Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Odyssey 1.1] Command Ships

First post First post First post
Author
RvB - RED Federation
#1621 - 2013-08-19 17:00:03 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Capt Canada wrote:
But with everything from sov doctrines and ship balancing done using all level 5 skills as the base, anyone with less than 50 to 70 mil SP becomes kill board fodder .


You can be more or less "maxed" on multiple sup class ships with far less than 50m sp...


I have 57 million skill points. I never fly an expensive ship in combat without all skills to V for that hull, and never use a weapon system in combat on an expensive ship until I am level 4+ in its specialisation, but that's just me.

Expensive for me means "more than 10 million isk"

My alt, Goody Twoshoes Virpio has been trained from birth to be a maxed scanning and fleet boosting alt. All other roles are secondary to him. He has something like 37 million skill points and is level 4 command ships. He started boosting in a drake and a cyclone, to great effect. He focussed on the T2 warfare links prior to focussing on T2 command ships.

He's also a perfect tengu pilot (yes, even I, loather of the tengu, use one for scouting in wormholes), however I cannot bring myself to commit 600m isk to an off-grid boosting tengu as I find the idea offensive.

With the new changes he'll be polishing off his command skills in order to get into a minny command ship for shield roams, and probably an Eos for armour work since he can become effective with drones more quickly than with blasters.

I'm looking forward to seeing on-grid boosting, aka "Putting your money where your mouth is."



Until off grid boosting is 100% removed there will not be on grid boosting except for the smallest of gangs who don't have any alts
C C P Alliance
#1622 - 2013-08-19 20:06:28 UTC
Another small set of changes based on what we're hearing from the Sisi feedback:

Nighthawk:
+100 PWG
+10 CPU

Sleipnir:
+50 CPU

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

#1623 - 2013-08-19 20:10:16 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Another small set of changes based on what we're hearing from the Sisi feedback:

Nighthawk:
+100 PWG
+10 CPU

Useful, thanks--but what about the slot layout? This clears up (most of) the fitting issues the Nighthawk has, but it doesn't change the fact that the Claymore's slot layout makes it able to fit a much stronger shield tank...
#1624 - 2013-08-19 20:15:42 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Another small set of changes based on what we're hearing from the Sisi feedback:

Nighthawk:
+100 PWG
+10 CPU

Sleipnir:
+50 CPU



why does the Sleipnir need +50 CPU? ... after you saying the fittings were actually generous and you wanted to take some back?

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

C C P Alliance
#1625 - 2013-08-19 20:19:07 UTC
I also want to quickly address the concern I'm seeing about my comment that we want to someday remove the +HP bonus from the Damnation.

To be clear, we are not removing the Damnation's HP bonus in Odyssey 1.1, as right now it helps the Damnation fill a useful role that would be lost if we removed it.

However in the long run, adding HP is not the solution to key ships being volleyed off the field. As EVE battles grow in numbers and coordination people are going to find a way to volley just about anything we design, and then we'll be right back where we started. We're not going to get into an escalating design battle against the dps and alpha of player fleets.

The solution to the problem is to sidestep it by reducing reliance on a few lynchpin ships. The reason that command ships have this problem while other key fleet ships (like logistics, recons or dictors) don't is because people can bring redundant numbers of those other classes. When we get the capability to remove offgrid links our plan is to also replace the way links apply so that losing one key ship won't mean you need to take your ball and go home.
Now of course command ships are larger, more expensive and skill intensive than those other key classes, so it will still make sense for them to have significantly better tanks than a recon ship. However at that point the perceived need to have over 300k EHP will be significantly lessened.

At the same time we are continuing to push more viable gang boosting options into lower brackets of SP and isk requirements. Many of you will have noticed that one effect of the gang link changes is that T1 Battlecruisers will provide better bonuses, and a character with level 3 or 4 skills will be vastly improved compared to the current situation. There will still be significant benefits to training skills to 5 and upgrading to a Command Ship, but for people that can't afford to bring redundant Command Ships, redundant Battlecruisers will be a fine option.

