EVE Search - Command Destroyers, Please make it happen

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Command Destroyers, Please make it happen

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 1152	Posted - 2015.06.28 11:20:43 - [1] - Quote There's frigs and destroyers. And cruisers and battlecruisers. BCs can mount/use links, destroyers currently can't. Please give set of (T2) command destroyers that - can use atleast two links, or one if AoE links are to happen anytime soon - are slow, sturdy, don't easily cap the probe size - have strong projection instead of strong raw damage - have matching bonuses to link-modules, iE reduced cap usage and reduced fitting reqs - cannot use command processors - lack a warfare link strength bonus the same way T1 BCs do So to say: Teche 2 Talwar, Corax, Algos and Dragoon or in other words, two light missile ones and two drone ones, weapon systems suited for gang warfare (projectiles, blasters and pulses are not).
Zappity WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 2294	Posted - 2015.06.28 11:47:35 - [2] - Quote I see these as pretty much essential for when links go on grid only. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1150	Posted - 2015.06.28 13:11:37 - [3] - Quote If they can ever get boosts on grid w/o causing a server fire i'm all for this however as it stands just use a T1 BC they can get their warp speed up enough to keep up with frig gangs Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 1284	Posted - 2015.06.28 13:26:44 - [4] - Quote Make boosts targeted modules so that the command dessie passes it's boost to targeted squad members as any remote module does. Now a fleet has to spider boost, boosts are intrinsically on grid, fleet maneuvering becomes more important and boosting is forced on grid. In addition make the boosts cumulative so that a command dessie is useful in small gang, a command cruiser adds additional boost to any targeted command dessie, command BC boosts again.
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 1155	Posted - 2015.06.28 17:04:27 - [5] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Make boosts targeted modules so that the command dessie passes it's boost to targeted squad members as any remote module does. Now a fleet has to spider boost, boosts are intrinsically on grid, fleet maneuvering becomes more important and boosting is forced on grid. In addition make the boosts cumulative so that a command dessie is useful in small gang, a command cruiser adds additional boost to any targeted command dessie, command BC boosts again. Please, if you cite someone else's idea, atleast refer to the person properly. Don't just copy/paste other people, thx.
Riot Girl You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack 3750	Posted - 2015.06.28 17:19:28 - [6] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: Algos No I'm sick of Gallente getting all the best ships. Gallente should be banned from getting any new ships for a while. Oh god.
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 1156	Posted - 2015.06.28 19:19:51 - [7] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: Lloyd Roses wrote: Algos No I'm sick of Gallente getting all the best ships. Gallente should be banned from getting any new ships for a while. Hecate is balanced cause the SAR takes more cap than usual people try to convince me. I don't believe them, but w/e.
James Baboli Novablasters 941	Posted - 2015.06.28 20:01:51 - [8] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: Riot Girl wrote: Lloyd Roses wrote: Algos No I'm sick of Gallente getting all the best ships. Gallente should be banned from getting any new ships for a while. Hecate is balanced cause the SAR takes more cap than usual people try to convince me. I don't believe them, but w/e. or the 5k DPS in a WR and 1k with polarized, or or or or. Ship makes me spit out possible abuses so fast I feel like a seal. As for the OP, not supported. Links are a massive force multiplier and should need high investment or deep tradeoff. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10451	Posted - 2015.06.28 21:30:16 - [9] - Quote +1 absolutely wonderful idea, definitely something I have wanted but never managed to articulate (I play drunk so...) . The proposed idea sounds great (perfect in fact ) but I would suggest that we make them op as **** (this is f&I after all) by giving them a covops cloak and the combat probe bonus the d3's have =]\|[=
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 684	Posted - 2015.06.28 21:58:31 - [10] - Quote Have been out the pvp game a bit so have to ask.... just how fast are the roams/ops going they can't wait for a CS/link t3 to keep up? Or link BC if no pro link support on hand yet? As I see it if a few seconds behind on warp to outbound, jump....that first few seconds peeps are in the new system is a few seconds to see how hot the new system is. And if bubbles are up. So that, you know, the link boat is not landing into a crap storm. I'd know if among the campers and my choice is bunch of cruisers and frigs and the link boat....link boat is looking like a good candidate to be number 1 on the called primary list.
