EVE Search - Command Ships ?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Command Ships ?

» 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)
Govenor Shran	Posted - 2008.09.28 04:23:00 - [61] Some cool ideas in this thread - One extra slot would be great - I think that the bonuses from the command ships skill should be beefed up a bit - Increase in agility and speed are also a must - Bang sensor strength up to a point that the only way a falcon can really jam one up is to ignore everything else on the battlefield - Increase power grid and CPU so that these ships have more flexibility with fitting oversized modules, the largest tier guns and warfare links. Basically you end up with ships that are a bit worse off than battleships for raw damage and tanking, but are far harder to catch and shut down and far easier to get into position and hit targets with. Also remember that the nano nerf will make very fast ships slower sure, but the web nerf that comes with it is going to speed up ships that are often webed to 1m/s so battleships will have a lot more trouble dealing full damage no smaller ships. That's going to be an indirect boost to command ships which are the highest damaging ships with faster tracking medium sized weapons.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.28 04:35:00 - [62] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 28/09/2008 04:40:56 Reposted from elsewhere: Ship: Nighthawk, Absolution, Astarte Problem: Impossible to fit a proper setup with a gang mod. Suggested fix: Move a slot to a high slot on the Astarte, more grid for the Nighthawk, more CPU for the Absolution. Alternatively, change the 99% CPU reduction to 100% CPU and grid reduction. Other notes: Just compare the fitting problems of these ships to the Sleipnir, which easily fits a full rack of 425mm ACs, an X-large booster, cap booster, MWD, and gang mod. This wouldn't really add any overpowered setups, the ships are balanced just fine without gang mods, it's only when you try to make them do their job as command ships that you have fitting problems. Ship: Vulture, Eos, Damnation, Claymore Problem: terrible combat performance encourages command ship alts running 7x gang mods afk at a POS instead of bringing them into combat. Balancing fleet command ships as "non-combat" denies a T2 BC for half of each race's ship lines (railboats, drones, Khanid). Suggested fix: 7 gun slots for the Vulture (8 highs). 7 launchers for the Damnation (8 highs) and poll the Khanid players on whether they would prefer bonus change to make a HAM ship like the Sacrilege or keep the lower damage, insane buffer tank strategy. Re-balance the EOS as an ewar/drone ship with drone damage, 125m3 bandwidth instead of the gun slots/bonus. Re-balance the Claymore to be a fleet artillery ship instead of a lame Sleipnir copy. Add grid/CPU/cap as appropriate for the new slot layouts. Other notes: the increased resists over field command ships are LESS than a 5%/level resist bonus. Losing a bonus to the placeholder 3%/level gang link bonus compensates for the higher base resists and ability to fit 3x gang mods. Actually fitting 3x gang mods comes at the cost of offensive power, making it self-balancing. The proposed changes are intended to make fleet commands direct combat ships, but focused on a fleet support role, while the field commands are the straightforward close-range damage/tank ships. All command ships: Increase agility (NOT speed) to be somewhere between T1 battlecruisers and HACs. The major complaint about field command ships is their poor agility for roaming gangs, if you're going to take a slow command ship, you often might as well just go all the way and take a slow battleship. With more agility, they could actually keep up with HAC/recon gangs, but without a SPEED increase, they wouldn't completely obsolete HACs. There. Command ships are now fixed.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.09.28 04:58:00 - [63] Edited by: BiggestT on 28/09/2008 05:03:35 Edited by: BiggestT on 28/09/2008 04:58:42 Originally by: Merin Ryskin the ships are balanced just fine without gang mods, Not really, Look at a drake compared to a nighthawk, tanked nighthawk has like 10% more hp and the drake has 7 launchers to the nh's 6. The nighthawk will still get better tank and dmg, but only just. Compare this with the investment difference (and the effect focus fire will have on your combat experience) And their not balanced at all without gang mods. I know that they should be able to use gang mods and do a bit of tnak/gank, but why bother when you can either fly a bc for cheaper to get similar combat performance, or fly a fleet command for cheaper and get better tank and better bonus's? It tries to do both, quite unsuccesfully i might add. Its a crappy niche that shld be changed edit: typo Awesome EVE history
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.28 05:44:00 - [64] Ok, maybe that was kind of poor wording. My point there was a preemptive dismissal of the idea that the ships would become overpowered win buttons with the extra fitting I proposed. They're "balanced" in the sense that they're not overpowered... obviously they're a bit underpowered, since I'm asking for a boost. As for the Nighthawk, while I would love a full 7x launchers, the tank advantage is a lot more than 10%. Most of the current lack of tank comes from the inability to fit as many LSE IIs as the Drake, fix the Nighthawk's grid and that problem disappears. It's really not a bad ship, expensive, yes, but if you can afford to fly the best...
