Before we go on, I should point out this hilarious tweet from CCP Foozie:


And thus CCP Obama was born, anyways it iss good news that it seems like he (Foozie) has been reading every single reply to the Command ship rebalance

Update time!
We’ve also got updates in the gang links and bonuses thread that you will all probably want to read.

Absolution



Changes:
-200 Shield
+100 Armor
+100 Hull

Damnation



+100 Shield
-300 Armor
+100 Hull

Nighthawk:



+75 PWG
Shifting strength between the two dps bonuses adds 1 effective launcher (now 11) and especially increases damage dealt with non-kin missiles. Post-patch Nighthawk does the same damage with non-kin missiles as current nighthawk, and 1 more effective launcher with kin. (Plus all the other buffs)
Kinetic missile bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Caldari BC
Missile RoF bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Command Ships

Astarte:



+100 Armor
Shifting strength between the bonuses adds an extra 1 effective turret (11, vs 10 in the initial proposal and 10.9 on TQ now).
Medium Hybrid damage bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Gallente BC
Medium Hybrid RoF bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Command Ships

Eos:



-300 Shield
+500 Armor
+300 Hull

We’re moving the gang link bonuses for command ships back to the command ships skill, at 3% per level instead of the 15% role bonus.

I recognize that a lot of people are unhappy with the existence of active repair bonuses on half of these ships, but I think that giving all command ships buffer bonuses isn’t the right way to go. I believe that the four skirmish bonused command ships will all be viable for people who choose not to use the repair bonuses after this patch.

Remember that the original thread is still up and if you wish to add, feel free to head over the EVE-O forums and speak.

10 Comments

  1. Titus Veridius

    Line up for the Death Panels.

    August 7, 2013 at 6:45 pm Reply
  2. Aonus_the_blaster_maniac

    eve changes, make the changes work for u or die… now stop bickering u bitches.

    August 7, 2013 at 8:34 pm Reply
  3. Aristash

    get my sleipnir back bitch.

    August 7, 2013 at 10:16 pm Reply
  4. lol

    still hasn’t address the issue of wing commanders not getting bonuses………..fail ccp fail

    August 8, 2013 at 4:50 am Reply
    1. salty

      “We’re planning to fix the issue where Wing Commanders don’t get the
      fleet level bonuses. There’s a few gnarly bits of code to get through
      before we can tie a bow on this, but the way it works now is stupid and
      in general we want to reduce the number of stupid systems in our game.”

      Pulled from https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3458485#post3458485

      Do your fucking homework before you start bitching.

      August 8, 2013 at 12:04 pm Reply
  5. Fartolio

    Bah.

    August 8, 2013 at 6:29 am Reply
  6. brochacho

    Will CCP start euthanizing grandma?

    August 9, 2013 at 3:37 am Reply
  7. Noisrevbus

    The reason people don’t put command ships on grid have to do with how the game scales and how changes like these impact upon gameplay.

    If you look at the various ideals or “doctrines” employed you will see groups like the GSF field CS because they work well in an environment of pilot numbers.

    Groups like PL generally field their casual links on ships like Carriers and when they need superior linkage they drop a Titan or ghostride a T3 from that Carrier.

    Smaller groups utilized the T3 in other ways. Localized groups and casual use involved OGB whereas more traveled or specialized groups would seed links over multiple on-grid T3, because at the higher echelons of the small-gang side you have some dynamics that makes towing OGB cumbersome and liable, which takes their edge off a bit relative other ways to seed links (highly proficient probers, cross-jumping tactics etc.).

    Most of the common reservations people seem to have are very much non-issues in the realities of the environment. The bonus volume at level 4, the tank of the Damnation and so forth are largely irrelevant outside of some highly temporary perspective. A weaker tank will not have the GSF, PL or small-gang roamers field the ships any more or less.

    The losers in these changes, as with most recent changes, are the people who were already using the effects in ingenious ways or closer to the ideal alot of people seem to have when they discuss “on-grid links” (that they should be used on grids through smart positioning and movement etc)…

    … the people seeding links over two T3 and one CS in an intricate system of effects or the people who realized they could run one-link- or two-link T3 without completely gimping the fit and then incorporate that with covert tactics, oversized propulsion, sniping or grid-control. Those are the people hurt by these changes while the winners are mostly those who operate within a safe margin environment (safety in numbers, safety in numbers to relative scale or intel per surrounding: ie., using it in a shallow close-region environment where you know what’s going on around you, most of the time). It won’t solve the problem of “dishonourable not-quite-so-solo” players linking up or that CS being blapped even by a small corp with high-level assets.

    It’s just stupid thinking this will change anything, when instead, the proposed changes will reinforce most of the current behaviour and stifle the decreasingly small inventive use. The players who did realize that links could be used in other ways than CS in safe numerical margins or on OGB they will end up adapting to the stale encouraged gameplay (most likely, they’ll join PL, given traditions because that is the graveyard of most inventive small-gang groups).

    As has been stated ad nauseum: these changes are logical if you assume that EVE, like other games, was based on some sort of “fair numbers” concept – but that’s not how EVE is, ever was or should be. It’s a perspective without pretext or root. If something works only in “fair numbers” chances are that it won’t be used in any higher-tier ingame conflict regardless of scale. The best groups in small-gang gameplay, regional to Lowsec or within a themepark like FW can also portal or drop a million Dreads on you.

    August 10, 2013 at 2:59 am Reply
  8. Sarge

    When will CCP recognize that, until active local armor tanks in PVP become viable, forcing Gallente BC hulls into that mold is going to only infuriate everyone who wishes to fly them?

    Hell, even in a PVE role, the Amarr ships are more viable, as, with higher base resistances, more low slots, and greater base armor points, an active tank becomes more effective when there is less damage to mitigate, combined with a greater ability to absorb that damage. These points were made BY CCP in their Dev Blog about resistance bonuses. Why are they being ignored now?

    Yes, Command Ships need to be re-balanced, but that can be said of a great many individual aspects of this game (don’t even begin to get me started on the travesty that is being perpetrated upon industrialists and haulers with the T1 hauler revamp – making something already ridiculously easy to gank even LESS able to survive – WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU MORONS SMOKING?).

    Referring to the Eos as a brawler – really? With drones? And that ibeyond idiotic hybrid tracking bonus? Are you guys truly so ignorant of just how awful drone mechanics really are? Have even ONE of you cretins ATUALLY FLOWN GALLENTE IN PVE, MUCH LESS PVP? Sure, blasters do AMAZING EFT DPS, but, unless you are cudling up with your opponent, they work for shit – they’re kind of like a snub-nosed pistol – if your opponent is too far away to be hit over the head with the gun, they’re too far away to be reliably hit when you shoot at them. Railguns are a joke, unless used in massive Mega fleets, and now you want to remove any hope at all of surviving being primaried by anything beyond a 3-on-3 fight.

    TL:DR – Are you aiming Gallente BC-hulled ships at 3-v-3 tournaments? Because they’re going to absolutely suck for anything bigger.

    August 11, 2013 at 9:19 pm Reply
    1. john

      You’re a retard, think about what you’re saying mate.

      August 19, 2013 at 12:13 am Reply

Leave a Reply