open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked Field Command ships upgrade
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7

Author Topic

Manfred Rickenbocker
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:43:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko

The answer to woes of Field commands is not in warfare links. If you want to fit a unbonused warfare link on a ship, Tier 2 BCs already do this for a hugely lower price while generally fitting tank and DPS on top (well, with more problems on some ships, sure).

Furthermore, with two ship classes bonused for warfare link efficiency there's really no point in adding a extra role bonus on top here.

Sure, the Astarte could use a utility high anyway (ditto Brutix) and more fitting anyway for it not to be worthless, but that alone doesn't make the ship stop being a failboat.

+1 slot to all (and extra utility high on top for Astarte and Brutix since, let's be fair, losing 10m3 of dronebay compared to a Cyclone/Sleipnir is not worth a highslot) and rebalancing bonuses and fitting across the class is imo the way to go, along with giving them Tier 2 BC base HP, and a few nice extras like higher sensor strenght and slightly higher agility as per the OP's suggestion.



Ditto this for simplicity. Also, add in a cost reduction because they will still be insta-primary. Thank you for someone else agreeing that Field Command + Ganglink = fail.

Spugg Galdon
Posted - 2010.04.14 11:41:00 - [62]
 

Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker

Also, add in a cost reduction because they will still be insta-primary. Thank you for someone else agreeing that Field Command + Ganglink = fail.


Agreed. Field Command ships are "Pocket Battleships". With the option of fitting a gang link

Lord Helghast
Posted - 2010.04.14 13:24:00 - [63]
 

definitly support a boost to the bc line of ships, especially the commands

Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Posted - 2010.04.14 16:32:00 - [64]
 

Edited by: Yaay on 14/04/2010 16:34:17
It may also make sense to give these ships another set of gang bonuses that are more offensive in nature, but limit them to 1 gang module out of 3 racial choices. So maybe one set of them boost tracking, optimal, falloff... but only 1 fits per ship. One set boost Neut/nos amounts, range. One set boost drone damage, tracking, speed. And one boost overheating effects?

In other words, very specialized boost, but because it's only ever 1 bonus, maybe these ships are geared towards small gang warfare, and specialized pockets within a fleet.

That might keep them as decent pvp ships, but better field command experiences. They're much more offensively minded, and their bonuses are geared as such. But with only 1 mod fitting, it's hard to weigh their benefit to that of the fleet commands that give massive bonuses up to 7x per ship per wing or fleet.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2010.04.14 16:42:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
Originally by: Cpt Branko

The answer to woes of Field commands is not in warfare links.



Ditto this for simplicity. Also, add in a cost reduction because they will still be insta-primary. Thank you for someone else agreeing that Field Command + Ganglink = fail.


I flat don't buy this argument. I don't see the point of flying a 200 mill ISK field command when I could just jump in a ~50 mill ISK BS. Sure, there are advantages in terms of resists and mobility, but there are disadvantages in terms of RR options, neuts, EHP and DPS.

Manfred Rickenbocker
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2010.04.14 23:10:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III

Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker

Ditto this for simplicity. Also, add in a cost reduction because they will still be insta-primary. Thank you for someone else agreeing that Field Command + Ganglink = fail.


I flat don't buy this argument. I don't see the point of flying a 200 mill ISK field command when I could just jump in a ~50 mill ISK BS. Sure, there are advantages in terms of resists and mobility, but there are disadvantages in terms of RR options, neuts, EHP and DPS.



Which part of the argument is not bought? I suppose I dont understand what your objection to my agreement was because it seems like you partially agree as well. As with all T2 ships, they offer increased resists, bonuses, and mobility (particularly in lower class vs. higher) and on a 1v1 basis, most Field Commands will obliterate a "~50mil BS" handily (or at least should, hence a boost request). Furthermore, the on-paper DPS potential of most of these ships is a LOT higher than said battleships (i.e. I can find a fitting that will nudge the Astarte well over 1k DPS at the cost of eHP) but as with all ships you generally trade off monster DPS for eHP, repairing, mobility, remote rep, etc.
This is all just a wishy-washy way of saying "This ship is just like the T1 version, but a whole lot better." The problem with that is the T1 Tier 2 can often outclass these ships by a wide margin hence the need for a boost.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2010.04.15 09:48:00 - [67]
 

My objection to the "no-GM" idea is simply that a field CS without a GM is inferior to a battleship in terms of DPS, EHP and gang utility, but costs 150 mill ISK more. Ships, especially T2 ships, need roles, and field CS don't have one. Simply boosting their base stats etc won't give them one.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2010.04.15 11:56:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III
My objection to the "no-GM" idea is simply that a field CS without a GM is inferior to a battleship in terms of DPS, EHP and gang utility, but costs 150 mill ISK more. Ships, especially T2 ships, need roles, and field CS don't have one. Simply boosting their base stats etc won't give them one.