I've also seen the idea expressed a few times to expand Target Spectrum Breakers to the Command Ships, and that's an idea I think has some serious merit. There likely isn't time to get it in for 1.1, but we'll investigate further and see what comes out.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

C C P Alliance
#1626 - 2013-08-19 20:21:53 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Another small set of changes based on what we're hearing from the Sisi feedback:

Nighthawk:
+100 PWG
+10 CPU

Sleipnir:
+50 CPU



why does the Sleipnir need +50 CPU? ... after you saying the fittings were actually generous and you wanted to take some back?


A lot of the fittings for command ships were quite generous, after looking at and considering feedback we determined that these two cases were the exception. We still have the option to pull some of these ships back a bit after seeing them in the wild for a few months, which is an option we will not hesitate to use quickly as needed.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

#1627 - 2013-08-19 20:39:47 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Another small set of changes based on what we're hearing from the Sisi feedback:

Nighthawk:
+100 PWG
+10 CPU

Sleipnir:
+50 CPU



why does the Sleipnir need +50 CPU? ... after you saying the fittings were actually generous and you wanted to take some back?


A lot of the fittings for command ships were quite generous, after looking at and considering feedback we determined that these two cases were the exception. We still have the option to pull some of these ships back a bit after seeing them in the wild for a few months, which is an option we will not hesitate to use quickly as needed.


so +50 CPU for ??? ASB's'

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Rote Kapelle
#1628 - 2013-08-19 20:45:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Maximus Andendare
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I've also seen the idea expressed a few times to expand Target Spectrum Breakers to the Command Ships, and that's an idea I think has some serious merit. There likely isn't time to get it in for 1.1, but we'll investigate further and see what comes out.
I hate to point out what you already know, but this would eat up yet another midslot (in addition to command processors).

edit: Also, wouldn't this just cause problems when the TSB breaks a lock from a friendly logi?

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

#1629 - 2013-08-19 20:48:16 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Another small set of changes based on what we're hearing from the Sisi feedback:

Nighthawk:
+100 PWG
+10 CPU

Sleipnir:
+50 CPU



why does the Sleipnir need +50 CPU? ... after you saying the fittings were actually generous and you wanted to take some back?


A lot of the fittings for command ships were quite generous, after looking at and considering feedback we determined that these two cases were the exception. We still have the option to pull some of these ships back a bit after seeing them in the wild for a few months, which is an option we will not hesitate to use quickly as needed.


so +50 CPU for ??? ASB's'


noo... just less pimp to make it fit.
Corus Conglomerate
#1630 - 2013-08-19 20:53:17 UTC
So when is the post about drones coming that was promissed during AT?

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934

Rote Kapelle
#1631 - 2013-08-19 20:58:48 UTC
Bubanni wrote:
So when is the post about drones coming that was promissed during AT?
Soon™. But more realistically, we were supposed to have a thread on the Command Ship model changes that is "greyed out" now (since the thread doesn't exist), so where is that thread?

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

#1632 - 2013-08-19 21:15:12 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Another small set of changes based on what we're hearing from the Sisi feedback:

Nighthawk:
+100 PWG
+10 CPU

Sleipnir:
+50 CPU


So fozzie, any explanation as to why HACs have significantly better cap recharge compared to commands?

Furthermore, can we get a fix to cap xfer bug so we can actually start testing some potential spider setups?
#1633 - 2013-08-19 21:24:01 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


A lot of the fittings for command ships were quite generous, after looking at and considering feedback we determined that these two cases were the exception. We still have the option to pull some of these ships back a bit after seeing them in the wild for a few months, which is an option we will not hesitate to use quickly as needed.


Only if you want to fit short range low CPU mods with links.
#1634 - 2013-08-19 21:30:04 UTC
Chris Winter wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Another small set of changes based on what we're hearing from the Sisi feedback:

Nighthawk:
+100 PWG
+10 CPU

Useful, thanks--but what about the slot layout? This clears up (most of) the fitting issues the Nighthawk has, but it doesn't change the fact that the Claymore's slot layout makes it able to fit a much stronger shield tank...


