EVE Search - "Light" Command Ships

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

"Light" Command Ships

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance 3351	Posted - 2013.10.08 06:09:00 - [1] - Quote This is a resurrection of some old threads here. More uses for destroyer hulls Squad Command Ships Command Destroyers The basic premise of this idea is simple and narrow: Tech 2 Destroyers that are geared towards fitting and efficiently using Warfare links and "holding their own" in combat. Whether they are slower/faster, lighter/tougher, defensive/offensive etc. than normal destroyers I'll leave up to you guys and the developers. Why? - there are people grumbling that with the upcoming warp speed changes and the much talked about nerf to off-grid links coming SOON (tm) skirmishers and fast flying fleets won't have a reasonably viable option to look towards without significantly slowing the whole fleet down. - It gives Faction Warfare players an option to bring into the smaller complexes (may or may not be a good thing). - it does fill a gap and won't step on too many toes. --- Regular Battlecruisers will remain as the "cheap but beefy" option for "kitchen sink" fleets that want links, --- Command ships will remain as the "big fleet" ships (due in large part to their tanking and extra link abilities) --- Tech 3 Command Ships will be better suited for HAC/Cruiser/Attack Battlecruiser gangs (due to their mixture of mobility and tank... and they're going to be rebalanced at some point anyways). - it provides a clear line of progression for budding Command Ship pilots. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
Arya Regnar Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 300	Posted - 2013.10.08 06:35:00 - [2] - Quote I have been bitching about this ever since ongrid links were announced. You are goddamn right I support this. Skirmish needs to be fast. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
To mare Advanced Technology 264	Posted - 2013.10.08 08:53:00 - [3] - Quote i like the idea, with upcoming changes bringing a command in a fleet of HAC will be almost impossible
Velicitia Emergent Avionics 1646	Posted - 2013.10.08 09:24:00 - [4] - Quote Sounds like a good solution for the "problems" that will come up with necessitating being on-grid with the fleet you're boosting. +1 One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Tchulen Trumpets and Bookmarks The Volition Cult 616	Posted - 2013.10.08 09:40:00 - [5] - Quote +1 Having spoken to some people who primarily play medium sized frigate and destroyer fleets I can see a need for this moving forward. Good suggestion.
Alara IonStorm 5389	Posted - 2013.10.08 09:59:00 - [6] - Quote I like this idea as say a third destroyer + T2 model. Perhaps a tankier version with high resists / rep bonuses in both T1 and improved in T2. Light Damage lower scale cruiser tank through bonuses to Destroyer sized mods kinda deal. Also fulfills the role of tank based Destroyers on the side. I also separately like the idea of a torpedo armed Destroyer as well with racial Dmg bonuses. (That also being a principal weapon of historical Destroyers as well.) Those would make great additions to the Destroyer line which isn't flushed out yet bringing it up to 4. 2 DPS based ones using alternate racial weapons, a fast light Frigate DPS one with a strong tank that can command fast skirmishing gangs and a Tier 3 one specialized for mid range small DPS support against Battlecruiser, Battleship and heavily tackled targets. (lacking range and accuracy bonuses like the Stealth Bomber.) Final thought to Destroyers, I think the current DPS Destroyers in game that have 7-8 weapons should be halved and given a 100% bonus so they are cheaper, that and the introduction of a Meta mid ground drone. I'm rambling now.
BiggestT Serenity. CORP. Diggers Inc. 69	Posted - 2013.10.08 10:04:00 - [7] - Quote In regards to faction warfare, this will be a nice touch. ANyone that hates link bonuses need not worry, just shoot the ship with the links (they can't hide anymore). Here is more info on how ongrid-only links will affect FW: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=284177 Introduction of M/L sites in FW would be ideal if we cannot get any smaller ships by the time offgrid boosting gets nerfed.
Lephia DeGrande Luxembourg Space Union 149	Posted - 2013.10.08 10:30:00 - [8] - Quote I like the idea!
Ix Method Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 49	Posted - 2013.10.08 10:37:00 - [9] - Quote Just yes. Travelling at the speed of love.
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance 3357	Posted - 2013.10.08 14:35:00 - [10] - Quote Bumping back to the first page! Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
Jonas Nolm Black Dragon Fighting Society The Devil's Tattoo 0	Posted - 2013.10.08 16:42:00 - [11] - Quote I like the idea.
Batelle RisingSuns 173	Posted - 2013.10.08 16:48:00 - [12] - Quote make the bonuses not apply to any ships large than a cruiser. Fighting is Magic
Takari Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 258	Posted - 2013.10.08 16:51:00 - [13] - Quote This idea will always have my support! "Roll the dice, don't think twice. This is the way of things. Welcome to EVE." ~ CCP Falcon
Rykki Atruin IPC Logistics 4	Posted - 2013.10.08 17:06:00 - [14] - Quote +1 Since I'm a newbie in a corp full of other newbies (who can't fly CS yet) and we often explore/mission/roam in frigate/destroyer fleets I'm 100% behind the idea of a squad booster ship!
