doing what you have been for the last 3-4 months. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
332
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 22:16:00 -
[1906] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:No.... those were estimates of the cost of said links based on their extensive internal economic data.
They know how much people charge per LP point for most items, what the demand for links is, and how much they are going to cost in the store.
This price will likely go up or down with demand and the economy in general over time, this is simply their estimate of the starting price based on current factors.
The price will go up or down, but they set the LP rewards for incursions/FW, set the LP cost of faction items, and they set the flat isk cost of the items. Arguing that they're not doing some soft price setting is flat out ignorant. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 22:49:00 -
[1907] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:No.... those were estimates of the cost of said links based on their extensive internal economic data.
They know how much people charge per LP point for most items, what the demand for links is, and how much they are going to cost in the store.
This price will likely go up or down with demand and the economy in general over time, this is simply their estimate of the starting price based on current factors. The price will go up or down, but they set the LP rewards for incursions/FW, set the LP cost of faction items, and they set the flat isk cost of the items. Arguing that they're not doing some soft price setting is flat out ignorant.
So what's your point? They also set mineral spawn rates throughout all of Eve, the mineral costs of the ships, and a dozen other things that go into the game.
It's almost like they're balancing the game!
They don't set prices directly and they don't tell players what to spend money or LP on. They're simply balancing the relative fixed costs of different items in the game and there's nothing wrong with that. |
Aesheera
Ghost Headquarters
96
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 10:43:00 -
[1908] - Quote
I'm getting emo tional.
I need a moment here to catch my breath and sniff abit.
My Eos.. is getting love.
Brb resubbing for the next two years. Primary since '07. GÖÑ |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
84
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 17:30:00 -
[1909] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:raawe wrote:So, as you can see every dps oriented command ship got 1 tank bonus, 2 dps bonuses and 1 bonus related to main weapon that will either increase damage projection (Astarte & Sleipnir) or increase dps vs smaller/faster targets (Nighthawk) except Absolution that needs to have laser capacitor reduction just to be able to fire them. Now if lasers would have superior damage or tracking i would understand cap bonus on Absolution but like this, already worst turrets will be even worse, and they still use more cap bonused then hybrids. I would suggest to roll cap bonus into special bonus and to add one more dps oriented bonus like tracking (or anything else devs see fit).I personally wouldn't do anything to laser optimal and fallof because scorch. Lasers are so broken atm that even another dps bonus will not make them good and OP but it will be something until devs fix them. Check your numbers, lasers have the best tracking of all long range guns on Beam Lasers and a fantastic mix of tracking and range on Pulse Lasers. Beams also do better DPS than Rails or Arty and Pulse have better effective range than either Blasters or Autocannons for the damage they project at those ranges. Please check your numbers before you post asking for something to be "fixed". Leto Atal wrote:So better DPS with fewer weapon slots. Improved tanking on an already strong set of hulls. Hell yes.
I'll take a slight nerf to the link bonuses in exchange for the ability to get two bonuses from one module in the Navy versions. You're not getting 2 bonuses off one module. Navy Mind Links allow you to bonus 2 different types of links off one implant. Jerick Ludhowe wrote:4.5/s cap regen across the whole lineup is still lazy fozzie... Not responding to any of the questions in regards to this cap recharge is even more lazy fozzie... Rise understands the concept of varying cap recharge as a balancing tool based on ship needs, why is it that you seem to be less than capable of this? *looks at BCs and Commands* As Fozzie pointed out, the majority of hulls in Eve right now have the same base cap regen with differing recharge time and max capacitor. We just didn't notice. The HACs are currently the exception to this. Voi Ta wrote:Hi, what about the skills? Pyfa shows me command ships will need all warfare skills to 5, but i fly command ship now and i have only one to 5. Does it mean i will have to skill them or shall we get skills for free? (as usual) Sorry for asking if it was answered earlier in this thread, but is is 94 pages now and i dont want to read it all :-) These skill changes already happened, you only need those to inject the skill, not fly the ship IIRC.
Lasers have horrendous tracking, and marginally higher DPS than the other weapon systems, but only past blaster optimal. Yes, they project damage to tackled targets well, but against moving targets they are the worst weapon system.
As for the above comment that 425mm AC's only project out to 5km, wtf are you thinking? They can hit out to 60km with barrage and no falloff hull bonus (okay, 40km the damage becomes noticable).
The big problem with lasers is the cap they require; it's not realistic to active tank with lasers without a cap booster. And lasers don't perform enough better than blasters / AC to warrant the amount of cap they require. The laser cap use bonus is a requirement to make the weapon system useable for longer than 2 minutes.
TLDR: Laser cap use bonus is garbage and needs to be re-examined. There is no logical justification for it, particularly when coupled with a Rate of Fire bonus. And consider that Amarr ships don't have an inherently better capacitor anymore.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
259
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 17:51:00 -
[1910] - Quote
Phaade wrote:[ The big problem with lasers is the cap they require; it's not realistic to active tank with lasers without a cap booster.
It's not realistic to active tank *anything in pvp* without a cap booster, unless it's a faction fitted tengu or using an ASB.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
|
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
84
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 17:54:00 -
[1911] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Phaade wrote:[ The big problem with lasers is the cap they require; it's not realistic to active tank with lasers without a cap booster.
It's not realistic to active tank *anything in pvp* without a cap booster, unless it's a faction fitted tengu or using an ASB.
You can hardly run dual reps with a medium injector and lasers. Forget about neut pressure. |
Leto Atal
LoneStar Industries Comatose Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 18:00:00 -
[1912] - Quote
To those complaining about the Claymore change to missiles. Just use the Sleipnir. There is now no difference between them in resists or fleet boosting capability. We now have the choice between fielding a missile based fleet ship or a projectile based fleet ship. Yay for choice. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
259
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 18:24:00 -
[1913] - Quote
Phaade wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Phaade wrote:[ The big problem with lasers is the cap they require; it's not realistic to active tank with lasers without a cap booster.
It's not realistic to active tank *anything in pvp* without a cap booster, unless it's a faction fitted tengu or using an ASB. You can hardly run dual reps with a medium injector and lasers. Forget about neut pressure.
Well, remember that lasers do not need to reload, so it's reasonable to expect that the pilot should need to pause firing every 40 shots or so in order to rest the capacitor.
At least a laser ship gets the choice of diverting cap to either tank or guns and he gets to carry a few more boosters since he doesn't need to carry bulky ammo.
It may not be perfect, but it doesn't seem too far out of balance.
For the record, for fleet work I'd rather have lasers in the fleet. For ganks and solo, definitely blasters!
But that's ok - everything has a role.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 19:23:00 -
[1914] - Quote
Phaade wrote: Lasers have horrendous tracking, and marginally higher DPS than the other weapon systems, but only past blaster optimal. Yes, they project damage to tackled targets well, but against moving targets they are the worst weapon system.
Incorrect, check the ratio between Laser optimal and tracking, this gives you an idea of how a weapon tracks at its optimal range since in the turret damage formula tracking is multiplied by the distance to the target.. For your convenience I've already done some tracking calculations comparing Medium Hybrids and Lasers. The relevant column is the one on the far right and is what I would call a turret's "Damage Application rating", or a measure of how well it applies damage at its optimal range.
As you can see Blasters, despite their overall higher tracking numbers, don't actually track that well. If they want to track as well as Pulse Lasers they need to fight in falloff which means they're losing damage there, per the turret damage formula.
As for your comment of "only past blaster optimal", well, that means they're their own unique weapon system and not a carbon copy of Blasters. If you can out-range a blaster ship then you just flat win because it doesn't matter how hard you hit if you can't hit.
Phaade wrote:As for the above comment that 425mm AC's only project out to 5km, wtf are you thinking? They can hit out to 60km with barrage and no falloff hull bonus (okay, 40km the damage becomes noticable).
Okay, lets take a look at this claim. These various weapon system pissing contests have become popular enough that I have several Test Myrmidons saved for comparing weapon systems. Since even with all-5s AC425s only hit 3+18km I threw two Tracking Enhancers and a Tracking Computer (Optimal Range script) on each Myrm for this test.
The Autocannons have Barrage and the Pulse Lasers have Scorch, both set to the EFT All 5s profile.
As you can see while the Auto-cannons can hit out to 60km they do less damage than the Pulse Lasers flat out until right at 40.2km where both they and the Pulse Lasers are dealing a paltry 42 DPS and out at 30km where the Pulse Lasers aren't quite in falloff yet they're dealing just over twice the DPS of the Autocannons (168 and 77 respectively).
If you were curious with both Myrms counter-orbiting each-other the Pulse Lasers still win up to about 3.5km, Barrage vs Scorch.
Obviously there are instances where Auto-cannons win but it's certainly not in damage application at range.
Phaade wrote:The big problem with lasers is the cap they require; it's not realistic to active tank with lasers without a cap booster. And lasers don't perform enough better than blasters / AC to warrant the amount of cap they require. The laser cap use bonus is a requirement to make the weapon system useable for longer than 2 minutes.
TLDR: Laser cap use bonus is garbage and needs to be re-examined. There is no logical justification for it, particularly when coupled with a Rate of Fire bonus. And consider that Amarr ships don't have an inherently better capacitor anymore.
Well yeah, there are supposed to be trade-offs here. The trade-off for the otherwise great stats Lasers get is that their capacitor sucks. If they didn't have bad capacitor use they'd probably be the best all-around weapon system in the game.
Where other systems fit a Tracking or Damage mod Lasers fit a Capacitor mod. |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
84
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 19:54:00 -
[1915] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Phaade wrote: Lasers have horrendous tracking, and marginally higher DPS than the other weapon systems, but only past blaster optimal. Yes, they project damage to tackled targets well, but against moving targets they are the worst weapon system.
Incorrect, check the ratio between Laser optimal and tracking, this gives you an idea of how a weapon tracks at its optimal range since in the turret damage formula tracking is multiplied by the distance to the target.. For your convenience I've already done some tracking calculations comparing Medium Hybrids and Lasers. The relevant column is the one on the far right and is what I would call a turret's "Damage Application rating", or a measure of how well it applies damage at its optimal range. As you can see Blasters, despite their overall higher tracking numbers, don't actually track that well. If they want to track as well as Pulse Lasers they need to fight in falloff which means they're losing damage there, per the turret damage formula. As for your comment of "only past blaster optimal", well, that means they're their own unique weapon system and not a carbon copy of Blasters. If you can out-range a blaster ship then you just flat win because it doesn't matter how hard you hit if you can't hit. Phaade wrote:As for the above comment that 425mm AC's only project out to 5km, wtf are you thinking? They can hit out to 60km with barrage and no falloff hull bonus (okay, 40km the damage becomes noticable). Okay, lets take a look at this claim. These various weapon system pissing contests have become popular enough that I have several Test Myrmidons saved for comparing weapon systems. Since even with all-5s AC425s only hit 3+18km I threw two Tracking Enhancers and a Tracking Computer (Optimal Range script) on each Myrm for this test. The Autocannons have Barrage and the Pulse Lasers have Scorch, both set to the EFT All 5s profile. As you can see while the Auto-cannons can hit out to 60km they do less damage than the Pulse Lasers flat out until right at 40.2km where both they and the Pulse Lasers are dealing a paltry 42 DPS and out at 30km where the Pulse Lasers aren't quite in falloff yet they're dealing just over twice the DPS of the Autocannons (168 and 77 respectively). If you were curious with both Myrms counter-orbiting each-other the Pulse Lasers still win up to about 3.5km, Barrage vs Scorch. Obviously there are instances where Auto-cannons win but it's certainly not in damage application at range. Phaade wrote:The big problem with lasers is the cap they require; it's not realistic to active tank with lasers without a cap booster. And lasers don't perform enough better than blasters / AC to warrant the amount of cap they require. The laser cap use bonus is a requirement to make the weapon system useable for longer than 2 minutes.
TLDR: Laser cap use bonus is garbage and needs to be re-examined. There is no logical justification for it, particularly when coupled with a Rate of Fire bonus. And consider that Amarr ships don't have an inherently better capacitor anymore. Well yeah, there are supposed to be trade-offs here. The trade-off for the otherwise great stats Lasers get is that their capacitor sucks. If they didn't have bad capacitor use they'd probably be the best all-around weapon system in the game. Where other systems fit a Tracking or Damage mod Lasers fit a Capacitor mod. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
55
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 23:11:00 -
[1916] - Quote
Phaade wrote:Crap, didn't mean to hit post, but since I did....
AC's do 50% dps at that 32km, however they still do 25% at 47, all the way out to about 60km. You'll land some decent hits out around the 50-55km range occasionally.
Blaster dps is significantly higher than pulse, and while the ranges are shorter, if you are brawling, chances are that tracking speed is more important than the 1-3km of falloff. Scorch is the only reason this weapon system is not less desirable than others.
Decent, maybe, but not enough DPS to do more than tickle someone's shields and probably not enough to beat the regen. For any sort of active armor or shield fit you'll be barely registering.
Yes, Blasters have fantastic short-range damage, but they lose a ton of range compared to Auto-cannons or Pulse Lasers to make up for this. If you can keep any kind of range on them then you win, if you can't you lose. Pretty simple.
Medium Pulse Lasers actually do better DPS than Medium Blasters past ~7km. I'd show a graph for this one but it's more like seven graphs since lasers have to keep switching ammo where as Blasters get locked into Null very quickly and range simply determines what ammo the lasers use until they hit Scorch ranges and stop.
The point I'm trying to illustrate here is that Lasers have a very nice niche in the Eve weapons ecosystem in their versatility. They pay for this with capacitor but Eve is a game of tradeoffs.
Personally I wouldn't be opposed to them taking a look at medium laser cap use but I doubt they'd knock off more than 5-10% if anything. |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 08:18:00 -
[1917] - Quote
Patch on tuesday and not a single reply considering the exact same cap recharge of all CS.
Sure, they all use links but cap hungry ones should still have better cap recharge.
Downright lazy and pathetic.
Not saying balancing is easy and it could always be implemented later due to patch day closing in but not even a single reply regarding the issue??? Even Marauders are balanced according to this now.
Im seriously disappointed, i really thougt you could do better. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
56
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 08:55:00 -
[1918] - Quote
Doed wrote:Patch on tuesday and not a single reply considering the exact same cap recharge of all CS.
Sure, they all use links but cap hungry ones should still have better cap recharge.
Downright lazy and pathetic.
Not saying balancing is easy and it could always be implemented later due to patch day closing in but not even a single reply regarding the issue??? Even Marauders are balanced according to this now.
Im seriously disappointed, i really thougt you could do better.
Here's your reply on the issue. If you'd actually run the numbers you'd see that these are not in any sort of terrible position with their current cap regen. |
ConranAntoni
Empyrean Warriors Insidious Empire
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 09:16:00 -
[1919] - Quote
CCP, can you unfuck the Nighthawk and switch it's slot layout with the Claymore, tia. |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 11:18:00 -
[1920] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Doed wrote:Patch on tuesday and not a single reply considering the exact same cap recharge of all CS.
Sure, they all use links but cap hungry ones should still have better cap recharge.
Downright lazy and pathetic.
Not saying balancing is easy and it could always be implemented later due to patch day closing in but not even a single reply regarding the issue??? Even Marauders are balanced according to this now.
Im seriously disappointed, i really thougt you could do better. Here's your reply on the issue. If you'd actually run the numbers you'd see that these are not in any sort of terrible position with their current cap regen.
Here i got scared and thougt i missed something. But no. 4.5 is fine for Sleip, Nighthawk, Claymore and Damnation, and to some degree Eos.
Eos should have 5% more cap/sec, Vulture and Astarte 10% and finally Absolution should have 15%. They do not at all need Deimos and Sac cap but higher than 4.5 for those 4.
|
|
Jerick Ludhowe
The Scope Gallente Federation
552
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 12:58:00 -
[1921] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:4.5/s cap regen across the whole lineup is still lazy fozzie... Not responding to any of the questions in regards to this cap recharge is even more lazy fozzie... Rise understands the concept of varying cap recharge as a balancing tool based on ship needs, why is it that you seem to be less than capable of this? *looks at BCs and Commands* As Fozzie pointed out, the majority of hulls in Eve right now have the same base cap regen with differing recharge time and max capacitor. We just didn't notice. The HACs are currently the exception to this.
No they don't. Other than BC (3.8/s) and a couple others, pretty much every other ship in the last 2 years of balance passes have varying cap/s rates based on race. Hacs being one in this balance pass...
Even look at the Cap/s of the new marauders... The Paladin gets a significant advantage in cap/s compared to the others. I fail to see why Abso (and to a lesser degree, the zealot) should be any different.
Fozzie's argument about cap/s being the same across an entire "Class" only holds true in a specific few cases... |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
264
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 13:45:00 -
[1922] - Quote
Jerick, as ever your posts are insightful and accurate.
However my dear friend, I fear that you are pissing in the wind. Odyessy 1.1 has been set. It's Summer Time, and the dev team have decided what they have decided.
I have worked in Scandinavia. I learned very quickly that there is a culture there that avoids calling out colleagues' mistakes in public - it's considered the height of rudeness, and the callee will always ignore you. This is at odds with the American culture of freely admitting error in the pursuit of the common good. (I am English, and fall somewhere in between ).
It's a shame that there is not a private channel for passing information back to the dev team. This would actually be a lot more effective at ironing out inconsistencies prior to release.
Ah well, nothing's perfect...
/MC
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Serenity Eon
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 14:27:00 -
[1923] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jerick, as ever your posts are insightful and accurate. However my dear friend, I fear that you are pissing in the wind. Odyessy 1.1 has been set. It's Summer Time, and the dev team have decided what they have decided. I have worked in Scandinavia. I learned very quickly that there is a culture there that avoids calling out colleagues' mistakes in public - it's considered the height of rudeness, and the callee will always ignore you. This is at odds with the American culture of freely admitting error in the pursuit of the common good. (I am English, and fall somewhere in between ). It's a shame that there is not a private channel for passing information back to the dev team. This would actually be a lot more effective at ironing out inconsistencies prior to release. Ah well, nothing's perfect... /MC
So I'm guessing the Command Ship model changes aren't going to be ready for 1.1 then, since nothing has been said about them |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Scope Gallente Federation
553
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 14:34:00 -
[1924] - Quote
Serenity Eon wrote:So I'm guessing the Command Ship model changes aren't going to be ready for 1.1 then, since nothing has been said about them
Aye, last i knew, command ship model changes were confirmed to not be coming in 1.1.
Hopefully we will see "Semi unique" model changes for the commands as well as changes/animations to mauarader models for winter.
|
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 15:07:00 -
[1925] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:4.5/s cap regen across the whole lineup is still lazy fozzie... Not responding to any of the questions in regards to this cap recharge is even more lazy fozzie... Rise understands the concept of varying cap recharge as a balancing tool based on ship needs, why is it that you seem to be less than capable of this? *looks at BCs and Commands* As Fozzie pointed out, the majority of hulls in Eve right now have the same base cap regen with differing recharge time and max capacitor. We just didn't notice. The HACs are currently the exception to this. No they don't. Other than BC (3.8/s) and a couple others, pretty much every other ship in the last 2 years of balance passes have varying cap/s rates based on race. Hacs being one in this balance pass... Even look at the Cap/s of the new marauders... The Paladin gets a significant advantage in cap/s compared to the others. I fail to see why Abso (and to a lesser degree, the zealot) should be any different. Fozzie's argument about cap/s being the same across an entire "Class" only holds true in a specific few cases... Look at Assault Frigates, you will see that the enyo has 1.83/s and the retribution has 2.33/s. Or how about in the case of t1 combat cruisers? Rupture is at 3.0/s Maller is at 3.5/s. Attack Battleships? Megathron is at 5.22/s Tempest is at 4.7/s.... Checking the numbers for yourself is generally a better idea than white-knighting a dev's posts. Just saying So yeah, 4.5/s across all commands is lazy, nothing else.
