EVE Search - The great injustice that is Command Ships :I

All Channels

Ships and Modules

The great injustice that is Command Ships :I

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jin Entres	Posted - 2006.02.01 00:57:00 - [91] Hi. First off, specialization is good for a few reasons (naming but a few): 1) it provides players with a way to be and feel individually useful, 2) it provides new players with clear goals and the ability to rival with older players and 4) it brings variety into combat. I don't see anything wrong with a long specialization; if anything it is more rewarding for those who are committed enough to undergo the training. But of course there needs to be a balance in efficiency to attract pilots in the first place. I'll come to that later. Squadron Command V is in my opinion a very proper pre-requisite for TL2 Fleet Command Battlecruisers specialized in fleet leadership: it rewards high charisma as specialization of such nature should (unlike most of the ships' other requirements) and is a useful if not neccessary skill in operating the T1 variant efficiently in it's role, and as such being logical in preventing people from cutting corners like they (including myself) now do. In my opinion, having 2 separate TL2 Battlecruisers is a good thing: Field Command as the Heavy Assault Battlecruiser, for which I feel the requirements are rather balanced as they are. I don't think they have any real applications in leadership roles; it is generally a lot more efficient and useful to fit guns rather than a gang mod, which they still have the ability to like T1 BC's, should anyone want to. However, Fleet Command ships should have a heavy emphasis on leadership skills in their requirements and reflect that in their ability to fill the role. In addition to Squadron Command V, I would have them require their racial warfare specialist skill trained. Cruiser V and BC V are fine, but Logistics IV is just a time sink with no real purpose as I see it. And to reflect the skills and fit the role properly, I support increasing their efficiency bonus to atleast 5% if not more plus looking at the balance of difference effects rather than a flat balance in percentages (please 1/5 of a sensor booster is hardly equivalent of 1/2 of a nano adaptive). In fact, I would like to see these fleet leadership ships give a passive bonus to gang members with their mere presence. Skill bonii could apply to all warfare types thus encouraging specialization by skills rather than by race but including in each ship a passive bonus for their own (or one of their own, of the two) warfare types and making them unique in that respect. This could replace their current weapon bonii. The BPO distribution issue is an issue of it's own. I, however, do agree that it is both unbalanced in terms of supply and demand and in it's principle from a risk versus ISK point of view. And as for Eos - the way the gang mod efficiency bonii are right now (puny and insufficient), I would train (and am training) for and use other warfare types. I think it's a rather nice ship, so long as the bonus balance issue gets looked at, I have no complaints regarding the ship itself. I would also like to add that it would be nice to have new gang mods with new effects such as drone damage, nos/neut range/cycle time, cap/recharge etc. Oh, and HACs stand no chance to HABCs under "standard" circumstances. Not that they should, though.
Darth Revanant	Posted - 2006.02.01 01:53:00 - [92] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Example: Astarte - 3% Armored Warfare bonus per level of Command Ships Skills - Battlecruiser V, Squadron Command III, Armored Warfare Specialization I Eos - 5% Information Warfare bonus per level of Command Ships Skills - Battlecruiser V, Squadron Command V, Information Warfare IV Depending on your situation, this could actually be easier to train for. Comments? This is generally what I was hoping would be done. CCP wants more specialization, but with T2 BC's they remove some. First why have 2? Why have a HAC one at all, as if HACs weren't powerful enough. But if they want an assault BC, then they should have made and assault BC, not an assault/gang warfare hybrid. Same goes for logistics. They took 3 career specializations and made 2 hybrids forcing anyone specialized in any one area to have to take on a second. I also have an issue with requiring cruiser V, but I see the need. We wouldn't want someone with battlecruiser V to be able to fly all 4 race's t2 BCs. But that's more making up for CCP's lack of planning by not making racial BC and destroyer. That aside, a command t2 BC should require leadership V, squadron command V, battlecruiser V, and at least one warfare specialization to IV or V. A logistics t2 BC should require logistics V, battlecruiser V, and some other filler skills (a la weapon upgrades V for heavy assault ships). Assault t2 BC's should require heavy assault ships V, battlecruiser V, and filler (adv. weapon upgrades V maybe). These bastardized hybrid things are just inferior to what specialized ones would be. No HAC pilot would traing logistics or leadership if they didn't have to. Logistics pilots I'm sure don't want to train for HACs and shouldn't have to train leadership. And leadership pilots (myself) sure don't want anything like a HAC and have no reason to train logistics except that I need it if I want a ship that's remotely suited to my specialty. _______________
Harry Voyager	Posted - 2006.02.01 03:26:00 - [93] The hazards of regaling relatives with to much Eve: I was telling my brother about this thread, and he responded, "Well good for them. I prefer to command from a tin-foil ball with my eyes sewn shut." ____________________ I'm not an idiot; I just play one on the forums.