Chuckmandoo Tactical Soldiers Nulli Secunda 0	Posted - 2013.10.08 17:16:00 - [15] - Quote Supported +1
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 2691	Posted - 2013.10.08 17:22:00 - [16] - Quote I personally think Warfare Boosts are overpowered.... so I'm very hesitant about increasing their use. At the same time, I think Fleet boosting dessies are a reasonable addition to the game where fleet boosting is already ubiquitous. As such, I would highly recommend the following: Command Dessie hulls get the ability to fit 2 Warfare links, as well as fitting reductions to make fitting them viable. They should NOT receive boosts to fitting command processors (meaning they can only use 2 links). Most importantly, they should NOT get any bonus to the strength of warfare links (just giving the basic links is plenty!).
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 677	Posted - 2013.10.08 17:30:00 - [17] - Quote Posting my support for a T2 Algos, Corax, Dragoon and Talwar. I also support the idea OP is presenting. Something like this will definitely help allow more flexibility in fleets and maybe even allow smaller, lighter fleets a better chance when meeting with larger, heavier ones.
MonkeyMagic Thiesant Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking 2	Posted - 2013.10.08 19:47:00 - [18] - Quote Dunno about this specifically, but I'd like to see more T2 destroyers. Cruisers have so many options, doubly so with the flexibility of t3s. Frigs, ditto. Might be interesting to see more options in this ship size.
Arthur Aihaken The.VOID 281	Posted - 2013.10.08 19:57:00 - [19] - Quote MonkeyMagic Thiesant wrote: Dunno about this specifically, but I'd like to see more T2 destroyers. Cruisers have so many options, doubly so with the flexibility of t3s. Frigs, ditto. Might be interesting to see more options in this ship size. I guess technically T3s with a Gravitational Capacitor can probably keep up with destroyers. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Luc Chastot 543	Posted - 2013.10.08 20:11:00 - [20] - Quote This might add a lot of flavor to FW pvp. CCP should avoid making these a necessity, though. Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.
Aesheera Blacklight Recon Strictly Unprofessional 417	Posted - 2013.10.08 20:25:00 - [21] - Quote Agreeing with more Destroyer variants, but not "light command ships". Command destroyers, nah, T3's say hi if you want a lighter solution to actual command ships. People simply need to actually start tanking them soon. Primary since '07. GÖÑ If It Bleeds, Kill It - II
Katrina Oniseki Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 2179	Posted - 2013.10.08 20:52:00 - [22] - Quote Supported, but I suggest they only use a maximum of 1 link per hull while still being able to decently fit the rest of the hull. There needs to be a reason to use heavier and slower ships. Two links is pushing the envelope, but I'll support that if it's as difficult to do as fitting twin bubblers on an interdictor. A single T2 destroyer should not be able to fit three links, ever. Hull ideas: Kaalakiota Corax (Black & Red) Creodron Algos (Pearlescent Green/Blue) Viziam Dragoon (Green & Gold) Core Complexion Talwar (Black with Blue lights) Ch+½j+ì Katrina Oniseki ~ (RDC) Chief Operations Officer ~ [I-RED] Director of Public Relations
Jaz Antollare Deadly Loneliness 33	Posted - 2013.10.08 21:40:00 - [23] - Quote I like this thread. I support the idea about 1-2 links with medium bonuses. It could be some thing like the entrance for the command bonuses specialization tree. Imo they should go in the tankines instead of dps. And its the room to make t2 adaptations of the new destroyer hulls!!
