These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Odyssey 1.1] Command Ships

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kane Fenris
NWP
#1441 - 2013-08-15 07:51:30 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Chris Winter wrote:
The Nighthawk needs a low dropped in favor of a mid. A two-slot shield tank after prop/web/scram is laughable. Combine that with only two rig slots, and its tank is only marginally better than a Drake's.

The Claymore can afford to drop a mid in favor of a low, especially since it needs to lose a low slot to a Co-Processor II in order to fit an XLASB.

With the current slot setup, the Claymore can fit a stronger buffer than the Nighthawk without even making use of its booster tanking bonus. That's just stupid. If you think of an XLASB as buffer, the Claymore can beat the Nighthawk by >25%.

It's also faster than the Nighthawk and has a smaller signature.

Honestly, there's no reason at all to use a Nighthawk over a Claymore. Hell, even the Damnation ends up looking mighty good as a missile boat by comparison.


You seem to have never set foot in one of these and the slot layout of the Nighthawk has always been 7/5/5.

I give you a hint,
go to SiSi and create a fitting for passive shield recharge. There are modules for that purpose.

And after that, make an active tank fit.



for this argument, to be valid, PVE hast to be a balanceing aspect. (and esp. a balanceing aspect for command ships!)
many discussions and some dev post have shown that the balanceing is done around pvp so show me a passive shield tank used in pvp......
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1442 - 2013-08-15 09:21:59 UTC
Kane Fenris wrote:
...balanceing is done around pvp so show me a passive shield tank used in pvp......

You mean the more than common shield/gank fits that were/are so popular as to creep onto ships with just 3 mids (partially replaced by ASB's now)?

PvP tanking is the same as PvE tanking in that it can either be localized (passive/active/buffer) or projected (dps) .. due to cheap bat-phones PvP tanking has been moving towards projected over the years as the kill must be achieved before the phone is picked up ... the passive (assuming you mean regen-tank) PvP tank as such died with the Drake/HML changes.
Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1443 - 2013-08-15 09:44:09 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
I think 5-5-6 with 325m3 drone bay would be the kicker. Like you said 5-5-7 (@ eldrith) would be just a bit "too" much. Just imagine a 7 slot tank tri rep eos with dual cap injectors and nos/nuets in the highs. Sure, dps will be questionable, but you're going to tank more than almost anything (barring caps) and also have Massive therm/kin resistance which is perfect considering the highest dps ships in the game do therm/kin.


No

The slot layout is fine.

Dual rep kicks out comparable reps to a shield tanked X-Large asb setup 112 versus 115 ( claymore ) per second.
and it has plenty of dps 700 most of which is projectable to at least the same extent as hams.
It's "nice" that it takes 3 module slots at a minimum (2x reppers and a cap booster) to equal a single XL-ASB's tanking potential. :balanced:


XLASB tank needs a co-pro to fit when your oversizing on a cruiser/bc hull
you also need a source of cap for a real comparision, small injector will do.

XLASB + co-pro + small injector has similar sustainable tank and cap availability
to
Med Injector + Dual Mar.

with my skills lvl 4 command it came out at 115 dps on a CLaymore XLASB and 112dps on an EOS Med inj Dual rep.

Rigs in those layout were
EOS em hard and nano bot
CLAY overclock / kin hard.


Resists were pretty flat on both ships , but EOS has aabout a 7% edge in resists iirc.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#1444 - 2013-08-15 09:44:48 UTC
MJ Incognito wrote:

