These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

The Rook

Author
Lugh Crow-Slave
#21 - 2017-06-05 08:49:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Old Pervert wrote:

The Falcon cannot (okay.. "should not") solo. You know this, I know this. I don't debate it. Nor do I claim it. I claim that in a fleet where a pilot choose to fly a Caldari Recon, it will probably be the Falcon over the Rook, because it has better survivability over the Rook with it's covops cloak.


A falcon CAN have higher survivability in that if flown in a certain way it will have a higher chance of surviving a fight. but when flown that way it has a far weaker effect on a fight.

Quote:

I do not, however, believe that the suggested changes will break small gang for the Rook. They are already an "lol jammed you" boat against smaller ships, and that will not change. Against larger ships, there remains a chance for the jams to miss, which is where I find the Rook to be lacking. It needs SOMETHING to fall back on when its jams miss. It's a COMBAT recon. The FORCE recon has the covops cloak, this should have more tank options available to it at the very least.

it has near 100k ehp on a cheap tank to fall back on the one we fly gets over 125kehp it also has more than 2x the dps and that is assuming you decided to fit a falcon with dps.

THERE SHOULD ALWAYS BE A CHANCE TO MISS!!!! that is not a point the rook is lacking in that is where ECM is balanced. and as it stands even against T2 cruisers there is hardly ever a fight where I don't land a single jam in small gangs or god forbid solo a 20s jam can win even the most lopsided of fights. I could not imagine an average of even 1-2 more jams per fight. Because trust me even against ships with high streanth you still have those fights where the target is jammed almost 100% of the time
Quote:

You say I am falling victim to confirmation bias (that the numbers do not support my conclusion). So, I ask you, tell me how many times you see Rooks being flown. I am NOT citing the statistics as support for the conclusion that they are underpowered. I AM citing the statistics that people are simply not flying Rooks. There is no other possible explanation for the substantially underwhelming representation that Rooks see in killmails.

you're still missing the point a ship used less /= the ship is bad
Quote:

I would say that the Falcon and the Blackbird both fill the same role, excepting for the covops allowing BLOPS for the Falcon. They're both squishy, they're both intended to be jamming things at range. The blackbird is cheap and of course a throw-away ship, so that is certainly a niche the Falcon does not fill (gtfo ship).

then you simply demonstrate your lack of understanding as to how these ships work and are used. the Falcon gives up its range bonus for a stronger jam chance. both per jammer and in the addition of an extra mid. this makes the Falcon far more suited for harass and dash. The black bird has a huge effective range for its jamming letting it continue to be effective without being in range of hostiles. with proper piloting and co-ordination a black bird never has to leave the flied unless the opposing force risks spreading out their fleet to a dangerous degree. The Rook has DPS and Tank over both of them. its tank alows it to fill a similar role to the Black Bird with never having to leave the field. It shins like a star in small gangs with 1-2 logistics. it has a lower jam rate than the Black bird however but does not require the loss of DPS within the fleet. In fact the Rook is very well suited for large gang fights the only reason it is not is because Damps are more effective in those engagements not because it is a bad ship.


every hull variant has strong individual uses that make each one a viable choice based on fight and play-style. THIS is what balance looks like. Balance is not each one seeing as much use as the rest. because one has a smaller niche does not make it a worse ship at all. this is what i mean by you taking statistics to reach the wrong conclusion. they tell you a ship is used less you then decide that means the ship is some how worse.
Quote:

I remain convinced that the Rook does not fill its niche, because it simply is not flown will enough------------------
I assert that a Rook should have a more prevalent niche, which it simply cannot do without some TLC.


wait what? part one you say it is just not flown well enough. but then you say the problem is it needs TLC. or was the will not meant to be well and was in fact not supposed to be there at all? i will assume the latter but correct me if that is wrong. so i am assuming it was meant to be "..simply is not flown enough"

okay WHY do you think it needs to be flown more WHY does it need a more prevalent niche if it is filling a niche of any size and no other ship is able to fill that particular niche?


"You assert that it simply has a small niche and that the numbers indicate its niche is small (correct?)."


No im am asserting that the ONLY thing the numbers indicate is that the ship is flown less. I make a separate assertion that the ship is flown less because it has a smaller niche.