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium 4159	Posted - 2013.10.08 22:04:00 - [24] - Quote If your frigate & destroyer skirmish fleet in FW can't have command ships due to speed and gate restrictions, theirs can't either. If you believe that warfare links are overpowered you should be rejoicing about the ability to hit & run without the hindrance of an overpowered game mechanic, not looking for ways to keep the overpowered mechanic in your small, nimble fleets. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 1665	Posted - 2013.10.08 22:42:00 - [25] - Quote I could support such a ship but under a few conditions. The links would need to be unbonused, and the ship could only fit its racial links. For instance a T2 Algos could fit armor and skirmish warfare links. Under those conditions I would be ok if they could run 3. Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance 3370	Posted - 2013.10.09 01:36:00 - [26] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: If your frigate & destroyer skirmish fleet in FW can't have command ships due to speed and gate restrictions, theirs can't either. If you believe that warfare links are overpowered you should be rejoicing about the ability to hit & run without the hindrance of an overpowered game mechanic, not looking for ways to keep the overpowered mechanic in your small, nimble fleets. Don't get me wrong... I have a love-hate relationship with regards to warfare links. I dislike them on principle... but they have often given me edges in engagements I had no business surviving, much less winning. And I don't see them being removed anytime soon given that several ships are specifically centered around them (I would personally like to see them removed almost altogether). That said... the reason I have brought up (see: rehashed) this idea is because I do believe that similar and/or balanced (but not equal) options should be available to [almost] every combat style in EVE. Sure, you can nano-fit a T3 for a frigate/destroyer gang... but it won't keep up in warp and certainly won't be able to fly or employ similar tactics the rest of the gang can... making it more of a target than it already is. Then there is a "price tag" issue (bringing a ship worth more than the entire gang several times over would be a no-go for most). Now I personally like what others have said here where these ships would be limited to fitting 1 Warfare Link with no ability to fit any more. Given the power of boosting that would be a fair trade-off and force people to consider what bonus they would find most important; speed, longer points/webs, tank, etc. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
Gigan Amilupar Legion of Darkwind 28	Posted - 2013.10.09 01:49:00 - [27] - Quote So long as boosts are moved on grid at the same time or before this, then yes please. +1
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Forsak3n. 614	Posted - 2013.10.09 02:04:00 - [28] - Quote I'd like to see small ganglinks that can be fit to frigates and destroyers (only the ones that allow them of course) that would have offensive bonuses instead of defensive bonuses. There would be no need to focus fire on the light command ship to ensure the fleet is killable, so that might keep them alive longer. It would also be good for small skirmish fleets doing hit-and-run tactics. They could have a pretty short range too, like 25km or something. The big command ships can be all about massive fleets and whatnot, with their range being the whole grid. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's.
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium 4160	Posted - 2013.10.09 04:04:00 - [29] - Quote ShahFluffers wrote: Sure, you can nano-fit a T3 for a frigate/destroyer gang... but [issues] Now I personally like what others have said here where these ships would be limited to fitting 1 Warfare Link with no ability to fit any more. Given the power of boosting that would be a fair trade-off and force people to consider what bonus they would find most important; speed, longer points/webs, tank, etc. I would like to see command processors moved to a rig, allowing any ship to potentially perform a battle-cruiser role of bringing non-hull-bonused warfare link(s) if they so desire. The ability for a hull to fit warfare links would thus be equivalent to an extra rig slot and bonus warfare-link-only CPU. What penalties would be suitable for such a rig? Reduction in EHP, bloom in sig radius, penalty to CPU/PG? There is also the option of consuming 400 calibration, preventing the use of command processor rigs on T2 & pirate ships. So for the moment assume that I support the idea of allowing flexible deployment of warfare links: what penalty would you be willing to accept in return for a Skirmish Warfare - Interdiction Manoeuvres warfare link? Consider the difference between an Oracle and Prophecy for example. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance 3372	Posted - 2013.10.09 04:29:00 - [30] - Quote I think that goes a little beyond the scope of the thread here (sorry if that sounds like a cop-out... they're actually interesting ideas but would require another thread). All I'm proposing here is a Tech 2 Destroyer than can run a limited amount of Warfare Links, nothing more or less. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium 4160	Posted - 2013.10.09 05:19:00 - [31] - Quote Well, what are you prepared to sacrifice over what a T1 destroyer offers? I'm working on the assumption that there is a heck of a lot of gear that you have to squeeze into that hull in order to allow it to fit warfare links in the first place. Would a "light command ship" work with only 75% of the DPS and tank of the T1 destroyer equivalent? Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players
Sean Parisi Fugutive Task Force A T O N E M E N T 342	Posted - 2013.10.09 05:30:00 - [32] - Quote Something I've felt the need to complain about as well. I have no issues with links going ongrid - I support it. But not if smaller ship classes wont have their own command ships. Adding these different classes will make boosting more obtainable for lower level players as well as allow for more dynamic options for players - especially those in Lowsec and FW.
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance 3375	Posted - 2013.10.09 06:17:00 - [33] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: Well, what are you prepared to sacrifice over what a T1 destroyer offers? I'm working on the assumption that there is a heck of a lot of gear that you have to squeeze into that hull in order to allow it to fit warfare links in the first place. Would a "light command ship" work with only 75% of the DPS and tank of the T1 destroyer equivalent? I'd personally be fine with giving up a fair bit of DPS and either speed or tank. I'm under no illusion that this ship would not have to give up something to gain its specialty. I'm merely hesitant to give more precise details as everyone has an idea on what it should be (though, there seems to be a consensus growing here that it shouldn't be able to fit more than 1 or 2 links)... and I'm just trying to sell the concept itself. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
Xolve Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 2032	Posted - 2013.10.09 08:07:00 - [34] - Quote No, just no. Frigates, Destroyers and hell even T1 Cruisers should be able to hold their own just fine against other Frigates, Destroyers and Cruisers; while I certainly advocate the idea that there needs to be more destroyers and maybe a few more frigate hulls, inventing another link ship just seems wasteful, pointless and will probably cause more harm than good.