Beam Absolution now does 700-800 DPS out to 19km optimal, and 400 dps out to 71km optimal. Mix that with a 185k ehp tank, cruiser tracking abilities and the free mids and close range tech 2 ammo to boost tracking a **** ton, and you have a mammoth beast that will be hard to match at any class of ship in game. It’s range is basically enough, hp run in the top tier of needs, it’s dps is more than enough, and it’s resist are stellar, making the logistics network awesome… It’s also one of the few ships that can easily hide it’s bonuses within the fleet doctrine itself providing a distinct advantage.
[...]
Nighthawk:
This guy loses for so many reasons that you were warned about back with the heavy missile nerf, and far more.
As a close range brawler, it gets outmatched by the Claymore in every way… agility, damage applications, mid slot options, vastly inferior local tank, no speed or agility, no real sense of itself, smaller drone bay/projection, and horrid resist layout.
[...]
The Claymore can exceed almost any Astarte fit by about 20k EHP, while out tanking it with an XLASB by anywhere from 2 to 8 times higher local tank. Based on current market price, I overheated a Claymore to get it to 15,000 DPS local rep for 880ish million ISK while still projecting ~700 DPS. Best I could do on an Astarte was about 2000-2500 leaving room for only 1 Mag stab.
[...]
As for long range rail Astarte can’t even begin to match the Abso or a Rail Talos either. So again, while it seems good on paper, when you start to look at the big picture, it really doesn’t.


My personal fascination with the claymore comes from it's ability to blend into a classic nano-roam (vagas, artycynas, ABCs, etc.), so while those posted tankstats are archivable, it seems to me that compromises are to be done to an extent. Experimenting with fits, I personally had more success (using T2 modules) tanking things with a large SB and two op. solidifiers compared to an XL setup with fitting modules. Best thing - on TQ, it tanks double ♥
The main advantage of the claymore is nano, it goes 2km/s with no imps but the skirmish mindlink, with it's announced costs of less than 100mil - ship is most likely bought with one in it's cargo for emergency-plug-in :)

The Beam abso is great, ye. Can't say otherwise, it got multi to compete with the usual scorch, and then all those other crystals. 150k EHP with 680dps at ~20k is decent at least. (380dps at ~65k using aurora, negelecting tracking)

I strongly disagree with the nighthawk. It's certainly not the kind of ship that moves around a lot, nor a ship to active tank. It seems as if the right way to tank it would be 'brick', which also leaves you with substantial passive shield recharge - when doing nothing but boosting, tanking and dps - i.E. no tackle - you get your ridiculous values already. Mobility is bad, but I'd guess still sufficient (~1km/s is the worst around, but oh so many ships aren't any faster), with the clear option of using a claymore, if the mobility is needed and no huge dps will be incoming (or can be avoided thanks to velocity)

I really can't follow on why the Eos is crap, it got amazing dps while also running double med-neuts, it still got decent dps, while running a plate+dualrepfit, it has wonderful dps using a buffer-link-ion-fit with two DDAs. Four mids are quite anemic, but it already is a decent ship on SiSi as it stands.
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#1445 - 2013-08-15 09:55:31 UTC  |  Edited by: MJ Incognito
Lloyd Roses wrote:
MJ Incognito wrote:

Beam Absolution now does 700-800 DPS out to 19km optimal, and 400 dps out to 71km optimal. Mix that with a 185k ehp tank, cruiser tracking abilities and the free mids and close range tech 2 ammo to boost tracking a **** ton, and you have a mammoth beast that will be hard to match at any class of ship in game. It’s range is basically enough, hp run in the top tier of needs, it’s dps is more than enough, and it’s resist are stellar, making the logistics network awesome… It’s also one of the few ships that can easily hide it’s bonuses within the fleet doctrine itself providing a distinct advantage.
[...]
Nighthawk:
This guy loses for so many reasons that you were warned about back with the heavy missile nerf, and far more.
As a close range brawler, it gets outmatched by the Claymore in every way… agility, damage applications, mid slot options, vastly inferior local tank, no speed or agility, no real sense of itself, smaller drone bay/projection, and horrid resist layout.
[...]
The Claymore can exceed almost any Astarte fit by about 20k EHP, while out tanking it with an XLASB by anywhere from 2 to 8 times higher local tank. Based on current market price, I overheated a Claymore to get it to 15,000 DPS local rep for 880ish million ISK while still projecting ~700 DPS. Best I could do on an Astarte was about 2000-2500 leaving room for only 1 Mag stab.
[...]
As for long range rail Astarte can’t even begin to match the Abso or a Rail Talos either. So again, while it seems good on paper, when you start to look at the big picture, it really doesn’t.