It would be nice if the Nighthawk got one less low and one more mid slot. Which would also make sense when/if it becomes a T2 Drake.
The Bastion
#1635 - 2013-08-19 21:41:53 UTC
So,

About that tracking bonus on the Eos? Is that like a place-holder while you guys are brainstorming a bonus that wouldn't force you to make use of those four turret slots?

Also, is it possible for the Eos to get more drone bandwidth? After all, one of its bonuses specifies heavies, and you can hold only two flights of them, and no other drones. Unlike turrets, you can't really overheat drones for a damage boost, and they're quite vulnerable to being destroyed by other players. Heavy drones especially.

It would be nice if you could order your drones to overheat themselves :3

Point Blank Alliance
#1636 - 2013-08-19 21:49:43 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:


edit: Also, wouldn't this just cause problems when the TSB breaks a lock from a friendly logi?


Potential negative side effects from using an AOE module, who would have thought?
Point Blank Alliance
#1637 - 2013-08-19 21:52:07 UTC
Valfreyea wrote:


It would be nice if you could order your drones to overheat themselves :3



Especially if they burned out in a minute or so and went dead in space, also taking your drone control facilities offline and killing your DPS.

Kind of like what happens when you overheat your guns/missiles too long.
Gallente Federation
#1638 - 2013-08-19 22:08:05 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Bubanni wrote:
So when is the post about drones coming that was promissed during AT?
Soon™. But more realistically, we were supposed to have a thread on the Command Ship model changes that is "greyed out" now (since the thread doesn't exist), so where is that thread?

Oh yes, I am waiting impatiently for that thread! Evil

I am looking forward to telling these guys how horrid their planned change to Nighthawk is. The current Nighthawk has a unique and sexy look... I want to keep it, not end up in a f**cking Drake with a new paint job!

The 'Black Drake' does look nice, and I would welcome it as a model for some other ship, but not the Nighthawk.
TOHA Conglomerate
#1639 - 2013-08-19 22:22:19 UTC
Webzy Phoenix wrote:
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Bubanni wrote:
So when is the post about drones coming that was promissed during AT?
Soon™. But more realistically, we were supposed to have a thread on the Command Ship model changes that is "greyed out" now (since the thread doesn't exist), so where is that thread?

Oh yes, I am waiting impatiently for that thread! Evil

I am looking forward to telling these guys how horrid their planned change to Nighthawk is. The current Nighthawk has a unique and sexy look... I want to keep it, not end up in a f**cking Drake with a new paint job!

The 'Black Drake' does look nice, and I would welcome it as a model for some other ship, but not the Nighthawk.


I'm not usually one to worry about the ship models, but I have to say I agree. The very presence of drakes in the game makes my skin crawl, since for the first 2 years of my game time they were simply uber-mega-overpowered ships that soured the whole experience of Eve.

My corporation mantra remains to this day, "all drakes must die"...

:-)

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".

#1640 - 2013-08-19 22:24:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Doed
All of them having the same cap/sec is just terrible and lame, I simply can't fathom why this has not been sorted.

Cap per Sec should be, from highest to lowest

Absolution > Astarte > Vulture > Eos > Damnation=Claymore=Sleipnir=Nighthawk

Max cap amount can sort of follow the "old trend(I don't see why, but not that much of a problem)"

This is a rather minor change that will help the cap heavy CS, it was just done for HACs now.(Apart from oddballs like Deimos and Sac due to the old mwd/cap rec bonus)

Please get this sorted for 1.1 else I'm fairly sure quite a few people will be quite disappointed.

The CS changes so far have been mediocre at best, please take the time to fix this issue atleast.

The difference doesn't have to be huge, but there should be some sort of difference to compensate cap usage of weapon systems which EVERY SINGLE other ship class bar Titans and Dreads in the entire game has(Changing this would actually make Revelation ever so slightly less terrible).

Oh, and give Claymore a 7.5% damage bonus over one of it's RoF bonuses. Double RoF bonus is just horrible on ammo consumption and it's dps would barely increase with a 7.5% damage bonus(even counting reloads) while ammo consumption would be bearable. Dps would still be quite abit behind the Nighthawk when using kinetic missiles and it's exp velocity bonus is worse than the exp radius one on the NH.

NH still needs it's mass un-nerfed aswell.
Forum Jump