Having a smaller niche not only means fewer opportunities for it to be the best ship for the current situation but also that fewer pilots will keep one on hand should a favorable situation arise. Rather than keeping one stocked for this reason most will opt to use a more common falcon, black bird or for go ECM and simply alter the strategy. This is also double edged as the few pilots who do keep them around or are near a location that they can be bought now have a tool FCs are not used to fighting and tend to react to poorly.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#22 - 2017-06-05 09:55:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Old Pervert wrote:

If one were to evaluate the combat recons relative to each other, the Rook contributes to 11% of the total killed by Combat Recons. The Curse contributes 23% to the total killed by Combat Recons. Given that there are 4 Combat Recons, the Curse is "behind" by only 2% from the desired 25% (1/4). So no, the Curse does not need work. The numbers state that very clearly, and the numbers agree with your statement that it is indeed a fantastic ship to fly.

The Lach and Huginn come out on top because as you say, their EWAR types are vastly more flexible, which accounts for their higher utilization.


this one i don't blame you to much for as many people don't like taking a look back at things even so much as one step removed



if anything to make the goal of getting ships as close to 25% as possible we would nerf the huggin. but we know better we know that these ships being flown more is because their niche is larger not because the ship is overpowered. if you can see and understand this why do you still have a problem seeing that a small niche does not mean a ship is under powered

because remember if we more the rook up in usage it will bring the curse down and it will bring the curse down in use far more than the others since it overlaps more with the rooks use. the only reason the cures LOOKs good is because the falcon LOOKs bad

another flaw with using this is again that these are solo and small gang ships. now Z-kill counts any kill that has 1 or more other ships on it as a gang kill despite this the curse and rook are at 6% solo and 3% solo the other two are less than 1% solo. bigger fights mean more KMs more KMs mean more weight in the kills/losses metric. so how many are killed and lost isn't even a good tool to use when wanting to tell how often a ship is used. ship A could be in 10 fights that generate 1 kill each and ship b could be in one fight that generates 100. ship A is used more yet ship B has more K+L representation. we also can't use "how often do you see x ship" as this is nothing but anecdotal. other than myself i have only seen 2 other huggens being flown in all my time in eve. i have seen far more rooks used and the number of times i have seen a cures blows all the other CR out of the water. but this is because most of my time is spent in small gangs or solo unless i am in logi where i never pay attention to the enemy fleet.


actually looking at it this way not only were you inferring a cause from statistics that did not give a cause but we were using the statistics to represent something they were not representing
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#23 - 2017-06-05 15:53:54 UTC
So firstly, while your "tank" Rook fit is certainly tanky, it has a jam strength of 9 with heat. 9. Against even a T1 cruiser, that's less than a 50% chance to jam a single ship. It is also about as fast as a brick. Without heat (aka any sustained engagement) it has a whopping 7.5 jam strength, which means it's only able to jam a frigate with reliability. You're probably better off throwing EC-300s on your dps ships and flying something different altogether.

The disconnect between our disagreement seems to be the differences between small scale engagements vs medium/large scale engagements.

I will agree that in a small-scale engagement, where you feel their niche resides, the Rook is fine. It has plenty of tank, enough dps, and even with the jam chance sitting between 30-50%, landing a jam has significant tactical value because it neutralizes an appreciable portion of their fleet.

Within a medium or large scale engagement, it should still be a useful ship in my opinion, and it's just not. As you've said, and as I've agreed, the Lachesis, Curse, and Huginn are all more valuable ships in a large engagement.

I believe that its niche should include medium/large engagements for the sake of dynamic content. The fewer ships that are viable to bring to such an engagement, the more static the content becomes. The more different variables you add (in this case, additional viable hulls) the less static the content becomes.

Feel free to disagree with my opinions on the expansion of the Rook's niche, it is pure opinion.


Regarding the 25% thing, that isn't entirely true. By making the Rooks have a higher representation, the Huginn would see a natural reduction from some Huginn pilots flying Rooks instead. Nobody complains about the Huginn being OP. It quite honestly doesn't need a buff - none of the other combat recons do, because as you have said they're all in a very useful place.

Anecdotally, I have never seen a Rook. Ever. We have doctrines which include the Lachesis, and I always try fly a Curse when intel says a Cynabal or similar is coming down the pipe in our home pocket (nothing like a heavy neut curse to say **** you to kite-cancer). I've been on killmails for all of them, except the Rook.
unidenify
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#24 - 2017-06-06 02:41:00 UTC
my view on Rook is that it should have range bonus on ECM so it can sit back and jam target from long range.

If you feel it should brawl, power to you I guess

But fact is Rook have 150 km targeting range on hull that push to 180km with long range targeting skill V.

I would like to see 30% bonus to optimal range, and with this, you could see 150km optimal on ECM when carry 2 ECM range rig and 1 signal distortion amplifier
Lugh Crow-Slave
#25 - 2017-06-06 11:17:12 UTC
unidenify wrote:
my view on Rook is that it should have range bonus on ECM so it can sit back and jam target from long range.

