EVE Search - Proposed Changes for Command Ships

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Proposed Changes for Command Ships

» 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)
Segraina Skyblazer Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 9	Posted - 2015.08.17 01:03:30 - [1] - Quote Commands ships are Tech 2 BS right? Then why do they only have ONE role bonus? Why can they only fit 2 warfare links when they have bonuses for 3? Even though CSs have higher base Cap buffer then HACS, they have much slower cap recharge rate, why? All BC class can use MMJD, but shouldn't the CS get bonuses to use these modules for being T2 Ships? I have all these grievances against CS for lacking so much for having such a ridiculous long training time, that it makes me wonder if I was the only one foolish enough to train for them before their training requisites changed. Maybe I was thinking that somewhere down the line that CCP would continue the SHIPS rebalance and remember that CSs are indeed T2 BCs (not T1.5 BCs) Hence I have come up with a proper power balance for these ships that would justify their ridiculous lengthy training time. Reduce all CSs weapon hardpoints from 5 to 4, so that they would viably fit 3 warfare links instead of only just 2. Increase all cap recharge rate on all CSs by additional 25% (37.5% for the Absolution for obvious reasons) Add two additional role bonuses: a 70% reduction in MMJD reactivation delay and a 75% bonus to racial weapon system rate of fire. Or a 100% bonus to racial weapon system damage. The big picture would look like this: Absolution Command Ships bonuses (per skill level): 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Optimal Range 3% bonus to Armored Warfare and Information Warfare Links effectiveness Amarr Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level): 10% reduction in Medium Energy Turret activation cost 4% bonus to all armor resistances Role Bonus: GÇó Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously * 70% reduction in MMJD reactivation delay * 75% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire Damnation Command Ships bonuses (per skill level): 5% bonus to ship capacitor recharge rate 10% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile damage 3% bonus to Armored Warfare and Information Warfare Links effectiveness Amarr Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level): 10% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile max velocity 4% bonus to all armor resistances Role Bonus: GÇó Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously * 70% reduction in MMJD reactivation delay * 75% bonus to Medium Missile Launcher rate of fire Astarte Command Ships bonuses (per skill level): 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 3% bonus to Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare Links effectiveness Gallente Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level): 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking speed 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer amount Role Bonus: GÇó Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously * 70% reduction in MMJD reactivation delay * 75% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret rate of fire Eos Command Ships bonuses (per skill level): 7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone max velocity and tracking speed 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and tracking speed 3% bonus to Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare Links effectiveness Gallente Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level): 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer amount Role Bonus: GÇó Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously * 70% reduction in MMJD reactivation delay * 75% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret rate of fire Sleipnir Command Ships bonuses (per skill level): 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff 3% bonus to Siege Warfare and Skirmish Warfare Links effectiveness Minmatar Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level): 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed 7.5% bonus to Shield Booster amount Role Bonus: GÇó Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously * 70% reduction in MMJD reactivation delay * 75% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire Claymore Command Ships bonuses (per skill level): 7.5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile Launcher flight time 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile explosion velocity 3% bonus to Siege Warfare and Skirmish Warfare Links effectiveness Minmatar Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level): 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile Launcher rate of fire 7.5% bonus to Shield Booster amount Role Bonus: GÇó Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously * 70% reduction in MMJD reactivation delay * 75% bonus to Medium Missile Launcher rate of fire Vulture Command Ships bonuses (per skill level): 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage OR tracking speed 3% bonus to Siege Warfare and Information Warfare Links effectiveness Caldari Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level): 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 4% bonus to all shield resistances Role Bonus: GÇó Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously * 70% reduction in MMJD reactivation delay * 75% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret rate of fire Nighthawk Command Ships bonuses (per skill level): 10% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile Launcher damage 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile explosion radius 3% bonus to Siege Warfare and Information Warfare Links effectiveness Caldari Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level): 10% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile max velocity 4% bonus to all shield resistances Role Bonus: GÇó Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously * 70% reduction in MMJD reactivation delay * 75% bonus to Medium Missile Launcher rate of fire These are my propose changes for the Command Ships. Not all may be great, but would hopefully encourage further input to balance the skills out where needed.