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 702	Posted - 2015.06.28 23:07:09 - [11] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: Have been out the pvp game a bit so have to ask.... just how fast are the roams/ops going they can't wait for a CS/link t3 to keep up? Or link BC if no pro link support on hand yet? As I see it if a few seconds behind on warp to outbound, jump....that first few seconds peeps are in the new system is a few seconds to see how hot the new system is. And if bubbles are up. So that, you know, the link boat is not landing into a crap storm. I'd know if among the campers and my choice is bunch of cruisers and frigs and the link boat....link boat is looking like a good candidate to be number 1 on the called primary list. I thought that's why they are usually using the tech3 subsystems for linking? Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
Baali Tekitsu AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 811	Posted - 2015.06.28 23:30:52 - [12] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: Have been out the pvp game a bit so have to ask.... just how fast are the roams/ops going they can't wait for a CS/link t3 to keep up? Or link BC if no pro link support on hand yet? As I see it if a few seconds behind on warp to outbound, jump....that first few seconds peeps are in the new system is a few seconds to see how hot the new system is. And if bubbles are up. So that, you know, the link boat is not landing into a crap storm. I'd know if among the campers and my choice is bunch of cruisers and frigs and the link boat....link boat is looking like a good candidate to be number 1 on the called primary list. Setup your link boat properly (if youre concerned about travel speed fit warp rigs) and use something else for scout. RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 684	Posted - 2015.06.28 23:49:18 - [13] - Quote Baali Tekitsu wrote: Setup your link boat properly (if youre concerned about travel speed fit warp rigs) and use something else for scout. Quote: I thought that's why they are usually using the tech3 subsystems for linking? that's what I would say....but the usual argument for dessie links is even t3 is slow. Which I really have never gotten. I keep on hoping one of these peeps will enlighten me. Or why they don't run speed/agility mods if they have to be that run and gun as it were. I'd say they are "honorable" and run these on grid to be fair to need tank or damage mods if they shoot stuff. But well me being jaded will say that isn't happening most of the time.
Baali Tekitsu AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 811	Posted - 2015.06.29 00:03:36 - [14] - Quote Now I understand you. I sometimes use a arty nanosleipnir as a on grid linkboat to supplement my t3 links. Mainly because t3 links take a bit to setup and sometimes you want to have them immediatly. Especially when you want to split other gangs on gates and its not entirely sure where the fight will happen. RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 1159	Posted - 2015.06.29 01:07:26 - [15] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: just how fast are the roams/ops going they can't wait for a CS/link t3 to keep up? Or link BC if no pro link support on hand yet? A CS takes 7secs to warp and then only warps at 3.3AU or something like that before hyperspatials, but you'd rather end up with T2 collision accelerator and agility rig than warpspeed. Link-BC, please don't be silly.
Phaade Perimeter Defense Systems 361	Posted - 2015.06.29 01:21:27 - [16] - Quote Zappity wrote: I see these as pretty much essential for when links go on grid only. Will never happen. Too much money in link alts.
Zappity WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 2298	Posted - 2015.06.29 01:31:18 - [17] - Quote Rubbish. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10457	Posted - 2015.06.29 01:32:11 - [18] - Quote Phaade wrote: Zappity wrote: I see these as pretty much essential for when links go on grid only. Will never happen. Too much money in link alts. they said that about multiboxers, you really think they will lose any sleep over us winging about our ogb alts needing active piloting and a tank? =]\|[=
Phaade Perimeter Defense Systems 361	Posted - 2015.06.29 02:07:44 - [19] - Quote More serious note, links need to be removed from the game. Or nerfed by about 80%. They are so blatantly stupid right now it's hard to imagine CCP being so idiotic about them. This is how bad CCP is at balance / sanity: The Ishtar has been utterly and completely broken for over 3 years.
Phaade Perimeter Defense Systems 361	Posted - 2015.06.29 02:13:26 - [20] - Quote Ralph King-Griffin wrote: Phaade wrote: Zappity wrote: I see these as pretty much essential for when links go on grid only. Will never happen. Too much money in link alts. they said that about multiboxers, you really think they will lose any sleep over us winging about our ogb alts needing active piloting and a tank? You really think that "technical limitations" are why links are not on grid.... Are you kidding me??? This is 2015 man, and there are multiple, multiple modules / deployables that function on an area of effect basis. There is no way in hell they can't make links be area of effect modules. It's a joke. Actually it's a pay to win cash grab.