Lena Lazair Ministry of War Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2013.10.10 00:16:00 - [35] - Quote Sorta +1. I think controlling assigned drones should become the purview of command ships and that a T2 destroyer variant would make an awesome small scale version of this. Not sure I'd actually want it to have the ability to run links though...
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance 3385	Posted - 2013.10.11 00:48:00 - [36] - Quote Shameless self-bumping. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
Zappity Kurved Space 512	Posted - 2013.10.11 00:55:00 - [37] - Quote Supported. Logical direction for destroyers to support skirmish gangs when links go on grid. A good bet this will happen too. Been hinted at on podcasts. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Xercodo Xovoni Astronautical Manufacturing and Engineering 2591	Posted - 2013.10.11 01:05:00 - [38] - Quote A bump for yes. A smaller and faster CS sounds perfect to go with all these deadly cepter/AF/EAF fleets. And the notion that it can only boost for a squad and not a whole fleet seems like a sound idea to keep it from overlapping the CSes too much. Maybe a smaller bonus too. The Drake is a Lie
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Forsak3n. 620	Posted - 2013.10.11 01:54:00 - [39] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: [quote=ShahFluffers]I would like to see command processors moved to a rig This would be really bad because the opportunity cost for not fitting a different kind of rig is far too small. It would allow ships to fit 2/3/4 (depending on the rig) ganglinks and still have excellent tank and/or DPS (AND, in the case of the Myrmidon). There should be a high opportunity cost for fitting command processors, to give command ships a distinct advantage in fitting ganglinks. I might decrease the current cost of the command processor if EVE ever goes to on-grid boosts, but it should at least cost a medium slot and a bit of fitting. Even if the rig cost 400 calibration, it wouldn't be worth a medium slot plus a significant amount of CPU and powergrid. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's.
Milton Middleson Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance 359	Posted - 2013.10.11 02:22:00 - [40] - Quote It'd be kind of unfortunate if something like this didn't happen after links go on grind. Frigate gangs are already weighed down substantially if they want to bring links along, which puts them at a pretty heavy relative disadvantage compared to heavier gangs that are running links. Basically, frigates can either bring linked and trade in the primary advantage of running frigates, or they can not bring them and be at a pretty egregious disadvantage when trying to engage gangs of larger ships. (Of course, I'd rather they axed links entirely, but that's clearly not going to happen).
Caldari 5 D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Northern Associates. 103	Posted - 2013.10.11 03:36:00 - [41] - Quote Here's my 2 cents worth. Yes to the concept of Light Command Ship based on a Destroyer Hull Being a T2 ship it will have roles and bonuses and stuff, I suggest the following: Able to fit upto 2 Command Links, no bounce to effectiveness/maybe a bonus to fitting Same number of Weapon Hardpoints as High Slots, so that the pilot has to decide how much DPS to Sacrifice for links NO Bonus to DPS, perhaps a bonus to range Bonus to Tank or Speed, to either have the tank of a cruiser, or the speed tank of a frigate/interceptor, not both(I expect all to have the tank of a cruiser except for the Minmatar one which has the speed)
Bienator II madmen of the skies 2078	Posted - 2013.10.11 03:56:00 - [42] - Quote sure, once they have the on-grid thing implemented... commandship all the things. eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Forsak3n. 620	Posted - 2013.10.11 04:06:00 - [43] - Quote Caldari 5 wrote: Same number of Weapon Hardpoints as High Slots, so that the pilot has to decide how much DPS to Sacrifice for links NO Bonus to DPS, perhaps a bonus to range or you could give it a damage bonus with an equivalent decrease in number of high slots. That would use up a skill bonus for essentially no return while also making the cost of fitting ganglinks higher. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's.
Caldari 5 D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Northern Associates. 103	Posted - 2013.10.11 05:37:00 - [44] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Caldari 5 wrote: Same number of Weapon Hardpoints as High Slots, so that the pilot has to decide how much DPS to Sacrifice for links NO Bonus to DPS, perhaps a bonus to range or you could give it a damage bonus with an equivalent decrease in number of high slots. That would use up a skill bonus for essentially no return while also making the cost of fitting ganglinks higher. Nice Amplification of the idea :)
Job Valador Super Moose Defence Force 294	Posted - 2013.10.11 07:38:00 - [45] - Quote /signed "The stone exhibited a profound lack of movement."