This... BCs were pointed out during BC balance but nothing happened... And truth about cruisers and frigs afs etc.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
64
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 23:26:00 -
[1926] - Quote
And yet even with fairly flat cap-regen the Command Ships seem in quite a good spot.
The Battlecruisers certainly aren't doing poorly post-balance either.
I think my biggest issue with all of this "give them variable cap recharge" is that no one's produced solid numbers to support it. There have certainly been impassioned emotional pleas but no one's come out and said "here are my numbers and fits, this is why ship X needs more cap/second".
There should also be some understanding that such an increase would likely be paid for somewhere else in the ship's stats since as has been pointed out repeatedly cap is life and therefore better cap pool or cap regen are very important.
Also as MC pointed out, Odyssey 1.1 is rolling out in 3 days. Post release the real-world performance of these ships will speak for itself and adjustments will be made based on that. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
270
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 23:35:00 -
[1927] - Quote
Talking of cap being life. I just thought I'd mention it here, where there is less hysteria:
I fitted up a hypothetical vargur cyno bait ship on Pyfa (like EFT) - triple x-large ASB. With some cargo expanders it's able to hold enough cap boosters to give the ship an effective EHP of 1.6 million (unheated, unboosted, undrugged, unimplanted).
Then I made some adjustments for the proposed bastion module, drugs, implants, fleet boosts and a couple of faction hardeners...
10 million effective hitpoints.
cap is life indeed...
I fear that the good that Fozzie and Rise have brought to the game by reworking HACs and command ships is about to be erased by ultra-tank cyno monsters spawned by Ytterbium.
If any of you have this man's ear, can you for Christ's sake stop him please?
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Centac
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 05:55:00 -
[1928] - Quote
I find it incomprehensible that people want to argue that the laser using Absolution is balanced vs its no cap competitors, especially the Sleipnir. Does anyone really believe that lasers turrets are better than projectile turrets? They would have to be vastly better for the respective bonuses to be balanced. Not only do lasers still need high cap and the Sleipnir gets an additional falloff bonus as has been pointed out in this thread, the Absolution's damage bonuses are worse: two 10% damage bonuses for Sleipnir, one 10% damage and 5% rof for Absolution on the same 5 turrets and cap delta. (No, 5% rof is not close to an equal dps enhancer as 10% damage). To add insult, Sleipner gets 2 off bonus launcher slots for its 2 utility highs that Absolution lacks. Arguments that this constitutes balance strike me as patently absurd. |
Serenity Eon
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 06:30:00 -
[1929] - Quote
Centac wrote:I find it incomprehensible that people want to argue that the laser using Absolution is balanced vs its no cap competitors, especially the Sleipnir. Does anyone really believe that lasers turrets are better than projectile turrets? They would have to be vastly better for the respective bonuses to be balanced. Not only do lasers still need high cap and the Sleipnir gets an additional falloff bonus as has been pointed out in this thread, the Absolution's damage bonuses are worse: two 10% damage bonuses for Sleipnir, one 10% damage and 5% rof for Absolution on the same 5 turrets and cap delta. (No, 5% rof is not close to an equal dps enhancer as 10% damage). To add insult, Sleipner gets 2 off bonus launcher slots for its 2 utility highs that Absolution lacks. Arguments that this constitutes balance strike me as patently absurd.
I 100% agree with you, unfortunately trying to change Fozzie's mind on the abso is like try to change a leopards spots, it won't happen |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
64
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 10:53:00 -
[1930] - Quote
Centac wrote:I find it incomprehensible that people want to argue that the laser using Absolution is balanced vs its no cap competitors, especially the Sleipnir. Does anyone really believe that lasers turrets are better than projectile turrets? They would have to be vastly better for the respective bonuses to be balanced. Not only do lasers still need high cap and the Sleipnir gets an additional falloff bonus as has been pointed out in this thread, the Absolution's damage bonuses are worse: two 10% damage bonuses for Sleipnir, one 10% damage and 5% rof for Absolution on the same 5 turrets and cap delta. (No, 5% rof is not close to an equal dps enhancer as 10% damage). To add insult, Sleipner gets 2 off bonus launcher slots for its 2 utility highs that Absolution lacks. Arguments that this constitutes balance strike me as patently absurd.
Actually by default Lasers have better DPS than Projectiles, better damage application at range, and Beam Lasers track better than Artillery. Autocannons may track better than Beam Lasers but they also have a much shorter effective range, even within optimal +1/2 falloff (where they're still dealing about 80% of listed DPS).
Please research the numbers you're ranting about before you post. It saves everyone time, effort, and embarrassment. |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
The Scope Gallente Federation
553
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 13:38:00 -
[1931] - Quote
Serenity Eon wrote:I 100% agree with you, unfortunately trying to change Fozzie's mind on the abso is like try to change a leopards spots, it won't happen
Aye, fozzie tends to be a bit of an egomonger.
|
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
213
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 15:12:00 -
[1932] - Quote
So...97 pages and CCP still don't give a **** about what players have to say. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
272
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 15:24:00 -
[1933] - Quote
bloodknight2 wrote:So...97 pages and CCP still don't give a **** about what players have to say.
You've heard of Modern Democracy right?
Give people free and fair elections so they can choose between two sets of selfish b*stards.
Power is seized my friend, not given.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Mr Doctor
Los Polos Hermanos. Happy Cartel
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 18:26:00 -
[1934] - Quote
What happened with the model change? Its mentioned as part of 1.1 but never hit sisi... |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
358
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 21:59:00 -
[1935] - Quote
Mr Doctor wrote:What happened with the model change? Its mentioned as part of 1.1 but never hit sisi...
I was literally just about to post about this.
We have about 4 days until 1.1 hits and there is no sign of these new models whatsoever. Part of me thinks they're not happening anymore. |
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 23:03:00 -
[1936] - Quote
Centac wrote:I find it incomprehensible that people want to argue that the laser using Absolution is balanced vs its no cap competitors, especially the Sleipnir. Does anyone really believe that lasers turrets are better than projectile turrets? They would have to be vastly better for the respective bonuses to be balanced. Not only do lasers still need high cap and the Sleipnir gets an additional falloff bonus as has been pointed out in this thread, the Absolution's damage bonuses are worse: two 10% damage bonuses for Sleipnir, one 10% damage and 5% rof for Absolution on the same 5 turrets and cap delta. (No, 5% rof is not close to an equal dps enhancer as 10% damage). To add insult, Sleipner gets 2 off bonus launcher slots for its 2 utility highs that Absolution lacks. Arguments that this constitutes balance strike me as patently absurd.
Beam Absolution is a fleet concept... trying to compare it with 1v1 fighting style tactics makes no sense.
In fleets, the Capacitor issue is hardly a problem, especially since it mitigates neut effects as numbers go up.
Beams are so much higher DPS, and much higher tracking potential than Artillery could ever hope for... and Auto-cannon platforms are taking a hit with the Tracking Enhancer nerf.
There are only 2 real winners in this whole debacle of changes to Commands and even more so to HACs.
Claymore's will dominate 1v1 fights, and small gang fights Absolutions will dominate most fleet fights |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
422
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 23:53:00 -
[1937] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. Please keep it civil people!
The rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
30. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.
CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, GÇ£outingGÇ¥ of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.
Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts. ISD Ezwal Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
15
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 07:07:00 -
[1938] - Quote
So ccp, when can i get an response from you guys. I dislike some of the changes like written in all my posts here in the thread. Some changes are good. You want to change stuff, didnt react on player feadback and bring it on next patch, really good job. Go ahead if you want to lose more player, espacily some veterans. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
69
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 07:13:00 -
[1939] - Quote
Florian Kuehne wrote:So ccp, when can i get an response from you guys. I dislike some of the changes like written in all my posts here in the thread. Some changes are good. You want to change stuff, didnt react on player feadback and bring it on next patch, really good job. Go ahead if you want to lose more player, espacily some veterans.
I hate to burst your bubble but CCP doesn't generally respond to individual player concerns, they respond to valid concerns that are brought up by multiple players. CCP is not required to respond to your individual issues no matter how valid you think they are and they certainly aren't required to respond to you whining about them not responding to your massive concerns.
I'm sure that they're very sorry that you and hundreds of others aren't personally happy with the changes. I have news for you, that's going to happen no matter what. It is physically impossible for any game dev anywhere, let alone CCP, to make a change to their game without upsetting someone and this includes the decision to not change something. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
92
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 07:14:00 -
[1940] - Quote
Dont Act if this is Incarna #2 your just to lazy to adapt. |
|
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
15
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 07:21:00 -
[1941] - Quote
Yes unfortunately you are right
But the fact that they remove the old cs, fleet and field CS and bring them very close together(+ remove the tanky damnation later on), didnt make alot people happy. So i am not alone. If they would talk to us and maybe some changes would be different, this would by a good step. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
72
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 08:34:00 -
[1942] - Quote
Florian Kuehne wrote:Yes unfortunately you are right But the fact that they remove the old cs, fleet and field CS and bring them very close together(+ remove the tanky damnation later on), didnt make alot people happy. So i am not alone. If they would talk to us and maybe some changes would be different, this would by a good step.
Well, lets see, we now have 2 CS for each race with completely different weapons systems, removing a long standing complaint with Command Ships as a whole and overall making the class much more useable as opposed to before when it was "Damnation, Slephnir, Astarte or go home".
Plus they haven't actually removed the Damnation's HP bonus yet and it doesn't seem like they're going to unless it's overpowered once they move command ships on-grid. Or, you know, it becomes sort of half useless. Either way it should be removed if either of those situations becomes the case. If it's still just 'okay', but there are actual decisions beyond "Damnation for fleet fights or nothing" then they'll probably leave it because why fix something that doesn't have problems? |
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
16
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 09:12:00 -
[1943] - Quote
Well its your opinion. I have another one. Cs dont need an complete stylechange. Just some smaller optimizations. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
780
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 09:42:00 -
[1944] - Quote
Florian Kuehne wrote:Well its your opinion. I have another one. Cs dont need an complete stylechange. Just some smaller optimizations. For now at least that holds true, but what happens when they get through the gordian knot that prevents them from bringing links on-grid?
What we need and what most of us are trying to narrow down is a design that allows CCs to exist in both roamy as well as blobby weather when that fateful day arrives .. they have to provide boosts obviously, they need survivability enough for them to matter in a given fight, they need to have teeth/function enough to take on duties beyond boosting, FC need a way to easily and smoothly transition from link boat to link boat as they will be targeted with a vengeance (not the hull) in some engagements and since they are one of the last tiericide victims their predators must already be available.
Not an easy task to tick all those boxes, but that should be the aim and we are almost there for the most part. We could limit ourselves to small optimizations but we'd be forced to take this discussion as the on-grid day draws nearer - and as the old saying goes: Why put off for tomorrow what you can do today? |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
73
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 10:37:00 -
[1945] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Florian Kuehne wrote:Well its your opinion. I have another one. Cs dont need an complete stylechange. Just some smaller optimizations. For now at least that holds true, but what happens when they get through the gordian knot that prevents them from bringing links on-grid? What we need and what most of us are trying to narrow down is a design that allows CCs to exist in both roamy as well as blobby weather when that fateful day arrives .. they have to provide boosts obviously, they need survivability enough for them to matter in a given fight, they need to have teeth/function enough to take on duties beyond boosting, FC need a way to easily and smoothly transition from link boat to link boat as they will be targeted with a vengeance (not the hull) in some engagements and since they are one of the last tiericide victims their predators must already be available. Not an easy task to tick all those boxes, but that should be the aim and we are almost there for the most part. We could limit ourselves to small optimizations but we'd be forced to take this discussion as the on-grid day draws nearer - and as the old saying goes: Why put off for tomorrow what you can do today?
Yeah, the old command ships just sucked. The distinction between Field and Fleet was arbitrary and left half the people using a given weapon system going "but I wanted the other one in this role!". The fleet ones couldn't fight and the field ones couldn't tank or link which resulted in the Fleet ones basically being resigned to alt-boosting status and the Field ones basically being T2 Battlecruisers but having nothing to do with command.
Veshta if you can honestly spell out, with examples, why this was better than the new ships that solve all of these problems and sets us up well Fozzie's concept for on-grid links then by all means do so but I'm just not seeing it. Your argument seems to boil down to "but they changed it!!! T_T" not any specific problem with what they've done beyond that they've done anything at all. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
780
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 14:38:00 -
[1946] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:..Veshta if you can honestly spell out, with examples, why this was better than the new ships that solve all of these problems and sets us up well Fozzie's concept for on-grid links then by all means do so but I'm just not seeing it. Your argument seems to boil down to "but they changed it!!! T_T" not any specific problem with what they've done beyond that they've done anything at all. Why would I spend time coming up with arguments to support a cause I have spent the past several years actively trying to defeat?
Granted, most of my energy was directed towards the power links had through the perfect scalability .. the ability to apply full boosts to a full fleet with no drawbacks is insane and one of the reasons why off-grid links became the norm. If one ship can boost as (or more) effectively than multiple ships then only the foolish will opt for multiple which gave rise to the POS'ed 5+ link ships. I am a proponent of leeching off the locking mechanics, not necessarily as locks but a hard limit (use a watch-list inspired thing perhaps) with a separate attribute like drone control range that determines how far a client can be from booster .. if it was based on locks you'd have damp fests which is as bad for game as off-grid links are (soon -> were).
The CC revisions are long overdue but have been rushed into .. they are inextricably linked to boosts, fleets and all that jazz, and from the "oh yeah, we have been talking .. " replies from Devs on the topic it seems to me that they did not actually sit down and think the whole 'where do we want them in Eve' thing though.
I thought my post, the one you quoted, detailed where I want them .. but for emphasis: They should all have great tanking potential so they can survive the small/medium gang environment. They should all have great damage/application potential so they can participate (read: get on mails with style!). NB: The two above are linked, sacrifice one to bolster the other, but basis for it must be there.
They should all have survivability far above the norm in fleet environments, I for one am happy to see that Devs are willing to look outside the box at for example my (think I was first to suggest it at any rate) idea to use the all but abandoned Spectrum Breaker concept for that thus avoiding the breakage on smaller scales that excessive tanks/EHP would cause.
They will be primaried in some fights, the ones where their power is greatest in relation to the scale (read: medium size (30-50) fights) and current method of assigning boosters is inadequate in a high-attrition scenario.
And finally, they should have hard counters, preferably several among the existing ships .. only thing besides brute force that will take links out is heavy and constant neuting which is nowhere near enough counter-wise considering the power of links even when/if restricted to having max clients and being on-grid .. a link equals a faction fitted added slot to all under its umbrella which is immense.
So no examples of why/how the old is better than what is coming .. but I think the Devs missed the scope of the project as it is not merely CC's and links that will have to change but a whole slew of things related to gangs/fleets/links which is a lot of ground to cover. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
74
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 15:01:00 -
[1947] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:..Veshta if you can honestly spell out, with examples, why this was better than the new ships that solve all of these problems and sets us up well Fozzie's concept for on-grid links then by all means do so but I'm just not seeing it. Your argument seems to boil down to "but they changed it!!! T_T" not any specific problem with what they've done beyond that they've done anything at all. Why would I spend time coming up with arguments to support a cause I have spent the past several years actively trying to defeat? Granted, most of my energy was directed towards the power links had through the perfect scalability .. the ability to apply full boosts to a full fleet with no drawbacks is insane and one of the reasons why off-grid links became the norm. If one ship can boost as (or more) effectively than multiple ships then only the foolish will opt for multiple which gave rise to the POS'ed 5+ link ships. I am a proponent of leeching off the locking mechanics, not necessarily as locks but a hard limit (use a watch-list inspired thing perhaps) with a separate attribute like drone control range that determines how far a client can be from booster .. if it was based on locks you'd have damp fests which is as bad for game as off-grid links are (soon -> were). The CC revisions are long overdue but have been rushed into .. they are inextricably linked to boosts, fleets and all that jazz, and from the "oh yeah, we have been talking .. " replies from Devs on the topic it seems to me that they did not actually sit down and think the whole 'where do we want them in Eve' thing though. I thought my post, the one you quoted, detailed where I want them .. but for emphasis: They should all have great tanking potential so they can survive the small/medium gang environment. They should all have great damage/application potential so they can participate (read: get on mails with style!). NB: The two above are linked, sacrifice one to bolster the other, but basis for it must be there. They should all have survivability far above the norm in fleet environments, I for one am happy to see that Devs are willing to look outside the box at for example my (think I was first to suggest it at any rate) idea to use the all but abandoned Spectrum Breaker concept for that thus avoiding the breakage on smaller scales that excessive tanks/EHP would cause. They will be primaried in some fights, the ones where their power is greatest in relation to the scale (read: medium size (30-50) fights) and current method of assigning boosters is inadequate in a high-attrition scenario. And finally, they should have hard counters, preferably several among the existing ships .. only thing besides brute force that will take links out is heavy and constant neuting which is nowhere near enough counter-wise considering the power of links even when/if restricted to having max clients and being on-grid .. a link equals a faction fitted added slot to all under its umbrella which is immense. So no examples of why/how the old is better than what is coming .. but I think the Devs missed the scope of the project as it is not merely CC's and links that will have to change but a whole slew of things related to gangs/fleets/links which is a lot of ground to cover.
Sorry, I used the wrong name there Quoted your post because it contained his and I miss-read who I was arguing against >.>
I'm not sure I agree on your overall views on the re-balance and what CCP's done though. I would say they've put the Command Ships at a very good spot in Eve that sets them up well to be taken on-grid.
I'm not sure if you saw this but Fozzie posted ~40 pages back on where they were going with bringing links on-grid and I think you might like it.
They're getting around the mid-sized to large fight issue by removing the current boosting structure so you're faced with the trade-off of multiple redundant boosting ships with somewhat less damage potential or putting all your eggs in one basket and hoping your logi can hold reps.
They're not getting hard-counters (beyond cap draining I suppose) but they are becoming more of a trade-off and fleets are going to have to decide how many Command Ships they can bring and where they want to distribute their links. If they bring a bunch of Command Ships then they're going to contribute less individually but the enemy will have a very hard time burning through them. If the enemy does decide to burn through then they'd better have good intel on who has what links to eliminate the most important ones first or they nee to be confident that they won't loose too many DPS ships in the time it takes them to burn through the heavily tanked CS.
Also editing my old post to get the name right... |
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
17
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 19:22:00 -
[1948] - Quote
Ok here we go again.
Giving Field Command Ship the same resistance like the Fleet Command Ship: At first i thought this is way overpowered because these cs got a high damage output and now even more tank. But as i saw that hacs and the other t2 hulls got the same numbers, it is just a necessary step. -->feels a bit weird but i am okay with that
Reducing Turretnumbers and gain a bit more damage and tracking to the ships: To give these ships something special is good, so they got reduced ammo need, reduced cap and more ways to fit thier highslots. But i am not a fan to give all ships trackingspeed bonus... -->great change but forcing a kind of role to the ship
Giving all ships the opportunity to use 3 gank links simultaneously and use different ones: To use 2 kind of gang modules like armor & information warfare is what i was waiting for. The idea to give both ships the opportunity to use these modules is very weird because there is no more real GIVE BONUS SHIP with a big tank. I dont dislike the idea completely but this will change the way to build/fit fleets. -->good direction but i would prefer to have small and big bonus on the field/fleet cs to still have a difference between those ships.