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3731	Posted - 2015.08.17 01:13:22 - [2] - Quote I've heard it said that a rof bonus adds more than a straight up damage bonus. So are you thinking 1600+ for an Astarte, or are you aiming for the full 2k?
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4577	Posted - 2015.08.17 01:26:32 - [3] - Quote Segraina Skyblazer wrote: * 75% bonus to Medium Missile Launcher rate of fire Sure, I'll take that. RLMLs will be just insane... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2398	Posted - 2015.08.17 01:30:02 - [4] - Quote They only have 2 utility slots to deliberately cause a tension between fitting for max DPS and fitting for max boosts.
Xackattack Avianson You are a Pirate 0	Posted - 2015.08.17 01:36:18 - [5] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: They only have 2 utility slots to deliberately cause a tension between fitting for max DPS and fitting for max boosts. I agree, if you're looking to mix boosting with fighting then you're going to have less of both, you can't expect to be a fleet booster and a high dps ship simultaneously.
FT Cold The Scope Gallente Federation 23	Posted - 2015.08.17 02:07:30 - [6] - Quote I'm in agreement on the point that the training time for command ships is unreasonable, however, I disagree with the proposed changes to ship bonuses. If anything, what needs to happen is that command oriented skill requirements be reduced. Also, I think that the current five hard point plus two utility high slot scheme is perfectly reasonable as it forces players to fully optimize one strength of their ship at a time. As a whole, I don't believe that the battlecruiser class as a whole is very healthy, but the command ship lineup is certainly far stronger than the t1 line. Buffing them in the way you've outlined would lead to an ugly situation where the t2 derivatives would be far, far stronger than the t1 hulls and unreasonably increase the disparity between low skill point or low income characters and higher end PVPers. Stitch Kaneland wrote a nice proposal here a few months ago detailing a list of proposed changes to battlecruisers that are pretty reasonable, and I believe would help establish the class a little better at countering cruiser sized hulls. I strongly encourage you to check it out, there are some very well reasoned arguments both for and against the proposal to be found there.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2399	Posted - 2015.08.17 03:18:23 - [7] - Quote Training time isn't an issue for Command Ships. Assuming a balanced map they are actually very good, the problem is attributes causing min max towards ships & weapons which then slows down the CS pre-reqs. Nothing to do with the skill multipliers and the skills make perfect sense.
Tom Gerard Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan 1373	Posted - 2015.08.17 03:29:31 - [8] - Quote Segraina Skyblazer wrote: Commands ships are Tech 2 BS right? Nope. Now with 100% less Troll.
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 735	Posted - 2015.08.17 03:33:54 - [9] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: They only have 2 utility slots to deliberately cause a tension between fitting for max DPS and fitting for max boosts. Yep....pick a poison here. The people its boosting should be the muscle as it were for the CS if loading up the links. Or if needed as muscle....no/limited links and have at it. Also not digging the mjd bonus. Sounds like the CS is trying to avoid dying. While not a link boat must burn zealot (will admit I love it when my booster is making the day go much better lol)....I do not shed tears when they die either. Think the idea here was to make them more approachable to kill. For the force multiplier they can be CS should have some pita factors associated with take away really.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1586	Posted - 2015.08.17 03:47:45 - [10] - Quote The only problem with Command Ships is that T3 Cruisers are more survivable and take less training time. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.

Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 735	Posted - 2015.08.17 04:15:49 - [11] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: The only problem with Command Ships is that T3 Cruisers are more survivable and take less training time. T3 to run more than 1 link needs some extra time for the mod to do that. Not much of a tradeoff but it is there kind of. At least ccp made the bonuses favor CS at some point. Back in the day....yeah....cs was a hard sell really. for linking anyway, sleipnir I know was liked more for its combat ability. As I recall, it was, and may still be but not sure, preferred over the most pimp loki you can think of iirc.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1586	Posted - 2015.08.17 05:07:22 - [12] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: The only problem with Command Ships is that T3 Cruisers are more survivable and take less training time. T3 to run more than 1 link needs some extra time for the mod to do that. Not much of a tradeoff but it is there kind of. The Warfare Link Specialist skill is essentially mandatory for any serious boosting pilot anyway. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
Tragot Gomndor Vision Inc Hole Control 65	Posted - 2015.08.17 05:33:22 - [13] - Quote Commandships are fine, nerf T3. NONONONONONO TO CAPS IN HIGHSEC NO
Segraina Skyblazer Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 9	Posted - 2015.08.17 07:27:03 - [14] - Quote Danika Princip wrote: I've heard it said that a rof bonus adds more than a straight up damage bonus. So are you thinking 1600+ for an Astarte, or are you aiming for the full 2k? Did you read the part where I said this "Not all may be great, but would hopefully encourage further input to balance the skills out where needed."
Segraina Skyblazer Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 9	Posted - 2015.08.17 07:30:06 - [15] - Quote FT Cold wrote: I'm in agreement on the point that the training time for command ships is unreasonable, however, I disagree with the proposed changes to ship bonuses. If anything, what needs to happen is that command oriented skill requirements be reduced. Also, I think that the current five hard point plus two utility high slot scheme is perfectly reasonable as it forces players to fully optimize one strength of their ship at a time. As a whole, I don't believe that the battlecruiser class as a whole is very healthy, but the command ship lineup is certainly far stronger than the t1 line. Buffing them in the way you've outlined would lead to an ugly situation where the t2 derivatives would be far, far stronger than the t1 hulls and unreasonably increase the disparity between low skill point or low income characters and higher end PVPers. Stitch Kaneland wrote a nice proposal here a few months ago detailing a list of potential changes to battlecruisers that are reasonable, and I believe would help establish the class a little better at countering cruiser sized hulls. I strongly encourage you to check it out, there are some very well reasoned arguments both for and against the proposal to be found there. I already did, but his focus is mainly on T1 & Faction BCs, not CSs.
Segraina Skyblazer Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 9	Posted - 2015.08.17 07:32:59 - [16] - Quote Tom Gerard wrote: Segraina Skyblazer wrote: Commands ships are Tech 2 BS right? Nope. Re-edited, I obviously meant T2 BCs, but thanks anyway for pointing out that error.
Lu Ziffer Jelly Baby Corporation Fidelas Constans 72	Posted - 2015.08.17 07:57:15 - [17] - Quote A commandship should be a fleetboostingship that is on grid and it sacrifces its combat abilities for the huge boost it gives to the fleet The shield commandships need a way to gain another 200k ehp so they are not volleyed of the field. The last thing I fit on a commandship as a booster is a weapon there are, smartbombs, probelaunchers, cynos, entosis links and auto targeters(for more locked targets) Commandships do not need more firepower.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1815	Posted - 2015.08.17 08:51:28 - [18] - Quote Lu Ziffer wrote: A commandship should be a fleetboostingship that is on grid and it sacrifces its combat abilities for the huge boost it gives to the fleet The shield commandships need a way to gain another 200k ehp so they are not volleyed of the field. The last thing I fit on a commandship as a booster is a weapon there are, smartbombs, probelaunchers, cynos, entosis links and auto targeters(for more locked targets) Commandships do not need more firepower. Can get ~189k out a vulture with all T2 mods and no heat. It's hardly unreasonable. If you want to make an argument for command processors being low AND mediums slots...well that I could get behind.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1590	Posted - 2015.08.17 09:09:52 - [19] - Quote FT Cold wrote: I'm in agreement on the point that the training time for command ships is unreasonable, however, I disagree with the proposed changes to ship bonuses. If anything, what needs to happen is that command oriented skill requirements be reduced. Also, I think that the current five hard point plus two utility high slot scheme is perfectly reasonable as it forces players to fully optimize one strength of their ship at a time. As a whole, I don't believe that the battlecruiser class as a whole is very healthy, but the command ship lineup is certainly far stronger than the t1 line. Buffing them in the way you've outlined would lead to an ugly situation where the t2 derivatives would be far, far stronger than the t1 hulls and unreasonably increase the disparity between low skill point or low income characters and higher end PVPers. Stitch Kaneland wrote a nice proposal here a few months ago detailing a list of potential changes to battlecruisers that are reasonable, and I believe would help establish the class a little better at countering cruiser sized hulls. I strongly encourage you to check it out, there are some very well reasoned arguments both for and against the proposal to be found there. I pretty much agree with everything here. CCP might consider reducing the leadership prerequisites to train the Command Ships skill to Level IV, but I know they intended to make it a long skill train to get into Command Ships. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
Lu Ziffer Jelly Baby Corporation Fidelas Constans 72	Posted - 2015.08.17 09:12:18 - [20] - Quote My problem with shield commandships is that they have 190k ehp no midslots and armor commandship can get 350k ehp and have it's midslots for support using target painters. In big fleetfights a Vulture with 400m Signature and 190k ehp is a easy target, a Damnation with 265m signature and 350k ehp has a good chance to survive when being the primary.