What's the role there? You know, you can fit a BC to have good DPS, good EHP and a warfare link and about 1/10th the price of a CS. Alternatively if your gang is sizeable enough you benefit more from a fleet CS which loses DPS but gains EHP and three bonused warfare links.

Warfare link is a additional extra when we discuss field CS, not THE role, since gang boosting role is largely covered. What I basically envision field CS as is a "HAC on seteroids" with somewhat less mobility (but more then BS and preferably slightly more then Tier 2 BCs) but delivering what is essentially speaking close to BS-level DPS and having the option to fit a warfare link.

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
Posted - 2010.04.15 12:01:00 - [69]
 

Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 15/04/2010 12:01:40


I suggested a proper role a while ago.

Evidently, the idea itself was just way too good and sophisticated for the average forum level Neutral

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2010.04.15 12:16:00 - [70]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko

What's the role there? You know, you can fit a BC to have good DPS, good EHP and a warfare link and about 1/10th the price of a CS. Alternatively if your gang is sizeable enough you benefit more from a fleet CS which loses DPS but gains EHP and three bonused warfare links.

Warfare link is a additional extra when we discuss field CS, not THE role, since gang boosting role is largely covered. What I basically envision field CS as is a "HAC on steroids" with somewhat less mobility (but more then BS and preferably slightly more then Tier 2 BCs) but delivering what is essentially speaking close to BS-level DPS and having the option to fit a warfare link.


Sure, a BC can fit a gank link. But it's tough on PG and CPU and it receives no bonuses to the link's bonus's strength. A field CS that could fit a link at no PG/CPU cost with a respectable bonus to its strength, while possessing good actual combat capabilities (unlike the fleet CS) would be an attractive option and viable role, I think.

I don't like the "HAC on steroids comparison" because HACs are defined by mobility or range, and field CS have no more of either than BCs. Now, I have no fundamental objection to a rework of the class into super-HACs, but I suspect it would be tricky to balance them with HACs and still make both worthwhile. And even then, why not give them a link bonus as well?

HaartSp
The Deliberate Forces
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.04.15 12:39:00 - [71]
 

Yes, Field CSes should be boosted.

Darth Felin
Posted - 2010.04.15 12:40:00 - [72]
 

+45 CPU is too much for a Sleipnir but other ideas are decent.

Manfred Rickenbocker
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2010.04.15 16:33:00 - [73]
 

Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 15/04/2010 16:38:18
Originally by: Gypsio III

Originally by: Cpt Branko

What's the role there? You know, you can fit a BC to have good DPS, good EHP and a warfare link and about 1/10th the price of a CS. Alternatively if your gang is sizeable enough you benefit more from a fleet CS which loses DPS but gains EHP and three bonused warfare links.

Warfare link is a additional extra when we discuss field CS, not THE role, since gang boosting role is largely covered. What I basically envision field CS as is a "HAC on steroids" with somewhat less mobility (but more then BS and preferably slightly more then Tier 2 BCs) but delivering what is essentially speaking close to BS-level DPS and having the option to fit a warfare link.


Sure, a BC can fit a gank link. But it's tough on PG and CPU and it receives no bonuses to the link's bonus's strength. A field CS that could fit a link at no PG/CPU cost with a respectable bonus to its strength, while possessing good actual combat capabilities (unlike the fleet CS) would be an attractive option and viable role, I think.

I don't like the "HAC on steroids comparison" because HACs are defined by mobility or range, and field CS have no more of either than BCs. Now, I have no fundamental objection to a rework of the class into super-HACs, but I suspect it would be tricky to balance them with HACs and still make both worthwhile. And even then, why not give them a link bonus as well?


This actually seems like a worthy discussion. Whats the point of a Field CS as opposed to a Fleet CS? One can differentiate this in two ways:

  1. Fleet commands are designed for large gang warfare (sniping, structure bash, fleet battles) whereas Field commands are designed for small gang warfare (gate camps, raiding parties, 1v1).

    • In fleets, there is an emphasis on DPS and eHP. Anything the Fleet command can do to increase those is key, and hence needs a lot of bonuses to do so: lock speed, resists, etc.

    • In small gangs, there is an emphasis on DPS, speed, and size. The Field Command can provide bonuses, but its mostly a pittance because more often than not it is more important to bring something fast with high DPS. The Field command can do this: it has crazy DPS bonuses.


  2. Fleet commands are supposed to hang back and be in charge of fleets, while Field commands are supposed to be in the fray and take charge of the situation.

    • Fleet commands already do this well. They have three bonuses and (typically, sans Eos) have high eHP. They may be primary, but they can (should) take a beating and still provide bonuses essential to the survival of the fleet.