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.09.28 06:21:00 - [65] Edited by: BiggestT on 28/09/2008 06:21:31 Originally by: Merin Ryskin Ok, maybe that was kind of poor wording. My point there was a preemptive dismissal of the idea that the ships would become overpowered win buttons with the extra fitting I proposed. They're "balanced" in the sense that they're not overpowered... obviously they're a bit underpowered, since I'm asking for a boost. As for the Nighthawk, while I would love a full 7x launchers, the tank advantage is a lot more than 10%. Most of the current lack of tank comes from the inability to fit as many LSE IIs as the Drake, fix the Nighthawk's grid and that problem disappears. It's really not a bad ship, expensive, yes, but if you can afford to fly the best... Ahh kk, Also i think an extra mid/low (dependant on race) for the field cs would allow it to be more flexible in fitting e.g. sensor bosoter, tackle etc. I quite like your ideas for the fleet cs. Currenty thay are their quite nice, but making a ship designed only for giving bonus's with lame dps isnt a huge incentive to train one.. Awesome EVE history
POS Engineer Caldari KO Solutions	Posted - 2008.09.28 08:31:00 - [66] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Ship: Nighthawk, Absolution, Astarte Problem: Impossible to fit a proper setup with a gang mod. Ship: Vulture, Eos, Damnation, Claymore Problem: terrible combat performance encourages command ship alts running 7x gang mods afk at a POS instead of bringing them into combat. Balancing fleet command ships as "non-combat" denies a T2 BC for half of each race's ship lines (railboats, drones, Khanid). I agree so much, and its true that despite minor quibbles about how to fix command ships most if not all posts are giving constructive fixes for these maligned and neglected ships. Its good to know I just dont thouroghly suck with them =) So who has the direct line to ccp HQ?
Mag's MASS	Posted - 2008.09.28 08:48:00 - [67] If people think that being immune to Ewar is too much, how about a Nos/Neut immunity? They would last a bit longer at least. Just a thought. Mag's Originally by: Avernus One of these days, the realization that MASS is no longer significant will catch up with you.
POS Engineer Caldari KO Solutions	Posted - 2008.09.28 09:00:00 - [68] I dont think CCP likes to work in absolutes, but boosting cap regen to the point where its able to keep up with a single tank module (Large shield booster for example).
Mr Ignitious Gallente R.E.C.O.N.	Posted - 2008.09.28 09:04:00 - [69] Originally by: Merin Ryskin A lot of really sexy insight. I love it all, except instead of "moving a highslot" on the astarte, it should probably just get a utility high for that gang mod, or cloak, or nos/neut, or what have you because losing mids would kill it (it has to run reppers [if you utilize that bonus] and a shit ton of guns) and thinking of an armor tanking t2 BC with only 5 slots is just gross. That would forego any tank it could ever mount, especially considering i'm pretty sure it already runs the weakest tank (i'm not sure, i wont lie, but i'm pretty sure) It would need extra pg for the mod however... or a bonus/reduction to fittings for GAMs. Other wise yah, NH definitely needs some intense love, and i haven't played much with the abso, but i will definitely take your word on it. Then the fleet CS. I think that any combat versatility would for sure increase the viability and visibility of these ships on the field. In short, i will bear your children if you're gentle and you ask nicely =P
Fon Revedhort Aeria Gloris Inc Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.09.28 15:19:00 - [70] I'd propose the topic change so it reflects the current state of the discussion. Like: 'Players agree! Command Ships need some loving!' Still hope CCP reads those forums nowadays ---
POS Engineer Caldari KO Solutions	Posted - 2008.09.28 16:18:00 - [71] Originally by: Fon Revedhort I'd propose the topic change so it reflects the current state of the discussion. Like: 'Players agree! Command Ships need some loving!' Still hope CCP reads those forums nowadays Done . And yes so do I, although more opinions and preferably someone of the opposite opinion are needed too I think (=
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.28 16:38:00 - [72] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 28/09/2008 16:42:53 Merin, as much as your ideas do go a long way in fixing them, I also see a issue with tank-bonused CS (rather then resist bonused). If the intention is taking it to direct combat while providing a warfare link, resist bonuses (providing both tank if you go that way and EHP) are a much better choice. Giving them all resists (ala HICs) makes them a altogether better balanced class as well as better suited for the current style of EvE combat. Warfare links are powerful - so ships intended to use them and stay in combat should have (at least) BS-level buffers. Agility boost is a awesome idea. 100% reduction to CPU/grid would be nice - as none* get to fit full rack of guns + tank + warfare link. *Sleipnir does with a co-pro + named stuff (or without any damage mods). Stock T2 Sleipnir is 100 CPU short of what you describe. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Kaileen Starsong Amarr Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.09.28 19:00:00 - [73] Originally by: Cpt Branko Agility boost is a awesome idea. 100% reduction to CPU/grid would be nice - as none* get to fit full rack of guns + tank + warfare link. You can fit Abso with gangmod without sacrificing much. As in, if that's armor resist gangmod then, say, dual-rep Abso with 2xaux nanos = dual-rep Abso with ACR+aux nano and gangmod effect. Could do the same with plate setup. Granted, halving or even removing CPU/Grid requirements for gangmod would be helpful. I'd prefer halving their fittings rather than giving CSes exclusive 100% reduction.
