Ships & Modules

After completing my alliance-mandated training for the drake, I set my eyes on the nighthawk, cause I was a nub and it looked cool. Well lo and behold, it sucked. Actually, it's not half bad for missions, but I already trained caldari cruiser 5 for the nighthawk... why not use a tengu? And for pvp... spending a couple weeks on minmatar cruiser 5 got me the sleipnir.

So I have a couple months of pretty useless training atm. In the short run, my nighthawk will go from a ship that I don't use, to a ship that I still don't use. But in the long run, maybe it will be worth something, along with the cerberus. Quite frankly, anyone who's already wasted their SP on these ships shouldn't be pissed that they're going from broken to more broken, they should be happy that after they're more broken, CCP might actually get around to fixing them.

This, oh so much this.

The problem isn't that there is a change, the problem is that the change is irresponsible: it's not comprehensive, either in motivation or causality. It's poorly thought through. It's doing something to "do something" rather than thinking it through and "doing it" well. It's yet another band-aid instead of dealing with issues in the game comprehensively and sustainable.

If there is a "problem" with Missiles they should have picked the entire system apart and built it back up again with a clear vision of what they want the system to do (equations/accuracy, raw-to-application, SR-LR ranges, S-M-L-XL etc.) and how they envision it to be balanced to the other systems first and then within it's own system.

The thing that annoy me, and have annoyed me throughout these 6 months of Missile debate is that Missiles had a vision and this poking and stretching is muddying that. We can easily debate wether that vision was a good one, or wether it held up prior to any recent changes, but at the end of the day - this change is not construed to make the system better, it's here to deal with an isolated percieved problem.

The HM nerf is necessary no doubt, but unfortunately missiles as a system are quite broken. While HMs are op, the rest is pretty much useless.

This patch will address some of the issues and I'm happy about than (light missle dmg, skills affecting unguided missles as well etc.). What this patch will not do, is fix missles in general and thats a chance wasted and it will further down the road even make things worse for this weapon system when TDs will affect missiles also.

There are a lot of people complaining about how op missiles are in pve and i have to absolutely disagree! This is only true when you compare cruiser class weapon systems. otherwise:
- missile dmg is bad, really bad.
- handling sucks.
- ship choice is very limited.
But well, thats not about the Topic of this thread and I will not go on about any longer.

So to sum it up:
- HM nerf is necessary.
- I think adjusting dmg only in a first step would be better. Its never good to change several parameters at once because it make reiterating so much harder.
- dont forget the large missle systems. they are in need of a buff very bad.

cheers!

Just for your Information, Lvl 4's have no bearing whatsoever on WH's. People in WH's make WAY more ISK than Lvl 4 missions.

I use pulse heavies for L4's all the time. If hams are able to reach 40-50ish K + I don't think it will be much different. But I still don't know what the actual range will be on them with the changes in play.

Is that heavy missiles shooting a battleship sized target?

T1 scourge missiles only get a 22k range?

While i agree with your general contention, i think this too predominantly is a case of muddy waters.

It doesn't let itself be described in as easy solutions as the one below.



The Tiercide:

Tiering and slots are definately well made points. Usually they are important factors, but not always. If you compare the ships to other ships (CS to Tier 2 BC, which was a good example you picked) it would only be fair to see them evened out as with any attention to tiercide. The problem with the tiercide however is that it doesn't look at roles while roles themselves are getting obscure. The CS could do with more tank and fitting, but at the same time it's not their tank or fitting stopping them from finding an appeal - they generally have some resist-appeal, just like the HAC's - it's the lack of vision that limit their appeal beyond the very flexible Sleipnir (that have also grown peak power with all changes to tracking, ammo and EW). The same vision HAC's are seeing obscure underneath them when their mobility roles have been taken because they didn't "appeal enough" to a majority.

The flattening of roles and racial traits is not dealt with by adding slots, hitpoints and fitting.


Races, off-traits and variety of roles:

It's difficult putting a finger on it: but what i am hinting of has been mentioned in regard to the Zealot for example. The Zealot, like many of the CS, hinge on the specific appeal of it's specific roles. The reason it has ever profiled have to do with the details of the laser system and how the plentiful amount of lowslots adapted to the game.

For quite a long time Minmatar were misunderstood in terms of their traits. The finer points behind any obvious or singular use: things like fitting which today is a well-known advantage within the race. It's an old trait that used to come with drawbacks. Drawbacks people complained about when they only scratched the surface.

Recently, Gallente have seen similar oppinion. The flexibility in the race have always been their greatest asset, greastest limitation and greatest misconception. Groups who have been good at using Gallente, even in tough times, have made good use of the race. Luckily the Gallente changes of Crucible was one of the few times when CCP displayed "fingertip feeling" and actually made quite cautious and tasteful changes. No big hammers.

The main problem with CS, as with all Tech II ships is that they have these specialties to consider and build upon, and the mentioned racial trait background. Ships like the Absolution have seen some use similar to Zealots and Legions. While some people like to argue they don't see use today or that they were never extremely popular, they have been used and made to count: PL did use Legions for fleetwork in 2010, and around the same time some prominent groups incorporated Absolutions. It's a testament to a balance between Zealots, Absos and Legions (and their cost-effect climb).


Back to the Nighthawk:

If we turn attention back to this particular thread and the NH you can see some issues from Jerick's comments comparing the NH as a tank-spank platform with the Drake. Those are fair. However, it's not certain that adressing those would have profiled the NH inbetween Drakes, Tengus or Battleships (and certainly not anymore than the Absolution).

