These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New Claymore = suckmobile

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Guillame Herschel
Buffalo Soldiers
#1 - 2013-09-27 19:10:50 UTC
The old Claymore could fit 5 T2 medium AC, 3 T2 links, a T2 booster tank, tackle, T2 damage mods and T2 DCU if the pilot has excellent fitting skills.

The new Claymore needs 2 stupid CPU upgrades to mount an equivalent fit with 5 T2 HML, T2 tank & tackle, and 2 T2 links.

The new Claymore sucks ass. Thanks a lot for ruining it.
Jasmine Shepard
Relentless Destruction
Immediate Destruction
#2 - 2013-09-27 19:38:12 UTC
This post sucks ass, thanks for sharing :]
Guillame Herschel
Buffalo Soldiers
#3 - 2013-09-27 20:02:20 UTC
I don't think it's too much to ask that a T2 ship be capable of fielding a T2 fit without wasting two low slots. The ship effectively has 2 less slots than it did before. I haven't looked at the other CS yet, maybe they were similarly gimped.

In any case, the Claymore is far less than it used to be. The old T2 Cyclone fit is not even an option anymore.
Atreiya WC
Absolute Order XVIII
Absolute Will
#4 - 2013-09-27 20:21:51 UTC
Guillame Herschel wrote:
I don't think it's too much to ask that a T2 ship be capable of fielding a T2 fit without wasting two low slots. The ship effectively has 2 less slots than it did before. I haven't looked at the other CS yet, maybe they were similarly gimped.

In any case, the Claymore is far less than it used to be. The old T2 Cyclone fit is not even an option anymore.




It doesn't "effectively have 2 less low slots" - you are free to choose your fitting and this is the one you have chosen. It was not pushed on to you.

Also, there is a significant difference between ACs and HMLs. You should look them up.

Different doesn't necessarily mean gimped. And there is more than one fit for any given ship.
Guillame Herschel
Buffalo Soldiers
#5 - 2013-09-27 20:30:15 UTC
Atreiya WC wrote:
It doesn't "effectively have 2 less low slots" - you are free to choose your fitting and this is the one you have chosen. It was not pushed on to you.


Of course it was. The AC slots were swapped for missile turrets, and the AC bonus for missile bonus. That was forced on me. I can't change it., and I didn't choose it.

Quote:
Also, there is a significant difference between ACs and HMLs. You should look them up.


CCP should have looked them up, and given the ship more CPU and less grid. I got tons of grid leftover and no CPU. That's a bad rebalance if the ship can't do the role it did before.

Quote:
Different doesn't necessarily mean gimped.


In this case, it does.

Quote:
And there is more than one fit for any given ship.


They are all useless for the role of the Claymore, which is pretty obvious if you look at its bonuses. It is incapable of fielding a proper fit now.

Guillame Herschel
Buffalo Soldiers
#6 - 2013-09-27 20:46:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Guillame Herschel
I'm going to correct my critique slightly, but it doesn't change the core issue.

I looked at some EFT fitting I have in the old version, and previous to Odyssey 1.1 I did in fact need 1 CPU upgrade if I wanted to fit 3 T2 links. No CPU upgrade was needed to run 3 T1 links.

But the new Claymore needs a CPU upgrade to run 2 T1 links. Or drop the DCU. Or drop a damage mod.
Atreiya WC
Absolute Order XVIII
Absolute Will
#7 - 2013-09-27 20:46:29 UTC
OK, I admit my reply was a little bitchy, I concede that.

That said, missile ships have always needed CPU support a lot of the time, even Caldari ships, in order to have maxed dps fits. Consider that HMLs are long ranged weapon platforms, and AC are short/medium ranged weapons platforms. Try HAMS or RLMLs.
Guillame Herschel
Buffalo Soldiers
#8 - 2013-09-27 20:48:37 UTC
Atreiya WC wrote:
OK, I admit my reply was a little bitchy, I concede that.

That said, missile ships have always needed CPU support a lot of the time, even Caldari ships, in order to have maxed dps fits. Consider that HMLs are long ranged weapon platforms, and AC are short/medium ranged weapons platforms. Try HAMS or RLMLs.


Aren't HAMs even harder to fit than HML? I haven't fit HAMs on anything in a while. ;)

Thanks for moderating your tone, too. I will do the same.
Guillame Herschel
Buffalo Soldiers
#9 - 2013-09-27 20:56:50 UTC
Maybe I can try medium faction boosters... Hmmm... at range, I don't need as much boosting. .. Hmmm....
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#10 - 2013-09-27 22:22:38 UTC
Guillame Herschel wrote:
Atreiya WC wrote:
OK, I admit my reply was a little bitchy, I concede that.

