EVE Search - Command Ship Nerf!?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Command Ship Nerf!?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nye Jaran	Posted - 2007.06.08 02:23:00 - [31] I called this in the Drake thread (kinda). Sadly, I was only joking then. Glad it happened now though, saves me a ****load of training time. Guess it's time to start training Gallente since I prefer BCs over everything else (although the Caracal can be fun too). So when do the armor tankers get a few nerfs?
True Ace Gallente Blood Moon Masques	Posted - 2007.06.08 08:57:00 - [32] this really isnt a big nerf, passive tanking is still stronger compared to the two active tanks. just adapt. besides when was caldari ever teh passive tanking race, i thought that was gallente. caldari have powerful active tanks and get good dps with it. the entire cant use ew and tackle arguement just means u need to bring a friend. let those interceptor pilots get put to use. IM YOUR KING'S KING.
podd0r Fudgepackers R Us	Posted - 2007.06.08 09:05:00 - [33] Originally by: Icome4u Edited by: Icome4u on 05/06/2007 18:55:11 What the **!?? Caldari get nerf again.... We can't tank We can't PvP We can't fit properly b/c of **ty CPU WTH is this bs... LOL, been like that for years with every other race in the game.
Incantare Caldari Darkness Inc.	Posted - 2007.06.08 11:27:00 - [34] Edited by: Incantare on 08/06/2007 11:32:34 Originally by: True Ace this really isnt a big nerf, passive tanking is still stronger compared to the two active tanks. just adapt. besides when was caldari ever teh passive tanking race, i thought that was gallente. caldari have powerful active tanks and get good dps with it. the entire cant use ew and tackle arguement just means u need to bring a friend. let those interceptor pilots get put to use. Huh? To expand: the vulture has the DPS of a ferox (sic) and while the nighthawk does ok damage, it's comlpetly blown away by equivalents from other races.
Rigsta Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.06.08 12:11:00 - [35] Originally by: murder one I fail to see how this nerfs the Nighthawk and Vulture. Their active tanks are just fine. And the Claymore is still disgustingly good too Originally by: Jim McGregor I felt the disturbance... it was like a million voices suddenly stopped whining for a second. Unfortunantly it then continued.
Jocca Quinn Matari BackBone	Posted - 2007.06.08 12:21:00 - [36] Originally by: Feradwynn I do have to say the explaination given in the Dev blog is complete and utter bunk. When Rev. 1 was updated the BC recharge times were increased from 1000 seconds to 1250 seconds. In addition, as also mentioned, shield capacity was increased on all tech 1 and tech 2 BC's. This was all done at a time when the intent of the dev team was to INCREASE the lifetime of ships. There are however problems, and the biggest problem being that the tier 2 BC's also got a nice boost to shield capacity over the tier 1's. The whole process was done without looking at the global implications of the changes that were being done. The inconsistant increase in tech 1 increases compared to tech 2 increases to over all shield capacity resulted in the Vulture and Nighthawks having a base shield capacity LOWER than a Ferox. Yes a tech 2 ship with a shield that is not as good as the tech 1 ship it is based on. This imbalance effects the shield capacity of ALL tech 2 BC's. As such their sheild capacities should be increased to 20% over their tech 1 base ship as was the initial design concept for tech 2 ships. Highlighted what I think is the main issue, and this does not just affect the Caldari ships, it affects ALL the command ships. They did not get their fair share when the hitpoint increase happened. Give us that please. none of us are free as long as one of us is chained none of us are free
Eleana Tomelac Gallente	Posted - 2007.06.08 12:23:00 - [37] You're right here, when the HP upgrade came, what I understood was that the CS should have 20%more HP than their T1 counterpart, but it's not the actual stats. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Happy owner of a Vexor Navy Issue and few ishkurs. The Vexor Navy Issue is much more fun than the Myrmidon !