    • Field commands do this by providing high DPS on the spot when and where needed and have enough eHP to survive until their target is dead. They need to have the highest DPS to target variety ratio in the game (be able to attack everything from frigates up to battleships, which medium weapons do a good job of), stick to their target like glue until the job is done (through speed matching, scrambling, webbing, weapon effectiveness), then bail should the need arise.


These only exist in philosophical terms of course. Camp #1 is difficult because you can see Fleet Commands filling both roles, but for #2 the case is easy to make. If you look at the bonuses for each of the field command ships you will notice that they all have two damage bonuses, a tank bonus, and a weapon effectiveness bonus (range, explosion velocity, cap use). With the current prevalence of eHP and cap warfare (thanks CCP for the double HP boost a few years backConfused) the repping bonuses on the Sleipnir and Astarte are largely useless due to high eHP needs in sustained fights. The way missiles work, the explosion velocity bonus is probably useless if it cant help you nail fast frigs (I dont use missiles in PVP). Cap usage bonuses are really nice, but there are alternative solutions in quick fights.
Edit: Really only my two cents on this

Jacob Stov
Posted - 2010.04.15 16:42:00 - [74]
 

Field command ships should just comfortably fit a ganglink. I believe that would be their role. Lead small gangs, where the loss of DPS compared to a fleet command isn't worth it.
Unfortunately that role is already covered by T3 cruisers.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2010.04.15 22:55:00 - [75]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 15/04/2010 22:56:18
Originally by: Jacob Stov
Field command ships should just comfortably fit a ganglink. I believe that would be their role. Lead small gangs, where the loss of DPS compared to a fleet command isn't worth it.
Unfortunately that role is already covered by T3 cruisers.


Or Tier 2 BCs if price is a concern. Some of them can sport very competitive DPS, solid EHP and a warfare link.

They need to be first and foremost excellent combat ships, which some of the ships in the class most definitely are not.



Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Posted - 2010.04.16 03:48:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 15/04/2010 22:56:18
Originally by: Jacob Stov
Field command ships should just comfortably fit a ganglink. I believe that would be their role. Lead small gangs, where the loss of DPS compared to a fleet command isn't worth it.
Unfortunately that role is already covered by T3 cruisers.


Or Tier 2 BCs if price is a concern. Some of them can sport very competitive DPS, solid EHP and a warfare link.

They need to be first and foremost excellent combat ships, which some of the ships in the class most definitely are not.





Yes, but that's partly due to the teir 2 BC's being a tad overpowered. I mean there's virtually no comparison between what the teir 1 BC were and what the teir 2 became. Some of the Bonuses on the teir 2 BC's don't even make sense.

The drake is the primary example. It is the only caldari Missile boat that get's a resist bonus instead of a range bonus. It makes the ship a much harder tank than it really should be.

The hurricane and the Harbinger are incredibly easy to fit too. Compare the Teir 2 BC's to the Teir 4 Cruisers and their much more difficult fitting problems and you really see the imbalance.

I personally love the Teir 2 BC's and wish more T1 ships were that easy to fit and use. Honestly, if the Teir 1 cruisers were that easy to fit, I'd use them more often. But that said, it makes the Tech 2 field ships and a lot of the tier 1 BC's look crappy by comparison. I wish both sets of ships would get a boost, as well as teir 1 cruisers to make the use of tech one gear even more attractive. That might actually bring down Tech 2 cost even more.

JShepard
Caldari
The Illuminatii
Mildly Intoxicated
Posted - 2010.04.16 04:17:00 - [77]
 

Edited by: JShepard on 16/04/2010 04:17:40
What is this crap, making BC5 worth training (for pvp), BLASPHEMY I SAY!

Battleangel Libby
Stellar Solutions Factory
Posted - 2010.04.16 10:36:00 - [78]
 


Fistme
Posted - 2010.04.16 12:25:00 - [79]
 

How about introducing a new line of offensive gang link modules specialized for different weapon types. Field Command ships could then have a small bonus to these offensive gang link modules just as fleet commands get the bonuses to the other gang link modules.

I'd rather Field Commands get a Niche role rather than try and pretend to be a BS.

TraderVolCh
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:12:00 - [80]
 


JcJet
Caldari
Pretenders Inc
W-Space
Posted - 2010.04.17 03:10:00 - [81]
 


Ugly Gorinich
Posted - 2010.04.17 17:02:00 - [82]
 

signed

Samson Viryn
Posted - 2010.04.17 17:06:00 - [83]
 

boost

Damnskippy
Posted - 2010.04.20 19:42:00 - [84]
 

They need something. Battlecruisers perform nearly as well for a small fraction of the cost.

Zilberfrid
Posted - 2010.04.20 20:44:00 - [85]
 

I will probably get flamed somewhat, but is not part of the problem the tier 2 bc's? If I compare them, they do tend to stick out a bit on the upside of the power level.