If you feel it should brawl, power to you I guess

But fact is Rook have 150 km targeting range on hull that push to 180km with long range targeting skill V.

I would like to see 30% bonus to optimal range, and with this, you could see 150km optimal on ECM when carry 2 ECM range rig and 1 signal distortion amplifier



You want a black bird or a griffen for that
Lugh Crow-Slave
#26 - 2017-06-06 11:29:20 UTC
Old Pervert wrote:
So firstly, while your "tank" Rook fit is certainly tanky, it has a jam strength of 9 with heat. 9. Against even a T1 cruiser, that's less than a 50% chance to jam a single ship. It is also about as fast as a brick. Without heat (aka any sustained engagement) it has a whopping 7.5 jam strength, which means it's only able to jam a frigate with reliability. You're probably better off throwing EC-300s on your dps ships and flying something different altogether.

The disconnect between our disagreement seems to be the differences between small scale engagements vs medium/large scale engagements.

I will agree that in a small-scale engagement, where you feel their niche resides, the Rook is fine. It has plenty of tank, enough dps, and even with the jam chance sitting between 30-50%, landing a jam has significant tactical value because it neutralizes an appreciable portion of their fleet.

Within a medium or large scale engagement, it should still be a useful ship in my opinion, and it's just not. As you've said, and as I've agreed, the Lachesis, Curse, and Huginn are all more valuable ships in a large engagement.

I believe that its niche should include medium/large engagements for the sake of dynamic content. The fewer ships that are viable to bring to such an engagement, the more static the content becomes. The more different variables you add (in this case, additional viable hulls) the less static the content becomes.

Feel free to disagree with my opinions on the expansion of the Rook's niche, it is pure opinion.


Regarding the 25% thing, that isn't entirely true. By making the Rooks have a higher representation, the Huginn would see a natural reduction from some Huginn pilots flying Rooks instead. Nobody complains about the Huginn being OP. It quite honestly doesn't need a buff - none of the other combat recons do, because as you have said they're all in a very useful place.

Anecdotally, I have never seen a Rook. Ever. We have doctrines which include the Lachesis, and I always try fly a Curse when intel says a Cynabal or similar is coming down the pipe in our home pocket (nothing like a heavy neut curse to say **** you to kite-cancer). I've been on killmails for all of them, except the Rook.



No you would not see many huginn pilots sealing because unless your REALLY screw worth the rook their roles have no overlap at all you would see small amounts of lach pilots if they really buffed the rook. Only obese you would really see change are curse pilots and those who would normally be flying other types of ships.

That you have not seen any rooks is irrelevant.

They are powerful ships solo there is simply no way to buff them that will not unbalance them in this area. You want this ship to be more prominent I YOUR area of the game for no real reason other than you feel it should. Again the rook is strong in med to large fights but webs damps and points are better. This will be true no matter what unless the rook stats getting broken levels of jam strrangth. Simply because no matter what you do to make it tanker it's utility in these fights will not go up. If you raise it's dps much more it will see an increased level of power in small gangs larger than in big fleets. Meaning by the tune you raise it enough to make a difference at the level you want you're creating something scary in small gangs and terrifying in FW thanks to its D- scan immunity
FT Cold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2017-06-06 20:20:28 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Cold
The rook could use a balance pass. Another low slot would be pretty useful, as it would be nice to be able to field a jam ship in an armor or 100mn gang that wasn't a tengu.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#28 - 2017-06-06 20:56:38 UTC
FT Cold wrote:
The rook could use a balance pass. Another low slot would be pretty useful, as it would be nice to be able to field a jam ship in an armor or 100mn gang that wasn't a tengu.



A low will not do that for you with a rook. It simply doesn't have enough base armor ehp. Us the Griffin kits or if you Have a crap pilot use a scorpion
Caleb Seremshur
Naked Oiled Bodybuilders
Parasitic Legion.
#29 - 2017-06-07 13:27:50 UTC
I probably use something like this in the modern game for solo or small gang stuff with a huginn

[Rook, Rook fit]

Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Signal Distortion Amplifier II

50MN Cold-Gas Enduring Microwarpdrive
Large Shield Extender II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II
J5b Enduring Warp Scrambler
Multispectral ECM II
Multispectral ECM II

Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile

Medium Particle Dispersion Augmentor II
Medium Dynamic Fuel Valve II

Focus just on grabbing something and tanking a bit of damage while messing with his ability to fight back
FT Cold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2017-06-07 14:10:58 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Cold
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
FT Cold wrote:
The rook could use a balance pass. Another low slot would be pretty useful, as it would be nice to be able to field a jam ship in an armor or 100mn gang that wasn't a tengu.