Better sensorstrength and armor/shield ratio etc.: Finally some goos stats which make these ships worth in a lot of ways. -->Absolutely needed, good stuff
Balancing/nerfing PG and CPU: I think the reducing of PG is a bit to hard. You take 1 turret away and take some PG away but overall u loose PG u need to fit the ganklinks for example. I am a fan of fitting at minimum on 1600 Plate on a cs. But i am forced to use pg rigs and use faction items because of the cpu lack. If its ok if only the fleet cs got these fitting opportunity because they used to be the primary target because of many reasons. -->cpu balance ok, but pg nerf to hard, espacily for fleet cs
Example on astarte but stays for other ships as well: heavy neutron laster needs 187pg, u take 100 and the gank links needs 210 each.
Eos: It is all about trackingspeed right? I dont know every ships gets trackignspeed nowadays. I really dislike this. You can can fit mods for that. Dronechanges are quite ok but i thought you guys have some better ideas. It still can have a bit more dronebay. -->a bit more dronestuff please
Damnation: After 1.1 am forced to fit missile launcher. Beforce the patch i had the decision to fit turrets or launcher. On this account i dont have trained missiles with a reason, i have to skill these now. I dislike this. -->dont know, may be ok because of overall balancing
Mobility: Why are you boosting armor, shield and hull but reducing the mass instead of increase it? The same with the signature radius. -->cs are not hacs :) |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
79
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 23:59:00 -
[1949] - Quote
Florian Kuehne wrote: -->great change but forcing a kind of role to the ship
This is hardly forcing a role on the ship. Overall they deal the same or more damage as before, they just have more options now. You can either fit links or you have two utility highs.
Florian Kuehne wrote: -->good direction but i would prefer to have small and big bonus on the field/fleet cs to still have a difference between those ships.
There is no more distinction between "Fleet" and "Field" Command Ships, they're all just Command Ships and you get to pick your racial weapons system which is great for everyone.
Florian Kuehne wrote:Balancing/nerfing PG and CPU: I think the reducing of PG is a bit to hard. You take 1 turret away and take some PG away but overall u loose PG u need to fit the ganklinks for example. I am a fan of fitting at minimum on 1600 Plate on a cs. But i am forced to use pg rigs and use faction items because of the cpu lack. If its ok if only the fleet cs got these fitting opportunity because they used to be the primary target because of many reasons. -->cpu balance ok(just checked for armor ships), but pg nerf to hard, espacily for fleet cs
Example on astarte but stays for other ships as well: heavy neutron laster needs 187pg, u take 100 and the gank links needs 210 each.
The Command Links had their PG requirements dropped by 100 so only 110 PG and the overall fitting changes were designed for you to have to make trade-offs while still having fairly generous fittings. In-fact Fozzie said several times that he was worried they might be giving these ships too generous of fitting margin.
Florian Kuehne wrote:Eos: It is all about trackingspeed right? I dont know every ships gets trackignspeed nowadays. I really dislike this. You can can fit mods for that. Dronechanges are quite ok but i thought you guys have some better ideas. It still can have a bit more dronebay. -->to launch 5 heavies again is really strong, remove the turret tracking bonus and give some addional dronbay again.
Again, trade-offs. I'm pretty sure they gave it a turret bonus because otherwise when the Command Co-Processor changes happen it won't have to trade off any sort of bonus for fitting six links and that's not really a good thing.
Florian Kuehne wrote:Damnation: After 1.1 am forced to fit missile launcher. Beforce the patch i had the decision to fit turrets or launcher. On this account i dont have trained missiles with a reason, i have to skill these now. I dislike this. -->dont know, may be ok because of overall balancing
Mobility: Why are you boosting armor, shield and hull but reducing the mass instead of increase it? The same with the signature radius. -->cs are not hacs :)
So fit out an Absolution, problem solved. It's a better turret boat now by a mile than the Damnation ever was.
Your assertion about mobility isn't correct. Overall Command Ships just moved toward similar align speeds with the Gallente and Minmattar closer to 12 seconds and the Caldari and Amarr closer to 13 seconds. Several of the Command Ships gained mass or lost agility in this change and they're still no where near the HACs in terms of mobility or align time. |
Dinozauriusz II Urwiryj
DinoSquad
6
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 12:10:00 -
[1950] - Quote
IMHO this rebalance is bad idea. All EVE magic is about that every ship is specialised and is filling some, special role. Dividing command ships to fleet and field was very good! Now we will receive two identical ships just with different weapons - senseless. I assume that next time Recons will be mixed into the-same-with-different-weapons? I liked when ships were specialised. Now it seems that we are going to make it straight line: every next ship is just bigger, with better guns. My opinion is: Do not follow this path. Keep this game complex and sophisticated. Introduce even more ships, even if they would not be specialised (wolud be great to have more T1 frigates, or two types of stealth bomers for every faction, or two eWar ships, more destroyers, etc.). Just don't mix ships into one formless, kindless mass. Please. |
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
100
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 12:26:00 -
[1951] - Quote
Try to bring Balance for all the PVP Whiners without equal the Ships altogether.
Hint: Its impossible. |
Dinozauriusz II Urwiryj
DinoSquad
6
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 12:44:00 -
[1952] - Quote
It's not about satisfying everybody - In fact it is impossible. It's about keeping game varied. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
100
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 13:15:00 -
[1953] - Quote
I am on your side, but as you see we are in the minority... |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
86
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 15:46:00 -
[1954] - Quote
Dinozauriusz II Urwiryj wrote:IMHO this rebalance is bad idea. All EVE magic is about that every ship is specialised and is filling some, special role. Dividing command ships to fleet and field was very good! Now we will receive two identical ships just with different weapons - senseless. I assume that next time Recons will be mixed into the-same-with-different-weapons? I liked when ships were specialised. Now it seems that we are going to make it straight line: every next ship is just bigger, with better guns. My opinion is: Do not follow this path. Keep this game complex and sophisticated. Introduce even more ships, even if they would not be specialised, just different for the same role (wolud be great to have more T1 frigates, or two types of stealth bomers for every faction, or two eWar ships, more destroyers, etc.). Just don't mix ships into one formless, kindless mass - you want fleet or field command ship with different weapon? Introduce two new Command ships (Naga hull would be great for fleet Command, keep Ferox as field command), just don't kill complexity of this game. Please.
PS. bring more T3 ships (frigates would be interesting).
I have two problems with this.
First, there is absolutely no evidence that the Recon hulls are going to be homogenized. Both hulls for each race see use and it's hardly like they each use a different weapons system to start with.
The second is that the Fleet/Field distinction had a number of inherent problems with it and left us with a situation where 5 out of 8 hulls of a given ship type were almost completely unused. I think the only use I ever heard of for a Nighthawk was a very niche passive tank fit for either an Epic Arc or a Level 5 mission. The Eos, Claymore, Absolution, and Vulture were similarly un-used for various reasons, with the Damnation only being used for bait and the very odd occasional on-grid boost.
The tanky ships didn't deal enough damage and the damage ships weren't tanky enough, either way you wouldn't want one in a small fleet unless it was the Slephnir or the Astarte because those were the two that could actually deal damage effectively. However, their lack of tank prevented them from ever being used as an actual "Command Ship" they were just T2 Battlecruisers.
I fail to see how you can claim that this was a better situation for Command Ships to be in than one where every one can actually be used as a *Command Ship* and still contribute to fleets. |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
101
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 16:03:00 -
[1955] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:The second is that the Fleet/Field distinction had a number of inherent problems with it and left us with a situation where 5 out of 8 hulls of a given ship type were almost completely unused. I think the only use I ever heard of for a Nighthawk was a very niche passive tank fit for either an Epic Arc or a Level 5 mission.
I'm afraid you probably won't be seeing the Nighthawk used much after the patch, either, seeing as how it can't fit a warp disruptor/scrambler and prop mod without compromising its tank. A 3-slot (4 with DCU) tank is not enough on a 200 million ISK ship. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
290
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 16:10:00 -
[1956] - Quote
Wrayeth wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:The second is that the Fleet/Field distinction had a number of inherent problems with it and left us with a situation where 5 out of 8 hulls of a given ship type were almost completely unused. I think the only use I ever heard of for a Nighthawk was a very niche passive tank fit for either an Epic Arc or a Level 5 mission. I'm afraid you probably won't be seeing the Nighthawk used much after the patch, either, seeing as how it can't fit a warp disruptor/scrambler and prop mod without compromising its tank. A 3-slot (4 with DCU) tank is not enough on a 200 million ISK ship.
I have to agree there. I've been very upbeat about these CS changes and will be using the minny and gallente ones on grid in wormholes.
But the slot layout on the NH is difficult to understand in PVP context. Maybe the devs have plans for damage application mods for missiles and would like to see them on the NH to give it more range?
Winter marauders - Mutant Ninja Space Turtles
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
86
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 16:23:00 -
[1957] - Quote
Wrayeth wrote:I'm afraid you probably won't be seeing the Nighthawk used much after the patch, either, seeing as how it can't fit a warp disruptor/scrambler and prop mod without compromising its tank. A 3-slot (4 with DCU) tank is not enough on a 200 million ISK ship.
I'm not particularly concerned about that. Caldari ships have always been more fleet focused and with its current stats it ends up being fairly similar to a Tengu. As for your assertion about a 3 slot tank not being enough, well I'm sure someone out there who doesn't see the ship as much of a loss will disagree with you (especially if you factor in T2 medium shield rigs).
Regardless of your personal fitting preferences the Nighthawk is in a vastly improved position as are all of the other unused CS hulls. |
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 16:45:00 -
[1958] - Quote
Wrayeth wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:The second is that the Fleet/Field distinction had a number of inherent problems with it and left us with a situation where 5 out of 8 hulls of a given ship type were almost completely unused. I think the only use I ever heard of for a Nighthawk was a very niche passive tank fit for either an Epic Arc or a Level 5 mission. I'm afraid you probably won't be seeing the Nighthawk used much after the patch, either, seeing as how it can't fit a warp disruptor/scrambler and prop mod without compromising its tank. A 3-slot (4 with DCU) tank is not enough on a 200 million ISK ship.
Its the one disappointing thing to come out of this thread. So many of those who have commented on the Nighthawk have said it needs a better slot layout 6:4 not 5:5
Theres way to much competition for mids on this hull compared to others in the class.
Em hard Invuln Booster Injector Propulsion
would be my prefs for a base setup
Leaving it 2 slots short if used as a T2 BC point X web X
For a tanky or boosty CS it can't do either 2nd Inv X or Command Processor X
It would be interesting to know what the slot layout is designed around other that PvE only Passive Tank.
|
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
102
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 16:50:00 -
[1959] - Quote
Some small part of me wonders if Fozzie is trolling us and it will actually be 7/6/4 when it hits TQ. It's almost certainly not going to happen, but it would be hilarious (and awesome!) if it does. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
86
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 16:51:00 -
[1960] - Quote
Lore Varan wrote:Its the one disappointing thing to come out of this thread. So many of those who have commented on the Nighthawk have said it needs a better slot layout 6:4 not 5:5
Theres way to much competition for mids on this hull compared to others in the class.
Em hard Invuln Booster Injector Propulsion
would be my prefs for a base setup
Leaving it 2 slots short if used as a T2 BC point X web X
For a tanky or boosty CS it can't do either 2nd Inv X or Command Processor X
It would be interesting to know what the slot layout is designed around other that PvE only Passive Tank.
I'm not sure why you thought you were ever going to get a 7 mid-slot Battlecruiser. Also you can fit an ASB rather than doing both a booster and an injector since your guns don't use cap and then NOS in the highs as a counter to neuting.
Overall though most Caldari ships aren't built to be solo ships, they're much better lending muscle to a small to medium gang where they don't need to fit, say, both a point AND a web but can better leverage their excellent tank. |
|
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
102
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 17:02:00 -
[1961] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: Overall though most Caldari ships aren't built to be solo ships, they're much better lending muscle to a small to medium gang where they don't need to fit, say, both a point AND a web but can better leverage their excellent tank.
True...except with 5 mids, it's not an excellent tank unless you drop either the prop mod or the the disruptor/scrambler. While 7 mids would be amazing, it would be too much, IMO. 6, however, are required for this ship to be viable in PvP if survivability matters at all to you. |
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 17:07:00 -
[1962] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Lore Varan wrote:Its the one disappointing thing to come out of this thread. So many of those who have commented on the Nighthawk have said it needs a better slot layout 6:4 not 5:5
Theres way to much competition for mids on this hull compared to others in the class.
Em hard Invuln Booster Injector Propulsion
would be my prefs for a base setup
Leaving it 2 slots short if used as a T2 BC point X web X
For a tanky or boosty CS it can't do either 2nd Inv X or Command Processor X
It would be interesting to know what the slot layout is designed around other that PvE only Passive Tank.
I'm not sure why you thought you were ever going to get a 7 mid-slot Battlecruiser. Also you can fit an ASB rather than doing both a booster and an injector since your guns don't use cap and then NOS in the highs as a counter to neuting. Overall though most Caldari ships aren't built to be solo ships, they're much better lending muscle to a small to medium gang where they don't need to fit, say, both a point AND a web but can better leverage their excellent tank.
No ones suggesting a 7 slotter that's entirelly your own misunderstanding. If you go scram/web on a nh its fair to drop 1 of the standard mids ( probably the invuln ).
Although 7/3 on the Vulture might have been interesting to compete more with the Damnation.
Being tied in to an ASB booster is not acceptable ( to little fitting choice imo ) The slot layout of the ship should not dictate that ASB must be used. Large are underpowered and XL require gimped fits.
Also in a role where you dont have own tackle and are doing the CS booster thing. An injector is needed to keep that MWD running.
Also the Caldari arnt solo excuse is very old and lame. Given that I think 40% of the player base come in as Caldari your saying all those players can't enjoy solo commands until they have cross trained ? gtfo. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
87
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 17:18:00 -
[1963] - Quote
Wrayeth wrote:True...except with 5 mids, it's not an excellent tank unless you drop either the prop mod or the the disruptor/scrambler. While 7 mids would be amazing, it would be too much, IMO. 6, however, are required for this ship to be viable in PvP if survivability matters at all to you.
Lore Varan wrote:No ones suggesting a 7 slotter that's entirelly your own misunderstanding. If you go scram/web on a nh its fair to drop 1 of the standard mids ( probably the invuln ).
Although 7/3 on the Vulture might have been interesting to compete more with the Damnation.
Being tied in to an ASB booster is not acceptable ( to little fitting choice imo ) The slot layout of the ship should not dictate that ASB must be used. Large are underpowered and XL require gimped fits.
Also in a role where you dont have own tackle and are doing the CS booster thing. An injector is needed to keep that MWD running.
In any sort of fleet setup with logistics (which thanks to T1 Support Cruisers is a pretty common thing, even in small fleets) you don't need any sort of active tank at which point you can run an absolutely massive resist tank with just 5 slots. 2x Invul, EM Ward, LSE, AB for a little speed tank. DCU2 in the lows and a Thermal rig. You now have an awesome shield tank, do 3 BCU2s in the lows and a Nano and you AB around pretty well too. Let other ships that are better at playing tackle play tackle and support the fleet with links and/or DPS.
In a solo situation you're probably better off with a Navy Drake or HAC. Since the primary role of Command Ships is fleet boosting it's fine that some of them aren't great solo ships. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
290
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 17:22:00 -
[1964] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: In any sort of fleet setup with logistics (which thanks to T1 Support Cruisers is a pretty common thing, even in small fleets) you don't need any sort of active tank at which point you can run an absolutely massive resist tank with just 5 slots. 2x Invul, EM Ward, LSE, AB for a little speed tank. DCU2 in the lows and a Thermal rig. You now have an awesome shield tank, do 3 BCU2s in the lows and a Nano and you AB around pretty well too. Let other ships that are better at playing tackle play tackle and support the fleet with links and/or DPS.
In a solo situation you're probably better off with a Navy Drake or HAC. Since the primary role of Command Ships is fleet boosting it's fine that some of them aren't great solo ships.
Agree - i would never take a CS on grid without some logistics.
Navy drake is the wrong choice for solo though - it's the weakest of the navy BCs.
Winter marauders - Mutant Ninja Space Turtles
|
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 17:43:00 -
[1965] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Wrayeth wrote:True...except with 5 mids, it's not an excellent tank unless you drop either the prop mod or the the disruptor/scrambler. While 7 mids would be amazing, it would be too much, IMO. 6, however, are required for this ship to be viable in PvP if survivability matters at all to you. Lore Varan wrote:No ones suggesting a 7 slotter that's entirelly your own misunderstanding. If you go scram/web on a nh its fair to drop 1 of the standard mids ( probably the invuln ).
Although 7/3 on the Vulture might have been interesting to compete more with the Damnation.
Being tied in to an ASB booster is not acceptable ( to little fitting choice imo ) The slot layout of the ship should not dictate that ASB must be used. Large are underpowered and XL require gimped fits.
Also in a role where you dont have own tackle and are doing the CS booster thing. An injector is needed to keep that MWD running. In any sort of fleet setup with logistics (which thanks to T1 Support Cruisers is a pretty common thing, even in small fleets) you don't need any sort of active tank at which point you can run an absolutely massive resist tank with just 5 slots. 2x Invul, EM Ward, LSE, AB for a little speed tank. DCU2 in the lows and a Thermal rig. You now have an awesome shield tank, do 3 BCU2s in the lows and a Nano and you AB around pretty well too. Let other ships that are better at playing tackle play tackle and support the fleet with links and/or DPS. In a solo situation you're probably better off with a Navy Drake or HAC. Since the primary role of Command Ships is fleet boosting it's fine that some of them aren't great solo ships.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
87
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 18:28:00 -
[1966] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Agree - i would never take a CS on grid without some logistics.
Navy drake is the wrong choice for solo though - it's the weakest of the navy BCs.
Still a better choice for solo work than the Nighthawk though, and it meets his slot requirements. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
290
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 18:47:00 -
[1967] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Agree - i would never take a CS on grid without some logistics.
Navy drake is the wrong choice for solo though - it's the weakest of the navy BCs. Still a better choice for solo work than the Nighthawk though, and it meets his slot requirements.
Well yes, but that's like saying when going to a gunfight, it's better to take a cucumber than a rubber chicken...
Winter marauders - Mutant Ninja Space Turtles
|
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
217
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 18:57:00 -
[1968] - Quote
Well, this drops tomorrow, so I doubt they're going to be fixing the Caldari boats.
Nighthawk's slot layout is awful and it's outshined by the Claymore for PvP of any kind. PvE-only boat...expensive Drake with only barely better tank. Yay.
Vulture does less damage than a Ferox.
Hopefully they'll fix these mistakes at some point in the future.
I won't be holding my breath. |
Lucine Delacourt
The Covenant of Blood
16
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 18:58:00 -
[1969] - Quote
Why are people trying to use their NH as tackle? There are ships built for that. Bring your NH for a little DPS, links and fairly decent tank. I know it's shocking that the ship is better at its intended task instead of something else but that doesn't make the ship broken. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
87
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 19:10:00 -
[1970] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Well, this drops tomorrow, so I doubt they're going to be fixing the Caldari boats.
Nighthawk's slot layout is awful and it's outshined by the Claymore for PvP of any kind. PvE-only boat...expensive Drake with only barely better tank. Yay.
Vulture does less damage than a Ferox.
Hopefully they'll fix these mistakes at some point in the future.
I won't be holding my breath.
So, no the Vulture does more damage at high SP levels than the Ferox does, if only by a little, and has better range and tank by a mile. 5 * 1.5 = 7.5 effective turrets of DPS which is greater than the Ferox's 7
The Nighthawk has better resists than the Claymore and is therefore preferable for any kind of logi supported fleet PvP.
~working as intended~
In the future please math before posting.
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Well yes, but that's like saying when going to a gunfight, it's better to take a cucumber than a rubber chicken...
This is going in my Bio with the rest of my hilarious quotes. I think leaving out the context makes it even better xD |
|
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
217
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 19:11:00 -
[1971] - Quote
Lucine Delacourt wrote:Why are people trying to use their NH as tackle? There are ships built for that. Bring your NH for a little DPS, links and fairly decent tank. I know it's shocking that the ship is better at its intended task instead of something else but that doesn't make the ship broken. Except that the Claymore's slot layout makes it better than the NH at basically everything, regardless of the hull bonus.
The fact that a shield boost bonused ship can fit a comparable buffer to a shield buffer bonused ship is broken. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
217
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 19:12:00 -
[1972] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: The Nighthawk has better resists than the Claymore and is therefore preferable for any kind of logi supported fleet PvP.
Except that the Claymore has a much better starting resist profile and can fit an extra invuln in its extra mid, more than making up for the difference.
Edit: All of these people who think the Nighthawk is fine and haven't actually compared it properly to the Claymore worry me--they're going to go out there and use Nighthawks anyway even though they're terrible, which is going to make CCP think that they're fine, since obviously people wouldn't use them if they weren't fine, right?
When in reality, people are just using them because they don't bother to figure things out for themselves and just think "oh, a resist bonus is obviously better for fleets than a boosting bonus!" |
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 19:25:00 -
[1973] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:[quote=Wrayeth] In any sort of fleet setup with logistics (which thanks to T1 Support Cruisers is a pretty common thing, even in small fleets) you don't need any sort of active tank at which point you can run an absolutely massive resist tank with just 5 slots. 2x Invul, EM Ward, LSE, AB for a little speed tank. DCU2 in the lows and a Thermal rig. You now have an awesome shield tank, do 3 BCU2s in the lows and a Nano and you AB around pretty well too. Let other ships that are better at playing tackle play tackle and support the fleet with links and/or DPS.
While I agree that run boost and lob missiles in, is about the only PvP role a NH can take your assessment of great tank is based on a design that would only be appropriate with multiple logistics backup due to lack of cap. This is getting into large fleet territory. Where the tank you have is not going to be appealing when there is the better choice of a Vulture.
For small/medium roams it needs an Injector on it to turn it into a PvP fit. So you don't also have to rely on logistics for cap as well. Your not the only ship they have to keep alive. You can't rely on multiple logistics ship availability to validate a ship design.
with 10mn ab its too slow even with the nano. so your left with 100mn ab or 10mn mwd fits for viable run and boost tactics. This means injector.
So mwd/em/inv/inj/booster ok now you can run away and fire missiles in. but tank is not what it should be on a T2 command playing the CS role.
Run and lob missiles is a bad tactic for small gang where damage application and tackle from every ship is going to be important.
So to sum up Small gangs not viable due to lack of tackle. Medium gangs , moderately viable with 1 kind of setup although a little light on tank Big gangs not enough tank.
I'll grant you there's one setup which somewhat works. This is not enough , the whole purpose of having slots is so you can design different setup and put the ship to work in different ways. Otherwise if a ship can only do one thing why bother with slots in game at all.
There needs to be choices when ftting a NH as there are for all ships. Do I fit tackle ? Do I fit max tank ? Do I add mid slot ewar ?
The NH needs 6 mids not 5 lows.
The only use of a 5th low slot is for Passive Shield Recharge PvE designs. Ships should never be designed around PvE unless the whole class is designed for that role. |
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 19:37:00 -
[1974] - Quote
Lucine Delacourt wrote:Why are people trying to use their NH as tackle? There are ships built for that. Bring your NH for a little DPS, links and fairly decent tank. I know it's shocking that the ship is better at its intended task instead of something else but that doesn't make the ship broken.
People are not trying to use there NH as tackle but to give there NH tackle . A choice that can be made on all other commands.
So you have options to help deal with ships that tackle you.
Other wise any frig can come in and hold you under scram and web to be blown apart as soon as the big ships arrive and there is absolutely nothing you can do to kill off the tackle on you.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
89
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 23:26:00 -
[1975] - Quote
Lore Varan wrote:While I agree that run boost and lob missiles in, is about the only PvP role a NH can take your assessment of great tank is based on a design that would only be appropriate with multiple logistics backup due to lack of cap. This is getting into large fleet territory. Where the tank you have is not going to be appealing when there is the better choice of a Vulture.
For small/medium roams it needs an Injector on it to turn it into a PvP fit. So you don't also have to rely on logistics for cap as well. Your not the only ship they have to keep alive. You can't rely on multiple logistics ship availability to validate a ship design.
with 10mn ab its too slow even with the nano. so your left with 100mn ab or 10mn mwd fits for viable run and boost tactics. This means injector.
So mwd/em/inv/inj/booster ok now you can run away and fire missiles in. but tank is not what it should be on a T2 command playing the CS role.
Run and lob missiles is a bad tactic for small gang where damage application and tackle from every ship is going to be important.
So to sum up Small gangs not viable due to lack of tackle. Medium gangs , moderately viable with 1 kind of setup although a little light on tank Big gangs not enough tank.
I'll grant you there's one setup which somewhat works. This is not enough , the whole purpose of having slots is so you can design different setup and put the ship to work in different ways. Otherwise if a ship can only do one thing why bother with slots in game at all.
There needs to be choices when ftting a NH as there are for all ships. Do I fit tackle ? Do I fit max tank ? Do I add mid slot ewar ?
The NH needs 6 mids not 5 lows.
The only use of a 5th low slot is for Passive Shield Recharge PvE designs. Ships should never be designed around PvE unless the whole class is designed for that role.
So, a couple of points.
Multiple logistics is not "Large Fleet Territory" in fact with the T1 Logistics it's perfectly viable to have at least one logi in a small gang since these are cheap and fairly easy to fit out.
Case and point, incursions are set up much like a small to medium sized gang and tend to run about 2-3 logi out of every 11 people.
You don't define "too slow" you just say that this ship is it.
More than that you are trying to fit a ship in a way that is not going to be as effective as other ships. You would really be better off ASB fitting the thing or just using it with any amount of logistics.
The fifth low lets you fit speed which better helps you maintain the damage at range advantage of missiles. Alternatively it may be used for damage projection depending on if we get missile mods or not.
Lore Varan wrote:People are not trying to use there NH as tackle but to give there NH tackle . A choice that can be made on all other commands.
So you have options to help deal with ships that tackle you.
Other wise any frig can come in and hold you under scram and web to be blown apart as soon as the big ships arrive and there is absolutely nothing you can do to kill off the tackle on you.
Or you could use the solid damage application of Precision missiles to turn that frig into a cloud of dust where any turret based Command Ship would be shooting at it in vain, probably even with a web on it.
Chris Winter wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote: The Nighthawk has better resists than the Claymore and is therefore preferable for any kind of logi supported fleet PvP.
Except that the Claymore has a much better starting resist profile and can fit an extra invuln in its extra mid, more than making up for the difference. Edit: All of these people who think the Nighthawk is fine and haven't actually compared it properly to the Claymore worry me--they're going to go out there and use Nighthawks anyway even though they're terrible, which is going to make CCP think that they're fine, since obviously people wouldn't use them if they weren't fine, right? When in reality, people are just using them because they don't bother to figure things out for themselves and just think "oh, a resist bonus is obviously better for fleets than a boosting bonus!"
So, with 2 Invuls, a T2 EM Rig, and a DC 2 I get better Shield EHP out of the Nighthawk than the Slephnir with 3 Invuls, DC2, and a T2 Kinetic Rig at least partly due to the Nighthawk's much higher base shield HP. If we do the smart thing for a resists tank and swap that EM rig for an EM Screen Mod then we end up with even better EHP and better across the board resists overall. The EM is squishier but not hugely and the Thermal and Kinetic resists are huge compared to the Slephnir which means against Hybrids, some Lasers, any Kinetic bonused missile boat, and most Projectiles you're going to do way better than the Slephnir.
If we throw an Explosive Rig in the lows that turns to all projectiles except EMP.
All of this combines to make it a solidly better resist tanked ship than the Claymore, especially since the Claymore seems likely to run into fitting issues trying to squeeze in an extra LSE to make up for the shield HP and resists difference.
Overall though I'd rather run the Vulture in large fleets and the Nighthawk in small ones due to higher damage at range and better damage application against small targets, not to mention having overall higher DPS than the Claymore.
Plus if Rise follows through and we do get missile damage application/projection mods then that low becomes a lot more useful. As things stand I'd just fit an Overdrive Injector or Nano so you can better make use of the aforementioned damage at range. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
217
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 01:01:00 -
[1976] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: So, with 2 Invuls, a T2 EM Rig, and a DC 2 I get better Shield EHP out of the Nighthawk than the Slephnir with 3 Invuls, DC2, and a T2 Kinetic Rig at least partly due to the Nighthawk's much higher base shield HP. If we do the smart thing for a resists tank and swap that EM rig for an EM Screen Mod then we end up with even better EHP and better across the board resists overall. The EM is squishier but not hugely and the Thermal and Kinetic resists are huge compared to the Slephnir which means against Hybrids, some Lasers, any Kinetic bonused missile boat, and most Projectiles you're going to do way better than the Slephnir.
If we throw an Explosive Rig in the lows that turns to all projectiles except EMP.
All of this combines to make it a solidly better resist tanked ship than the Claymore, especially since the Claymore seems likely to run into fitting issues trying to squeeze in an extra LSE to make up for the shield HP and resists difference.
Overall though I'd rather run the Vulture in large fleets and the Nighthawk in small ones due to higher damage at range and better damage application against small targets, not to mention having overall higher DPS than the Claymore.
Plus if Rise follows through and we do get missile damage application/projection mods then that low becomes a lot more useful. As things stand I'd just fit an Overdrive Injector or Nano so you can better make use of the aforementioned damage at range.
Don't look at EHP, look at average resistance--Claymore has 6.421 with that fit, Nighthawk has 6.24. The average resistance is what matters when taking into account logi.
Also, three invulns hits stacking penalties hard. Try using a kinetic hardener instead of the third invuln (and then an explosive rig instead) on the Claymore and it gets even better.
Claymore has no troubles sticking an extra LSE on--certainly fewer troubles than the Nighthawk since the NH doesn't even have the slot to spare.
Even if you use a nano for the low on the Nighthawk, it's still 300m/s slower than the Claymore under MWD. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
89
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 02:08:00 -
[1977] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote: Don't look at EHP, look at average resistance--Claymore has 6.421 with that fit, Nighthawk has 6.24. The average resistance is what matters when taking into account logi.
Also, three invulns hits stacking penalties hard. Try using a kinetic hardener instead of the third invuln (and then an explosive rig instead) on the Claymore and it gets even better.
Claymore has no troubles sticking an extra LSE on--certainly fewer troubles than the Nighthawk since the NH doesn't even have the slot to spare.
Even if you use a nano for the low on the Nighthawk, it's still 300m/s slower than the Claymore under MWD.
First off, I did the three invuls entirely because it's what you stated, unless you somehow assumed 1 invul base on a Nighthawk.
Second, the Kinetic Hardener fit comes out to 84.675 average resist value, where as the Nighthawk fit comes out to 87.175. The original triple invuln fit only comes out slightly below the Kin hardener fit at 84.475.
Not sure where your numbers came from but I fit out a deadspace setup and the Nighthawk still wins, 92.35 to 91.475. This is without links but those are stacking penalized and therefore will have a pretty minor effect in the final resist totals. I can only assume you somehow weren't factoring in that the Nighthawk's resist bonus isn't stacking penalized.
Also the Claymore runs out of CPU well before it can squeeze on another LSE, let alone the MWD which means you need to either drop a BCS for a CPU mod or use up a rig slot that would be better spent on tank. |
Valfreyea
Zervas Aeronautics The Unthinkables
17
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 04:16:00 -
[1978] - Quote
So, is the Eos still going to be stuck with that random medium hybrid tracking bonus? |
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 08:46:00 -
[1979] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: Multiple logistics is not "Large Fleet Territory" in fact with the T1 Logistics it's perfectly viable to have at least one logi in a small gang since these are cheap and fairly easy to fit out.
There no need to get into a arguement about what constitutes large The point is you need mulitple logistics ships to make your fit work, its a bad fit. Other ships in this class need far less support whatever size fleet there boosting.
Cade Windstalker wrote: Case and point, incursions are set up much like a small to medium sized gang and tend to run about 2-3 logi out of every 11 people.
Sleepers while better than standard rats are still pretty dumb opponents. Incursions are not PvP Incursion fleets are not PvP fleets. Most players for instance wont stay on grid and let you blow them to bits unless there tackled.
If you want a 5slot passive recahrge fit for incursions say so and stop hiding behind bs fits that don't work for PvP.
Cade Windstalker wrote: Or you could use the solid damage application of Precision missiles to turn that frig into a cloud of dust where any turret based Command Ship would be shooting at it in vain, probably even with a web on it.
Do you even PvP ? Precision heavys are pants against anything doing more than 300m/s if memory recalls.
Maybe you should use the damage graph on EFT against a moving target. See what you get against a ab frig orbiting you at 1k/s or a mwd frig at 2.5k/s
|
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 09:16:00 -
[1980] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: You don't define "too slow" you just say that this ship is it.
More than that you are trying to fit a ship in a way that is not going to be as effective as other ships. You would really be better off ASB fitting the thing or just using it with any amount of logistics.
The fifth low lets you fit speed which better helps you maintain the damage at range advantage of missiles. Alternatively it may be used for damage projection depending on if we get missile mods or not.
500m/s is too slow by a massive amount for damage at range tactics in PvP. Even the slowest BS can push 1k/s easilly with MWD.
Pretty much every ship in the enemy fleet will be on top of you in a few 10's of seconds at best if the enemy FC calls you.
500m/s if it does that might help you keep at range from rats or even sleepers, it wont be enough for those tactics in PvP.
You need MWD for Damage at range in PvP. If you run this for more than 3 minutes. This means you either cap out and lose harderers and gank links or you fit an injector or you have a logi semi dedicated to supplying you with cap basically lowering the effective tank of all the other ships in your fleet.
|
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
292
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 09:25:00 -
[1981] - Quote
Lore Varan wrote:You need MWD for Damage at range in PvP.
It seems to me that the fleet/field command distinctions have not disappeared. It's simply that amarr/caldari CSs are now fleet command and the others for field command.
In this context, the NHs speed need not be such an issue.
What will be an issue for it I think is the 5-mid tank in that context. It seems to me that the Vulture is a lot more viable as an on-grid booster than the NH in all circumstances.
This of course suggests that very few new nighthawks will be bought for the purpose of fleet PVP.
I have said it before. I am supportive of the CS changes. But I do agree that the nighthawk is currently looking a little unusable.
In PVE it might still work, but that wouldn't interest me. Winter marauders - Mutant Ninja Space Turtles
|
Serenity Zipher
13
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 12:17:00 -
[1982] - Quote
Any update on model changes yet Fozzie? |
Valfreyea
Zervas Aeronautics The Unthinkables
18
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 13:18:00 -
[1983] - Quote
I guess you guys aren't changing anything, regardless of the logic behind it.
The Eos is basically required to use three different offensive and defensive systems to make use of all of its bonuses?
Heavy drones, active tank, and freaking medium hybrids on 4 turret slots?
I guess the myrmidon skin is going to be its sole saving grace.
So when's that coming out? |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
94
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 13:37:00 -
[1984] - Quote
Valfreyea wrote:So, is the Eos still going to be stuck with that random medium hybrid tracking bonus?
Since it's probably there so you can't fit a full rack of Links without trading at least one bonus I'm going to go with yes.
Lore Varan wrote:There no need to get into a arguement about what constitutes large The point is you need mulitple logistics ships to make your fit work, its a bad fit. Other ships in this class need far less support whatever size fleet there boosting.
Ships are generally designed to be better in different circumstances. Generally Caldari ships are better in a fleet setup where they can better make use of their large tanks and damage projection.
Both of the Minmattar command ships are going to be better able to fit a local tank due to their local tank bonus and, as you pointed out, solid resists spread however they tank with logistics less well than the Caldari ships do. This is balance through differing roles.
Lore Varan wrote:Sleepers while better than standard rats are still pretty dumb opponents. Incursions are not PvP Incursion fleets are not PvP fleets. Most players for instance wont stay on grid and let you blow them to bits unless there tackled.
If you want a 5slot passive recahrge fit for incursions say so and stop hiding behind bs fits that don't work for PvP.
No, my point was simply that the setup for incursion fleets is very similar to a small gang PvP fleet and they run logistics. Trying to passive-recharge ANYTHING in incursions would be a hilariously bad idea since these sites do about 2-3000 DPS. You are welcome to try though, please let me know if you do because I love a good laugh
Lore Varan wrote:Do you even PvP ? Precision heavys are pants against anything doing more than 300m/s if memory recalls.
Maybe you should use the damage graph on EFT against a moving target. See what you get against a ab frig orbiting you at 1k/s or a mwd frig at 2.5k/s
You're right, they don't do great damage. But a quick check of those EFT graphs against an Interceptor says that you're doing way more than the flat zero a turreted ship would be doing.
Lore Varan wrote:500m/s is too slow by a massive amount for damage at range tactics in PvP. Even the slowest BS can push 1k/s easilly with MWD.
Pretty much every ship in the enemy fleet will be on top of you in a few 10's of seconds at best if the enemy FC calls you.
500m/s if it does that might help you keep at range from rats or even sleepers, it wont be enough for those tactics in PvP.
You need MWD for Damage at range in PvP. If you run this for more than 3 minutes. This means you either cap out and lose harderers and gank links or you fit an injector or you have a logi semi dedicated to supplying you with cap basically lowering the effective tank of all the other ships in your fleet.
Um, no, most battleships cap out around 1000m/s with a MWD just based on skills and the prop mod. If you're going to start assuming speed combat boosters and OGBs then you should assume them for both sides.
If you have a logi supplying you cap it's because he has the spare ET (always a good idea because cap warfare) and the 500m/s on a Nighthawk beats "can't fit a MWD, DPS, and Links without fitting mods" on a Claymore. Oh and interestingly enough the Nighthawk is cap stable with a MWD and nothing else running, meaning you can use that extra low for a CPR, fit an ASB, and run the entire thing cap stable without an injector.
We are looking at a high DPS missile boat with good tank. Just because the slot layout is not your ideal does not magically make it worthless.
|
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 16:23:00 -
[1985] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: Ships are generally designed to be better in different circumstances. Generally Caldari ships are better in a fleet setup where they can better make use of their large tanks and damage projection.
Both of the Minmattar command ships are going to be better able to fit a local tank due to their local tank bonus and, as you pointed out, solid resists spread however they tank with logistics less well than the Caldari ships do. This is balance through differing roles.
While a Vulture has an advantage the NH does not. The lack of a 6th mid cancels out it resists advantage.
So a Clay is better than a NH at fleet once its damage reduction from speed is factored in. On the other hand The NH is wholly inadequate at smaller fleet roles.
The concept that Caldari players should not be able to enjoy small fleet actions unless they spend 6 months cross training to Mini is also a bad place to start from.
I have no problem with a NH being worse than a Clay at small fleet as long as the difference is not so massive as it is atm.
Cade Windstalker wrote:No, my point was simply that the setup for incursion fleets is very similar to a small gang PvP fleet and they run logistics. Trying to passive-recharge ANYTHING in incursions would be a hilariously bad idea since these sites do about 2-3000 DPS. You are welcome to try though, please let me know if you do because I love a good laugh
This is why you fail to understand the issues. There are only superficial simalarities between Incursion fleet setups and PvP small fleets.
*PvP fleets are not always based around logistics chains. *PvP fleets also bring tackle, the smaller the fleet the more you need tackle on every ship *PvP ships require better mobility on grid than incursion ships *PvP ships need to be able to protect themselves from small tackle more than incursion ships do.
Cade Windstalker wrote: You're right, they don't do great damage. But a quick check of those EFT graphs against an Interceptor says that you're doing way more than the flat zero a turreted ship would be doing.
So now you see the need for tackle ? If not try some PvP instead of incursions.
Cade Windstalker wrote: Um, no, most battleships cap out around 1000m/s with a MWD just based on skills and the prop mod. If you're going to start assuming speed combat boosters and OGBs then you should assume them for both sides.
1k/s is a ballpark figure for speed of MWD bs what you on about ? The slowest ships in a standard PvP fleet are approx 100% faster than your NH Build. Just because Sleeps puttle around at a few 100 m/s and are happy to be shot from range does not mean players are.
Cade Windstalker wrote: Oh and interestingly enough the Nighthawk is cap stable with a MWD and nothing else running, meaning you can use that extra low for a CPR, fit an ASB, and run the entire thing cap stable without an injector. We are looking at a high DPS missile boat with good tank. Just because the slot layout is not your ideal does not magically make it worthless.
Yeah shame you need to run your hards and links isnt it. also cap stable is not the same thing as Cap secure. Cap is life it runs your hards links and propulsion A player gets a heavy neut on you , your dead in the water unless a corpy with a transfer rescues your sorry ass. Thats far to vulnerable a position to be in in PvP. Also Curse pilots will luv you.
I'm not saying the NH is worthless , I'm saying it's worthless for PvP.
Totally eclipsed by the Vulture or Clay depending on gang size. And the shame is it only needed a mid for a low to be largelly fixed.
Face it. Unless your doing a PSR fit for ratting that 5th low has to little value atm. might as well be a 5:4 slot layout.
|
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
17
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 16:29:00 -
[1986] - Quote
nice communication with the community ccp, oh wait... |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1203
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 17:49:00 -
[1987] - Quote
Florian Kuehne wrote:nice communication with the community ccp, oh wait...
They talked to the null sec cartel - dominated CSM about these changes. Clearly, that group is a perfect cross-section of all the player demographic in the game. Or rather, all the players that matter.
Why would you expect anything else? Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
103
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 17:50:00 -
[1988] - Quote
Communication dont mean they have to change things to your favor. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
94
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 18:37:00 -
[1989] - Quote
Lore Varan wrote:While a Vulture has an advantage the NH does not. The lack of a 6th mid cancels out it resists advantage.
So a Clay is better than a NH at fleet once its damage reduction from speed is factored in. On the other hand The NH is wholly inadequate at smaller fleet roles.
The concept that Caldari players should not be able to enjoy small fleet actions unless they spend 6 months cross training to Mini is also a bad place to start from.
I have no problem with a NH being worse than a Clay at small fleet as long as the difference is not so massive as it is atm.
Damage reduction from speed is extremely situational and not reliable. Plus if you're using an MWD unless you are orbiting fairly close you're reducing very little damage, especially from medium guns.
I've already given you a basic fitting concept that works for small gangs with no logi, your response was "no I want to do it my way".
Lore Varan wrote:This is why you fail to understand the issues. There are only superficial simalarities between Incursion fleet setups and PvP small fleets.
*PvP fleets are not always based around logistics chains. *PvP fleets also bring tackle, the smaller the fleet the more you need tackle on every ship *PvP ships require better mobility on grid than incursion ships *PvP ships need to be able to protect themselves from small tackle more than incursion ships do.
Yes, and all of these things necessitate fitting trade-offs. If you don't like the trade-offs the Nighthawk forces you to make then no one's forcing you to bring it on a fleet.
You will likely benefit more from the Skirmish Link bonus on the Claymore anyway.
Lore Varan wrote:So now you see the need for tackle ? If not try some PvP instead of incursions.
You need the tackle more on a non-missile ship though and if the thing tackling you is lightly tanked (like frigate tackle tends to be) then you have a decent chance of popping him or making him bug out with just missiles. Even more so if we get those damage mods.
As a rule though you can make up for a lack of tackle on one ship by having good fleet coordination. If everyone is pretty close together and you're focusing primaries then that frigate should be webbed down from three other ships and dead in seconds.
Lore Varan wrote:1k/s is a ballpark figure for speed of MWD bs what you on about ? The slowest ships in a standard PvP fleet are approx 100% faster than your NH Build. Just because Sleeps puttle around at a few 100 m/s and are happy to be shot from range does not mean players are.
You keep saying sleepers, those are wormhole rats not incursion rats.
Also I would go for the AB for better speed tank and the fact that it can't be stopped by a Scram but that's just my personal preference. I already pointed out that you can run a MWD if you so choose without an injector and that the Claymore will have CPU issues trying to fit everything you're talking about along with links.
[/quote]Yeah shame you need to run your hards and links isnt it. also cap stable is not the same thing as Cap secure. Cap is life it runs your hards links and propulsion A player gets a heavy neut on you , your dead in the water unless a corpy with a transfer rescues your sorry ass. Thats far to vulnerable a position to be in in PvP. Also Curse pilots will luv you.
I'm not saying the NH is worthless , I'm saying it's worthless for PvP.
Totally eclipsed by the Vulture or Clay depending on gang size. And the shame is it only needed a mid for a low to be largelly fixed.
Face it. Unless your doing a PSR fit for ratting that 5th low has to little value atm. might as well be a 5:4 slot layout. [/quote]
And if you're running a MWD an Arazu pilot will shut you off at 30km, what's your point? Everything has a counter, everything has potential issues. An Arazu could stagger neuts and still shut off most of your fit even with a booster.
Instead of saying it's useless how about saying it's not up to your apparently exhaustive standards? |
Lucine Delacourt
The Covenant of Blood
20
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 19:47:00 -
[1990] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Lucine Delacourt wrote:Why are people trying to use their NH as tackle? There are ships built for that. Bring your NH for a little DPS, links and fairly decent tank. I know it's shocking that the ship is better at its intended task instead of something else but that doesn't make the ship broken. Except that the Claymore's slot layout makes it better than the NH at basically everything, regardless of the hull bonus. The fact that a shield boost bonused ship can fit a comparable buffer to a shield buffer bonused ship is broken.
This is a completely different complaint than the one I was referring to. Saying the Claymore is better than a NH is a legit argument. The argument that it needs more mids to fit tackle is stupid.
Edit: I forgot to mention that while I feel the NH can do it's intended job just fine the way it is, I will agree that the Claymore seems prohibitively better in almost every way and that should probably be fixed. |
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
96
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 21:39:00 -
[1991] - Quote
Lucine Delacourt wrote:This is a completely different complaint than the one I was referring to. Saying the Claymore is better than a NH is a legit argument. The argument that it needs more mids to fit tackle is stupid.
Edit: I forgot to mention that while I feel the NH can do it's intended job just fine the way it is, I will agree that the Claymore seems prohibitively better in almost every way and that should probably be fixed.
Not really, Nighthawk has slightly better CPU, tank, and damage. |
S1dy
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
32
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 22:04:00 -
[1992] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Florian Kuehne wrote:nice communication with the community ccp, oh wait... They talked to the null sec cartel - dominated CSM about these changes. Clearly, that group is a perfect cross-section of all the player demographic in the game. Or rather, all the players that matter. Why would you expect anything else?
You clearly have no idea. The Nullsec Players were the loudest demanding that the changes aren't what they should be and were never heard. Maybe you should reread the thread.
|
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
103
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 22:22:00 -
[1993] - Quote
Lucine Delacourt wrote:The argument that it needs more mids to fit tackle is stupid.
That's a...bold...statement. One I entirely disagree with. Sure, you can fit both a prop mod and tackle now, but you can't do that without totally gimping its tank down to the same level as a drake. Also, I am not talking about fitting both a web and a scram in addition to the prop mod; instead, I'm referring to fitting the prop mod, then either a scrambler or a disruptor.
I can't recall if you're one of the "it doesn't need to tackle because it's intended for fleets!" crowd or not since I can't be bothered to go back and search through all of the posts, but, if so, then I say the following:
1.) Large fleets are not the whole of EVE.
2.) Small gangs can and do benefit from command ship bonuses as well.
3.) Small gangs require tackle to be fitted to all of their ships to be viable. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
98
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 23:19:00 -
[1994] - Quote
S1dy wrote:You clearly have no idea. The Nullsec Players were the loudest demanding that the changes aren't what they should be and were never heard. Maybe you should reread the thread.
A lot of them also wanted every command ship to have resist bonuses and 10% per level HP bonuses.
Loudest does not mean correct, often it means "loud in loo of a good argument to support my point"
Wrayeth wrote:That's a...bold...statement. One I entirely disagree with. Sure, you can fit both a prop mod and tackle now, but you can't do that without totally gimping its tank down to the same level as a drake. Also, I am not talking about fitting both a web and a scram in addition to the prop mod; instead, I'm referring to fitting the prop mod, then either a scrambler or a disruptor.
I can't recall if you're one of the "it doesn't need to tackle because it's intended for fleets!" crowd or not since I can't be bothered to go back and search through all of the posts, but, if so, then I say the following:
1.) Large fleets are not the whole of EVE.
2.) Small gangs can and do benefit from command ship bonuses as well.
3.) Small gangs require tackle to be fitted to all of their ships to be viable.
You're forgetting "Eve is a game of tradeoffs" |
Lucine Delacourt
The Covenant of Blood
22
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 23:44:00 -
[1995] - Quote
Wrayeth wrote:Lucine Delacourt wrote:The argument that it needs more mids to fit tackle is stupid. That's a...bold...statement. One I entirely disagree with. Sure, you can fit both a prop mod and tackle now, but you can't do that without totally gimping its tank down to the same level as a drake. Also, I am not talking about fitting both a web and a scram in addition to the prop mod; instead, I'm referring to fitting the prop mod, then either a scrambler or a disruptor. I can't recall if you're one of the "it doesn't need to tackle because it's intended for fleets!" crowd or not since I can't be bothered to go back and search through all of the posts, but, if so, then I say the following: 1.) Large fleets are not the whole of EVE. 2.) Small gangs can and do benefit from command ship bonuses as well. 3.) Small gangs require tackle to be fitted to all of their ships to be viable.
Like I have said before, complaining about the NH in relation to the Claymore is fine. As for the "It needs tackle" argument, you can trade one ship having tackle for the huge bonus that links offer. Small gangs don't need each and every ship to have tackle. The same way they don't need every ship to have huge DPS. I am not sure what you and your friends fly but if the NH doesn't fit into your comp then too bad. The Chimera doesn't fit in my standard group so should it too be changed?
Just for the record: I almost exclusively fly solo or in small gangs (3-6 people). |
Strom Crendraven
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
47
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 00:36:00 -
[1996] - Quote
Just here to verify that all your suggestions, recommendations, complaints, and common sense ideas (valid or not) have been ignored as usual. CS are now destined to stay in the screwed up condition that we have arrived at today. Cheers! |
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
555
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 00:47:00 -
[1997] - Quote
Strom Crendraven wrote: Just here to verify that all your suggestions, recommendations, complaints, and common sense ideas (valid or not) have been ignored as usual. CS are now destined to stay in the screwed up condition that we have arrived at today. Cheers!
I'm expecting they go another 7+ years before seeing "Attention" again
|
Strom Crendraven
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
47
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 00:52:00 -
[1998] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Strom Crendraven wrote: Just here to verify that all your suggestions, recommendations, complaints, and common sense ideas (valid or not) have been ignored as usual. CS are now destined to stay in the screwed up condition that we have arrived at today. Cheers! I'm expecting they go another 7+ years before seeing "Attention" again
Thanks for quoting my post so when random CCP asslackey deletes my post as "ranting" it wont be like i never existed. |
S1dy
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
32
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 09:46:00 -
[1999] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:S1dy wrote:You clearly have no idea. The Nullsec Players were the loudest demanding that the changes aren't what they should be and were never heard. Maybe you should reread the thread.
A lot of them also wanted every command ship to have resist bonuses and 10% per level HP bonuses. Loudest does not mean correct, often it means "loud in loo of a good argument to support my point"
Cade Windstalker wrote:You're forgetting "Eve is a game of tradeoffs"
And that was always the point with wanting 10% HP per level bonuses. I was one of the many stating this. The tradeoff was to change every weapon bonus into something usefull for fleets. There's no point in wanting a super pimped ship that gets bonuses which will be never be used. And there should always be a tradeoff.
You proofed you haven't read the thread carefully. But please go on.
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
483
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 11:10:00 -
[2000] - 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. |
|
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
104
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 11:17:00 -
[2001] - Quote
Lucine Delacourt wrote:Like I have said before, complaining about the NH in relation to the Claymore is fine. As for the "It needs tackle" argument, you can trade one ship having tackle for the huge bonus that links offer.
Or you could just trade your Nighthawk for a different command ship that can both tackle and provide links, which would be far more effective. As for which one, that would happen to be all of them. The Nighthawk is the only one that can't do this.
Quote:Small gangs don't need each and every ship to have tackle. The same way they don't need every ship to have huge DPS.
Tackle can be very important if you're just flying with two or three other people and not the current "small" gang of 10-20. Remove the tackle from one of the ships and you seriously gimp your composition. As such, instead of bringing a Nighthawk, you'll just end up bringing one of the other 7 command ships that can fit tackle. This, among other reasons, is why you'll rarely see a Nighthawk flown in PvP on TQ. |
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 11:23:00 -
[2002] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: Damage reduction from speed is extremely situational and not reliable. Plus if you're using an MWD unless you are orbiting fairly close you're reducing very little damage, especially from medium guns. I've already given you a basic fitting concept that works for small gangs with no logi, your response was "no I want to do it my way".
No what youv'e done is taken a PvE fit you have used in the past and assumed it would work for PvP. It is a very bad PvP fit , its far too slow and has no cap reserves
You went for MAX eft hp to try and make a point. Comparable fits on other commands can do comparable tanks without sacrificing needed mobility and cap security.
Cade Windstalker wrote: Yes, and all of these things necessitate fitting trade-offs. If you don't like the trade-offs the Nighthawk forces you to make then no one's forcing you to bring it on a fleet. You will likely benefit more from the Skirmish Link bonus on the Claymore anyway.
So you agree then that NH is PvP inadequate! Lets fix it rather than have a smaller viable choices.
Cade Windstalker wrote: You need the tackle more on a non-missile ship though and if the thing tackling you is lightly tanked (like frigate tackle tends to be) then you have a decent chance of popping him or making him bug out with just missiles. Even more so if we get those damage mods. As a rule though you can make up for a lack of tackle on one ship by having good fleet coordination. If everyone is pretty close together and you're focusing primaries then that frigate should be webbed down from three other ships and dead in seconds.
Sleeper tackle frigs might be easy to pop with missiles not so players. untackled neither guns nor missiles will be able to hit a mwd frig for enough damage
Any badly fitted ship can be helped by its fleet. Thats not an argument for saying a slot layout is ok.
Cade Windstalker "You keep saying sleepers, those are wormhole rats not incursion rats."
Sleepers/Incursion Sansha = same A.I. Sleepers were the original rats to carry the Sleeper/Incursion A.I. hence I refer to them as sleepers to differentiate there behaviour from belt/mission rats including Sansha.
Cade Windstalker wrote: Also I would go for the AB for better speed tank and the fact that it can't be stopped by a Scram but that's just my personal preference. I already pointed out that you can run a MWD if you so choose without an injector and that the Claymore will have CPU issues trying to fit everything you're talking about along with links.
My clay fit just fine with an injector iirc. and since i tested it its had a cpu increase. Maybe some meta 4 , but thats to be expected.
Cade Windstalker wrote: And if you're running a MWD an Arazu pilot will shut you off at 30km, what's your point? Everything has a counter, everything has potential issues. An Arazu could stagger neuts and still shut off most of your fit even with a booster. Instead of saying it's useless how about saying it's not up to your apparently exhaustive standards?
Arazu can shut of anyones mwd !?!?! As far as neuting a nh goes , an Inj fit is gonna have its hards and links running a hell of a lot longer than a PvE fit with no cap inj.
exhaustive standards lol.
I think with 6:4 the NH is still going to be behind the Clay for solo/sg due to speed/boost flavour and damage flavour. But at least its going to be in the same ballpark and thats fair enough.
And for Larger fleets that extra mid will come in handy for an extra inv making it in same ballpark as vulture.
5:5 makes it bad against the vulture for fleet and bad against all other commands for sg due to lack of tackle.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
303
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 11:36:00 -
[2003] - Quote
Lore Varan wrote: I think with 6:4 the NH is still going to be behind the Clay for solo/sg due to speed/boost flavour and damage flavour. But at least its going to be in the same ballpark and thats fair enough.
And for Larger fleets that extra mid will come in handy for an extra inv making it in same ballpark as vulture.
5:5 makes it bad against the vulture for fleet and bad against all other commands for sg due to lack of tackle.
It's difficult to disagree with this without looking like an intransigent fanboy.
Winter marauders - Mutant Ninja Space Turtles
|
Josilin du Guesclin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
99
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 11:52:00 -
[2004] - Quote
Lore Varan wrote: While a Vulture has an advantage the NH does not. The lack of a 6th mid cancels out it resists advantage.
So a Clay is better than a NH at fleet once its damage reduction from speed is factored in. On the other hand The NH is wholly inadequate at smaller fleet roles.
True, but at that point the Claymore has fewer slots put into gank (because that mid came at the cost of a low). Despite being faster and smaller the Claymore takes the same damage as the NH from BC and smaller ships, so there's no advantage there - same tank, same speed/sig tank except vs battleships. What the Claymore does have is the fitting to mount auctocannons and two links, while the NH requires a CPU implant to mount HAMS and two links. OTOH the NH brings more DPS, even allowing for smaller drones.
Quote: I have no problem with a NH being worse than a Clay at small fleet as long as the difference is not so massive as it is atm.
I don't think it is. It's different, not worse.
Quote: *PvP fleets are not always based around logistics chains. *PvP fleets also bring tackle, the smaller the fleet the more you need tackle on every ship *PvP ships require better mobility on grid than incursion ships *PvP ships need to be able to protect themselves from small tackle more than incursion ships do.
1) But those that aren't usually lose to those that are. 2) Which is why small PvP fleets tend to armour (aside from those 'small' 50-strong bands of Caracals), making arguments over which shield+missile command ship is better suspect. 3) But are limited by the least mobile ships anyway, and besides, the NH's longer cap duration is as useful as the Claymore's higher speed, unless they're being sent cap by logi (in which case you're limited by the speed of the logi, and IME they'll be doing ~600 m/s using a burner). 3) That's what light drones are for and webs are for.
