Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Danny John-Peter
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 12:19:00 -
[1] - Quote
This is a thread about Command Ships and the application of bonuses.
Change 1;
Swap the Bonuses on T3s and CS's, command ships now give a 5% bonus, and T3s a 3%.
Change 2;
When off grid, all bonuses are reduced in effectiveness by (insert balanced percentage reduction here eg 50%).
Change 3; (to help balance)
T3 skill bonus, 5% increase in off grid effectiveness per level. (this means if being off grid reduced the bonus effectiveness by a base 50%, a T3 with lvl 5 in the correct subsystem skill would have that penalty reduced to 25% giving the bonuses 75% of there effectiveness while off grid)
This change would mean; An on grid Command ship is the most effective means of boosting a fleet. A T3 booster will be more effective off grid than a command ship is off grid, assuming the LVL5 sub skill.
This means both have a role, this makes neither redundant, that means more diversity, and more tactics, both of these things are good.
Please flame/ give valid opinions.
|
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
740
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 13:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote: When off grid, all bonuses are reduced in effectiveness by (insert balanced percentage reduction here eg 50%).
I'd like to see the effectiveness reduced by 100%. |
Danny John-Peter
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 13:38:00 -
[3] - Quote
DarkAegix wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: When off grid, all bonuses are reduced in effectiveness by (insert balanced percentage reduction here eg 50%).
I'd like to see the effectiveness reduced by 100%.
Supported tbh, this was an attempt to find a mid ground, so both parties are happy and so both T3s and CS's have a role. |
Dibsi Dei
Salamyhkaisten kilta
9
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 13:43:00 -
[4] - Quote
When gang link bonuses only work on grid bonuses do not need to swap.
On grid t3 can only fit one link so it should have a better effectiveness where as a command ship can fit 3 links. |
MrWhitei God
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
24
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 13:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
I actually do miss the fun times of zipping around the battlefield in a claymore shooting and boosting |
Danny John-Peter
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 13:46:00 -
[6] - Quote
Thats funny, I was expecting a rain of "PLZ DONT NERF MA BOOSTIN TENGU FOR MA SOLO PEEVEEPEE" |
Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris Etherium Cartel
416
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 13:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
Leave T3 bonus as is, and make Command Ships work only on grid, or if you really want your pos hiding bitches, add anchorable modules to your pos that do the same damn thing. Always ... Never ... Forget to check your references.-áPeace out Zulu! Hope you land well! |
Danny John-Peter
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 13:52:00 -
[8] - Quote
Apollo Gabriel wrote:Leave T3 bonus as is, and make Command Ships work only on grid, or if you really want your pos hiding bitches, add anchorable modules to your pos that do the same damn thing.
Only issue with that is a Legion would still be better than a damnation, being that the Command Processor is a mid, its lows just need to tank, unless the fitting reqs are too high to fit a tank of course.
Either that or the T3 bonus only applies to one link, the others remain unbonused. |
Junglistbeast
Massive PVPness EntroPraetorian Aegis
6
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 13:58:00 -
[9] - Quote
T3's made Command ships redundant. No point in flying them when you can get an off grid T3 with 3 links.
It should be the other way round 5% on CS and 3% on T3's given that the training time involved is much greater for Command Ships.
It's a no brainer.
|
Danny John-Peter
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 14:01:00 -
[10] - Quote
Junglistbeast wrote:T3's made Command ships redundant. No point in flying them when you can get an off grid T3 with 3 links.
It should be the other way round 5% on CS and 3% on T3's given that the training time involved is much greater for Command Ships.
It's a no brainer.
This man speaks truth...
Maybe a Dev could give some input that would be nice.
*Hopes* |
|
seany1212
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
67
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 14:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Junglistbeast wrote:T3's made Command ships redundant. No point in flying them when you can get an off grid T3 with 3 links.
It should be the other way round 5% on CS and 3% on T3's given that the training time involved is much greater for Command Ships.
It's a no brainer.
This man speaks truth... Maybe a Dev could give some input that would be nice. *Hopes*
Fully supported also, if not because the skill train is longer the extra logistics/heavy assaults skill should have some input towards the percentage bonus increase. As for being on grid, does the extension of grid still work? |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Green Cross Controlled Chaos
39
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 14:09:00 -
[12] - Quote
Junglistbeast wrote:T3's made Command ships redundant. No point in flying them when you can get an off grid T3 with 3 links.