I'd say turn a bat in that direction, perhaps a 7,5% reduction in armor, shield and cap.

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
Posted - 2010.04.20 21:43:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Zilberfrid
I will probably get flamed somewhat, but is not part of the problem the tier 2 bc's? If I compare them, they do tend to stick out a bit on the upside of the power level.

I'd say turn a bat in that direction, perhaps a 7,5% reduction in armor, shield and cap.

They are, but the changes you mention won't mean lot. Heck, the 7.5 percent cap/armor advantage is already built-in for those, you'll just bring them down to tier-1 level in that very area, while tier-2 will still enjoy abnormal slot amount.

Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Posted - 2010.04.20 23:04:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Fon Revedhort
Originally by: Zilberfrid
I will probably get flamed somewhat, but is not part of the problem the tier 2 bc's? If I compare them, they do tend to stick out a bit on the upside of the power level.

I'd say turn a bat in that direction, perhaps a 7,5% reduction in armor, shield and cap.

They are, but the changes you mention won't mean lot. Heck, the 7.5 percent cap/armor advantage is already built-in for those, you'll just bring them down to tier-1 level in that very area, while tier-2 will still enjoy abnormal slot amount.


It's not the slots that are the problem, it's the bonuses and fittings.

Harbinger: high gun damage and a large drone bay and a ton of Powergrid.

Drake: High power grid, Shield resist, and Damage bonus with 7 launchers for decent to high damage.

Sleipnir: Fast, High DPS, decent drone bay, and incredibly easy to fit.

Compare any of those to the teir 1 BC that are always short on fittings, much lower tanks, and much lower dps except the brutix. But the brutix is a paper tiger on tank even if it does have nice DPS.

People don't buy this, but the Prophecy has almost no advantage over the Harbinger. Harbinger has higher base armor, shields and an extra Mid. IT also has way higher powergrid and a larger drone bay making fitting a large tank plus guns pretty easy.

I played with EFT last night and got a harbinger to about 135k EHP with a damnation. It also did about 550 DPS. I tried something similar with the Proph and got 159k EHP (*a whoping 24,000 more), but lost a ton of firepower and had huge issues on fittings. So why on god's green earth would I ever choose to use the Proph when the Teir 2 is so much stronger. That imbalance directly relates to the imbalance that was created when Teir 2 got released and became the "almost as good as t2 for way less" choice.

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
Posted - 2010.04.21 04:23:00 - [88]
 

Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 21/04/2010 04:23:49

It is slots (dronebays including) combined with extra fittings.

Abaddon's got 'the best' set of bonuses you can ever think of - resistances plus damage. It has 8 guns, but in no way it is imbalanced in comparison to Geddon.

I wouldn't care all that much about Harbinger, should it have 4 lows or 3 meds/5 lows. Instead for some weirdest reason there are 6.
As tech1 ships have always been basically free and it doesn't matter whether the hull is 20 or 40 mil isk, the huge increase in perfomance comes at absolutely no cost. Imagine battleships being done that way, - Abaddon then easily could have 2 extra meds Confused

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2010.04.21 10:02:00 - [89]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 21/04/2010 10:07:52
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 21/04/2010 10:04:27
Tier 2 BCs are fine.

As for the "they do XYZ on the cheap", nerfing them would do nothing for field CS. Why would I still fly a field CS over a HAC (more mobility, equal midslot/lowslot count*, less DPS/EHP though) or, eg. shield tempest (cheaper by miles and miles, almost as mobile, generally speaking more DPS and EHP, heavy neuts, etcetera). A tier 1 BS will dominate a CS about every time, and in most cases without breaking a sweat (eg. failstarte).

*Which is probably the best argument for giving field CS a extra low/mid - they share mid/low slot amount with the ship half class down.

Originally by: Yaay
So why on god's green earth would I ever choose to use the Proph when the Teir 2 is so much stronger.


Tiers on all sub-BS ships are broken, really. The Stabber is inferior in about every way bar speed to the Rupture. The Breacher/Slasher is inferior in every way to the Rifter. Etcetera.

Aspherical
Posted - 2010.04.21 17:44:00 - [90]
 

Edited by: Aspherical on 21/04/2010 17:46:02
Edited by: Aspherical on 21/04/2010 17:45:07
I can only speak for the Nighthawk

But yes a Drake is really nearly as good as a Nighthawk and sometimes I really thought about switch the Command role to an assault role to make the Nighthawk a Heavy Assault BC, with better tank and more DPS and/or range bonus like the Cerberus.

So delete the ganglink mod.
Nighthawk
spread out the Resistances not full T2 but 25% em before bonus
more Powergrid so that it can fit HAM and with a RC also medium Neut

+12.5% RoF per CS level BUT no kinetic / Expl. velocety bonuses

+10% HM velocety per BC and/or special role bonus 25% to HAM velocety per level
+1 medslot





Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7

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