Quote: The slowest ships in a standard PvP fleet are approx 100% faster than your NH Build. Just because Sleeps puttle around at a few 100 m/s and are happy to be shot from range does not mean players are.
What sort of PvP fleet are you talking about?
Quote: Yeah shame you need to run your hards and links isnt it. also cap stable is not the same thing as Cap secure. Cap is life it runs your hards links and propulsion A player gets a heavy neut on you , your dead in the water unless a corpy with a transfer rescues your sorry ass. Thats far to vulnerable a position to be in in PvP. Also Curse pilots will luv you.
I'm not saying the NH is worthless , I'm saying it's worthless for PvP.
Totally eclipsed by the Vulture or Clay depending on gang size. And the shame is it only needed a mid for a low to be largelly fixed.
You realise that a Claymore is just as or more vulnerable to cap warfare, right?
|
LadyShu
Full Contact Blinky Red Brotherhood
12
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 19:30:00 -
[2005] - Quote
just would like to thank you!
finally the nighthawk is usable again! thank you so much! |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
116
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 20:40:00 -
[2006] - Quote
S1dy wrote:And that was always the point with wanting 10% HP per level bonuses. I was one of the many stating this. The tradeoff was to change every weapon bonus into something usefull for fleets. There's no point in wanting a super pimped ship that gets bonuses which will be never be used. And there should always be a tradeoff.
You proofed you haven't read the thread carefully. But please go on.
No, I've read most of the thread and everything I read I read carefully. You say "never used" I say "not useful in huge fleet fights is not 'never used'".
Also if you read Fozzie's post on the future of Command Ships the 10% HP per level will likely stop being as relevant when the proposed changes go through.
Far better to have more Command Ships with distributed boosts actually contributing more DPS than one brick command ship that's still subject to alpha-strikes.
Lore Varan wrote: No what youv'e done is taken a PvE fit you have used in the past and assumed it would work for PvP. It is a very bad PvP fit , its far too slow and has no cap reserves
You went for MAX eft hp to try and make a point. Comparable fits on other commands can do comparable tanks without sacrificing needed mobility and cap security.
And here I keep hearing and seeing all these OP ASB fits that are immune to cap warfare, silly me for thinking that's viable
Lore Varan wrote:Sleeper tackle frigs might be easy to pop with missiles not so players. untackled neither guns nor missiles will be able to hit a mwd frig for enough damage
Any badly fitted ship can be helped by its fleet. Thats not an argument for saying a slot layout is ok.
Cade Windstalker "You keep saying sleepers, those are wormhole rats not incursion rats."
Sleepers/Incursion Sansha = same A.I. Sleepers were the original rats to carry the Sleeper/Incursion A.I. hence I refer to them as sleepers to differentiate there behaviour from belt/mission rats including Sansha.
Similar AI, they're not quite the same and the tactics and ship compositions are completely different. Overall Sleepers are far worse to fight than Sanshas.
My point was not "easy to pop" so much as "more applied damage than turrets". I'm sure we can trade specific situations where one or the other of us is correct all day, but that doesn't come close to covering the miriad of variables that encompass PvP. You prefer cap boosters and tackle, I prefer logistics setups and not relying on consumables that can get me killed if the fight runs longer than my cap-booster charges do.
Lore Varan wrote: 5:5 makes it bad against the vulture for fleet and bad against all other commands for sg due to lack of tackle.
Well, we'll see. I think they were trying to have a little variation in slot layout rather than have every single shield command be 7/6/4. It'll likely see a balance pass if it doesn't get good usage numbers. Personally I think you're over-reacting. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
105
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 10:14:00 -
[2007] - Quote
Hey Fozzie thank you for the good changes i love my New Astarte, hopefully you rethink the "Dronebay Issue" on the Eos but overall its a blast to fly full combatable Ships even in closerange plus 2 Warefare links.
Best Ship class ever! |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
222
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 10:46:00 -
[2008] - Quote
As a complaint:
The *Command Ship model change* is still not linked. :<
On a sidenote, accidentaly wapred my hulltanked boosteos into an escalated anom by accident. I blame new boosting mechanics with their orbit forcefield at 500m requirements. It survived in half structure thanks to a good archonpilot. Now actively requesting any faction / new faction willing to produce these:-áhttp://eohgames.com/labs/Ships/Vanir%20Federation%20Talos-á |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
327
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 11:08:00 -
[2009] - Quote
First attempt at a 2-man gank fleet last night on TQ. damnation + hyperion since that's what we had to hand.
Bagged two ratting tengus. Damnation performed well. 2 armour links + dps. Helped the hyperion to tank the tengus in a c2 magnetar (ok, they were pve failfit, but c2 magnetar gives 44% dps bonus)
:-)
killboard link
Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
7
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 11:22:00 -
[2010] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:And here I keep hearing and seeing all these OP ASB fits that are immune to cap warfare, silly me for thinking that's viable
ASB wont run your links ASB wont run your hardeners ASB wont supply cap to your burner or mwd
Anyway as far as I remember ASB can be fitted to any ship there not a NH only saving grace.
Cade Windstalker wrote: My point was not "easy to pop" so much as "more applied damage than turrets". I'm sure we can trade specific situations where one or the other of us is correct all day, but that doesn't come close to covering the miriad of variables that encompass PvP. You prefer cap boosters and tackle, I prefer logistics setups and not relying on consumables that can get me killed if the fight runs longer than my cap-booster charges do.
The things you say make it sound like you havn't done much PvP at all. Frigs are not easy to pop when there not tackled, you can't turn them to dust with a volley of precision. Just cause you have consumables does not stop you getting logistics. It does however stop you from being an unneccessay burden on your fleets logistics They have to break there cap chains to supply you with cap ? or are they going to drop shield transfers for extra cap transfers weakening the tank of your entire operation ? What happens if there jammed ? What happens if there damped ? What happens if there down ? What happens if your big slow fat ass is last to align and you get snagged on a gate and seperated from your fleet for 2-3 mins. Shame to die to a couple of cruisers cause they switch off your hardners
Anyway that all irrelevant , I'm happy with em/inv/inj/booster/prop in the mids Just that that tank is adequate for a PvP ship and not some brick as claimed by eft experts.
Problem with 5:5 is lack of fitting options. No chance of any type of tackle* without lol tank also no chance of CP without lol tank.
* before we go round in circles again. Tackle is a choice for defending your self not neccessarily to act as fleet tackle and also more of an obligation for everyone the smaller the fleet size goes Most FC's I know want as many points in there fleet as possible , so when they call Spread points you catch more than just one fish.
Cade Windstalker wrote:Lore Varan wrote: 5:5 makes it bad against the vulture for fleet and bad against all other commands for sg due to lack of tackle.
Well, we'll see. I think they were trying to have a little variation in slot layout rather than have every single shield command be 7/6/4. It'll likely see a balance pass if it doesn't get good usage numbers. Personally I think you're over-reacting.
Variation is nice but a 7:3 vulture and a 6:4 NH would have been the way to go if variation was a design choice. We don't have to wait and see the NH slot layout has not changed It's gonna suck at PvP for all the same reasons its allways sucked at PvP , not enough mids.
Cade Windstalker wrote: Actually I don't even particularly like missiles, but for more or less arbitrary reasons of flavor (I'm an encourageable fan-boy of anything involving railguns). I just hate when someone is completely unwilling to try and see the good in something and reflexively hates it when it doesn't fit their preferred playstyle.
You couldn't be farther from the truth. No one here is reflexively hating anything The NH is largelly unchanged apart from some nice grid boost. The slot layout has been the bane of the NH for ever and a day and is what has religated it to PvE only duties and this was the one chance to get something done about it. I did lol at your balance pass comment earlier. This is ccp you know. I'll donate 1B isk to Eve uni if NH gets a slot layout change in the the next 5 years.
In 4,500 kills and excluding Ratters I can only remember fighting NH's ( 2 of them ) on 1 occasion. I pretty sure the NH is a very unpopular ship for PvP and there's not enough in this revamp to change that. |
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
108
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 11:55:00 -
[2011] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote: On a sidenote, accidentaly wapred my hulltanked boosteos into an escalated anom by accident. I blame new boosting mechanics with their orbit forcefield at 500m requirements. It survived in half structure thanks to a good archonpilot.
Could you please explain why the forcefield change nearly killed your Ship?
|
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
58
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 13:17:00 -
[2012] - Quote
So I take it the command ship model changes have been scrapped?
I'm sad that the nighthawk won't turn into a sleek black drake or that the sleipnir won't turn into a hurricane, but I'm also kind of glad the absolution and the eos models won't change since I like them the way they are currently. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
109
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 13:37:00 -
[2013] - Quote
Are you Insane?! Why do you want to punish gallente Pilots with 4 Brutix! I want my T2-Myrm!! ;-) |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
58
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 14:13:00 -
[2014] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:Are you Insane?! Why do you want to punish gallente Pilots with 4 Brutix! I want my T2-Myrm!! ;-) I just like the Brutix in Eos colours okay leave me alone. If it's any consolation I actually think the navy brutix should have been a navy myrm and that the regular brutix should have gotten a tracking bonus instead of keeping the armor rep bonus.
|
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
105
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 14:51:00 -
[2015] - Quote
BTW, I have a post up in Assembly Hall requesting a 6th mid for the Nighthawk if anyone wants to head over there and support it. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
109
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 15:10:00 -
[2016] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:Are you Insane?! Why do you want to punish gallente Pilots with 4 Brutix! I want my T2-Myrm!! ;-) I just like the Brutix in Eos colours okay leave me alone. If it's any consolation I actually think the navy brutix should have been a navy myrm and that the regular brutix should have gotten a tracking bonus instead of keeping the armor rep bonus.
Navy Brutix only have 50m3 Dronebay switching Hull with Myrm wouldnt make any sense.
And another rebalancing only for your some hull changes?
Meh... |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
222
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 15:26:00 -
[2017] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote: On a sidenote, accidentaly wapred my hulltanked boosteos into an escalated anom by accident. I blame new boosting mechanics with their orbit forcefield at 500m requirements. It survived in half structure thanks to a good archonpilot.
Could you please explain why the forcefield change nearly killed your Ship?
I earlier just minimized the window. For if suddenly 10 nados warp to the POS, i atleast wanted to have a chance to reenter the FF. So I messed up with other clients. Guess will happen to a couple POS-Boosters not minimizing the window anymore... :> Now actively requesting any faction / new faction willing to produce these:-áhttp://eohgames.com/labs/Ships/Vanir%20Federation%20Talos-á |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
222
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 15:29:00 -
[2018] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:Are you Insane?! Why do you want to punish gallente Pilots with 4 Brutix! I want my T2-Myrm!! ;-) I just like the Brutix in Eos colours okay leave me alone. If it's any consolation I actually think the navy brutix should have been a navy myrm and that the regular brutix should have gotten a tracking bonus instead of keeping the armor rep bonus.
http://eohgames.com/labs/Ships/Creodron%20Myrmidon that's why. Now actively requesting any faction / new faction willing to produce these:-áhttp://eohgames.com/labs/Ships/Vanir%20Federation%20Talos-á |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
329
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 16:21:00 -
[2019] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote: On a sidenote, accidentaly wapred my hulltanked boosteos into an escalated anom by accident. I blame new boosting mechanics with their orbit forcefield at 500m requirements. It survived in half structure thanks to a good archonpilot.
Could you please explain why the forcefield change nearly killed your Ship? I earlier just minimized the window. For if suddenly 10 nados warp to the POS, i atleast wanted to have a chance to reenter the FF. So I messed up with other clients. Guess will happen to a couple POS-Boosters not minimizing the window anymore... :>
Lloyd, stop being a baby. Take it into the sleeper site.
Stick a few resists on it and a plate. The archon will be able to keep it alive perfectly well.
Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
224
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 17:13:00 -
[2020] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote: On a sidenote, accidentaly wapred my hulltanked boosteos into an escalated anom by accident. I blame new boosting mechanics with their orbit forcefield at 500m requirements. It survived in half structure thanks to a good archonpilot.
Could you please explain why the forcefield change nearly killed your Ship? I earlier just minimized the window. For if suddenly 10 nados warp to the POS, i atleast wanted to have a chance to reenter the FF. So I messed up with other clients. Guess will happen to a couple POS-Boosters not minimizing the window anymore... :> Lloyd, stop being a baby. Take it into the sleeper site. Stick a few resists on it and a plate. The archon will be able to keep it alive perfectly well.
It was my ongrid Eos... we just happened to find our armorlinks AFK, and you know, refitted to this: http://i.imgur.com/d50pTgK.png
More than 40% structure left, just a fleshwound. Now actively requesting any faction / new faction willing to produce these:-áhttp://eohgames.com/labs/Ships/Vanir%20Federation%20Talos-á |
|
Aplier Shivra
30
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 18:42:00 -
[2021] - Quote
I notice most of the command ships have two hardpoints for their off-weapon to put in those utility highs if they want. I can understand the Eos being left out of this (it already has drones as primary and turrets as secondary, and drones actually have a utility high slot mod), but why is the Absolution the only one left out of this benefit, with it's one launcher getting removed with the patch instead of another launcher added? |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
329
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 18:50:00 -
[2022] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote: On a sidenote, accidentaly wapred my hulltanked boosteos into an escalated anom by accident. I blame new boosting mechanics with their orbit forcefield at 500m requirements. It survived in half structure thanks to a good archonpilot.
Could you please explain why the forcefield change nearly killed your Ship? I earlier just minimized the window. For if suddenly 10 nados warp to the POS, i atleast wanted to have a chance to reenter the FF. So I messed up with other clients. Guess will happen to a couple POS-Boosters not minimizing the window anymore... :> Lloyd, stop being a baby. Take it into the sleeper site. Stick a few resists on it and a plate. The archon will be able to keep it alive perfectly well. It was my ongrid Eos... we just happened to find our armorlinks AFK, and you know, refitted to this: http://i.imgur.com/d50pTgK.pngMore than 40% structure left, just a fleshwound.
You should rename it, "The Black Night"
Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
Drake Doe
SVER True Blood Public Disorder.
264
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 19:00:00 -
[2023] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:Are you Insane?! Why do you want to punish gallente Pilots with 4 Brutix! I want my T2-Myrm!! ;-) I just like the Brutix in Eos colours okay leave me alone. If it's any consolation I actually think the navy brutix should have been a navy myrm and that the regular brutix should have gotten a tracking bonus instead of keeping the armor rep bonus. Navy Brutix only have 50m3 Dronebay switching Hull with Myrm wouldnt make any sense. And another rebalancing only for your some hull changes? Meh... And what about those logi cruisers with combat navy variants? "The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! *pops more corn*" ---Evernub-- |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
110
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 22:15:00 -
[2024] - Quote
Drake Doe wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:Are you Insane?! Why do you want to punish gallente Pilots with 4 Brutix! I want my T2-Myrm!! ;-) I just like the Brutix in Eos colours okay leave me alone. If it's any consolation I actually think the navy brutix should have been a navy myrm and that the regular brutix should have gotten a tracking bonus instead of keeping the armor rep bonus. Navy Brutix only have 50m3 Dronebay switching Hull with Myrm wouldnt make any sense. And another rebalancing only for your some hull changes? Meh... And what about those logi cruisers with combat navy variants?
Your right, but... ehm.. eh... ah JUST GIVE ME THE COMMAND MYRM! |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
59
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 03:00:00 -
[2025] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:[Your right, but... ehm.. eh... ah JUST GIVE ME THE COMMAND MYRM! NEVARR! BRUTIX 4EVA. |
Skerra
Manson Family
2
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 03:08:00 -
[2026] - Quote
5 turrets(slepnir) with a 50% damage bonus and that equals 11.25 turrets? by my math that only equals 7.5 unless I'm doing it wrong. All I know is my dps on sisi has gone down greater than a 11.666 to 11.25 change should indicate.
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
135
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 04:18:00 -
[2027] - Quote
Skerra wrote:5 turrets(slepnir) with a 50% damage bonus and that equals 11.25 turrets? by my math that only equals 7.5 unless I'm doing it wrong. All I know is my dps on sisi has gone down greater than a 11.666 to 11.25 change should indicate.
there are 2 10% per level bonuses on sleip. one for BC skill and one for CS skill |
Meyr
Shiva The Retirement Club
34
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 05:46:00 -
[2028] - Quote
5 x 1.5 = 7.5 x 1.5 = 11.25
The bonuses do not add, the BC bonus is multiplied, then the Command Ship bonus. |
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
14
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 06:32:00 -
[2029] - Quote
Aplier Shivra wrote:I notice most of the command ships have two hardpoints for their off-weapon to put in those utility highs if they want. I can understand the Eos being left out of this (it already has drones as primary and turrets as secondary, and drones actually have a utility high slot mod), but why is the Absolution the only one left out of this benefit, with it's one launcher getting removed with the patch instead of another launcher added?
If Abso got 2 launchers that would make a lot of sense... since it can actually fit them. Also they compliment dps without using any cap. My current abso fit includes a medium smartbomb and a tractor beam (u can also use cloak, core launcher etc.) but I donGÇÖt think it's optimal. Why CCP removed a single launcher in the first place is beyond me... |
Josilin du Guesclin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 09:08:00 -
[2030] - Quote
Skerra wrote:5 turrets(slepnir) with a 50% damage bonus and that equals 11.25 turrets? by my math that only equals 7.5 unless I'm doing it wrong. All I know is my dps on sisi has gone down greater than a 11.666 to 11.25 change should indicate.
Do you have Command Ships V? If you don't you'll see more of a DPS loss.
If fact, while the changes weren't given as intended to help newbies, they otherwise follow Malcanis' Law - many Command Ships were buffed, but because they all lost turrets/launchers had had the difference made up with larger hull bonuses the changes hurt lower skilled pilots and benefit those with perfect skills.
|
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
330
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 10:52:00 -
[2031] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:Aplier Shivra wrote:I notice most of the command ships have two hardpoints for their off-weapon to put in those utility highs if they want. I can understand the Eos being left out of this (it already has drones as primary and turrets as secondary, and drones actually have a utility high slot mod), but why is the Absolution the only one left out of this benefit, with it's one launcher getting removed with the patch instead of another launcher added? If Abso got 2 launchers that would make a lot of sense... since it can actually fit them. Also they compliment dps without using any cap. My current abso fit includes a medium smartbomb and a tractor beam (u can also use cloak, core launcher etc.) but I donGÇÖt think it's optimal. Why CCP removed a single launcher in the first place is beyond me...
You fitted a tractor beam and you wonder if that's optimal for pvp?
seriously though, with 3 heat sinks and conflag the abso is pushing out close to 1000dps of em/therm. thats pretty powerful, considering that it can also fight at range with scorch.
It's a seriously good ship as it stands.
Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
14
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 11:03:00 -
[2032] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Cassius Invictus wrote:Aplier Shivra wrote:I notice most of the command ships have two hardpoints for their off-weapon to put in those utility highs if they want. I can understand the Eos being left out of this (it already has drones as primary and turrets as secondary, and drones actually have a utility high slot mod), but why is the Absolution the only one left out of this benefit, with it's one launcher getting removed with the patch instead of another launcher added? If Abso got 2 launchers that would make a lot of sense... since it can actually fit them. Also they compliment dps without using any cap. My current abso fit includes a medium smartbomb and a tractor beam (u can also use cloak, core launcher etc.) but I donGÇÖt think it's optimal. Why CCP removed a single launcher in the first place is beyond me... You fitted a tractor beam and you wonder if that's optimal for pvp? seriously though, with 3 heat sinks and conflag the abso is pushing out close to 1000dps of em/therm. thats pretty powerful, considering that it can also fight at range with scorch. It's a seriously good ship as it stands.