It should be the other way round 5% on CS and 3% on T3's given that the training time involved is much greater for Command Ships.
It's a no brainer.
Basically sums up the argument in a concise and reasonable manner.
I'd like to see this same line of reasoning extended to the abysmal performance of some of the field commands but I s'pose that's for another topic.
|
Othran
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
128
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 14:16:00 -
[13] - Quote
I agree to some extent - and I have Command Ships 5 and can't fly T3.
You'd expect me to say "nerf T3" right?
Wrong.
I think the command link bonuses are fine as they are.
The T3 ships running links are usually pretty fragile in the scheme of things. They can boost but that's it, you're not going to see them fight on-grid.
Now I realise this brings in the whole "boosts only work on-grid" argument but I don't believe that would work well - I think it would always benefit the static booster, by which I mean the "home system" booster. Also I have no confidence the bonuses would apply to all of the fleet in time during bigger battles.
Preventing command links working within a forcefield shouldn't be beyond the wit of man though?
What existing command ships need is something more to bring to a small/medium roaming gang. Maybe DPS, maybe something else.
tl;dr buff the T2 rather than nerfing the T3 |
Danny John-Peter
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 14:24:00 -
[14] - Quote
Othran wrote:I agree to some extent - and I have Command Ships 5 and can't fly T3.
You'd expect me to say "nerf T3" right?
Wrong.
I think the command link bonuses are fine as they are.
The T3 ships running links are usually pretty fragile in the scheme of things. They can boost but that's it, you're not going to see them fight on-grid.
Now I realise this brings in the whole "boosts only work on-grid" argument but I don't believe that would work well - I think it would always benefit the static booster, by which I mean the "home system" booster. Also I have no confidence the bonuses would apply to all of the fleet in time during bigger battles.
Preventing command links working within a forcefield shouldn't be beyond the wit of man though?
What existing command ships need is something more to bring to a small/medium roaming gang. Maybe DPS, maybe something else.
tl;dr buff the T2 rather than nerfing the T3
Well if you read my original post which attempts to find a balance between the two parties, the bonuses would be swapped because im sorry, from whichever angle you take a CS should do it better, it just makes sense otherwise.
Off grid bonuses would still work to some extent, just not as well as being on grid, and the T3 sub skill actually reduces that negative effect. |
XXSketchxx
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
79
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 14:32:00 -
[15] - Quote
Change 1:
Yes. T3 are supposed to be about variety and not be better than T2 counterparts. While T3 can only fit 1 link, sometimes that's all you need. T3s should be more effective than field commands, but not more effective than fleet commands.
Change 2: How about a reduction by 100%. Want boosts? Get on grid. Removing a gang's boosts should be a tactical option (just as removing ewar, logis, and other support is)
Change 3. No. See above. |
SabuMaru ICE
MINE THEM TO DEATH Coalition of the Unfortunate
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 14:48:00 -
[16] - Quote
Inserting this for 0.0 / Low secminers (high sec this only is an issue with Hulkageddon and Goon's Anti ICE campain )
what do you propose for ORCA's and Rorquals ?
in there current state as off Grid support leaving logistics/hauling to dedicated ships ( fit/made for speed/escaping ) or jumping on grid when needed
|
Danny John-Peter
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 14:53:00 -
[17] - Quote
*Is surprised by the lack of troll, and prescence of reasonable argument and discussion*
Everything being said in this topic seems to suggest people want there command ships to be valid again, maybe if we keep it going for long enough the all mighty CCP might dain to respond :P
|
Danny John-Peter
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 14:55:00 -
[18] - Quote
SabuMaru ICE wrote:Inserting this for 0.0 / Low secminers (high sec this only is an issue with Hulkageddon and Goon's Anti ICE campain )
what do you propose for ORCA's and Rorquals ?
in there current state as off Grid support leaving logistics/hauling to dedicated ships ( fit/made for speed/escaping ) or jumping on grid when needed
Use an on grid Orca for boosting, compress with a rorqual.
In Null use intel/scouts like everybody else.
In High Sec, well, if your orca dies in a belt in High Sec, you dun wrong. |
Junglistbeast
Massive PVPness EntroPraetorian Aegis
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 14:57:00 -
[19] - Quote
Othran wrote:I agree to some extent - and I have Command Ships 5 and can't fly T3.
You'd expect me to say "nerf T3" right?
Wrong.
I think the command link bonuses are fine as they are.