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2006.02.01 03:40:00 - [94] Well thats just silly, tin foil is only good against EM.
Bad'Boy	Posted - 2006.02.01 06:12:00 - [95] Originally by: Hllaxiu Originally by: Bad'Boy Originally by: Hllaxiu Edited by: Hllaxiu on 31/01/2006 22:16:46 Originally by: Bad'Boy me\ pets ishtar with 28km disturber, ogres II and 2xjammers, with mwd , web and 3 med nos You can kill any non capitalship in the game with that setup. So long as you get the nice die rolls that is. I know with 2xmultyII and good skills, youhave very good chance to jamm even BS It'd be about 60% chance on the command ships, in that example given... problem is that if you fail your ship is utterly gimped otherwise. With 3 heavy diminishing nosses and your 2x multi2s you're already up to 185 cpu on a ship with 356.25 cpu total... and you've only used a third of the slots on the ship... dont know who fits 3 noses , exept dom or phoon, plus, why do you think I have long range disturber? ************************************* What you gonna do when I come for yoU!? *************************************
Bad'Boy	Posted - 2006.02.01 06:13:00 - [96] Originally by: Hellspawn01 We are talking about evenly matched, not jamming the crap outta the oponent. you talk like a true amarrian ************************************* What you gonna do when I come for yoU!? *************************************
Drakhis	Posted - 2006.02.01 07:37:00 - [97] Originally by: Bad'Boy Originally by: Hellspawn01 We are talking about evenly matched, not jamming the crap outta the oponent. you talk like a true amarrian Caldari>all :P ill EW the ****e outa you and make you cry for your mommy :) if caldari werent uber at EW then caldari would be garbage in any and every situation :)
Hellspawn01	Posted - 2006.02.01 13:59:00 - [98] Originally by: Bad'Boy Originally by: Hellspawn01 We are talking about evenly matched, not jamming the crap outta the oponent. you talk like a true amarrian I¦m talking about this. Originally by: Malthros Zenobia In an evenly matched fight, HACs should kill command ships 1v1. I know that a jammed target is basicly dead but thats not the point here. I¦m comparing a command ship and a HAC and the above quote. ------ BlogÖ WTS Core-X EM hardener
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.02.01 19:46:00 - [99] Quote: The problem with tech 2 is related to how many people are raking in profits over such ships, which in my opinion is too low. They did nothing to get those bpos. They did no work, they took no risks, they invested no money. My solution would be to double production time, but also seed double the bpos. So in essence supply vs demand is unchanged. That is a brilliant idea tbh. I dislike crying about the situation and just deal with it until someone puts up a solution that should be implemented. I hate the fact people can just log in and be insta-billionairs. I remember when my first toon used to be in gehi when local chatter was all over the promise of R&D agents. I remember when DC used to be a nooblet like everyone else chime in on such things. I think it has been very dissapointing to most vets this system has gone on too long. How may alts and noobs grind out to lvl 3 agents on +17 charisma toons along with their main and hit it rich within the first two weeks? A lot. Now how many people have playing with R&D agents for almost 2 years and have nothing but a small tech II smart bomb offers from shipcommand R&D track? A lot more. /DEV please read quoted statement above and take that and put it in game like yesterday! Originally by: "Oveur" I don't react to threats any better than you do
Scalor Valentis	Posted - 2006.02.01 20:18:00 - [100] Originally by: Hellspawn01 I know that a jammed target is basicly dead but thats not the point here. Ses who? Jammed is not the end.