That said, missile ships have always needed CPU support a lot of the time, even Caldari ships, in order to have maxed dps fits. Consider that HMLs are long ranged weapon platforms, and AC are short/medium ranged weapons platforms. Try HAMS or RLMLs.


Aren't HAMs even harder to fit than HML? I haven't fit HAMs on anything in a while. ;)

Thanks for moderating your tone, too. I will do the same.


HAMs are harder on grid but easier on cpu. Given the problem you describe of having plenty of grid but no cpu it seems a worthwhile thing to try.
BiggestT
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#11 - 2013-09-28 02:34:28 UTC  |  Edited by: BiggestT
Here's the fit I use:

[Claymore, Choo Choo]
Co-Processor II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Damage Control II

Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 150
Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 150
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script
Warp Disruptor II
10MN Microwarpdrive II

Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Nova Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Nova Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Nova Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Nova Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Nova Heavy Missile
Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II
Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers II

Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I
Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I

Hornet EC-300 x5
Valkyrie II x5

I don't see a problem.

They key is to use the link for resist and not boost duration (the limiting factor with ancil reps is cap boosters, not boost duration, so you're much better off with the resist link).

The result is a very nice resist profile and uber tank, while only using one cpu mod and a cpu rig, which isn't a huge deal.
A comparable nighthawk (passive tank) fit will have better ehp but lower sustained tank, and struggles to fit a point. The skirmish bonus is also much more preferable to the information bonus 9 times out of 10, so it's great for small gangs.

Note: using HAMS doesn't really lower your CPU reliance enough to change anything (difference of <4cpu per launcher after skills are taken into account); you will usually still need a cpu mod and a cpu rig.

Edit: 10mn MWD II is not a mistake, it has a lower cap penalty but higher activation cost. Usually this means a meta MWD is preferable, but considering you are perma-running the links, I prefer the lower cap penalty of an MWD II.

Also,

Atreiya WC wrote:
OK, I admit my reply was a little bitchy, I concede that.

That said, missile ships have always needed CPU support a lot of the time, even Caldari ships, in order to have maxed dps fits. Consider that HMLs are long ranged weapon platforms, and AC are short/medium ranged weapons platforms. Try HAMS or RLMLs.


Claymore does not get a bonus to RLMLs.
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#12 - 2013-09-28 19:03:39 UTC
Oh please. The new Claymore blows the Nighthawk out of the water in every way. It's fantastic.
Tarn Kugisa
Kugisa Dynamics
#13 - 2013-09-29 04:59:25 UTC
speaking about Coproc's, the phoenix despirately needs more CPU since you can't fit the ship correctly without coprocs

Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to troll everyone you meet - KuroVolt
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#14 - 2013-09-29 14:09:15 UTC
Guillame Herschel wrote:
The old Claymore could fit 5 T2 medium AC, 3 T2 links, a T2 booster tank, tackle, T2 damage mods and T2 DCU if the pilot has excellent fitting skills.

The new Claymore needs 2 stupid CPU upgrades to mount an equivalent fit with 5 T2 HML, T2 tank & tackle, and 2 T2 links.

The new Claymore sucks ass. Thanks a lot for ruining it.




Welcome to Caldariland.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Cage Man
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#15 - 2013-09-29 20:22:56 UTC
Have you tried to fit a nighthawk?? As malcanis says.. welcome to caldari land..
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#16 - 2013-09-29 21:08:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Chris Winter
Here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3580187#post3580187

The Claymore can fit a significantly stronger "buffer" tank (with XLASB) or slightly stronger actual buffer (with straight buffer) than the Nighthawk can, while doing comparable DPS, moving faster, having a smaller sig, and not being limited to Kinetic.

Basically, it's just plain better.

So take your "Caldariland" comments and blow them out your ear, because they're completely wrong. Oh, you have to sacrifice two slots to CPU upgrades in order to put what you want in your two utility highs? Boo ****ing hoo. The Nighthawk needs to sacrifice a slot to a CPU upgrade in order to get even 75% of the tank that the Claymore can, and then it still doesn't have the powergrid for both of its utility highs, so it needs to sacrifice yet another slot for that.

For PvP missile command ships, the Claymore can't be matched. The Nighthawk comes in a distant third, behind the Damnation. It's great for PvE, though...