Heavy changes to those traits also affect the NH as it would the Zealot.

The reason is the same as why changing the missile system without a vision, comprehensive perspective or attention to traits is so troublesome. Caldari ships are slow and limited in utility due to a certain role and vision involving a long-range perspective with inverse accuracies and fitting options. The NH have an accuracy bonus and an extra low slot as apart of it's background, as much as it's got a resistance bonus and fires HML.

Is there anything in the haphazard attention to missiles that appeal to the NH? Will it's accuracy bonus make more sense with HML losing accuracy, will it's fitting or slot-layout make more sense or will it make sense to run HAM NH?

We've seen people comment about HAM Cerbs, but i'm sceptical looking at trends that involve any such "roles" (mobile-ish, mid-range projection). It's where new ships obscuring vision, encouraging tactical variety or having a vision in the first place come in.


Closing thoughts:

I'm not sure if i'm reaching any clear conclusions here, but consider it food for thought. I think i may be unusually abstract, and i am usually very abstract to begin with.

The NH could "be an Absolution" with the ideas Jerick throw out there. Mind you, i can only repeat that i give Jerick's concerns credit and i think they are fair criticism. Just as he himself open up though, with comments about relatively unknown histories and the need for a serious look at - i think it's important not to oversimply it. They need both vision (attention to historical visions) and comprehensive attention (to how racial traits affect different classes etc.) if they are to break out of some bland middleground. That goes for all CS, the fleet CS included.

What are they meant to support? The Claymore was popular primarily thanks to how it could adapt to different gangs and tactics. It met some vision.

Acting as a shield buffer "abso" is almost exactly how I envision a revized nighthawk, that being said I still don't think the abso in it's current state will ever see similar levels of fleet use compared to legions or zealots. The abso more or less actcs as a slower, closer range, higher dps legion/zealot with the ability to field 5 small drones. Both the legion and zealot are graced with the full level of t2 resistances compared to the modestly reduced resistances on the abso which just almost makes up for the 5% resistance per level bonus the abso has inherited from the prophecy. The big difference I see between the 3 ships is that the legion with proper prob subsystems and the zealot are capable of significantly larger fleet level tanks through much smaller sig and much higher AB speeds. The increased range that both zealot and legion have also allows for effective engagements at 30+ km. Ranges that an abso will mostly not be effective at. While the overall balance between hac, t2, and field command is bar none the closest balanced in the amarr lineup I still strongly feel that the abso is lacking something for fleet use when compared to legions and zealots. The addition of 1 mid slot would allow for additional ewar, cap mods, or tackle greatly increasing it's capabilities at knife fight ranges which it so obviously will end up at. The increase in hp will put it's ehp slightly ahead of the legion instead of being slightly behind where it currently sits.

The nighthawk I think should fit a similar role except within the caldari lineupe of course. Now the caldari lineup is not nearly as well balanced so it's a little bit more difficult to project changes on however I'm going to make similar comparisons to the amarr ships as I've done above. I think that the tengu should represent kind of a "middle ground" between the Nighthawk and cerb while be far closer to a super cerb than a nighthawk as the legion is to the zealot vs abso. Like the absolution the nighthawk has a 5% per level bonus to resistance while also receiving slightly reduced t2 resistance unlike the cerb and tengu. The additional midslot and fitting I'd like added to the nighthawk would allow for significant buffer options as well as limited tackle. The increase in powergrid as well as the reduction in fitting coming to hams will allow the nighthawk to require no fitting mods allowing for additional bcu giving it very significant close in damage capabilities. The removal of kinetic damage bonus and replaced with a universal bonus (as I support for all caldari hulls) would allow for a much wider variety of damage types at full dps values. I strongly believe that if the nighthawk is going to fit into the currently drake/tengu dominated meta it's going to need significant buffs as outlined.


The Astarte and Sleipnir are I think more similar to eachother in regards to other t2 ships of hac/t2 in their races lineup. Both ships are obviously designed as small scale brawlers, both are also capable of some of the highest sub capital turret dps values. Astarte favoring tackle/dps, slienpir favor tank/speed and range. The introduction of ASBs have vastly altered this specialized small scale arena where these ships thrive and unfortunately only one of them has been able to take significant advantage of this change. However even before ASBs Sleipnirs have held a large advantage in almost every category. The most significant advantage the asb generation sleipnir has over the astarte is cap defense. Heavy nueting will almost instantly kill any astarte however has little effect on a sleipnir. Overall I think this warrants a buff to the astarte. The addition of a slot (either medium or low) as well as a modest grid increase allowing the astarte to fit a-type med reps w/o the use of an acr or 5-6% pg implants which currently is not possible. Changing the rep bonus to 10% per level would also go a long ways to bringing the astarte's tank in line with the sleipnir's tank. The addition of a medium slot will allow for double cap injectors as well as full tackle, the addition of a low will allow for another mag stab giving it a slightly advantage over the sleipnir in terms of turret dps again comparing active tanked fits.

A picture is always worth a thousand words. I didn't realize t2 fury missile range was cut to about 1/3 - ouch. Well another useless t2 ammo, and just when they were starting to make them useful after 6 years...I beginning to think they should release the TC/TE changes at the same time.....

Ah, so they are making it like T2 ammo for turrets? Interesting. More damage / shorter range for Fury.

Be interesting to see how that pans on test.