Altered Ego Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 26	Posted - 2013.10.11 17:45:00 - [46] - Quote Absolutely, with CCP making small ships more viable and the off grid boost changes, this is a perfectly logical request. +1
Jackdaw Finch Royal Order of Security Specialists Late Night Alliance 0	Posted - 2013.10.13 03:16:00 - [47] - Quote Amen - this would be a great thing
Robbie Robot Exiled Kings SCUM. 16	Posted - 2013.10.13 05:31:00 - [48] - Quote Katrina Oniseki wrote: Supported, but I suggest they only use a maximum of 1 link per hull while still being able to decently fit the rest of the hull. There needs to be a reason to use heavier and slower ships. Two links is pushing the envelope, but I'll support that if it's as difficult to do as fitting twin bubblers on an interdictor. A single T2 destroyer should not be able to fit three links, ever. Hull ideas: Kaalakiota Corax (Black & Red) Creodron Algos (Pearlescent Green/Blue) Viziam Dragoon (Green & Gold) Core Complexion Talwar (Black with Blue lights) Either 1 link, or a reduced bonus. I'd prefer a reduced bonus, but having about 2 links.
Lephia DeGrande Luxembourg Space Union 150	Posted - 2013.10.13 08:05:00 - [49] - Quote I would say 2 links, normal bonus, hard to fit.
Nyancat Audeles Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 597	Posted - 2013.10.13 13:05:00 - [50] - Quote +1
Liesje Allister Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 0	Posted - 2013.10.13 15:59:00 - [51] - Quote +1 Retribution destroyer hulls are a good idea. Please consider.
Mara Pahrdi The Order of Anoyia 415	Posted - 2013.10.13 19:36:00 - [52] - Quote I've always been in favour of this . Remove insurance.
Kasife Vynneve Nourwolf Corporation Fortis Et Certus 3	Posted - 2013.10.13 19:51:00 - [53] - Quote A good idea that needs more support.
Zachev Trace Dragon's Rage Executive Outcomes 3	Posted - 2013.10.14 00:55:00 - [54] - Quote +1 More t2 destroyers :D I've always wanted this actually, just never got around to posting about it. Love the idea of a command destroyer, especially when their only other counter parts are already a major part of fleets (interdictors). This will add quite a bit of variety to the ship class, and well balanced variety is a good thing.
Caldari 5 D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Northern Associates. 108	Posted - 2013.10.14 03:29:00 - [55] - Quote Bumpage for a good idea
Gorgoth24 Sickology Dead Terrorists 51	Posted - 2013.10.14 05:53:00 - [56] - Quote I also like this idea. It'd probably be best if it were limited to fewer simultaneous command modules then the larger versions, but it'd definitely be cool to see when OGB is removed.
tommy two feathers Hedion University Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2013.10.14 06:57:00 - [57] - Quote since their faster could they also be good for a hac fleet to keep up with all the mwd action?
Iudicium Vastus Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 58	Posted - 2013.10.14 10:13:00 - [58] - Quote Oh hell yeah please!! Always wanted to experiment with what it's like providing some combat links, but T1 BC far too slow for the T1 cruisers and below most of our fleets roam in, Command ships out of the question without even knowing fist hand the potential of links, nor the investment for such a kitchen sink fleet. Same for T3 command, not worth the full training and cost for something untested on smaller scale.
Mascha Tzash Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 96	Posted - 2013.10.14 10:57:00 - [59] - Quote More destroyers are a very good idea! I would like to see them having a proper rack of hulls and uses like frigs and cruisers.
Claire Raynor NovaGear Limitless Inc. 186	Posted - 2013.10.14 12:19:00 - [60] - Quote Yeah - you get my vote :)
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance 3470	Posted - 2013.10.19 18:30:00 - [61] - Quote Bumping back to the top. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
Rendiff Funk Soul Brothers High Rollers 33	Posted - 2013.10.19 19:31:00 - [62] - Quote Excellent idea
Zappity Kurved Space 564	Posted - 2013.10.19 19:42:00 - [63] - Quote Here's the relevant section of the Declarations of War podcast (#58) I mentioned earlier. I am going to post the full version in W&T to stir things up again. Links have gone a bit quiet lately. AK: When they come on the field are you considering making further changes to the ships themselves to provide more mobility options for command ships? Fozzie: WeGÇÖre gonna be making a lot of changes as we go with them. IGÇÖm pretty happy with the mobility of command ships. It would be nice someday to add a smaller ship that is capable of providing links than the ones we have. At the moment the strategic cruiser is the most agile ship you can possibly bring links with. Having something smaller you can bring with a faster fleet would be nice. But I donGÇÖt think weGÇÖre going to be making command ships themselves any more agile. AK: A new destroyer would be interesting, a tech 2 destroyer that could fit some kind of command thing would be interesting. Fozzie: IGÇÖm definitely not able to promise anything but thatGÇÖs the kind of thing that could very well happen someday. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Major Killz La Fraternite 256	Posted - 2013.10.19 20:26:00 - [64] - Quote No! Just no.Tech 1 cruiser and frigate logistics was, is a bad idea and so is your idea. Some ships with certain abilities/bonuses SHOULD be limited, specialized and EXPENSIVE. Gang-linked destroyers, cruisers and or frigates is just a terrible idea. If a certain mechanic proves to be VERY POWERFUL you don't increase it's effectiveness, ease of access and reduce its cost. Logistics, gang-links, tracking disruptors and remote sensor dampeners are BADZ... - Killz Combat Log: http://www.youtube.com/user/kdsalmon/videos - Pantaloon II: Violins (Jun 23, 2013)
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Forsak3n. 635	Posted - 2013.10.19 22:39:00 - [65] - Quote Major Killz wrote: No! Just no.Tech 1 cruiser and frigate logistics was, is a bad idea and so is your idea. Some ships with certain abilities/bonuses SHOULD be limited, specialized and EXPENSIVE. Gang-linked destroyers, cruisers and or frigates is just a terrible idea. If a certain mechanic proves to be VERY POWERFUL you don't increase it's effectiveness, ease of access and reduce its cost. Logistics, gang-links, tracking disruptors and remote sensor dampeners are BADZ... Tech 1 logistics cruisers repair at about half the rate of tech 2 logistics cruisers at max skills, and have a bit shorter rep range, logistics frigates are much weaker and shorter range. I think the balance is pretty good. I don't see a problem with destroyer command ships, as long as their bonuses are weaker than battlecruiser command ships. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's.