Malthros Zenobia	Posted - 2006.02.01 21:26:00 - [101] Goddamnit people, I'm not saying right now a HAC can/will kill a command ship, I'm saying that they SHOULD beable to, and that T2 BCs are far too much tank and gank when they are suppose to be uber gang-assist ships, not wtfpwnage tankers and damage dealers. k? T2 BCs should have about as much of a damage/tank boost as t2 destroyers got (hell they could even get the speed/agility boost), but in return for the loss of uber tank/gank, they'd be able to give massive gang bonuses making them worth using. IDEALLY, a HAC SHOULD be able tto beat a CS 1v1, but they can't. However, having a T2 BC in your gang should be far, far better than using the T1 version. If CCP is so insistant on keeping one of the ships as an offensive weapon, then it needs to flat out lose all gang bonuses, with the basis being that the offense/defense upgrade comes at the cost of being a gang helper. Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu I'm probably one of the biggest Bush fanboys in Eve... This is like, Darth Vader, can't-reach-climax-without-killing-a-puppy evil.
Idara	Posted - 2006.02.01 21:27:00 - [102] Meh, I just want a Field Command Ship to rat with. -------------------------------------------------------- Lieutenant BSC Military
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2006.02.01 21:33:00 - [103] Originally by: Kaylana Syi Quote: The problem with tech 2 is related to how many people are raking in profits over such ships, which in my opinion is too low. They did nothing to get those bpos. They did no work, they took no risks, they invested no money. My solution would be to double production time, but also seed double the bpos. So in essence supply vs demand is unchanged. That is a brilliant idea tbh. I dislike crying about the situation and just deal with it until someone puts up a solution that should be implemented. I hate the fact people can just log in and be insta-billionairs. I remember when my first toon used to be in gehi when local chatter was all over the promise of R&D agents. I remember when DC used to be a nooblet like everyone else chime in on such things. I think it has been very dissapointing to most vets this system has gone on too long. How may alts and noobs grind out to lvl 3 agents on +17 charisma toons along with their main and hit it rich within the first two weeks? A lot. Now how many people have playing with R&D agents for almost 2 years and have nothing but a small tech II smart bomb offers from shipcommand R&D track? A lot more. /DEV please read quoted statement above and take that and put it in game like yesterday! The good ole days of blowing up giant secure christmas trees and getting death threats But yeah, a bit stupid that two battlecruiser bpos are worth as much as a Titan bpo. :\
Caanan	Posted - 2006.02.01 22:29:00 - [104] Edited by: Caanan on 01/02/2006 22:33:05 Originally by: Malthros Zenobia Goddamnit people, I'm not saying right now a HAC can/will kill a command ship, I'm saying that they SHOULD beable to, and that T2 BCs are far too much tank and gank when they are suppose to be uber gang-assist ships, not wtfpwnage tankers and damage dealers. k? T2 BCs should have about as much of a damage/tank boost as t2 destroyers got (hell they could even get the speed/agility boost), but in return for the loss of uber tank/gank, they'd be able to give massive gang bonuses making them worth using. IDEALLY, a HAC SHOULD be able tto beat a CS 1v1, but they can't. However, having a T2 BC in your gang should be far, far better than using the T1 version. If CCP is so insistant on keeping one of the ships as an offensive weapon, then it needs to flat out lose all gang bonuses, with the basis being that the offense/defense upgrade comes at the cost of being a gang helper. I agree that the offensive capability is a bit overpowering for the role. But they need to be able to tank well. If they have similar tankability to an interdictor then they will die more often because they will get called primary in an engagement. Who wants the other team to have an advantage? These BCs need to be tough, otherwise they will in no way be worth the price and will not be as effective as gang support ships.