My personal fascination with the claymore comes from it's ability to blend into a classic nano-roam (vagas, artycynas, ABCs, etc.), so while those posted tankstats are archivable, it seems to me that compromises are to be done to an extent. Experimenting with fits, I personally had more success (using T2 modules) tanking things with a large SB and two op. solidifiers compared to an XL setup with fitting modules. Best thing - on TQ, it tanks double ♥
The main advantage of the claymore is nano, it goes 2km/s with no imps but the skirmish mindlink, with it's announced costs of less than 100mil - ship is most likely bought with one in it's cargo for emergency-plug-in :)

The Beam abso is great, ye. Can't say otherwise, it got multi to compete with the usual scorch, and then all those other crystals. 150k EHP with 680dps at ~20k is decent at least. (380dps at ~65k using aurora, negelecting tracking)

I strongly disagree with the nighthawk. It's certainly not the kind of ship that moves around a lot, nor a ship to active tank. It seems as if the right way to tank it would be 'brick', which also leaves you with substantial passive shield recharge - when doing nothing but boosting, tanking and dps - i.E. no tackle - you get your ridiculous values already. Mobility is bad, but I'd guess still sufficient (~1km/s is the worst around, but oh so many ships aren't any faster), with the clear option of using a claymore, if the mobility is needed and no huge dps will be incoming (or can be avoided thanks to velocity)

I really can't follow on why the Eos is crap, it got amazing dps while also running double med-neuts, it still got decent dps, while running a plate+dualrepfit, it has wonderful dps using a buffer-link-ion-fit with two DDAs. Four mids are quite anemic, but it already is a decent ship on SiSi as it stands.

You can read the rest of this thread for the Eos explanations as there are so many.

Nighthawk has to move b/c it's damage application is limited heavily by the nerf to HML's and the terrible speed, short range of HAMs. But it can't move for **** either way. It's tank is "good" but in no way compares to the beam abso dominance, nor the 50 million other missile platforms that just do it all better. Tengu, Cerb, Caracal, and Claymore are all the obvious choices for for Medium Sized missile platforms and the Nighthawk does nothing to really cope with any of those other ships advantages (price, speed, defense, range, etc)..... as for tank, the claymore can beat it hands down on active tank and virtually tie it on passive.... so your point there is naught.

Claymore has a massive versatility of fitting choices and styles, there's no doubt. But when you find out how easy it is to customize around certain fits, it will naturally fall into a specific category for most players. Not to mention, it does it easier and far better than any of the active armor reppers while still having more speed, and no capacitor issues from weapons or boosters.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#1446 - 2013-08-15 10:08:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Kane Fenris
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Kane Fenris wrote:
...balanceing is done around pvp so show me a passive shield tank used in pvp......

You mean the more than common shield/gank fits that were/are so popular as to creep onto ships with just 3 mids (partially replaced by ASB's now)?

PvP tanking is the same as PvE tanking in that it can either be localized (passive/active/buffer) or projected (dps) .. due to cheap bat-phones PvP tanking has been moving towards projected over the years as the kill must be achieved before the phone is picked up ... the passive (assuming you mean regen-tank) PvP tank as such died with the Drake/HML changes.



buffer isnt the same as passive shield

if you had read the post i quoted it would be clear to you cause he said nighthawk slot layout is good cause of the mods needed for passive recharge fit...
Cyaron wars
Academia RED HOT Corporation
#1447 - 2013-08-15 10:10:07 UTC
After reviewing all ships I can say that CCP Fozzie just made Sleipnir a bit tankier hurricane. I really don't like this tbh. Solo sleipnirs are gone :(
S1dy
Uplifting Infernal Paradise
#1448 - 2013-08-15 10:55:19 UTC  |  Edited by: S1dy
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Rather than add more +50% Hp bonuses to the command ships we're starting down the path that will allow us to remove that bonus from the Damnation and get them all into better balance.