ghost williams ANGEL FLEET 1	Posted - 2013.10.20 01:03:00 - [66] - Quote ShahFluffers wrote: This is a resurrection of some old threads here. More uses for destroyer hulls Squad Command Ships Command Destroyers The basic premise of this idea is simple and narrow: Tech 2 Destroyers that are geared towards fitting and efficiently using Warfare links while "holding their own" in combat. Whether they are slower/faster, lighter/tougher, defensive/offensive etc. than normal destroyers I'll leave up to you guys and the developers. Why? - there are people grumbling that with the upcoming warp speed changes and the much talked about nerf to off-grid links (coming SOON (tm)) skirmishers and fast flying fleets won't have a reasonably viable option to look towards without significantly slowing the whole fleet down. - It gives Faction Warfare players an option to bring into the smaller complexes (may or may not be a good thing). - it does fill a gap and won't step on too many toes. --- Regular Battlecruisers will remain as the relatively "cheap but beefy" option for "kitchen sink" fleets that want links. --- Command ships will remain as the "big fleet" ships (due in large part to their tanking and extra link abilities) --- Tech 3 Command Ships will be better suited for HAC/Cruiser/Attack Battlecruiser gangs (due to their mixture of mobility and tank... and they're going to be rebalanced at some point anyways). --- It won't replace the Orca as link support as it won't have mining link bonuses or the extra "bells and whistles"... but will provide a relatively cheap link-support platform for small, less wealthy mining groups. - it provides a clear line of progression for budding Command Ship pilots. I would support more types of Destroyers. I could finally get some of my members to use them.
Meyr SiN Corp 75	Posted - 2013.10.27 06:41:00 - [67] - Quote Well done, Shah. Great idea! Personally, I support the 'One Link' version, as I want FC's to make trade-offs in their fleet composition. This is not to say that you could not stack effects, but it brings inherent limitations. Making them considerably tankier, but limiting their DPS (something like 6 high slots, with 4 or 5 bonused turrets/launchers/moderate drone bay and lose a high slot) seems a reasonable compromise that would allow them to enhance small-ship fleets without turning them into OP solo beasts. Additionally, I'd like to see a form of T2 Destroyer that was actually capable of hunting T2 Frigates with a reasonable chance of success against most of them - reduce the DPS of the T1 versions by about 15-20%, but increase their tank by about 50%. They'd still out-DPS most frigate hulls, have a weaker tank than AF's, with less straight-line speed, and more mass than most frigate/destroyer hulls. Minimum mid-slot count would be three (Amarr pilots everywhere would cheer), but not more than 5, I don't want to unintentionally create an E-War monster. Thoughts?
Maliandra School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 74	Posted - 2013.10.27 06:59:00 - [68] - Quote Eh... Destroyer V is very easy to train. Dessies are cheap, and even a T2 one will only raise in price so much. You're gonna have every fleet with one of these command ships the way I see it. So, no. I also think this thread highlights one of the biggest problems with this forum: How certain members who have a reputation for being smart/logical/whatever seem to have their ideas supported to the Nth degree while those who do not are either ignored or scolded. This idea right now has over 40 likes and almost 0 posts that are against it. I do believe if some random person made this post, it would have a tiny portion of those likes and a lot of criticism/insults in the thread. Not to blame you OP, it's not your fault most people who post here are closed-minded sheep.
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance 3531	Posted - 2013.10.27 08:13:00 - [69] - Quote Maliandra wrote: I also think this thread highlights one of the biggest problems with this forum: How certain members who have a reputation for being smart/logical/whatever seem to have their ideas supported to the Nth degree while those who do not are either ignored or scolded. I'll address this as I sometimes get accused of shooting down ideas for no reason... When I look at an idea I go through a mental check list... 1. What does this idea do? 2. Why is it needed? 3. Is it consistent with other aspects of EVE as it currently is (i.e. does it fit into the core principles, lore, and progression of things?) 4. Does it step on the toes of another ship, module, mechanic, or tactic? 5. Can it be "exploited?" (see: does Malcanis' Law apply? Will this cause more ill effects than good? If yes, refer to 2 and 4). Most ideas that people present here fall apart after the first step. It's not that the ideas are BAD... it's just that there is often little supporting them beyond the idea itself. Theorycrafting and imagining are good. God knows I've come up with more than a few insane ideas myself... but I sit on them and try to see if they can work, in their most raw and simplistic form, within the context of what EVE is today. And presentation is actually important when trying to convince others that there might be some merit to an idea (see: don't use "As we all know..." or "This idea is awesome!" or "Here are all the good things that MIGHT happen with this..." etc.). With regards to these "Light" Command ships (using my own criteria)... 1. It gives people a low entry point for having links themselves (helping the poorer, newer players) while at the same time providing a faster, more mobile platform for more experienced players in frigate/destroyer gangs. 2. The coming warp speed changes will make Command Ships and T3s too slow for sub-cruiser gangs... and will be acutely felt by frigate and destroyer gangs when links are finally made on-grid-only. 3. Links and Command Ships already exist within EVE. As much as I dislike them personally, they aren't going anywhere. And having a ship that can field links that is not quite a Frigate but not quite a Cruiser fits well into the same position as current Command Ships (which exist between Cruisers and Battleships) 4. It won't step on the toes of the current Command Ships if limited to 1 link (or two with no bonuses). It also won't affect T3s as they will be nowhere near as tanky. And regular Battlecruisers also won't be affected as they will be much cheaper than a T3 or Command Ship, but also far tankier than this ship. 5. The pitfall with this is, as you pointed out, it will be more likely to see links in action everywhere. To address the problem with number 5... - it muffles the arguments against on-grid links. There are a few "doomsdayers" that say an end to off-grid links will mean they can't take on bigger blobs that also have links (because T3s and Command Ships would be too slow to kite). While most do write such predictions off (as they ARE often insane)... there is some truth to it. Skirmishers and kiters won't have viable link options. Mind you... kiters and skirmishers will still be able to do what they do... but they won't have similar 1 to 1 effectiveness ratio that the bigger, slower, more bulky gangs have. - most PvPers worth their salt have a link alt somewhere the same way most proper fleets also already have them. This won't change anything at the "large" level. In fact... it will actually help to decentralize fleets more (no more, "oops, the Command Ship is dead and everyone just lost 15% of their tanks... bail guys!"). Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
Meyr SiN Corp 76	Posted - 2013.10.28 06:29:00 - [70] - Quote Actually, I've been wanting something besides Interdictors for a very long time. If this is the avenue we have to pursue in order to achieve a true Hunter of T2 frigates, so be it. The destroyer class, as a whole, has, with the exception of the Sabre, Thrasher, and Catalyst, suffered for years, wallowing in mediocrity, almost able to do the jobs they were designed for, but only with regards to T1 opponents. Almost every T2 will, in no uncertain terms, clobber any destroyer hull into last week (don't even mention a PVP blaster Catalyst - if you even gave it an angry look, it'll turn into salvage). Even the Helios, when it didn't simply run away. The new Eris just makes an even more fragile glass cannon. The Sabre can put up a good fight, when it's well flown, Thrashers can sometimes work, but that's about it. They can't be all about Catalyst ganks or Minmatar hulls. We need something that can actually have a chance of chasing down and either driving off or destroying interceptors and some AF's.
Anthar Thebess REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN 149	Posted - 2013.10.28 07:42:00 - [71] - Quote +1
wurblewind The Synenose Accord Celestial Imperative 14	Posted - 2013.10.30 02:09:00 - [72] - Quote Ok, how did this get thrown back to page 3? Time for me to sign I suppose. Keep low, fly fast, die well.
Alyssa Haginen State War Academy Caldari State 10	Posted - 2013.10.30 04:06:00 - [73] - Quote I see this destroyer boosting being used the most in FW. This is part of a larger plan to keep boosts for the people that wanted off grid boosting removed who are also the original off grid boosters. The most common fit for this ship will be nanos and a cloak and its main position will be inside faction warfare plexs as far off the beacon as it get while still providing links. For that reason I dont like the idea but a good compromise would be to have the warfare links subsystem on t3's increase your warp speed to 6au if possible.
William Darkk GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 15	Posted - 2013.10.30 18:42:00 - [74] - Quote I endorse this idea. Frigate fleets are cool and need a full set of tools.
Antillie Sa'Kan Forging Industries Silent Infinity 137	Posted - 2013.10.30 19:00:00 - [75] - Quote I approve of this product and/or service.
Pic'n dor Epsilon Lyr Nulli Secunda 16	Posted - 2013.11.17 23:27:00 - [76] - Quote Friendly bump
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance 3645	Posted - 2013.11.17 23:49:00 - [77] - Quote One last bump. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
Kirkwood Ross Golden Profession 54	Posted - 2013.11.18 01:46:00 - [78] - Quote Aren't nano T3 cruisers suppose to be light command ships?
Arthur Aihaken The.VOID 594	Posted - 2013.11.18 03:21:00 - [79] - Quote Kirkwood Ross wrote: Aren't nano T3 cruisers suppose to be light command ships? This. Less skill-intensive, too. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris Republic Military Tax Avoiders 378	Posted - 2013.11.18 03:31:00 - [80] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Kirkwood Ross wrote: Aren't nano T3 cruisers suppose to be light command ships? This. Less skill-intensive, too. 500-600mil for tankless on-grid(when they finally fix OGB) command ship in frig/desty gang? No ty. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
Arthur Aihaken The.VOID 599	Posted - 2013.11.18 04:07:00 - [81] - Quote Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote: This. Less skill-intensive, too. 500-600mil for tankless on-grid(when they finally fix OGB) command ship in frig/desty gang? No ty.[/quote] Well, I guess there's always Command Ships. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance 3649	Posted - 2013.11.18 05:45:00 - [82] - Quote Kirkwood Ross wrote: Aren't nano T3 cruisers suppose to be light command ships? The problem with T3s (even in a nano-configuration) is that they can't match the [coming] warp speed or current agility of Frigates or Destroyers even with the necessary rigs (they are basically Tech 2 Cruisers in this respect). Plus they are relatively large compared to these types of ships making them automatic and easy to hit primary targets (though, to be fair, any Command-type ship will be primaried). The purpose of this idea is to offer a ship that can keep up with skirmish tactics both in-warp and on-grid. Moreover... Tech 3 ships have yet to be rebalanced... and there is a good chance that many of their current configurations will be nerfed to the point where they will not be able to provide support for anything smaller than cruisers. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites Partners of Industrial Service and Salvage 70	Posted - 2013.11.18 16:04:00 - [83] - Quote Rykki Atruin wrote: +1 Since I'm a newbie in a corp full of other newbies (who can't fly CS yet) and we often explore/mission/roam in frigate/destroyer fleets I'm 100% behind the idea of a squad booster ship! Well, not counting the fact warfare links kind of have a prohibitive entry requirement...
Kaerakh Obscure Joke Implied Kiki's Delivery Service. 27	Posted - 2013.11.18 23:30:00 - [84] - Quote This is considered a 'do want' in my books.
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 356	Posted - 2013.12.16 09:28:00 - [85] - Quote Topic is still relevant bump. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Red Teufel Mafia Redux Phobia. 285	Posted - 2013.12.16 13:02:00 - [86] - Quote +1 you have my support
Seranova Farreach 510	Posted - 2013.12.16 16:13:00 - [87] - Quote so tanky, fast, warfare linked dessys? +1 for possable new dessy hull. i would personally also like to see BC or BS logi ships (no, not the lame nestor) and sub-capital Carrier like Battleships... like how we have bastion+maurauders for "Mini Dreads" _______________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg
Red Teufel Mafia Redux Phobia. 285	Posted - 2013.12.16 19:39:00 - [88] - Quote Seranova Farreach wrote: so tanky, fast, warfare linked dessys? +1 for possable new dessy hull. i would personally also like to see BC or BS logi ships (no, not the lame nestor) and sub-capital Carrier like Battleships... like how we have bastion+maurauders for "Mini Dreads" naw overlaps with what already works extremely well.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 621	Posted - 2013.12.16 19:46:00 - [89] - Quote i think T3's will end up being more mobile and are already more mobile than Command ships and fill that mobile link role already .. Command processors may well end up as a rig or low slot aswell. also dessies just don't have the tank too justify the training time and expense for this role even in small gangs they would still be killed too quickly. 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.. remove drone assist mechanic AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Mrchafe Zero Frequency Disavowed. 5	Posted - 2013.12.17 02:17:00 - [90] - Quote +1 original post 6 gun Dessie's 2 active links Command ship bonus to reduce CPU and power grid use of links at lvl5 to 0 and a 2% bonus to link strength like the t3.
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts 1458	Posted - 2013.12.17 02:27:00 - [91] - Quote ONE active link, thanks.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

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