Malthros Zenobia	Posted - 2006.02.01 23:43:00 - [105] That's understandable, but at the very least, they should be about as offensively damaging as a Scorpion or blackbird (in DPS). They tank abit too well though imo. Even newbies make some strong tanks with a BC like the Ferox. Tack on some more durability and AF or better resists to start with, and you've got a brick wall (with alot of firepower). Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu I'm probably one of the biggest Bush fanboys in Eve... This is like, Darth Vader, can't-reach-climax-without-killing-a-puppy evil.
Caanan	Posted - 2006.02.01 23:59:00 - [106] Originally by: Malthros Zenobia That's understandable, but at the very least, they should be about as offensively damaging as a Scorpion or blackbird (in DPS). They tank abit too well though imo. Even newbies make some strong tanks with a BC like the Ferox. Tack on some more durability and AF or better resists to start with, and you've got a brick wall (with alot of firepower). How do they tank too well? They have the same bonus 7.5% as a tech I BC. The only difference is the resistances, and you would expect that on the tech II version for the needed survivability. IMHO they tank fine.
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2006.02.02 00:07:00 - [107] I wouldn't say BCs tank too well, the only real advantage their intermediate signature size resulted in was slightly reduced damage from Torps. Thats kind of negated with Javelins and whatnot. Is it just me or did this thread kind of trail off to the point where nobody really has anything else to add which hasn't been stated? We've got a few complaints, which I'll summarize for any devs reading.. and would be most awesome if they could get addressed: 1. Unfair/illogical skill requirements of Command Cruisers 2. High damage output / HAC-type BC 3. Marginal benefits over Tech 1 BCs in the field of Gang Support 4. Racial orientation unfair for Gallente ships 5. BPO amount vs build time suggestion
Hllaxiu	Posted - 2006.02.02 00:10:00 - [108] Originally by: Malthros Zenobia That's understandable, but at the very least, they should be about as offensively damaging as a Scorpion or blackbird (in DPS). They tank abit too well though imo. Even newbies make some strong tanks with a BC like the Ferox. Tack on some more durability and AF or better resists to start with, and you've got a brick wall (with alot of firepower). Don't worry, its still very easy to lose them. They're still cruisers afterall.
Caanan	Posted - 2006.02.02 00:41:00 - [109] Originally by: DigitalCommunist 1. Unfair/illogical skill requirements of Command Cruisers 2. High damage output / HAC-type BC 3. Marginal benefits over Tech 1 BCs in the field of Gang Support 4. Racial orientation unfair for Gallente ships 5. BPO amount vs build time suggestion Honestly I don't know what to add. Digi is right. Although I really don't mind there being a second tech II BC that is basically an oversized HAC. Looks as if it will be fun to fly.
Erotic Irony	Posted - 2006.02.02 00:47:00 - [110] Quote: Dev reply please? A hilarious degree of entitlement. Eve is truly unlike other games in this sense. Grammar suggestions: Command ship injustice, injustices of command ships. As is, your topic line is cumbersome in passive tense. Same for your headings, they should read Disgruntlement Factor X. Better yet, just write succint, spell checked paragraphs. Similarly, why do you use emoticons, ellipses and shallow internet speak? Are you making a claim or hysterically bleating? Quote: What the hell? Indeed.
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2006.02.02 02:50:00 - [111] You've managed to write seven lines without really saying anything, I'd say you're more familiar with bleating. Goats are known to travel across bridges where Trolls live.