I absolutely don't understand your goal here... Is this any aprils fool or something like that? Tell me Fozzie, what is this thread for if you ignore EVERY post that is made here?! The whole thread is full with statements saying the Damnation is fine as it is and should get - if any - other trade offs than tank. And now you made this... No we have no Command Ship tanky enough for large fleets.

Yeah, this balance is clearly the worst of all you made in the last 2 years. And it's thrilling you're absolutely NOT listening Shocked
Kara Vix
Perkone
Caldari State
#1449 - 2013-08-15 10:56:09 UTC
Rest in peace my lovely Nighthawk, over 2 years of flying you has come to an end Cry Not only shall you be a joke amongst the other CS's but in time you will look like a Drake, adding insult to injury. But vengeance shall be mine /gets out voodoo dolls Twisted
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1450 - 2013-08-15 11:33:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Veshta Yoshida
CCP Fozzie #917, p.46 wrote:
I considered dropping the armor hp bonus from the Damnation, but in the end I think it's ok for it to have a strong identity, even if that identity makes it more popular than the others for large fleet warfare.

- Seven days later -

CCP Fozzie #1368, p.69 wrote:
...Rather than add more +50% Hp bonuses to the command ships we're starting down the path that will allow us to remove that bonus from the Damnation and get them all into better balance.

What happened during that week to make you see the light? Big smile
S1dy wrote:
I absolutely don't understand your goal here...

I expect he wants to explore options other than forcing a similar EHP bricking of a second ship .. Spectrum Breaking can be boosted skywards on CC's with a role bonus, incoming RR can probably get a bonus (200k is achievable for all and is more than enough alpha protection which is all you should need/want), signatures can be jiggled etc.

I for one am happy with the prospect of the unbricking of a hull, it is the worst kind of pigeon hole imaginable as the immense survivability it gets in that one scenario means it has to accept being bottom of everything in ten others.
Peter Tjordenskiold
#1451 - 2013-08-15 11:44:18 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Rather than add more +50% Hp bonuses to the command ships we're starting down the path that will allow us to remove that bonus from the Damnation and get them all into better balance.


Ohh, balancing means in huge fight like in Fountain fleets will be getting every time a headshot of a FC. I guess this will be a hillarious PVP experience or a fleet without bonus to secure the FC. It's looking to me that CCP is working on the next level how to crash the player accounts.

Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1452 - 2013-08-15 11:53:39 UTC
Peter Tjordenskiold wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Rather than add more +50% Hp bonuses to the command ships we're starting down the path that will allow us to remove that bonus from the Damnation and get them all into better balance.


Ohh, balancing means in huge fight like in Fountain fleets will be getting every time a headshot of a FC. I guess this will be a hillarious PVP experience or a fleet without bonus to secure the FC. It's looking to me that CCP is working on the next level how to crash the player accounts.



Wait a minute. How big is a grid?

With some grid-fu it can me made to be enormous. Even when off-grid boosting is finally put to rest (a good thing), the command ship and its bodyguards can still be well out of range of any weaponry.

Sure it can be scanned down, but it can also move and be protected.

With a savvy FC it certainly won't be a candidate for a headshot.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Vulfen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1453 - 2013-08-15 11:55:09 UTC
@ CCP Fozzie

Why is the damnation so weak?

The damnation can be out DPSed by what is supposed to be the ship directly below it, The Sacrilege.

There is no way a AHAC should be able to out DPS its CS counterpart.

I think the damnation needs to be a full brawler so loose the Velocity to missiles and add it 7.5% RoF and change the damage down to 7.5%.
Maybe give it 200-500 more base armour and take the hit point bonus down to 5% to compensate for this change


Currently with its bonuses the way they are this ship is still only gona fill one main role in a fleet. that would bring it to a closer par with the other ships
Anattha
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1454 - 2013-08-15 12:20:11 UTC
As i suppose - we will never see 4 med slot Absolution Ugh
Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1455 - 2013-08-15 12:24:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Dav Varan
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:
Forum deleted my long post about hp/s for armor reps and shield reps
I'm too busy to do it all again but basically
Astarte/ eos 2 t2 med reps cap booster and 2 rigs gets about 160hp/s
Claymore with xl asb 360hp/s with crystals 500+
Xl t2 boosters are less somewhere around 200 and 360 with crystals
All with less slots