The T3 ships running links are usually pretty fragile in the scheme of things. They can boost but that's it, you're not going to see them fight on-grid.
Now I realise this brings in the whole "boosts only work on-grid" argument but I don't believe that would work well - I think it would always benefit the static booster, by which I mean the "home system" booster. Also I have no confidence the bonuses would apply to all of the fleet in time during bigger battles.
Preventing command links working within a forcefield shouldn't be beyond the wit of man though?
What existing command ships need is something more to bring to a small/medium roaming gang. Maybe DPS, maybe something else.
tl;dr buff the T2 rather than nerfing the T3
CS have the DPS option already - Absolution/Sleipnir/Astarte/Nighthawk
The T3 still be well defended by way of lower sig, similar resists, and still fit 3 links. I wouldn't use "fragile" to describe them!
It's just plain wrong that to fly a CS you need more pre-reqs than a T3 and you can't do a better job.
Although I do agree that CS off grid is kinda stupid, they should make links only work on grid... not sure on how difficult technically that is for CCP to do.
|
Mike Whiite
Progressive State
9
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 15:24:00 -
[20] - Quote
I'm pretty new to the whole T3 almost trained to the point of flying them and with half the isk needed to replace it when I should loose it.
But doesn't the T3 cruiser out perform almost all t2 ships?
So what is so special about the fact it outperforms the comand ship?
I see people prefere Tengu's over CNR and Golems, when running missions to name an example, I'm seriously imtrsted why the Command ship is "more" hurt by T3 ships than other ships.
Or should this be a look at the T3 ships threat instead? |
|
Jaigar
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe R.E.P.O.
30
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 15:40:00 -
[21] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:I'm pretty new to the whole T3 almost trained to the point of flying them and with half the isk needed to replace it when I should loose it.
But doesn't the T3 cruiser out perform almost all t2 ships?
So what is so special about the fact it outperforms the comand ship?
I see people prefere Tengu's over CNR and Golems, when running missions to name an example, I'm seriously imtrsted why the Command ship is "more" hurt by T3 ships than other ships.
Or should this be a look at the T3 ships threat instead?
No, they don't. A sleipnir will out damage a loki, recons have a distinct sensor strength/target range advantage over the T3 recons configurations, etc. Personally I perfer command ships to my T3s simply because I hate losing training time. I really hate losing training time, and with CS5 they operate really well. People just love tengus because you can win by pressing your f1 key.
But I think offgrid boosting is something that needs to be seriously reconsidered. There would still be plenty of viable options with T3 command ships even if this was true. For example, a cloaky webbing interdiction nullifed/immobility web loki running the interdiction manuevers sub. It'd still give itself a 52km web range while boosting and give over a 45km range or so overheated point range, IE, you could still decloak on a gate and assist your fleet.
But honestly, with the new T2 ganglinks being as OP as they are (over a 60% tanking bonus from a vulture/damnation), there needs to be a way to knock those bonuses off the field. |
SabuMaru ICE
MINE THEM TO DEATH Coalition of the Unfortunate
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 15:51:00 -
[22] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:SabuMaru ICE wrote: ... what do you propose for ORCA's and Rorquals ? ...
Use an on grid Orca for boosting, compress with a rorqual. In Null use intel/scouts like everybody else. In High Sec, well, if your orca dies in a belt in High Sec, you dun wrong.
There is no need to take in the High sec situation.. i agree with you on that
its more 0.0 and Low sec as most know an Rorqual has a bigger boost then a Orca and with an Orca beeing a Whale ... its not as fast off grid incomparison to a normal Command ship or T3
unless the boost and/or there survival is changed i think they need to stay with there off-grid boosting possibilty
i support the rest of the proposal ....altough i'm not sure how much of a game changer the current boost levels are might it be an option to Increase the boost with 50% for beein ONgrid... instead of a penelty for beeing off grid ???
|
Danny John-Peter
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 16:01:00 -
[23] - Quote
SabuMaru ICE wrote: i support the rest of the proposal ....altough i'm not sure how much of a game changer the current boost levels are might it be an option to Increase the boost with 50% for beein ONgrid... instead of a penelty for beeing off grid ???
A Carrier already gains something like 300,000 EHP with a fully skilled tengu booster, I dont think escalating that any further is really wise to be honest. |
Florestan Bronstein
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
363
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 16:07:00 -
[24] - Quote
DarkAegix wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: When off grid, all bonuses are reduced in effectiveness by (insert balanced percentage reduction here eg 50%).