Usul78 Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.06.08 16:56:00 - [38] I'm glad to see the replies has mostly been productive and about points specified It would be nice to see all the command ships being revisted by the development/balancing team as there seems to be a big divide, not only between their capabilities in the respective races, but the diffence between the command ships themselves and the T1 varieties. I would hate to see the caldari command ships go the same way as the caldari recon ships. I will continue to monitor the developments on these ships but i've personaly stopped all caldari training (8 months training for various T2 ships and speciality skills) and will instead be training up for gallente ships and weapons. Some other caldari pilots i've spoken with have (by coincidence ofcourse) decided to train gallente too. WTS: Falcon, rook, nighthawk, vulture (just joking ofcourse, hehe - they've already been sold ) Seriously though I'd like to see a comment from CCP as to whether this change is just a test or a permenent addition, and whether the caldari command ships in particular will get a bonus to bring back to par with the other ships in this class, and to make a significant improvement for this T2 varient.
F9OOEX	Posted - 2007.06.08 17:36:00 - [39] Edited by: F9OOEX on 08/06/2007 17:34:54 Here is what I see CCP are doing, nerfing passive tanking, trying to push you into pvp active tanking, anyone knows who has flown an active shield tank in a drake knows it takes about 1min or less before your cap is dry even worse if its a NOS myrm. After that, forget about it game over. 3 options Either leave the shield recharge rate alone. Add ALOT more cap, just to even stand a chance. Or Nerf NOS ...
Cythrawl Caldari Central Defiance Terror In The System	Posted - 2007.06.08 18:23:00 - [40] I think the major problem here is looking at the affectiveness of a Vulture VS all the other Logistic versions of the command ships. Vulture Vs. Damnation Both suck in all honesty. Granted, a damnation can be fitted with 3 nos and 4 pulse and go in close range and wreak some havoc. Hard tanking they do well, but not much better. Vulture Vs. Claymore Claymores are hard ships. Hard. Their natural Minny t2 ship resists make their shield tanking one of the best in the game when applied to fighting an omnitank situation, plus the 37.5 bonus to rep amount. Cap intensive tank, but the guns and missiles don't use cap. Do a 5 auto/3 nos setup and you can make one of these things hurt. Plus that extra bit of drone bay does add in. Vulture Vs. Eos Eos is by far the best of all the command ships. All of them. Including the Heavy Assault variety. It can put out a dps amount unequal amongst all its peers while STILL fitting a horribly hard tank that only suffers one less low slot. The massive drone bay lends itself to a wide variety of tactical drone deployment along with combat varieties. Eos can change tactics on the fly, going from a DPS beast to a cap-killer or ECM ship. You can even make a medium range sniper boat out of it with the room to fit sentry drones to add even more damage to the already impressive amount. Vulture is the red-headed stepchild of the sniper ships. It suffers the fault of being a 1x gun bonus over an Eagle which you get even before the Vulture if you'd went down the HAC route first. That doesn't make it better. It in fact only gives it a slight edge which is removed if a HAC pilot specs to 5. 25% dps bonus to hybrids makes the Eagle just as deadly, excepting to the fact you have a greater chance of damage with the Vulture due to more guns to fire. The true difference is the Vulture is a thicker ship with the ability to run gang mods. Otherwise it's just a suped up Ferox, only 50% more optimal when taking it to the damage/range board. Making a Vulture into a blaster boat is asking for trouble. While it can be done, it suffers trying to fit a decent tank to make up for being right in the thick of things. You can't solo with this ship. Like all Caldari, it just not made for it. =+=+=+=+=+=+= Originally by: Black Torment OH GOD, DROWNING IN TINFOIL

Usul78 Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.06.08 20:35:00 - [41] I've not been able to find any official comment on the command ships specifically just comments about the T1 battlecruisers. If i've missed it could someone link it so we can get some more info about this topic. ....again, thaks for all the constructive comments (CCP, I see you post in forums everyday, any comment on this thread please, it would be greatly appreciated).
The Anointed Caldari KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.06.08 22:54:00 - [42] I have been playing around with passive tanks on the test server with the drake, you still get a good passive tank. What makes me laugh is the fact that everyone whines about the tank being too strong, but whats the point in the strongest tank in the world when you cant do anyhting else. Tbh Im all for boosting every other races tanks then giving them some of the shoddiest dps in the game. The only thing missile boats are good for is pve and killing drones+small ships.
Sean Drake Caldari Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2007.06.10 02:50:00 - [43] TBH who cares after 2years training cal I give up as I want to PvP and oh my god even try that mythical solo PvP thing So now I fly a Myrm like all the clever kids and in 17 days gal cruiser lvl5 is done and opens there hac's,recon's and command ships and I can sell the caldari junk So in short yep go on nerf caldari command ships into oblivion which let's be honest is not going to take much. I have to say that the whole design choices made with how sheild and armour tanking works puzzles me. We have Armour tanked ships that have to give up low slots to tank reducing there ability to fit dmg mods but thats ok because they allmost all have ship dmg bonuses or do a lot of dmg in the 1st place and can then use mids to tackle fit e-war. And then you have sheild tankers who have to use there mid slots to tank and sacrifice tackling and e-War(which is a stroke of genius considering the main sheild tanking race has E-war as one of it's racial prefrences) But they do get there lows to fit dmg mods but oh hang on even with dmg mods most of them are still out dps'd by the armour tankers. Not that it matters since they cannot tackle and therefore the nme can just run away when they get bored of shooting at the UBER HAX TANK THEY HAVE. Hmm so if all of a sudden they cannot tank as well what exactly are the cal command ships for and yes the Night hawk has so-so dps but without using all the mids to tank it will get wtf bbq'd by a Myrm let alone a Gal command ship I mean have to reduce your tank to fit a cap booster to counter Nos sucks in ever sense of the word. Meh I give up I now see it as a simple choice Cal=PvE and Gal=PvP on the plus side at least it's quick to get into gal ships from cal thanks to hybrids
xeom Coagulated	Posted - 2007.06.10 03:36:00 - [44] Drakes and ravens are possibly some of the best pvp ships ever. --- 8) The coolest smiley ever!
V0idz Herrscher der Zeit	Posted - 2007.06.10 10:38:00 - [45] Originally by: xeom Drakes and ravens are possibly some of the best pve ships ever. fixed _____________________________________ EVE is like the "Fisherman's Friend" of MMOs. If it's too hard, you are too weak.
Jocca Quinn Matari BackBone	Posted - 2007.06.12 18:37:00 - [46] Just a bump back to the front page. We know the tech 1 battlecruisers were going to get re-balanced with regard to their passive tanking capabilities but nothing was said about the Command Ships. Any chance of a quick comment from someone as to why this has happened and why the Command Ships are still without their fair share of hitpoints from the all around buff. none of us are free as long as one of us is chained none of us are free
VaderDSL Caldari Incoherent Inc	Posted - 2007.06.12 19:08:00 - [47] Edited by: VaderDSL on 12/06/2007 19:09:38 You cannot passive tank a command ship if you're using it for it's intended purpose, try fitting 3 warfare links, or even two. If you fit three on a vulture, you are short on powergrid/cpu and add to that your cap will be gone very quickly. Even with two warfare links, and I have all cap skills at level 5, a passive tank means your capacitor runs out in no time at all. You need to go active tank on command ships if you are running warfare links. Saying that, the entire fleet system needs de-bugging, needs re-thinking! and command ships need a redesign. There should be NO weapons bonuses on the fleet command ships, and no weapon mounts either, fleet command ships should get massively increased racial specialisation bonuses for relevant leadership specialist skills. Warfare links should stay as they are. Also, fleet command ships should get bonuses to tanking, in their relevant slots (lots of mids for caldari/minmatar & lots of lows for amarr and gallente). Resistance/Amount bonuses + a lot more hitpoints and capacitor. The field command ships should take the form of the tier 2 battlecruisers with a nice skin, have lots of weapons bonuses, reduced hitpoints, reduced resistances, but more agile, less mass, faster, with a good selection of weapon mounts, as much as up to 8 cruiser sized weapons. Although how they are at the moment, they do work quite well for the most part. Seeing as the field commands are a continuation of the HAC cruisers, it would make sense that they are simply bigger, meaner and pack more firepower, while leaving the fleet logistics to the fleet command ships.
William Alex Viscosity Dark Synergy	Posted - 2007.06.12 20:13:00 - [48] Command ships really need their long overdue 20% hp boost over their t1 counterparts. Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
DiNoer DFCK Inc.	Posted - 2007.06.12 21:02:00 - [49] Edited by: DiNoer on 12/06/2007 21:03:18 Could a possible compromise be a deep cut in Gangmod cap/cyck demands?!?!? Give the Fleet CSs' some kind of comparable feature to the skill prereg's "Logistics IV"?! La prospTritT de l'Gme libre. La prospTritT de la fTdTration
Jocca Quinn Matari BackBone	Posted - 2007.06.13 20:00:00 - [50] Originally by: VaderDSL You cannot passive tank a command ship if you're using it for it's intended purpose, try fitting 3 warfare links, or even two. If you fit three on a vulture, you are short on powergrid/cpu and add to that your cap will be gone very quickly. Even with two warfare links, and I have all cap skills at level 5, a passive tank means your capacitor runs out in no time at all. You need to go active tank on command ships if you are running warfare links. I quite agree, this is why I'm not to bothered by the shield recharge time change, passive is nice but no use for the Fleet Commands. Raw hitpoints are always usefuly though, those are what I think the Command Ships should get. When the hitpoint boost happened the Command Ships got their boost based on the old hitpoint numbers of the tier 1 battlecruisers, not their newly boosted figure. The Command Ships lost out and I think if they got those hitpoints the argument about the "recharge nerf" would go away as the additional hitpoints would compensate nicely. Originally by: VaderDSL Saying that, the entire fleet system needs de-bugging, needs re-thinking! and command ships need a redesign. Yes I think you are right, the new fleet system doesn't seem to be reducing lag like they hoped and its still has its issues, like NO WING OR SQUAD LEADER BEING ABLE TO "TAG" TARGETS (please fix this). none of us are free as long as one of us is chained none of us are free

VaderDSL Caldari Incoherent Inc	Posted - 2007.06.13 20:42:00 - [51] Originally by: Jocca Quinn Originally by: VaderDSL You cannot passive tank a command ship if you're using it for it's intended purpose, try fitting 3 warfare links, or even two. If you fit three on a vulture, you are short on powergrid/cpu and add to that your cap will be gone very quickly. Even with two warfare links, and I have all cap skills at level 5, a passive tank means your capacitor runs out in no time at all. You need to go active tank on command ships if you are running warfare links. I quite agree, this is why I'm not to bothered by the shield recharge time change, passive is nice but no use for the Fleet Commands. Raw hitpoints are always usefuly though, those are what I think the Command Ships should get. When the hitpoint boost happened the Command Ships got their boost based on the old hitpoint numbers of the tier 1 battlecruisers, not their newly boosted figure. The Command Ships lost out and I think if they got those hitpoints the argument about the "recharge nerf" would go away as the additional hitpoints would compensate nicely. Originally by: VaderDSL Saying that, the entire fleet system needs de-bugging, needs re-thinking! and command ships need a redesign. Yes I think you are right, the new fleet system doesn't seem to be reducing lag like they hoped and its still has its issues, like NO WING OR SQUAD LEADER BEING ABLE TO "TAG" TARGETS (please fix this). Definitely agree they need a lot more hitpoints, enough in fact so as in a fleet fight, if they do get called primary, they won't be instapopped. For fleet command ships to be useful in fleet fights, where they'll do the best, they need to be able to sustain massive amounts of damage whilst say giving the time needed for a triage carrier or logistics ship to help it, in fact I would say it needs hitpoints to be a daft ship to primary in a fleet fight.
Vitrael Stormriders Fimbulwinter	Posted - 2007.06.13 20:57:00 - [52] This is not a nerf. This is a correction. Giving battlecruisers an identical recharge rate to plain old cruisers was a mistake. Stop whining. Give up your invulnerable ships. It's time to start playing Eve again. ----------
Incantare Caldari Darkness Inc.	Posted - 2007.06.13 21:00:00 - [53] If Caldari Command Ships / BCs had DPS inline with those of other races this discussion would not exist.
Creeco	Posted - 2007.06.14 20:13:00 - [54] /SIGNED if caldari ships (command or any other) could dps even CLOSE to what the other races can i wouldn't care all that much about losing some tanking ability.. and i'm sure many are with me.
Rensalot Minmatar	Posted - 2007.06.14 21:53:00 - [55] Originally by: Vitrael This is not a nerf. This is a correction. Giving battlecruisers an identical recharge rate to plain old cruisers was a mistake. Stop whining. Give up your invulnerable ships. It's time to start playing Eve again. I'm 100% okay with the fact that battlecruisers are being nerfed. However, this discussion is about command ships. Big difference.
Usul78 Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.06.15 00:07:00 - [56] Again, thanks for everyones feedback. Yes to confirm: this post is specifically about the caldari command ships being effected by a battlecruiser nerf specifically designed for the drakes tank. The nerf itself seems like CCP are attempting to 'balance' these ships ability to tank, however the nerf is causing an even bigger gap between different races ships in this class. The nighthawk and Vulture are excellent tankers either passive or active. Removing its passive ability is further making the ship's possible roles (as an active PvP ship, or command platform), less effective on the battlefield. The only advantage the caldari have in general is it's ability to tank. As people have called for this to be balanced and brought in line with other ships, should it also work the other way around: * Increase its dps significantly * Allow it be as effective at EW as other races (Caldari are supposed to be the EW specialists, lol) * Give it an extra mid slot to allow it to run a cap injector (so it can have a chance at active tanking). * Provide an extra slot for an MWD. Summary (TLDR): Please dont make a bad ship even worse. Balancing works both ways.
Usul78 Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.06.15 00:40:00 - [57] Patch notes :'Battlecruiser & Command Ship shield recharge rate changed to 1400 seconds.' CCP obviously felt that the caldari command ships were superior to other ships in its class. Am I missing something here?
Wil Smithx	Posted - 2007.06.15 03:06:00 - [58] well ignoring balance for a second. down to the basics, the fact that the battlecruisers had a base recharge of 1250s was quite obviously broken, since, this is the same as cruisers. by the same theory why dont battleships have unbreakable shields as standard, if you need this question answering please dont reply. now, as mentioned, command ships are different to battlecruisers, but its the same type of ship (thats why if you look at a battlecruiser under variations, the command ships are there). i see no reason why command ships should have the same recharge rate as cruisers, over normal battlecruisers. my personal opinion on the matter is, its not to do with the ship, its to do with the mechanics of shield/cap recharge rate. they work off the same system, however, the model used is not the model used for the charging of a capacitor (which i think it should be) its based on time, such that the rate is dependant on the time taken, not the other way around as it should be, if it were an accurate model of the real world. this would mean that if you increase the shield hp, the recharge time increases too, since the rate would stay constant. and im quite aware that this would require huge amounts of balancing and such a huge change int he game mechanics that at this point in the game it would be very hard if not impossible to implement. as far as balance is concerned, look around you and wonder if eve is balanced at all, the hyperion for example, has nowhere near enough power to fit decent guns and a tank compared to the maelstrom which has more then enough power, and can run a stronger tank. the maelstrom costs less to build too. but missile ships do have an advantage you seem to be neglecting, range and tracking is not a problem for you, you may do less dps, however you will do that dps regardless of if your target is orbiting you at 5km or if they're sitting at 50km. however, i wouldnt be upset if the nighthawk got that 7th launcher and perhaps the vulture got an extra turret.
Usul78 Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.06.16 05:48:00 - [59] Agreed, the game needs to keep its consistency, and be true to how real (or at least psuedo-realistic) physics is used in the game. I also agree that there are other ships which have other problems, and are equaliy as valid for a variety of reasons. I hope that this post has highlighted one of these issues as it drastically affects the game and the people playing it. I've made sure that this is not a whining post as some have done, but would like to look at the change, discuss its advantages (drake) and see how this specifically affects the Caldari CS's. IMHO this change has made the most ineffective command ships even worse, while others seem relatively overpowered. To CPP : Please can you include this in your next blog and please justify why this change was made to command ships? Do you think that the Caldari Command ships are underpowered in this role and what balanced change do you think would be possible? Again, thanks to all the people who have replied, and some very valid points have been raised.
Cynic Tool	Posted - 2007.06.16 08:47:00 - [60] I find it funny how no one has yet said the fact that on a Caldari ship, you always have a very high potential to hit, the only way to stop a missile is with a Defender or else a smartbomb(very hard). Then lets move over to turrets, how do we stop them? Oh ya, thats right, with one single turret disruptor, you can F*** over ALL of their turrets. Drones, eh you have the advantage over them since all you do is blast them to hell with missiles, hell even if your jammed, the FOF can still take care of them. I must say that they are balancing this, maybe for PVP purposes I dunno. Even if most of you do not see it. BTW, Yes I am Amarr, and I know the devastation of a turret disruptor.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.

8)