Your quoting Burst tank for the Claymore.
Sustainable tank = Burst Tank / 105 * 45

Sustainable Tank for Clay with your numbers is actually 154hp/s

I take it you used 2xT2 rigs to get that 360 ?
So your going to need 1 x cpu in low ( with Meta4 fit ) or ( 2 x cpu in low to go t2 launchers ) and also an injector

5 slots for armor
5/6 slots for shield
160 reps for the armor
154 reps for the shield

Sounds pretty balanced to me.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1456 - 2013-08-15 12:26:22 UTC
Peter Tjordenskiold wrote:
Ohh, balancing means in huge fight like in Fountain fleets will be getting every time a headshot of a FC. I guess this will be a hillarious PVP experience or a fleet without bonus to secure the FC. It's looking to me that CCP is working on the next level how to crash the player accounts.

Take a look around and tell me if you see ships other than the Command Ships that can field links while having considerably more EHP than even the 4x1600 Damnation .. get back to me when you see it (hint: they are bigger)Smile

For massive blobs (offensive ones at least) CC's or even T3's will not be the optimal choice due to the risk of being 'head shotted' as you mention, but there are other options hitherto unexplored due to off-grid functionality.

Off/On/Tangential-to topic: Why not add a CC level link bonus to the activation of the Triage module (think Rorqual deploy bonus)?
Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1457 - 2013-08-15 13:12:46 UTC
Just has a thought that might be crazy.

This 7.5% armor rep per level.

What about 10% per level reduced rep time instead.

So at lvl 5 a med repper would basically have the rep of 2 med reppers
It would use more cap of course and a med injector would not be able to keep pace with 2xMAR.

This would basically be the same as Burst tank from a ASB

Increased cargo bays for the extra needed charges of course.

r.p.
Advanced Gallente system shunt heat out of armor reps with increased effeciency blah blah etc etc.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1458 - 2013-08-15 13:19:36 UTC
Dav Varan wrote:
Just has a thought that might be crazy.

This 7.5% armor rep per level.

What about 10% per level reduced rep time instead.

So at lvl 5 a med repper would basically have the rep of 2 med reppers
It would use more cap of course and a med injector would not be able to keep pace with 2xMAR.

This would basically be the same as Burst tank from a ASB

Increased cargo bays for the extra needed charges of course.

r.p.
Advanced Gallente system shunt heat out of armor reps with increased effeciency blah blah etc etc.


+1
But cap requirements would have to be reduced for armour reps.... but then they need to do that anyway... although it would mean AAR's would run out much quicker of nanite paste ... but they need to improve AAR's anyway less nanite paste consumption would be needed and allowing nanite skills to affect AAR's would be nice .. also change the reload times of AAR's or use an inject system so you can still rep at 75% whilst you wait for nanites to inject 15-20 secs.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Ludi Burek
Exit-Strategy
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#1459 - 2013-08-15 15:06:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Ludi Burek
Why won't you finally ungimp the Absolution and give it the 4th mid? Would that be so bad?

The turret reduction plus the damage buff to compensate is a step in the right direction but it needs to go further. Drop another turret and buff the damage to remain the same. Now add this high slot to mid slots.

Really this ship wants to be worth it but it has been bad for years and sadly doesn't appear to be improving in a meaningful way. It virtually remains the same. Sad

Edit: And now that it is using less cap due to less guns, replace that dreadful laser cap use bonus with something better like tracking, range whatever.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1460 - 2013-08-15 15:51:31 UTC
I have just tried a triple-rep astarte vs 2 navy 'phoons on sisi.

The astarte was not able to hold its overheated tank for longer than 2 cycles of the dual medium capacitor boosters.

I don't think it's going to survive in a skirmish Fozzie... It either needs to be able to fit LARs, or it needs better resistances.

It's just too vulnerable against more than 1 opponent at the moment.


Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".