I'd like to see the effectiveness reduced by 100%. only somebody who has no idea of how grids work in EVE could propose such an idea.
Instead of describing your problem as accurately as possible (I guess it would be sth along the lines of "the command ship should be more vulnerable when applying boosts") and letting the developers come up with a solution you are proposing a (flawed) solution.
(and when CCP implements your "solution" you'll probably be the first one to complain "but I was only 10km off my fleetmates, why didn't they get any bonuses???" or "we were 1000km off the POS and couldn't even see the ships 300km away from us that were in line with the tower - how the **** did they get bonuses from their claymore inside POS shields???")
Anyways... maybe studying this guide will change your mind: http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/0905/gridfumanual2%5B2%5D.pdf
Your proposed "solution" would usher in a new era of grid-fu and probably solve none of the problems you want to solve. |
Danny John-Peter
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 16:26:00 -
[25] - Quote
Florestan Bronstein wrote:DarkAegix wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: When off grid, all bonuses are reduced in effectiveness by (insert balanced percentage reduction here eg 50%).
I'd like to see the effectiveness reduced by 100%. only somebody who has no idea of how grids work in EVE could propose such an idea. Instead of describing your problem as accurately as possible (I guess it would be sth along the lines of "the command ship should be more vulnerable when applying boosts") and letting the developers come up with a solution you are proposing a (flawed) solution. (and when CCP implements your "solution" you'll probably be the first one to complain "but I was only 10km off my fleetmates, why didn't they get any bonuses???" or "we were 1000km off the POS and couldn't even see the ships 300km away from us that were in line with the tower - how the **** did they get bonuses from their claymore inside POS shields???") Anyways... maybe studying this guide will change your mind: http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/0905/gridfumanual2%5B2%5D.pdfYour proposed "solution" would usher in a new era of grid-fu and probably solve none of the problems you want to solve.
So your saying because my solution might create some problems, we should leave the current problems in place in there stead.
Genious |
Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris Etherium Cartel
416
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 18:30:00 -
[26] - Quote
The typical eve player says "grid" to mean things "close" to you as they lack another appropriate term. Given the strangeness of the way grids can load, I'd say "grid" only is not the best way to do it, however, making it somehow ranged based seems a very nice solution. Always ... Never ... Forget to check your references.-áPeace out Zulu! Hope you land well! |
Jon Marburg
The Executioners Merciless.
20
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 18:56:00 -
[27] - Quote
Well instead of messing with grid mechanics why not just set effective range for links to <300km. Makes it a simple check of if in range apply bonus. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
246
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 19:40:00 -
[28] - Quote
You are way too lenient. The whole idea of making them on-grid is that no ship should be able to influence much of anything without getting involved. The concept of reduced effectiveness off-grid should therefore be much harsher, your 'compromise' is not much at all as it will essentially allow T3's to do exactly what they do now with negligible reduction .. majority will likely opt for the nigh invulnerable +20% enhancer rather than the exposed +30% enhancer (haven't done math, but should be ballpark).
On-grid only, with: Enhanced tanking for Fleet CC's, perfect option would be logi based (ie. +% to incoming RR), but buffer is probably an easier sell Increase link allowance for T3 sub-system to two (from one) and add a tank bonus as well, includes lowering sig, increasing speed or any other damage mitigation. Remove link limit on T1 BCs .. with no efficiency bonus and at 50CPU/200Grid per link the balance is built in
PS: I too have compromised, my original solution was to require a link-ship to chose which ships it wanted to boost by locking them up .. would put it in-line with eWar/Logi and other force multipliers .. but seeing the response the first threads got it was pretty obvious that Eve is not yet ready for something that extreme
Edit: How fast is it to extend/mold the grid. Is it something that can be done at the drop of a hat (ie. offensively) or does it take time/manpower (ie. defensively)? If the former, then yes a maximum limit to range is probably needed, if on the other the latter applies then on-grid is just well as it allows for a slight defensive advantage .. digging trenches as it were. |
King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
132
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 00:10:00 -
[29] - Quote
I support the original proposal. It's reasonable, balanced and is a solid middle ground on the issue. |
Danny John-Peter
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
33
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 09:17:00 -
[30] - Quote
King Rothgar wrote:I support the original proposal. It's reasonable, balanced and is a solid middle ground on the issue.
Thank you very much good sir. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |