open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Proper Role Bonus for Field Command Ships
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
Posted - 2010.01.05 01:55:00 - [1]
 

The reasoning behind this is written here.

I'll just copy the very gist of it:


the current Role Bonus (99% reduction in Warfare Link module CPU need) becomes double-sided and includes reduction in Power Grid need, too.

Moreover, the new Role Bonus now includes a 5...8% (or even 10% !?) bonus to effectiveness of Warfare Links per level, but - and this is the most important - at a cost of vastly increased cap use amount of Warfare Links.

In addition the ship becomes immune to cap-transfering, thus making it a short-term gang booster, which can activate its link (links? Dunno whether we should implement a "one-link only" restriction, prolly we should) only for a very limited period of time.

This new revamped Role Bonus is the feature Field Command Ships are really really lacking at the moment.


Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2010.01.05 02:15:00 - [2]
 

Field Command ships are made of win and pwn(with the exception of the Nighthawk, which is made of the PvE equivalents to win and pwn), and need no changes. They have a role, and it's a good one. Don't mess around with it, especially not for these rather weak reasons.

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
Posted - 2010.01.05 02:26:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Field Command ships are made of win and pwn(with the exception of the Nighthawk, which is made of the PvE equivalents to win and pwn), and need no changes. They have a role, and it's a good one. Don't mess around with it, especially not for these rather weak reasons.

lol
Sorry man, but calling NH a PvE ship just shows your cluelessness. Along with new Sleipnir, NH is the best CS around.

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2010.01.05 08:29:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Aineko Macx on 05/01/2010 08:34:33
I read your reasoning and while I agree on the analysis of tier 1 BCs, IMO both field and fleet CS could at most use a slight buff to PG/CPU, anything more and they become much too powerful. You could even say that your videos are proof they are already overpowered... I'd rather see re-balancing within the field CS class.

Techno Maniac
Posted - 2010.01.05 09:44:00 - [5]
 


Exclipt
Posted - 2010.01.05 09:51:00 - [6]
 

signed

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
Posted - 2010.01.05 10:38:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Aineko Macx
Edited by: Aineko Macx on 05/01/2010 08:34:33
I read your reasoning and while I agree on the analysis of tier 1 BCs, IMO both field and fleet CS could at most use a slight buff to PG/CPU, anything more and they become much too powerful. You could even say that your videos are proof they are already overpowered... I'd rather see re-balancing within the field CS class.

Fleet Command Ships cannot be overpowered simply cause they have no rivals at their intended role - wide area gang boosters. That's like calling Covert Ops overpowered in terms of scanning.
But this thread has nothing to do with Fleet ones.

The suggested overhaul has nothing to do with my vids either. That's just a mean to give Field Command Ships a distinct feature which wouldn't be a direct tank/gank boost, so I don't see any problems here.

And this really became an issue with the introduction of tech3 cruisers which for some weird reason got a 25% bonus for gang link effectiveness.

5laaneshi
Posted - 2010.01.05 11:46:00 - [8]
 


Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2010.01.05 18:30:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Fon Revedhort
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Field Command ships are made of win and pwn(with the exception of the Nighthawk, which is made of the PvE equivalents to win and pwn), and need no changes. They have a role, and it's a good one. Don't mess around with it, especially not for these rather weak reasons.

lol
Sorry man, but calling NH a PvE ship just shows your cluelessness. Along with new Sleipnir, NH is the best CS around.


So do you use the fit with 2x RCU or the one with 4x RCU?

Abyss Wyrm
Caldari
We Don't Need This POS Anyway

Posted - 2010.01.06 03:03:00 - [10]
 

The idea is intresting.
And Fon IMHO the one who know how to make commands more... intresting ships. Not overpowered-imba, just some more specific role.
After all CSs still will be too vulnerable to neuts = ))

Jared D'Uroth
Minmatar
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.01.06 07:28:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Jared D''Uroth on 06/01/2010 07:28:37
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Fon Revedhort
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Field Command ships are made of win and pwn(with the exception of the Nighthawk, which is made of the PvE equivalents to win and pwn), and need no changes. They have a role, and it's a good one. Don't mess around with it, especially not for these rather weak reasons.

lol
Sorry man, but calling NH a PvE ship just shows your cluelessness. Along with new Sleipnir, NH is the best CS around.


So do you use the fit with 2x RCU or the one with 4x RCU?


I'm pretty sure he knows a bit more about the capabilities of the NH than you do.

Laughing


Oh, and agree with topic, more useful role bonus would be very nice.

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.01.06 07:33:00 - [12]
 

one point we want to keep in mind, commandships are supposed to be less attractive to be shoot so they can give the FC a base to stay longer in the fight and also have the bonuses longer. making them a bigger threat would void that role.

just a thought.

Dungheap
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.01.06 10:46:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Dungheap on 06/01/2010 10:46:28
Originally by: Fon Revedhort



the current Role Bonus (99% reduction in Warfare Link module CPU need) becomes double-sided and includes reduction in Power Grid need, too.

Moreover, the new Role Bonus now includes a 5...8% (or even 10% !?) bonus to effectiveness of Warfare Links per level, but - and this is the most important - at a cost of vastly increased cap use amount of Warfare Links.

In addition the ship becomes immune to cap-transfering, thus making it a short-term gang booster, which can activate its link (links? Dunno whether we should implement a "one-link only" restriction, prolly we should) only for a very limited period of time.


yet another person asking for changes to game mechanics to fit their playstyle... without consideration of other players.

the gang link bonus was reduced by ccp for balancing. if those reasons for the reduction are no longer valid, a look at the bonus' may be in order.

everything else you want to accomplish can already be done by tailoring the fitting of the ships as they are.

if that results in a 'gimped' fit, it was intended to prevent the ships being overpowered.

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
Posted - 2010.01.06 12:50:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 06/01/2010 12:55:33
Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 06/01/2010 12:54:27
Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 06/01/2010 12:52:08
Originally by: Dungheap
Edited by: Dungheap on 06/01/2010 10:46:28
Originally by: Fon Revedhort



the current Role Bonus (99% reduction in Warfare Link module CPU need) becomes double-sided and includes reduction in Power Grid need, too.

Moreover, the new Role Bonus now includes a 5...8% (or even 10% !?) bonus to effectiveness of Warfare Links per level, but - and this is the most important - at a cost of vastly increased cap use amount of Warfare Links.

In addition the ship becomes immune to cap-transfering, thus making it a short-term gang booster, which can activate its link (links? Dunno whether we should implement a "one-link only" restriction, prolly we should) only for a very limited period of time.


yet another person asking for changes to game mechanics to fit their playstyle... without consideration of other players.

the gang link bonus was reduced by ccp for balancing. if those reasons for the reduction are no longer valid, a look at the bonus' may be in order.

everything else you want to accomplish can already be done by tailoring the fitting of the ships as they are.

if that results in a 'gimped' fit, it was intended to prevent the ships being overpowered.

What exactly are you talking about? How will my playstyle benefit from the proposed changes? Confused
There's no reason whatsoever to fit a gang link onto field command ship since this results in the reduced performance in other areas. And as the efficiency of the said link is the same as at regular tech1 BC, it's pretty obvious to use latter ones, since you're gimping a less valuable (damage wise at the first place) ship.

The gang link bonus was reduced? How's that? I've been playing since Sep '05 and no changes were done for the role bonus of commands ships through all these years.
The role bonus has always been that stupid and useless. It became even more stupid over years with the introduction of tier2 BCs and SCs.

Yet again I'm pointing at Strategic Cruisers which happen to be better at gang boosting then the command ships class itself. How is this balanced?

I know everyone wants an OP ship for themselves (see drakes which are considered as 'fine'), but this hypocrisy is just getting beyond any limits Evil or Very Mad

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2010.01.06 13:48:00 - [15]
 

It's not just the role bonus, Field CS need a complete rework in general. This was supposed to happen in 2009.

Originally by: 2nd CSM minutes
CCP plans on reviewing the command ships as a whole in the future. CCP Zulupark stated that there will be several balance changes early 2009...


Heh.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2010.01.06 19:48:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 06/01/2010 19:50:26
Originally by: Jared D'Uroth
I'm pretty sure he knows a bit more about the capabilities of the NH than you do. Laughing

Oh, and agree with topic, more useful role bonus would be very nice.


Ah, the "one RCU, storyline gear, and heavy missiles" fit. Well, if you want to get fancy about it, who am I to stop you?

But yes, I'll admit, Nighthawks aren't my thing, I fly Gallente. So why don't we look at some other opinions?

Edit: The last link is broken, and I can't seem to fix it - add () brackets around the CSM in the URL to make it link to the right page.

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
Posted - 2010.01.06 20:27:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 06/01/2010 19:50:26
Originally by: Jared D'Uroth
I'm pretty sure he knows a bit more about the capabilities of the NH than you do. Laughing

Oh, and agree with topic, more useful role bonus would be very nice.


Ah, the "one RCU, storyline gear, and heavy missiles" fit. Well, if you want to get fancy about it, who am I to stop you?

But yes, I'll admit, Nighthawks aren't my thing, I fly Gallente. So why don't we look at some other opinions?

Edit: The last link is broken, and I can't seem to fix it - add () brackets around the CSM in the URL to make it link to the right page.


Yeah, Nighthawk needs some grid. But that's not like you can't already use one, it just costs you some extra isk and that's it. Surely it is wrong, but the ship itself is not gimped at all.

I would be more than glad to approve a reasonable change about its grid, but that's not the issue I actually tried to raise here.

Abyss Wyrm
Caldari
We Don't Need This POS Anyway
Posted - 2010.01.06 21:30:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: darius mclever
one point we want to keep in mind, commandships are supposed to be less attractive to be shoot so they can give the FC a base to stay longer in the fight and also have the bonuses longer. making them a bigger threat would void that role.

just a thought.

Fleet command and field command are not the same. Field command more like a commando, rather then real commander.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2010.01.07 06:07:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Fon Revedhort
Surely it is wrong, but the ship itself is not gimped at all.


So let me see if I understand your position correctly. You posit that in the status quo, field command ships are usable and effective, to the point where you make PvP videos with the one that basically everyone but you regards as the worst of the four, and still manage a good amount of success. You simultaneously claim that field command ships have inadequate bonuses, and need to be made into elite gang-boost ships with bonuses that no other ship class - including the ones specifically designed for the purposes of boosting fleets - can touch.

Your rationale for this, looking at the thread linked in the OP, seems to consist entirely of the fact that they have the word "Command" in their name. You proceed to make incoherent references to tier-2 battlecruisers, saying that the Astarte is supposed to be a Myrmidon variant, and talk about how CCP needs to either give them an incoherent and overly complex bonus that you made up with no regard for game design or balance, or they need to acknowledge that they are "assault" battlecruisers, which is exactly what they have been for the last five years, and which is a role that they are spectacularly well-suited for.

Do I have that right?

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
Posted - 2010.01.07 06:57:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 07/01/2010 07:00:17
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Fon Revedhort
Surely it is wrong, but the ship itself is not gimped at all.


So let me see if I understand your position correctly. You posit that in the status quo, field command ships are usable and effective, to the point where you make PvP videos with the one that basically everyone but you regards as the worst of the four, and still manage a good amount of success. You simultaneously claim that field command ships have inadequate bonuses, and need to be made into elite gang-boost ships with bonuses that no other ship class - including the ones specifically designed for the purposes of boosting fleets - can touch.

Your rationale for this, looking at the thread linked in the OP, seems to consist entirely of the fact that they have the word "Command" in their name. You proceed to make incoherent references to tier-2 battlecruisers, saying that the Astarte is supposed to be a Myrmidon variant, and talk about how CCP needs to either give them an incoherent and overly complex bonus that you made up with no regard for game design or balance, or they need to acknowledge that they are "assault" battlecruisers, which is exactly what they have been for the last five years, and which is a role that they are spectacularly well-suited for.

Do I have that right?

They are usable and effective, but they are to be even more usable and even more effective. You've got this right, I suppose.

Btw, I guess I can make a movie featuring almost any ship, but this won't make the ship itself become any better than it is. I guess I could fly tech1 battlecruisers, but that would be extremely low-risk and thus boring. You can't claim something is fine (i.e. Field CS) just by the fact someone likes to use it.

Please, don't pull statements out of the thin air, as I have never said anything of Astarte as Myrmidon's variation.

Acknowledging command ships as assault battlecruisers requires you to take a closer look at the entire tech1/tech2 classes, that's right, too. In some cases - as stated - the difference is not distinctive enough. Again, as stated, this difference became dim with the introduction of tier2 battlecruisers, marauders and black ops. Field Command Ships were well-suited for their intended role. I want them to recover their former majesty. Balance shifts happen now and then and we should respond to those.

But...

... a sheer tank and spank (assault class) is pretty boring itself, that's why I proposed something unique.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.01.07 10:09:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Fon Revedhort

Moreover, the new Role Bonus now includes a 5...8% (or even 10% !?) bonus to effectiveness of Warfare Links per level, but - and this is the most important - at a cost of vastly increased cap use amount of Warfare Links.

In addition the ship becomes immune to cap-transfering, thus making it a short-term gang booster, which can activate its link (links? Dunno whether we should implement a "one-link only" restriction, prolly we should) only for a very limited period of time.

This new revamped Role Bonus is the feature Field Command Ships are really really lacking at the moment.




No.

1) Command ships role is that of sustained gang boosters. Changing the bonus to a short them even if larger boost will greatly degrade the value in fleet operations.

2) a short therm boost will make the shield capacity gang link totally useless.

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
Posted - 2010.01.07 15:23:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Fon Revedhort

Moreover, the new Role Bonus now includes a 5...8% (or even 10% !?) bonus to effectiveness of Warfare Links per level, but - and this is the most important - at a cost of vastly increased cap use amount of Warfare Links.

In addition the ship becomes immune to cap-transfering, thus making it a short-term gang booster, which can activate its link (links? Dunno whether we should implement a "one-link only" restriction, prolly we should) only for a very limited period of time.

This new revamped Role Bonus is the feature Field Command Ships are really really lacking at the moment.




No.

1) Command ships role is that of sustained gang boosters. Changing the bonus to a short them even if larger boost will greatly degrade the value in fleet operations.

2) a short therm boost will make the shield capacity gang link totally useless.


1) That's exactly why it's a good proposal. Blobs don't need any boosting, small-scale PvP needs it. Fleets still could use fleet command ships, so what's the problem here?

2) Confused
WTB one. Laughing

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2010.01.07 19:28:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Fon Revedhort
They are usable and effective, but they are to be even more usable and even more effective. You've got this right, I suppose.


Oh, of course they could be. The question is whether that's actually the right call for game balance, or whether you're just trying to buff the ship you fly.

Originally by: Fon Revedhort
Btw, I guess I can make a movie featuring almost any ship, but this won't make the ship itself become any better than it is. I guess I could fly tech1 battlecruisers, but that would be extremely low-risk and thus boring. You can't claim something is fine (i.e. Field CS) just by the fact someone likes to use it.


True, but you're also in this thread saying that it's a very good ship, which makes me think that the movie was about more than just taking a little-used ship and having fun with it.

Originally by: Fon Revedhort
Please, don't pull statements out of the thin air, as I have never said anything of Astarte as Myrmidon's variation.


I oversimplified a bit, but in your other thread, you talked about how the only reason people don't hate the Astarte is that the Myrm is a drone ship. That implies that someone might possibly have some reason to compare the two by default, which is just ludicrous. The Eos is the Myrm-like, the Astarte is the Brutix-like. Other than for deciding which you want to fly, there is no conceivable reason to even suggest that they should be compared. It'd be like me saying that the only reason the Drake looks good is because the Erebus does something completely different. I suppose I wouldn't directly be comparing them, but it certainly begs the question of why you're raising even the possibility of comparison.

Originally by: Fon Revedhort
Acknowledging command ships as assault battlecruisers requires you to take a closer look at the entire tech1/tech2 classes, that's right, too. In some cases - as stated - the difference is not distinctive enough. Again, as stated, this difference became dim with the introduction of tier2 battlecruisers, marauders and black ops. Field Command Ships were well-suited for their intended role. I want them to recover their former majesty. Balance shifts happen now and then and we should respond to those.


Buffer-tank MWD fits, T2 gear and T1 rigs, all-V skills:

Harbinger: 678 DPS, 63k EHP, 896 m/s
Absolution: 786 DPS, 105k EHP, 922 m/s

Drake: 414 DPS, 92k EHP, 1038 m/s
Nighthawk: 572 DPS, 88k EHP, 1038 m/s
(Note: Both these are heavy missile fits, so they're not especially comparable to the other three races)

Brutix: 743 DPS, 52k EHP, 924 m/s
Astarte: 938 DPS, 74k EHP, 941 m/s

Hurricane: 733 DPS, 45k EHP, 1161 m/s
Sleipnir: 837 DPS, 60k EHP, 1475 m/s, gang link

You were saying?

Originally by: Fon Revedhort
But...

... a sheer tank and spank (assault class) is pretty boring itself, that's why I proposed something unique.


I don't find AFs, HACs, BCs, field commands, or BSes to be boring classes. They're less wacky than a stealth bomber, but really, most classes are built around a particular role, whether that role is DPS, RR, EW, gang boosts, or whatever else. The four T2 cruiser classes are all very different, but I don't consider one to be more or less interesting than the other three - they all have a role, they're all good at their role, and their roles all fit nicely into broader issues of game design. Every MMO needs a few DPS classes - they may be "boring", but they're fine.

Overall, I think you're falling into the trap of assuming that interesting game design is inherently good game design. Your goal shouldn't be wacky stuff, your goal should be elegant design. What you've proposed is an ugly, unnecessary kludge that destroys a perfectly good ship class. Yes, it's a bit more "interesting", but it's far worse for the game. Step back and look at the big picture.

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
Posted - 2010.01.08 03:08:00 - [24]
 

The reason to compare Myrm to Astarte is quite simple. They are of the same size, unlike Drake and Erebus. People usually compare ships by size, i.e. battleships to marauders (have you seen those endless 'omg! Navy apoc vs. paladin - which should i pick???' rants over the forums? That's it Smile)
Surely you cant' compare them directly like NH and Drake, but if you could, you'd likely end up with the same conclusion as when comparing Caldari boats - that the tech2 ship is lacking some stats for its cost. Just a little bit, but the shortage is there.

I don't really care for the exact numbers you've given, but could you please try making similar sheets for tech1 cruisers vs. hacs and tech1 BS vs marauders/black ops comparisons, taking into consideration some other stats/features like extra locking range/cargo/overheating/jump drive/tractor bonus etc.? I've already done those in my mind and the integrated results are written in the 'scalability' paragraphs of the linked thread. The difference in those combined stats is bigger for hacs and for tech2 Battleships.

That's something like this (tech1/tech2 integrated stats ratio):
Frigates: ++/+++++
Cruisers: ++/+++++
Battlecruisers: ++++/+++++ (the smallest relative difference)
Battleships: +++/++++

The gain Fleet Command Ships get over BC is relatively worse than the one for any other class. While by any logic (except the fuzzy one) the relative gain is to be in-between the cruisers and battleships.

Dummy Jumper
Posted - 2010.01.13 20:08:00 - [25]
 

Good discussion, I post some my ideas as well in original thread.

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
Posted - 2010.01.17 09:35:00 - [26]
 

Back to the front page, please.

Anyone else willing to join in?

Xahara
StarFleet Enterprises
Systematic-Chaos
Posted - 2010.01.17 13:20:00 - [27]
 

Hmm, very strong proposal you have here, with very solid arguments, thus, fully supported :)

I've stopped flying Astartes long time ago, because the isk-performance ratio is just not justifyable, to the one of a Brutix/Myrmidon, for example.

HunterVolCh SPb
Amarr
STAR CONTROL.

Posted - 2010.04.16 23:07:00 - [28]
 


JcJet
Caldari
Pretenders Inc
W-Space
Posted - 2010.04.17 02:18:00 - [29]
 

/signed
It's been nice to fly nighthawk command ship.
But now we have tengu...


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only