Karl Luckner	Posted - 2008.09.28 22:16:00 - [74] Well, I guess my Vulture is not made for small gangs. And, what a surprise, I don't like that situation. To make things worse, the Nighthawk isn't really an alternative. So, why not give it a bonus to shield transfer, instead of the rail bonus ? I takes years to kill a frigate, with that pathetic damage. And since logistics have to be trained anyway to get into that ship, a bonus to shield/energy transfers seems only logical to me. I just want to do something useful. Paperdamage @150 km is not useful in my opinion.
ArmyOfMe Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.09.28 22:27:00 - [75] Originally by: Akita T Making them imune to EWar would be "just the thing" to revive CS usage. I stole this idea from another thread can you say overpowerd??? Originally by: deadmaus Because by the time we had calmed Plague down after he heard BoB were back in the vicinity it was too late to do anything
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.29 03:01:00 - [76] Originally by: Kaileen Starsong Originally by: Cpt Branko Agility boost is a awesome idea. 100% reduction to CPU/grid would be nice - as none* get to fit full rack of guns + tank + warfare link. You can fit Abso with gangmod without sacrificing much. As in, if that's armor resist gangmod then, say, dual-rep Abso with 2xaux nanos = dual-rep Abso with ACR+aux nano and gangmod effect. Could do the same with plate setup. Granted, halving or even removing CPU/Grid requirements for gangmod would be helpful. I'd prefer halving their fittings rather than giving CSes exclusive 100% reduction. Good point, reducing fitting works better, helps BCs as well. I know a Abso fits a gang mod without that many sacrifices - you can make a very decent plate setup (which I'd probably use if I was going to use it alongside a mostly BS gang which can make a lot of use of the armour warfare link) using a gang mod if you're willing to downgrade a few guns to FMPs. I was more trying to point out that all CS have to make some sort of sacrifice to fit them (Sleipnir included) - it would be nicer if you didn't need that many sacrifices. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Gneeznow Minmatar North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.09.29 03:21:00 - [77] Command ships are too expensive!
InsanlyEvlPerson Gallente Night-Stalkers	Posted - 2008.09.29 03:26:00 - [78] Originally by: Gneeznow Command ships are too expensive! yes, they are, but some of us have a T2 fetish and cant help ourselves =P
Angelonico Series of Tubes	Posted - 2008.09.29 03:59:00 - [79] The only two command ships I've flown are the absolution and nighthawk. The absolution is pure sex and well worth the iskies. The nighthawk however, can't fit a full rack of HAM's - and is therefore a 250 mil isk missioning ship and not much else. A drake can do anything you'd want a nighthawk do to in pvp 95% as well, is insurable, and 1/15th the cost. Can anyone explain to me why you would fly a nighthawk in fleet for any other reason that e-peen?
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.29 04:04:00 - [80] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 29/09/2008 04:05:26 Originally by: Angelonico The only two command ships I've flown are the absolution and nighthawk. The absolution is pure sex and well worth the iskies. The nighthawk however, can't fit a full rack of HAM's - and is therefore a 250 mil isk missioning ship and not much else. A drake can do anything you'd want a nighthawk do to in pvp 95% as well, is insurable, and 1/15th the cost. Can anyone explain to me why you would fly a nighthawk in fleet for any other reason that e-peen? It looks preety, unlike the Drake? Other than that, yeah, you're preety much spot on about the NH. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Angelonico Series of Tubes	Posted - 2008.09.29 04:30:00 - [81] Originally by: Cpt Branko It looks preety, unlike the Drake? Blasphemy, my inverted surfboard is sexy damnit!