Meridius	Posted - 2006.02.02 02:57:00 - [112] Originally by: Erotic Irony Quote: Dev reply please? A hilarious degree of entitlement. Eve is truly unlike other games in this sense. Grammar suggestions: Command ship injustice, injustices of command ships. As is, your topic line is cumbersome in passive tense. Same for your headings, they should read Disgruntlement Factor X. Better yet, just write succint, spell checked paragraphs. Similarly, why do you use emoticons, ellipses and shallow internet speak? Are you making a claim or hysterically bleating? Quote: What the hell? Indeed. wtf ________________________________________________________
Derran	Posted - 2006.06.08 21:18:00 - [113] Good thread. I hate the idea of squadron command but the rest makes sense. I always hated the way they implemented gang ships. They should have done it so the Tier I battlecruiser was a gang only ship and even the T2 versions should have been that way (why oh why make a gallente command ship have Ewar bonuses??). Tier 2 battlecruisers should be combat driven. As it is now, a Sleipnir costs only a bit more than some HACs and is way stronger than a Muinn. Why would I want to fly a Muinn when the Sleipnir is available. It is a better tank and has more firepower in exchange for losing a bit of speed and not quite as agile. Um, so what is the downside again? They just should have made it similiar to a claymore with a different gang bonus then saved T2 combat related command ships to the upgraded Tier 2 version.
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.06.08 21:54:00 - [114] nice necro... Originally by: "Oveur" I don't react to threats any better than you do
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.08 21:56:00 - [115] cba to read the whole thread. The big problem was that Command Ships originally needed HAC/Logistics 5 and Squad Command 5. People naturally moaned about the Ship 5 skill but instead of just reducing that to 4, CCP reduced both to 4 :/
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2006.06.08 21:57:00 - [116] Originally by: Kaylana Syi nice necro... sarcasm or..? :p Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
Tar Ecthelion	Posted - 2006.06.08 22:25:00 - [117] ..... "When you kill a man it costs nothing to be polite" Winston Churchill
Blind Man	Posted - 2006.06.08 22:35:00 - [118] Originally by: Sarmaul cba to read the whole thread. The big problem was that Command Ships originally needed HAC/Logistics 5 and Squad Command 5. People naturally moaned about the Ship 5 skill but instead of just reducing that to 4, CCP reduced both to 4 :/ thats a good thing :P
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2006.06.08 23:43:00 - [119] Originally by: FireFoxx80 Actually I think their damage potential should be reduced, but their fire support role increased. Example: Caldari: Nighthawk: 7 High (3 Turret, 3 Launcher) Bonus: 10% bonus Light and Heavy Missile flight time and 5% bonus to Missile velocity per level Vulture: 7 High (3 Turret, 3 Launcher) Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range and 3% bonus to effectiveness of Siege Warfare Links per level You're not going to be popping HACs with those sort of arrangements, but you will be forced to mount either gang assist modules or remote reppers/rechargers. (Although I can bet we'd see a NightNosf (mmm nightnurse)) Amazing you picked the Caldari lineup for the "theoretical" nerf. The current Nighthawk and Vulture can't really kill much of anything, it's the rest that do uber DPS. ------ FPDOMS MINER KILLBOARD
Pah Triac	Posted - 2006.06.09 01:52:00 - [120] Edited by: Pah Triac on 09/06/2006 01:55:53 Edited by: Pah Triac on 09/06/2006 01:54:27 mind that the Logistic skill isnt a time sink Logistic skill = We are here to aid u skill thats what it does on a Fleet CS it aids others.. plz DC dont push too much on the spread of bonii for each race, jusy try to see the truth there is no sp... Galente are hybrid kind, they can do armor & shied and EW and have speed bonus and are insane dmg dealers on shord range and come with a jar of lubricant (is still puzzeled about that) im happy as it is, i'ff choosen my path in command ships and pleased that ppl are happy with the ~20% i give now. ur local Ammatar Pah. ps have a huge charisma and happy with it * People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true. *

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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