Now think why do I have a tractor beam on a PvP ship - the aswer is not that hard :) (tip: I fly in wh). Anyway I agree that Abso already has a good dps. It's just that 2 lunchers provide a "cool" factor that can't be uderestimated :). Besides they can shoot in the resist hole so their projected dps in not that unsignificant. There is really not much you can fit into those two slots. |
Josilin du Guesclin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 12:37:00 -
[2033] - Quote
Well, flying in w-space as you do, a probe launcher isn't completely useless, in case of something untoward happening. For the last slot, a neut can make a close-in frigate's day quite unpleasant. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
330
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 12:46:00 -
[2034] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Cassius Invictus wrote:Aplier Shivra wrote:I notice most of the command ships have two hardpoints for their off-weapon to put in those utility highs if they want. I can understand the Eos being left out of this (it already has drones as primary and turrets as secondary, and drones actually have a utility high slot mod), but why is the Absolution the only one left out of this benefit, with it's one launcher getting removed with the patch instead of another launcher added? If Abso got 2 launchers that would make a lot of sense... since it can actually fit them. Also they compliment dps without using any cap. My current abso fit includes a medium smartbomb and a tractor beam (u can also use cloak, core launcher etc.) but I donGÇÖt think it's optimal. Why CCP removed a single launcher in the first place is beyond me... You fitted a tractor beam and you wonder if that's optimal for pvp? seriously though, with 3 heat sinks and conflag the abso is pushing out close to 1000dps of em/therm. thats pretty powerful, considering that it can also fight at range with scorch. It's a seriously good ship as it stands. Now think why do I have a tractor beam on a PvP ship - the aswer is not that hard :) (tip: I fly in wh). Anyway I agree that Abso already has a good dps. It's just that 2 lunchers provide a "cool" factor that can't be uderestimated :). Besides they can shoot in the resist hole so their projected dps in not that unsignificant. There is really not much you can fit into those two slots.
I fly w-space pvp too.
How about this?
[Absolution, gank]
Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II Medium Energy Neutralizer II 5x Heavy Pulse Laser II (Conflagration M)
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Medium Capacitor Booster II (Navy Cap Booster 400) Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
2x Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Damage Control II 3x Heat Sink II
Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I Medium Ancillary Current Router II
5x Hobgoblin II
I'm assuming that since you're taking an absolution, you're in a gang?
Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
330
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 13:35:00 -
[2035] - Quote
I also did some eft warrioring on the nighthawk. Actually, as a gank ship it makes quite a good super-drake:
[Nighthawk, gank]
5x Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II (Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile) 2x Heavy Neutron Blaster II (Void M)
Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 10MN Microwarpdrive II Warp Scrambler II EM Ward Field II
Damage Control II 3x Ballistic Control System II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
2x Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
5x Hobgoblin II
102k ehp, 1004dps - unheated.
I take back everything I said about it being unsuitable for small-gang pvp.
Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
Josilin du Guesclin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 13:58:00 -
[2036] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: I'm assuming that since you're taking an absolution, you're in a gang?
I never put the probes on a combat ship - too many eggs in one basket.
It's not that one puts probes on intending to use them, it's that if you find yourself with a high slot open and fitting that's just enough for a probe launcher, you may as well mount one and stuff 8 probe in, just in case. Heck, if you have the slot and not the fitting, put one on and off-line it. Disasters happen, and that launcher might save you an expensive ship and clone, and a long flight back in (and your mates the inconvenience of finding you a way back in).
Now, if one can fit something more useful to a ship's role in your fleet (gang links, neuts, etc.), obviously you should. But if the slot is free, I'm a fan of a probe launcher.
|
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
14
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 14:56:00 -
[2037] - Quote
Josilin du Guesclin wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: I'm assuming that since you're taking an absolution, you're in a gang?
I never put the probes on a combat ship - too many eggs in one basket.
It's not that one puts probes on intending to use them, it's that if you find yourself with a high slot open and fitting that's just enough for a probe launcher, you may as well mount one and stuff 8 probe in, just in case. Heck, if you have the slot and not the fitting, put one on and off-line it. Disasters happen, and that launcher might save you an expensive ship and clone, and a long flight back in (and your mates the inconvenience of finding you a way back in). Now, if one can fit something more useful to a ship's role in your fleet (gang links, neuts, etc.), obviously you should. But if the slot is free, I'm a fan of a probe launcher.
Guys really its just a personal preference. I use tractor to loot shot down enemies (and friends) when we are losing and it's time to GTFO. Used to fit probe launchers but we always have a designated scout, so they were never used. U can also use standard cloak, but it will be highly situational. Small neut? My loki wing will web any frig to 10 m/s and then it's a turkey shooting from there. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
331
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 15:20:00 -
[2038] - Quote
the example fit I posted has a medium neut. you can also get dual neut on it... Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
Aplier Shivra
32
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 18:28:00 -
[2039] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Cassius Invictus wrote:Aplier Shivra wrote:I notice most of the command ships have two hardpoints for their off-weapon to put in those utility highs if they want. I can understand the Eos being left out of this (it already has drones as primary and turrets as secondary, and drones actually have a utility high slot mod), but why is the Absolution the only one left out of this benefit, with it's one launcher getting removed with the patch instead of another launcher added? If Abso got 2 launchers that would make a lot of sense... since it can actually fit them. Also they compliment dps without using any cap. My current abso fit includes a medium smartbomb and a tractor beam (u can also use cloak, core launcher etc.) but I donGÇÖt think it's optimal. Why CCP removed a single launcher in the first place is beyond me... You fitted a tractor beam and you wonder if that's optimal for pvp? seriously though, with 3 heat sinks and conflag the abso is pushing out close to 1000dps of em/therm. thats pretty powerful, considering that it can also fight at range with scorch. It's a seriously good ship as it stands.
shall I point out Astarte's 1300 turret dps, with the ability to also use medium drones and two launchers, and with enough mids to actually dictate range? |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
334
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 18:37:00 -
[2040] - Quote
Aplier Shivra wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Cassius Invictus wrote:Aplier Shivra wrote:I notice most of the command ships have two hardpoints for their off-weapon to put in those utility highs if they want. I can understand the Eos being left out of this (it already has drones as primary and turrets as secondary, and drones actually have a utility high slot mod), but why is the Absolution the only one left out of this benefit, with it's one launcher getting removed with the patch instead of another launcher added? If Abso got 2 launchers that would make a lot of sense... since it can actually fit them. Also they compliment dps without using any cap. My current abso fit includes a medium smartbomb and a tractor beam (u can also use cloak, core launcher etc.) but I donGÇÖt think it's optimal. Why CCP removed a single launcher in the first place is beyond me... You fitted a tractor beam and you wonder if that's optimal for pvp? seriously though, with 3 heat sinks and conflag the abso is pushing out close to 1000dps of em/therm. thats pretty powerful, considering that it can also fight at range with scorch. It's a seriously good ship as it stands. shall I point out Astarte's 1300 turret dps, with the ability to also use medium drones and two launchers, and with enough mids to actually dictate range?
By all means. All ships have their pros and cons. The astarte does indeed have 1300 (just about) dps at range 3km only. That fit also has 30k less buffer than the asbo and no neuts.
I don't think we're having a 1v1 pissing contest here, just looking to optimise the asbo for small gang use.
In comparison with the astarte, the asbo gains in utility and damage projection what it loses in pure dps under perfect conditions.
I favour blaster ships, it's what I've always used to. But blasters are by no means the last word in pvp.
In a gang fight, I'd prefer to have laser ships around me - because they will get more damage on more targets sooner. In an entire confrontation I'll probably get 1 perfect volley from my blaster ship. The rest will be in falloff or with a little too much transversal. Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
|
Aplier Shivra
32
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 19:07:00 -
[2041] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Aplier Shivra wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Cassius Invictus wrote:Aplier Shivra wrote:I notice most of the command ships have two hardpoints for their off-weapon to put in those utility highs if they want. I can understand the Eos being left out of this (it already has drones as primary and turrets as secondary, and drones actually have a utility high slot mod), but why is the Absolution the only one left out of this benefit, with it's one launcher getting removed with the patch instead of another launcher added? If Abso got 2 launchers that would make a lot of sense... since it can actually fit them. Also they compliment dps without using any cap. My current abso fit includes a medium smartbomb and a tractor beam (u can also use cloak, core launcher etc.) but I donGÇÖt think it's optimal. Why CCP removed a single launcher in the first place is beyond me... You fitted a tractor beam and you wonder if that's optimal for pvp? seriously though, with 3 heat sinks and conflag the abso is pushing out close to 1000dps of em/therm. thats pretty powerful, considering that it can also fight at range with scorch. It's a seriously good ship as it stands. shall I point out Astarte's 1300 turret dps, with the ability to also use medium drones and two launchers, and with enough mids to actually dictate range? By all means. All ships have their pros and cons. The astarte does indeed have 1300 (just about) dps at range 3km only. That fit also has 30k less buffer than the asbo and no neuts. I don't think we're having a 1v1 pissing contest here, just looking to optimise the asbo for small gang use. In comparison with the astarte, the asbo gains in utility and damage projection what it loses in pure dps under perfect conditions. I favour blaster ships, it's what I've always used to. But blasters are by no means the last word in pvp. In a gang fight, I'd prefer to have laser ships around me - because they will get more damage on more targets sooner. In an entire confrontation I'll probably get 1 perfect volley from my blaster ship. The rest will be in falloff or with a little too much transversal.
I know there's a lot more to it than just the biggest numbers on paper. At only 3 mids, and the most cap-heavy weapons even after a hull bonus to reduce that, with only the same base recharge as the other command ships, and less effective turrets, Absolution already feels rather gimped on the utility spectrum. I won't deny that the abso is still quite nice now for small gang pvp, but outside of that it, in comparison to other command ships, it feels rather left behind. |
ConranAntoni
Empyrean Warriors Insidious Empire
78
|
Posted - 2013.09.07 01:42:00 -
[2042] - Quote
So i'm just going to leave this here for CCP to look at, as y'now, Nighthawk is still abysmal.
Quote:It needs a lot of things. In theory, it'd be decent for bearing... but everyone uses Tengus for that now anyways.
The real problem is that the NH has an extremely strong competitor in the Claymore. It ends up being close to an apples-to-apples comparison:
Both are tech 2 BCs Both are shield tanked. They even have similar resists; the NH gets a resist bonus, while the Claymore has absurdly good base resists. (The NH has higher base shields though; it has more raw shield HP with an LSE than the Claymore gets with two LSEs.) Both have five missile hardpoints and a bonus to a missile soft stat. (NH has exp radius, while Clay has exp velocity; the former is technically better, but they're both pretty good.
The biggest differences end up being:
Claymore: 7/6/4 and 1400m/s, 5 med drones, decent missile bonuses. +200 grid advantage over the NH. Nighthawk: 7/5/5 and 1000m/s, 5 light drones, sicknastyop missile bonuses. +30 cpu advantage over the Claymore.
Nighthawk has GREAT missile DPS, but it's slow as **** -- even with a nano fitted, an active-tank Hyperion will outrun it, as will a single-plate two-trimark Megathron. And five mids forces you to make a terrible choice in terms of tank versus tackle.
Claymore is absurdly faster -- 500m/s faster with a reasonable fit, 800m/s faster if you use one of the Claymore option highs for a Rapid Deployment link. While its tank is slightly thinner, it gets to either fit an extra tank mod, or fit a web. Its lower missile DPS gets offset by the fact that it can carry a full set of Valks, plus a spare set of Warriors as well.
You can make the argument that the NH makes a better buffer-tanked largefleet ship due to its higher buffer; however, in that case, 4-5 HMLs is really not doing that much for you. You're better off assuming that you're going to be primary. It's a Vulture with no cyno, no smarties, and half the tank. Not really selling itself to me. It comes down to this, once both ships have their own links:
HAM Claymore: 95k EHP, 1800m/s, 460dps @ 20km with CN Scourge + 128dps from Valks = 600dps. Can pack either a web or an extra invuln (+10k EHP) HAM Nighthawk: 108k EHP, 1100m/s, 650dps @ 20km with CN Scourge + 80dps from Warriors = 730dps. Longpoint or TP only HML Nighthawk: 108k EHP, 1100m/s, 475dps @ 63km with CN Scourge + 80dps from Warriors = 550dps. Longpoint or TP only.
As far as XLASB solo fits go, the Claymore wins hands down. The active tank bonus goes a lot farther, it's got the web, and the extra 200 grid allows it to pack a medium neut.
In summary:
The Nighthawk doesn't have a niche. The Vulture outperforms it for a large-fleet FC platform. The Tengu outperforms it for a large-fleet missile platform. The Claymore outperforms it for small-gang and solo PvP. The Tengu outperforms it for PvE.
Credit to Namamai for running these numbers on another *cough* banned forum. Not that i'm pointing out NH is still useless of course.
Simple question needs to be asked and a solid answer needs to be given; whats it for? |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
782
|
Posted - 2013.09.07 07:45:00 -
[2043] - Quote
ConranAntoni wrote:...Simple question needs to be asked and a solid answer needs to be given; whats it for? Since all of those numbers and the conclusions hinges on the tank discrepancy twixt NH and Vulture, the question you should be asking is how you are going to nerf (the missile performance) the NH when/if CCP manages to decouple the CC's expected TTL from EHP in blobby weather.
That one point is one that is continually ignored, even after RisingFozzie has stated that a dps/EHP war with the playerbase is something CCP neither wants nor seeks or can win for that matter (read: they want the EHP decoupling).
Nighthawk will be downright godlike if they manage it, one of the best dps application platforms in Eve no longer having to worry about being swamped .. *shudder* |
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
14
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 13:20:00 -
[2044] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:the example fit I posted has a medium neut. you can also get dual neut on it...
Great Mate. But Abso is the least suited ship to fit neuts. Lasers drain so much power that fitting nets should be left for other ship that simply do it better. Like Astrate who uses much less cap. On the other hand HAMs are a perfect addition to absos role in the fleet: a slow moving, hard hitting, armoured brick. It can't tackle, it can't persue target, and it can't put fancy modules in the mids. But it can shoot and tank. With 1300 dps on Astrate adding two HAMs for Abso is hardly overpowered (and Astrate CAN fit two HAMs like it doesent have enough dps already...). |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
232
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 13:54:00 -
[2045] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:the example fit I posted has a medium neut. you can also get dual neut on it... Great Mate. But Abso is the least suited ship to fit neuts. Lasers drain so much power that fitting nets should be left for other ship that simply do it better. Like Astrate who uses much less cap. On the other hand HAMs are a perfect addition to absos role in the fleet: a slow moving, hard hitting, armoured brick. It can't tackle, it can't persue target, and it can't put fancy modules in the mids. But it can shoot and tank. With 1300 dps on Astrate adding two HAMs for Abso is hardly overpowered (and Astrate CAN fit two HAMs like it doesent have enough dps already...).
Also to mention, absos got like up to two times the buffer, and way better resistances. And the option to just properly fit it to be a 680dps 130k EHP brick that shoots with acceptable gang-tracking at 20ish km. Now actively requesting any faction / new faction willing to produce these:-áhttp://eohgames.com/labs/Ships/Vanir%20Federation%20Talos-á |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
339
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 13:57:00 -
[2046] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:the example fit I posted has a medium neut. you can also get dual neut on it... Great Mate. But Abso is the least suited ship to fit neuts. Lasers drain so much power that fitting nets should be left for other ship that simply do it better. Like Astrate who uses much less cap. On the other hand HAMs are a perfect addition to absos role in the fleet: a slow moving, hard hitting, armoured brick. It can't tackle, it can't persue target, and it can't put fancy modules in the mids. But it can shoot and tank. With 1300 dps on Astrate adding two HAMs for Abso is hardly overpowered (and Astrate CAN fit two HAMs like it doesent have enough dps already...).
It sounds like you'll be favouring an astarte over an absolution for close-up work. I think that's reasonable. Whether it's more effective or not with depend on more factors that we can theorycraft here.
Back to the original point though, the absolution can be fitted fairly cheaply, without implants to have the following: 980 (theoretical, overheated) dps @ 8km 2 medium neuts 99.4k ehp. a point cap stable with 400 charges. (+41/-33 peak)
It's hardly going to be a liability in a gang, and it certainly doesn't seem to be unsuited to fitting neuts. Sure it's not going to be catching any cruisers by it'self. But neither is an astarte.
The equivalent astarte will struggle for cap if it's self-repping, and won't get close to the ehp of the absolution if it's buffer fitted.
For the record, I wouldn't turn either away...
Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
14
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 14:21:00 -
[2047] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Cassius Invictus wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:the example fit I posted has a medium neut. you can also get dual neut on it... Great Mate. But Abso is the least suited ship to fit neuts. Lasers drain so much power that fitting nets should be left for other ship that simply do it better. Like Astrate who uses much less cap. On the other hand HAMs are a perfect addition to absos role in the fleet: a slow moving, hard hitting, armoured brick. It can't tackle, it can't persue target, and it can't put fancy modules in the mids. But it can shoot and tank. With 1300 dps on Astrate adding two HAMs for Abso is hardly overpowered (and Astrate CAN fit two HAMs like it doesent have enough dps already...). It sounds like you'll be favouring an astarte over an absolution for close-up work. I think that's reasonable. Whether it's more effective or not with depend on more factors that we can theorycraft here. Back to the original point though, the absolution can be fitted fairly cheaply, without implants to have the following: 980 (theoretical, overheated) dps @ 8km 2 medium neuts 99.4k ehp. a point cap stable with 400 charges. (+41/-33 peak) It's hardly going to be a liability in a gang, and it certainly doesn't seem to be unsuited to fitting neuts. Sure it's not going to be catching any cruisers by it'self. But neither is an astarte. The equivalent astarte will struggle for cap if it's self-repping, and won't get close to the ehp of the absolution if it's buffer fitted. For the record, I wouldn't turn either away...
You are rising an important issue. From my pvp experience there are two general small/medium fleet situations:
1) U are wining a fight and the targets are dropping fast: Abso is way better because you can shoot all the time no matter the range and reloads. I often apply much more dps than my friends in Proteus/Astarte because of that.
2) The fight is even and you are struggling to kill anything and brake trough logis rr: Astare/ Proteus is much better because you need as much dps as you can. The range does not matter - all ships will want to go close to 0 so they can hit with their strongest ammo at its optimal. So raw dps and tracking is much more important.
Since I believe that the balance should be done according to the second situation (as it is real pvp and not turkey shooting of inferior enemy) the Gallente ships have huge advantage over Amarr. Even Lokis/Hurricanes are better in that situation because they can shoot in the resist hole.
Ps. I hope that CCP will do something with lasers altogether. The last AT showed that it is the mostly underutilized weapon system (like PL executioners fitted with autocannons...) |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
340
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 15:06:00 -
[2048] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:...