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.09.29 11:00:00 - [82] Originally by: InsanlyEvlPerson Originally by: Gneeznow Command ships are too expensive! yes, they are, but some of us have a T2 fetish and cant help ourselves =P lol this.. Reduce price and dont change a thing and i cldnt care less about the niche, id fly it coz its WORTH it :D Awesome EVE history
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.09.29 11:12:00 - [83] Let's all laugh at the Nighthawk's PG: 6x HAM II, gang mod Y-T8 MWD, med electro CB, C5-L LSB, Photon II, Inv II DC II, BCS II, 3x RCU II Its tank is truly awful anyway - 360 DPS before rigs. Things get slightly better with a buffer fit: 6x HAM II, gang mod Y-T8 MWD, F-S9 LSE, Photon II, 2x Inv II DC II, 2x BCS II, 2x RCU II And for the lolz, try an XLSB fit with a gang mod, like the Sleip can fit: 6x HAM II, gang mod Y-T8 MWD, med electro CB, C5-L XLSB, Photon II, Inv II 5x RCU II
Caius Sivaris Dark Nexxus	Posted - 2008.09.29 13:25:00 - [84] Originally by: BiggestT I find it incredibly annoying that they ignore the most skill intensive sub-cap ships in EVE, which should defiantely be balanced. The only one semi-living up to its role is the sleipner. There are more sp in spaceship command for a maxed CS than for a maxed BS but between large guns and heavy drones a BS takes way more in support skills... I think the most skill intensive subcap is the Typhoon with 3 large weapon systems to max.
InsanlyEvlPerson Gallente Night-Stalkers	Posted - 2008.09.29 13:32:00 - [85] Originally by: Caius Sivaris Originally by: BiggestT I find it incredibly annoying that they ignore the most skill intensive sub-cap ships in EVE, which should defiantely be balanced. The only one semi-living up to its role is the sleipner. There are more sp in spaceship command for a maxed CS than for a maxed BS but between large guns and heavy drones a BS takes way more in support skills... I think the most skill intensive subcap is the Typhoon with 3 large weapon systems to max. I think the point is more along these lines: How many 2-3 month old noobs are flying around in commandships getting killed cuz they cant fly them? How many 2-3 month old noobs are flying around in battleships getting killed cuz they cant fly them? just think about those 2 questions, and u will realize the point being made. its not skills to max out, but skills required to even operate the ship.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.09.29 13:47:00 - [86] Originally by: Gypsio III Let's all laugh at the Nighthawk's PG: 6x HAM II, gang mod Y-T8 MWD, med electro CB, C5-L LSB, Photon II, Inv II DC II, BCS II, 3x RCU II Its tank is truly awful anyway - 360 DPS before rigs. Things get slightly better with a buffer fit: 6x HAM II, gang mod Y-T8 MWD, F-S9 LSE, Photon II, 2x Inv II DC II, 2x BCS II, 2x RCU II And for the lolz, try an XLSB fit with a gang mod, like the Sleip can fit: 6x HAM II, gang mod Y-T8 MWD, med electro CB, C5-L XLSB, Photon II, Inv II 5x RCU II <3 rcu II
Gneeznow Minmatar North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.09.29 15:15:00 - [87] Originally by: InsanlyEvlPerson Originally by: Gneeznow Command ships are too expensive! yes, they are, but some of us have a T2 fetish and cant help ourselves =P I had that t2 fetish too, then I lost 4 absolutions in a row and realised harbingers and drakes were like 10x the bang for your buck, commands are not worth the price tag except as bling bling
InsanlyEvlPerson Gallente Night-Stalkers	Posted - 2008.09.29 15:19:00 - [88] Edited by: InsanlyEvlPerson on 29/09/2008 15:21:24 Originally by: Gneeznow Originally by: InsanlyEvlPerson Originally by: Gneeznow Command ships are too expensive! yes, they are, but some of us have a T2 fetish and cant help ourselves =P I had that t2 fetish too, then I lost 4 absolutions in a row and realised harbingers and drakes were like 10x the bang for your buck, commands are not worth the price tag except as bling bling i plan to use it for that and lvl 4 missions... and duels and beating off cap flippers...
Trinity McAlt	Posted - 2008.09.29 20:16:00 - [89] There is absolutely no reason to use a Nighthawk when a drake will do the job better. The Drake has 1 more mid slot, one more rig slot, one more high slot and one more launcher slot. When configured similarly the Drake out tanks the Nighthawk, while the Nighthawk out dps's the Drake. Both fittings have one gang link, Drake must use Malkuth launchers or fit cpu implant. [Drake, Gang] Reactor Control Unit II Power Diagnostic System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive Photon Scattering Field II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II 'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile 'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile 'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile 'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile 'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile 'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile 'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile Siege Warfare Link - Shield Efficiency Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I Warrior II x5 EHP 112.5k DPS ~ 285 [Nighthawk, Gang] Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Shield Power Relay II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Photon Scattering Field II Invulnerability Field II Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive Siege Warfare Link - Shield Efficiency Heavy Missile Launcher II, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I Warrior II x5 EHP 98k, dps ~ 389

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.