Segraina Skyblazer Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 9	Posted - 2015.08.17 10:59:59 - [21] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: FT Cold wrote: I'm in agreement on the point that the training time for command ships is unreasonable, however, I disagree with the proposed changes to ship bonuses. If anything, what needs to happen is that command oriented skill requirements be reduced. Also, I think that the current five hard point plus two utility high slot scheme is perfectly reasonable as it forces players to fully optimize one strength of their ship at a time. As a whole, I don't believe that the battlecruiser class as a whole is very healthy, but the command ship lineup is certainly far stronger than the t1 line. Buffing them in the way you've outlined would lead to an ugly situation where the t2 derivatives would be far, far stronger than the t1 hulls and unreasonably increase the disparity between low skill point or low income characters and higher end PVPers. Stitch Kaneland wrote a nice proposal here a few months ago detailing a list of potential changes to battlecruisers that are reasonable, and I believe would help establish the class a little better at countering cruiser sized hulls. I strongly encourage you to check it out, there are some very well reasoned arguments both for and against the proposal to be found there. I pretty much agree with everything here. CCP might consider reducing the leadership prerequisites to train the Command Ships skill to Level IV, but I know they intended to make it a long skill train to get into Command Ships. The lengthy training time is no longer an issue as far as I'm concern since I've already trained CS 5. Instead I'd rather they give CSs more useful bonuses to justify the time sink it takes to get into these hulls. At the very least they need a 70% reduction to MMJD reactivation delay role bonus and 25% increase in cap recharge.
Segraina Skyblazer Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 9	Posted - 2015.08.17 11:02:30 - [22] - Quote Lu Ziffer wrote: My problem with shield commandships is that they have 190k ehp no midslots and armor commandship can get 350k ehp and have it's midslots for support using target painters. In big fleetfights a Vulture with 400m Signature and 190k ehp is a easy target, a Damnation with 265m signature and 350k ehp has a good chance to survive when being the primary. In that case, CCP should add a 10% shield hitpoint bonus to the NIghthawk to complement the Damnations 10% armor hitpoint bonus.
Blackfeathers Unholy Knights of Cthulhu Test Alliance Please Ignore 27	Posted - 2015.08.17 11:25:04 - [23] - Quote YOU LEAVE MY SLEIPNIR ALONE! Even though that Sleip with dual 180s would be fun to listen to as it fires with a 75% ROF buff.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1590	Posted - 2015.08.17 11:42:41 - [24] - Quote Segraina Skyblazer wrote: The lengthy training time is no longer an issue as far as I'm concern since I've already trained CS 5. So, basically, "** you, I've got mine!" Well, so do I... saw the change coming and made sure to get all my characters into Command Ships before it happened. It's still a long slog uphill for anyone contemplating training a new character. I believe the concern is that Command Ships might actually be a viable fleet doctrine if they lowered the prerequisites and enabled more pilots to get into them easily. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why** do I post here? I'm stubborn.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3038	Posted - 2015.08.17 12:08:00 - [25] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Segraina Skyblazer wrote: The lengthy training time is no longer an issue as far as I'm concern since I've already trained CS 5. So, basically, "**** you, I've got mine!" Well, so do I... saw the change coming and made sure to get all my characters into Command Ships before it happened. It's still a long slog uphill for anyone contemplating training a new character. I believe the concern is that Command Ships might actually be a viable fleet doctrine if they lowered the prerequisites and enabled more pilots to get into them easily. Thing is, the training time didn't change. Just the required skills changed, for those who don't remember they used to require both Battlecruisers V and Racial Cruisers V and then either Logistics IV or Heavy Assault Cruisers IV. A picture. http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64158/1/SkillCommandShip.jpg Roleplaying Trinkets for Explorers and Collectors
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1815	Posted - 2015.08.17 12:20:59 - [26] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Segraina Skyblazer wrote: The lengthy training time is no longer an issue as far as I'm concern since I've already trained CS 5. So, basically, "**** you, I've got mine!" Well, so do I... saw the change coming and made sure to get all my characters into Command Ships before it happened. It's still a long slog uphill for anyone contemplating training a new character. I believe the concern is that Command Ships might actually be a viable fleet doctrine if they lowered the prerequisites and enabled more pilots to get into them easily. Thing is, the training time didn't change. Just the required skills changed, for those who don't remember they used to require both Battlecruisers V and Racial Cruisers V and then either Logistics IV or Heavy Assault Cruisers IV. A picture. http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64158/1/SkillCommandShip.jpg Any everyone active then who didnt already have them dropped EVERYTHING to skill for them to avoid it (and to round of BC V and dessie V if not gotten yet). Thus the "skill train length" isn't really valid, because most* of the people in the ships don't even have them. *unsubstantiated but statistically likely.
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 1236	Posted - 2015.08.17 13:36:35 - [27] - Quote You have to be one hell of an ignorant to come up with those ideas and not see what you're doing there. The ones that aren't outright ridiculous: Four hardpoints, going against the conception of including fitting choices and trade offs They don't need native cap recharge, they need more cargohold if anything. Cargohold determines your time on grid, native recharge is completely sufficient to sustain guns, links and hardeners with the occasional mwd sprint. MJD bonus, ayyyy lmao. Edit: One of my toons flies CS without leadership skills, will train them on the next remap though anyways. The others did go the long way. Still worth, since I need those (people claim useless) skills anyways.
Celthric Kanerian Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation 398	Posted - 2015.08.17 14:24:29 - [28] - Quote Segraina Skyblazer wrote: Nighthawk 75% bonus to Medium Missile Launcher rate of fire . I liked the general idea until I saw this. After reading that I am on the edge of reporting your post for trolling attempt.
Segraina Skyblazer Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 9	Posted - 2015.08.17 20:57:41 - [29] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: You have to be one hell of an ignorant to come up with those ideas and not see what you're doing there. The ones that aren't outright ridiculous: Four hardpoints, going against the conception of including fitting choices and trade offs They don't need native cap recharge, they need more cargohold if anything. Cargohold determines your time on grid, native recharge is completely sufficient to sustain guns, links and hardeners with the occasional mwd sprint. MJD bonus, ayyyy lmao. Edit: One of my toons flies CS without leadership skills, will train them on the next remap though anyways. The others did go the long way. Still worth, since I need those (people claim useless) skills anyways. You have a point. I forgot about cargo space. In that case they could use a 650m3 - 750m3 cargo hold.
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3732	Posted - 2015.08.17 21:19:03 - [30] - Quote Celthric Kanerian wrote: Segraina Skyblazer wrote: Nighthawk 75% bonus to Medium Missile Launcher rate of fire . I liked the general idea until I saw this. After reading that I am on the edge of reporting your post for trolling attempt. I hadn't even noticed that. OP, why would anyone ever fly anything that isn't a CS under your proposal?



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,07s, ref 20250810/1725
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF

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.