You are rising an important issue. From my pvp experience there are two general small/medium fleet situations: 1) U are wining a fight and the targets are dropping fast: Abso is way better because you can shoot all the time no matter the range and reloads. I often apply much more dps than my friends in Proteus/Astarte because of that. 2) The fight is even and you are struggling to kill anything and brake trough logis rr: Astare/ Proteus is much better because you need as much dps as you can. The range does not matter - all ships will want to go close to 0 so they can hit with their strongest ammo at its optimal. So raw dps and tracking is much more important. Since I believe that the balance should be done according to the second situation (as it is real pvp and not turkey shooting of inferior enemy) the Gallente ships have huge advantage over Amarr. Even Lokis/Hurricanes are better in that situation because they can shoot in the resist hole. Ps. I hope that CCP will do something with lasers altogether. The last AT showed that it is the mostly underutilized weapon system (like PL executioners fitted with autocannons...)
Yes I think I agree that most situations are as you described, although as the fleet scales up in size I am always happy to trade some dps for depth of buffer, just to give the logi guys an easier time.
There was a time, not so long ago, when lasers were the best choice for pvp, and to be honest I don't think they are any worse than any other. In terms of damage application, pulse lasers are approximately equivalent to gardes on a dominix, which currently have the spotlight as the 'must have' weapons system-du-jour.
This things have more to do with fashion than anything else in my view.
Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
14
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 18:43:00 -
[2049] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Yes I think I agree that most situations are as you described, although as the fleet scales up in size I am always happy to trade some dps for depth of buffer, just to give the logi guys an easier time.
There was a time, not so long ago, when lasers were the best choice for pvp, and to be honest I don't think they are any worse than any other. In terms of damage application, pulse lasers are approximately equivalent to gardes on a dominix, which currently have the spotlight as the 'must have' weapons system-du-jour.
This things have more to do with fashion than anything else in my view.
Hmm, lasers have some serious drawback IMHO.
1) General resists layout hits lasers hard as EM is arguably the weakest dmg type.
2) Lasers cap use lowers the usability of utility mods (like neuts) who use a lot of cap themselves.
3) Cap use forces you to equip cap boosters in mids (and you don't have a lot of mids) lowering your tackle and therefore being less useful to the fleet.
3) Cap use not only impacts weapons themselves it also screws the hulls as most of them have -10 cap use bonus. This makes laser using hulls a lot weaker that equivalent hybrid or projectile hulls.
4) Lasers are generally balanced around scorch ammo. How hard they suck without scorch can be seen on Revelation vs other turret dreads: no real range advantage, less tracking, less dps, huge cap use, and of course half less hull bonuses because of -10% to cap use.
5) Range is nice sometimes but it does not allow you to kite the enemy. It only balances out the fact that Amarr ships are slow moving bricks and are unable to dictate range.
6) Last 2 Alliance Tournaments showed that pilots don't consider lasers worth equipping (like Pl autocannon fitted executioners). It also showed that Gallente ships are quite imbalanced and CCP is planning to buff them further (hello Astrate). I don't want EVE where everyone is flying gallente...
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
555
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 22:19:00 -
[2050] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:It also showed that Gallente ships are quite imbalanced and CCP is planning to buff them further (hello Astrate). I don't want EVE where everyone is flying gallente...
Please explain a real world situation where the Astarte is better than other commands.
In terms of 1v1, the claymore woops it (and does better vs most targets) and is faster.
In terms of armor fleet pvp, the absolution will apply more dps AND has a much stronger tank via better resistances and an extra low slot.
If you can find a situation where the ship is actually "better" than it's competition beyond lol 1300 eft 3km dps fail fits please let me know.
Atm I think it's niche is off grid skirmish/armor link ship (better than eos because it's like 100m cheaper atm). Once links go on grid only, the EOS will clearly be the better booster.
All that being said... I don't think it's a "bad" ship, it's just obviously not OP BBQ as the quoted poster seems to believe. |
|
Xequecal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 23:06:00 -
[2051] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:By all means. All ships have their pros and cons. The astarte does indeed have 1300 (just about) dps at range 3km only. That fit also has 30k less buffer than the asbo and no neuts.
I don't think we're having a 1v1 pissing contest here, just looking to optimise the asbo for small gang use.
In comparison with the astarte, the asbo gains in utility and damage projection what it loses in pure dps under perfect conditions.
I favour blaster ships, it's what I've always used to. But blasters are by no means the last word in pvp.
In a gang fight, I'd prefer to have laser ships around me - because they will get more damage on more targets sooner. In an entire confrontation I'll probably get 1 perfect volley from my blaster ship. The rest will be in falloff or with a little too much transversal.
The problem with medium laser and AC platforms right now is with skirmish links a fed navy web, which isnt even that pricey, goes to >25km. That means a blaster ship typically has no problem getting into close range and can't really be kited unless the laser or AC platform has a range bonus. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
343
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 23:21:00 -
[2052] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:
... This things have more to do with fashion than anything else in my view.
Hmm, lasers have some serious drawback IMHO. 1) General resists layout hits lasers hard as EM is arguably the weakest dmg type. 2) Lasers cap use lowers the usability of utility mods (like neuts) who use a lot of cap themselves. 3) Cap use forces you to equip cap boosters in mids (and you don't have a lot of mids) lowering your tackle and therefore being less useful to the fleet. 3) Cap use not only impacts weapons themselves it also screws the hulls as most of them have -10 cap use bonus. This makes laser using hulls a lot weaker that equivalent hybrid or projectile hulls. 4) Lasers are generally balanced around scorch ammo. How hard they suck without scorch can be seen on Revelation vs other turret dreads: no real range advantage, less tracking, less dps, huge cap use, and of course half less hull bonuses because of -10% to cap use. 5) Range is nice sometimes but it does not allow you to kite the enemy. It only balances out the fact that Amarr ships are slow moving bricks and are unable to dictate range. 6) When u equip dmg mods (BCS, Gyros) you gain dps. But when you equip Heatsinks you increase dps AND increase cap use. 7) Last 2 Alliance Tournaments showed that pilots don't consider lasers worth equipping (like PL autocannon fitted executioners). It also showed that Gallente ships are quite imbalanced and CCP is planning to buff them further (hello Astrate). I don't want EVE where everyone is flying gallente...
Without looking to start an opinion war, I can offer some coutnerpoints:
1) EM is wonderful against shield tankers - particularly when they have been eneergy neutralised. It's also the best damage type to attack a T2 gallente ship in general.
2) Lasers generally come on ships that are designed to have a deep armour buffer, rather than an expensive cap-hungry self-repair system. Amarr ships generally have the largest cargo holds for cap boosters.
3) Taking a gallente ship into a fight without a cap booster is asking for trouble. Yes, many amarr ships trade a mid slot for a low slot. Utility for survivability. That's a valid trade.
4) I have used dreads for high-end wormhole work and some POS work. I'd take a revelation over a moros any day - the range versatility is more useful. The moros is (arguably) the best fleet ship for blapping nearby webbed battleships, but in reality I'd say it's too close to call.
5) if we ignore the navy omen, I agree - amarr ships are slow. But their ability to project damage is very good. They may nt dictate range, but they can hit well at all ranges.
6) The extra cap use also affects hybrids. The ships have strong enough capacitors, and enough cargo space to cope with it.
7) Comparing an alliance tournament match to pvp is like comparing a ladies boxing competition to a squad of special forces storming a machine gun nest. It's simply not comparable.
Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
16
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 05:41:00 -
[2053] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Without looking to start an opinion war, I can offer some coutnerpoints:
1) EM is wonderful against shield tankers - particularly when they have been eneergy neutralised. It's also the best damage type to attack a T2 gallente ship in general.
2) Lasers generally come on ships that are designed to have a deep armour buffer, rather than an expensive cap-hungry self-repair system. Amarr ships generally have the largest cargo holds for cap boosters.
3) Taking a gallente ship into a fight without a cap booster is asking for trouble. Yes, many amarr ships trade a mid slot for a low slot. Utility for survivability. That's a valid trade.
4) I have used dreads for high-end wormhole work and some POS work. I'd take a revelation over a moros any day - the range versatility is more useful. The moros is (arguably) the best fleet ship for blapping nearby webbed battleships, but in reality I'd say it's too close to call.
5) if we ignore the navy omen, I agree - amarr ships are slow. But their ability to project damage is very good. They may nt dictate range, but they can hit well at all ranges.
6) The extra cap use also affects hybrids. The ships have strong enough capacitors, and enough cargo space to cope with it.
7) Comparing an alliance tournament match to pvp is like comparing a ladies boxing competition to a squad of special forces storming a machine gun nest. It's simply not comparable.
Not at all, your arguments are very true. Than again with all their pros and cons lasers ARE underutilized. I'm not asking to make them overpowered. I'm asking that they have a certain role that no other weapon system can fill (So one day I can hear a FC say: we need laser for that :) ). Won't elaborate further as there are a lot of topics on lasers. |
Roime
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
3353
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 06:31:00 -
[2054] - Quote
Xequecal wrote: The problem with medium laser and AC platforms right now is with skirmish links a fed navy web, which isnt even that pricey, goes to >25km. That means a blaster ship typically has no problem getting into close range and can't really be kited unless the laser or AC platform has a range bonus.
Max boosts take overheated navy web range to 23.7km, but yeah they are currently at quite reasonable prices.
Harry Forever flies a cap stable marauder and you should too.-á |
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
16
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 07:26:00 -
[2055] - Quote
Roime wrote:Xequecal wrote: The problem with medium laser and AC platforms right now is with skirmish links a fed navy web, which isnt even that pricey, goes to >25km. That means a blaster ship typically has no problem getting into close range and can't really be kited unless the laser or AC platform has a range bonus.
Max boosts take overheated navy web range to 23.7km, but yeah they are currently at quite reasonable prices.
No Man :). You put faction webs on lokis (~45 km) and rapiers (don't fly them but i think ~70 km is possible...).
|
Roime
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
3353
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 08:50:00 -
[2056] - Quote
63.6 on Loki 101.7 on a Rapier (OH TS web/all V/Claymore/all V+mindlink)
those aren't blaster platforms, however, which we were discussing
Harry Forever flies a cap stable marauder and you should too.-á |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
344
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 09:13:00 -
[2057] - Quote
Roime wrote:63.6 on Loki 101.7 on a Rapier (OH TS web/all V/Claymore/all V+mindlink)
those aren't blaster platforms, however, which we were discussing
The presence of rapiers and lokis on field would be a good argument for the utility of laser (or even missile) ships rather than baster ships.
I think they are at least relevant to the discussion.
Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
Seolfor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 09:18:00 -
[2058] - Quote
Regards to the Nighthawk - people have already Rticulated most things wrong with it. TLDR - it doesn't shine at anything, what is its niche?
I just wanted to add, in a PvE role the NHawk is not just blown away by the Tengu (always has, it's T3, it's 2-3x cost, so ok), but for Serp and Gurista it's so far and beyond outclassed by the new Cerberus, it's embarrassing. I've posted this simple point twice, the market realises this and now the NHawk isn't selling for even 190m while the Cerb is approaching 230m sells.
Is anyone even listening? |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
782
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 10:23:00 -
[2059] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:The presence of rapiers and lokis on field would be a good argument for the utility of laser (or even missile) ships rather than baster ships.
I think they are at least relevant to the discussion. Except that the web ranges involved eliminate all weapon systems, even HMLs from the equation so it cannot in fact be used to say anything whatsoever about blasters other than you had better have a way of dealing with LR webs regardless of what you are flying. You are Gallente so damp the bastards or lug around a few rail platforms or ... without the contingency you are facing a hard counter, the only "real" one as far as I am concerned so it would be your damn fault
Seolfor wrote:Regards to the Nighthawk - people have already Rticulated most things wrong with it. TLDR - it doesn't shine at anything, what is its niche?
I just wanted to add, in a PvE role the NHawk is not just blown away by the Tengu (always has, it's T3, it's 2-3x cost, so ok), but for Serp and Gurista it's so far and beyond outclassed by the new Cerberus, it's embarrassing. I've posted this simple point twice, the market realises this and now the NHawk isn't selling for even 190m while the Cerb is approaching 230m sells.
Is anyone even listening? I'll take your Nighthawk if you take my Damn(ation) pointless brick any day of the week
Also, is the Cerberus still superior when/if all the things being worked on are sorted out, in particular the ability for a link ship to benefit from its own links? Sure it lacks some range, but even post HML nerf you still have plenty for most PvE stuff and the NH application bonus is infinitely better than whatever the Cerberus brings to the table. |
Grutpig Cloudwalker
The Skulls
2
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 16:01:00 -
[2060] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:The presence of rapiers and lokis on field would be a good argument for the utility of laser (or even missile) ships rather than baster ships.
I think they are at least relevant to the discussion. Except that the web ranges involved eliminate all weapon systems, even HMLs from the equation so it cannot in fact be used to say anything whatsoever about blasters other than you had better have a way of dealing with LR webs regardless of what you are flying. You are Gallente so damp the bastards or lug around a few rail platforms or ... without the contingency you are facing a hard counter, the only "real" one as far as I am concerned so it would be your damn fault Seolfor wrote:Regards to the Nighthawk - people have already Rticulated most things wrong with it. TLDR - it doesn't shine at anything, what is its niche?
I just wanted to add, in a PvE role the NHawk is not just blown away by the Tengu (always has, it's T3, it's 2-3x cost, so ok), but for Serp and Gurista it's so far and beyond outclassed by the new Cerberus, it's embarrassing. I've posted this simple point twice, the market realises this and now the NHawk isn't selling for even 190m while the Cerb is approaching 230m sells.
Is anyone even listening? I'll take your Nighthawk if you take my Damn(ation) pointless brick any day of the week Also, is the Cerberus still superior when/if all the things being worked on are sorted out, in particular the ability for a link ship to benefit from its own links? Sure it lacks some range, but even post HML nerf you still have plenty for most PvE stuff and the NH application bonus is infinitely better than whatever the Cerberus brings to the table.
Looking over Jita prices a few days after patch.
Abso buy 182m sell 194m Damn buy 247m sell 255m NH buy 193m sell 209m Vulture buy 227m sell 240m Astarte buy 257m sell 269m Eos buy 283m sell 319m Clay buy 231m sell 240m Sleip buy 228m sell 238m
So I would gladly trade my NH for a Damn. The Gallente ships seems to be the obvious winners from this patch though. NH and Abso seems to be in worst shape. Supply and demand... |
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
121
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 17:59:00 -
[2061] - Quote
Then use your Damnation? |
Josilin du Guesclin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 20:51:00 -
[2062] - Quote
I'm looking forward to using a Damnation, once I get round to fitting one, as we've gone to armour for (almost) everything (aside from Pulsars), making the Sleipnir a no-go.
|
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
479
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 21:50:00 -
[2063] - Quote
hmm isnt skill requirement for command ships too much? my main char already has it on max , so i dont much care about it,but when i checked it on my alt it would take to use it 72days only leadership skills and command ship lvl5 nothing elese :O btw why isnt it enought to only have 1 type of warfare skill at lvl5 , fe i want to fly the nighthawk why does it need armored warfare at lvl5,it makes little sense |
Xequecal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
67
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 22:00:00 -
[2064] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:Not at all, your arguments are very true. Than again with all their pros and cons lasers ARE underutilized. I'm not asking to make them overpowered. I'm asking that they have a certain role that no other weapon system can fill (So one day I can hear a FC say: we need laser for that :) ). Won't elaborate further as there are a lot of topics on lasers.
The only laser ships that see real use are the ones that don't waste a bonus on cap use. Abaddon, Apoc, nOmen, nAugoror, nHarbinger are about it. Zealot is the only real exception and those aren't going to be used at all anymore once people figure out that an RLM Cerb is better in every conceivable way. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
2673
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 09:51:00 -
[2065] - Quote
Unpinning, 1.1 has been released. |
|
Verlaine Glariant
Amphysvena
40
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 16:57:00 -
[2066] - Quote
Nighthawk was in desperate need of either another launcher and more powergrid. You finally added that extra PG but now the Nighthawk has one less launcher. So, Nighthawk is still way below the rest of the commands. You solved nothing. www.amphysvena.org |
ConranAntoni
Empyrean Warriors Insidious Empire
79
|
Posted - 2013.09.15 22:57:00 -
[2067] - Quote
Fix pls. Posting so **** isn't conveniently forgotten. |
Seolfor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
30
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 04:48:00 -
[2068] - Quote
Im not sure how many here actually flew the NHawk prior to posting about it.
After many many hours and fights on live with the new NHawk and running plexes, between me and mates, here is our summary of comments:
Poor Speed/Agi - The ship has abysmally poor speed and agility to be a HML user in a PvP environment. The ONLY viable exception is to be an overtanked on-grid Siege booster, sitting/slowboating amongst the logi, firing Navy Scourge or serving as anti-tackle with Precisions loaded.
You Need Command Ship 5, unlike Claymore - For legacy CS users like me its not a big deal, if you already had CS trained. Just get 5, the 7.5% bonus is over 100 dps difference between CS4 and CS5 HAM NHs
Even MORE reliance on Scourge/Kinetic - Sure, the Drake/NH/Cerb have always been tied to Kinetic. You want that flavor to continue, by all means. But with 7.5% bonus to kinetic with reduced launchers, the non-kinetic damage of the 1.1 NH is P A T H E T I C. For the love of god, either give it the Hookbill treatment of 7.5% Kinetic and 3.75% Others bonus OR Make the Kinetic bonus 5% and make RoF 10%
Against the appropriate targets, the HAM NHawk does great DPS and has decent projection (compared to say Blaster Astarte) and a good buffer tank, even with XLASBs loaded, you should have in excess of 50k EHP.
Kindly review. |
ConranAntoni
Empyrean Warriors Insidious Empire
79
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 09:29:00 -
[2069] - Quote
Bumping in hopes CCP gets round to eventually fixing this ****. As y'now, they were meant too. |
Guillame Herschel
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
51
|
Posted - 2013.09.27 20:16:00 -
[2070] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Unpinning, 1.1 has been released.
And you ruined the Claymore. Needs 2 CPU upgrades to do the job it did before (but swapping HML for AC).
Before, you could fit 5 T2 AC, 3 T2 links, a T2 invulns with a Lg ASB, T2 tackle, T2 damage mods, T2 DCU. You need nearly perfect fitting skills to do it, but it works without using fitting mods.
Now, to fit the ship equivalently (swapping 5 T2 AC for 5 T2 HML, and dropping one T2 link), 2 CPU upgrades are needed, which wasted two low slots, where none were needed before.
It's even harder to fit with 3 links and 4 HML.
|
|
Carniflex
StarHunt The Explicit Alliance
92
|
Posted - 2013.09.28 12:09:00 -
[2071] - Quote
Only point of using Nighthawk over Tengu is the 5 light drones and use it as shorter range platform. And Nighthawk has a slightly larger buffer also.
Tengu: 472 dps up to 128 km (t1 kin heavies). Missile velocity 13.1 km/s, exp radius 84 m (T1 and T2 hydr bay thrusters, T2 rigor) Nightawk: 459 dps up to 63 km (T2 RoF rig, t1 kin heavies) exp radius 67 m (t1 rigor) - with 5x hobgoblin II you push the on paper dps up to 558.
These numbers are based on my PvE Tengu and Nighthawk (of which I have not used for a while after cruise missile changes and I fly Nightmare most of the time anyway of late for PvE) 4x CN BCU's on both, full rack of T2 heavy launchers. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Kellasana
FireStar Inc Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.05 17:14:00 -
[2072] - Quote
IMHO, leave the Command ships the way they are, except the Eos. make that a Myrm. done. or come out with another T2 type of Battlecruiser and make those all Myrms, Drakes, so on. should be an equal number of hulls for each kind of battlecruiser. |
|
|
|
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] |