Baali Tekitsu AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 811	Posted - 2015.06.29 02:18:40 - [21] - Quote Phaade wrote: Ralph King-Griffin wrote: Phaade wrote: Zappity wrote: I see these as pretty much essential for when links go on grid only. Will never happen. Too much money in link alts. they said that about multiboxers, you really think they will lose any sleep over us winging about our ogb alts needing active piloting and a tank? You really think that "technical limitations" are why links are not on grid.... Are you kidding me??? This is 2015 man, and there are multiple, multiple modules / deployables that function on an area of effect basis. There is no way in hell they can't make links be area of effect modules. It's a joke. Actually it's a pay to win cash grab. Can we say the ilumittani has been confirmed? RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
James Baboli Novablasters 941	Posted - 2015.06.29 02:45:42 - [22] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: Zan Shiro wrote: just how fast are the roams/ops going they can't wait for a CS/link t3 to keep up? Or link BC if no pro link support on hand yet? A CS takes 7secs to warp and then only warps at 3.3AU or something like that before hyperspatials, but you'd rather end up with T2 collision accelerator and agility rig than warpspeed. Link-BC, please don't be silly. <5s align, 5au/s warp speed for ~110m t1 BC with 3 links? Sounds like a reasonable set of tradeoffs to me, and can keep up with most frigate roams by the time you add 5s per jump for scouting. [Cyclone, gang clone] Inertial Stabilizers II Inertial Stabilizers II Inertial Stabilizers II Experimental Hyperspatial Accelerator Experimental Hyperspatial Accelerator Command Processor I Command Processor I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II Large Shield Extender II Skirmish Warfare Link - Evasive Maneuvers II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers II [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] Medium Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I Medium Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I Medium Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Barrogh Habalu Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 893	Posted - 2015.06.29 06:44:52 - [23] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Make boosts targeted modules so that the command dessie passes it's boost to targeted squad members as any remote module does. Now a fleet has to spider boost, boosts are intrinsically on grid, fleet maneuvering becomes more important and boosting is forced on grid. In addition make the boosts cumulative so that a command dessie is useful in small gang, a command cruiser adds additional boost to any targeted command dessie, command BC boosts again. Please, if you cite someone else's idea, atleast refer to the person properly. Don't just copy/paste other people, thx. He would have to make a list longer than his post in order to refer everyone who promoted the idea.
Duchess Starbuckington Starbuckington Manor 341	Posted - 2015.06.29 07:40:40 - [24] - Quote Yes, more links, exactly what the game needs. [/sarcasm]
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10462	Posted - 2015.06.29 09:14:46 - [25] - Quote Phaade wrote: Ralph King-Griffin wrote: Phaade wrote: Zappity wrote: I see these as pretty much essential for when links go on grid only. Will never happen. Too much money in link alts. they said that about multiboxers, you really think they will lose any sleep over us winging about our ogb alts needing active piloting and a tank? You really think that "technical limitations" are why links are not on grid.... Are you kidding me??? This is 2015 man, and there are multiple, multiple modules / deployables that function on an area of effect basis. There is no way in hell they can't make links be area of effect modules. It's a joke. Actually it's a pay to win cash grab. Again, if that were the case then why did they nuke is boxer. And yes I would very much believe that fleet booster mechanisms are mad because this games code is over half as old as my girlfriend. =]\|[=
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 1295	Posted - 2015.06.29 09:30:55 - [26] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Make boosts targeted modules so that the command dessie passes it's boost to targeted squad members as any remote module does. Now a fleet has to spider boost, boosts are intrinsically on grid, fleet maneuvering becomes more important and boosting is forced on grid. In addition make the boosts cumulative so that a command dessie is useful in small gang, a command cruiser adds additional boost to any targeted command dessie, command BC boosts again. Please, if you cite someone else's idea, atleast refer to the person properly. Don't just copy/paste other people, thx. That was no copy and paste, I've proposed the same idea many times in various command ship/on-grid boost threads. The idea is my own, if someone else has the same idea then all well and good, we back up each others argument. And yes, I still really want a tech II algos...
Spugg Galdon Nisroc Angels 712	Posted - 2015.06.29 11:43:54 - [27] - Quote This has been suggested quite a few times and always gets a positive response. CCP Fozzie has even stated that he wants to do this but needs to fix off grid links first. Can't wait for OGB's to get removed from the game. I don't understand why it simply can't just be a "in fleet?" check with a "range is less than xx" check but hey ho. I'm not a programmer personally, I think the destroyer hull needs to be fully fleshed out with support line ups. A light logistics ship using the destroyer hull would be far better than the frigate version. A Point defense Destroyer is needed to fix bombs A Command destroyer is required to allow small gang support with links (OGB's need to be removed first)
Petre en Thielles Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 159	Posted - 2015.06.29 14:29:24 - [28] - Quote no...no. no. no. we need less links. not more.
Raphendyr Nardieu Unpublished Chapter Chapters. 17	Posted - 2015.06.29 15:41:28 - [29] - Quote Ideas to think about: Link power should be only somewhere in range 50-90% of the bigger variants. (Bigger ships have more cpu and should not be replaced too easily with smaller ones). Squad only (limits to "small" gang. 1 link destroyer per 9 other ships). And of course I think links should be on grid only.
Gregor Parud Ordo Ardish 1414	Posted - 2015.06.29 16:12:10 - [30] - Quote We need less links and they need to become less powerful, on grid and have zero effect on the ship giving out the bonuses.

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.