A low will not do that for you with a rook. It simply doesn't have enough base armor ehp. Us the Griffin kits or if you Have a crap pilot use a scorpion


Well the forum ate my post. vOv.

Anyhow, yeah I do think it would be pretty useful, you don't really need much base armor when you've got 1600 plates; most cruisers don't have much over 2k. Enough buffer to catch reps and enough resists for reps to hold is all you need for an armor fit. In any event, it would still be very useful to fit a sigamp or an extra nano, both of which I think I'd rather have over an extra missile slot.

You can do some neat stuff with the rook now, I've thought about some solo or small gang fits that could be fun, but I still agree with the OP. The kind of benefit you get from the covops cloak on the falcon simply outweighs most of the extra stuff you can do with the rook. Maybe it's time to look at the ECM mechanic instead and rebuild jam ships from the ground up, but as an interim solution, I wouldn't be opposed to moving a high to a low.
Kassimila
The Northerners
Northern Coalition.
#31 - 2017-06-07 15:03:17 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
You seem to have never killed anyone or have been killed by anyone. I'd suggest actually getting in fights before suggesting changes. Or you know, stop being so condescending when you won't even post with a character you use in game...


You haven't killed anyone, nor been killed by anyone in almost a year. So why are you weighing in?
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#32 - 2017-06-07 16:24:59 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
You seem to have never killed anyone or have been killed by anyone. I'd suggest actually getting in fights before suggesting changes. Or you know, stop being so condescending when you won't even post with a character you use in game...


Regrettably, my main's choice of name was made well before the consequences of such a choice were known to me. As such I post on my market alt to circumvent those consequences and mitigate potential for real life entanglement with extra-salty players.

I do, however, get into a reasonable number of fights given that I live out in the ass-end of nowhere (drone land). They tend to be small/medium sized fleet engagements.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#33 - 2017-06-07 17:17:43 UTC
FT Cold wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
FT Cold wrote:
The rook could use a balance pass. Another low slot would be pretty useful, as it would be nice to be able to field a jam ship in an armor or 100mn gang that wasn't a tengu.



A low will not do that for you with a rook. It simply doesn't have enough base armor ehp. Us the Griffin kits or if you Have a crap pilot use a scorpion


Well the forum ate my post. vOv.

Anyhow, yeah I do think it would be pretty useful, you don't really need much base armor when you've got 1600 plates; most cruisers don't have much over 2k. Enough buffer to catch reps and enough resists for reps to hold is all you need for an armor fit. In any event, it would still be very useful to fit a sigamp or an extra nano, both of which I think I'd rather have over an extra missile slot.

You can do some neat stuff with the rook now, I've thought about some solo or small gang fits that could be fun, but I still agree with the OP. The kind of benefit you get from the covops cloak on the falcon simply outweighs most of the extra stuff you can do with the rook. Maybe it's time to look at the ECM mechanic instead and rebuild jam ships from the ground up, but as an interim solution, I wouldn't be opposed to moving a high to a low.




once again the cov ops cloak doesn't help a falcon do what a rook does better. If you ate just hoping to catch reps in an armor fleet the rook can already do that.


Now dose anyone have an actual problem with the rook other than x ship does something better than it.
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#34 - 2017-06-07 18:12:13 UTC
I maintain that the Rook still falls short in medium to large engagements. You say that is out of its niche, I say it should be part of its niche like all of the other Combat Recons. The ship class should fill a niche, with the individual hulls filling it in their own special way. That is of course an opinion, and a loose one at that.

It could well be that it falls short because ECM doesn't scale as well as RSD/webs. It could be something else entirely. All I maintain is that if we buff the Rook, it might see more use in larger engagements.

Your argument about buffs to medium/large engagements affecting its performance in small engagements is valid, and of course, any buffs to the Rook that I solicit I would like to maintain a ship which does not make it a wtfpwnmobile in solo/small.



I also contend that the HML bonus is at odds with ECM, in that it can shoot missiles out far farther away than it can use its EWAR. Perhaps that is by design (anti-tackle mechanism)
Perhaps that is an oversight (maybe we should make ECM reach farther)
Perhaps the hull was never intended to be used at range (do away with the HML bonus and give it something more useful for HAM range).
Or, perhaps, the HML bonus was given to allow the hull to ignore ECM altogether and be a failCerb.
FT Cold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2017-06-07 19:40:45 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

once again the cov ops cloak doesn't help a falcon do what a rook does better. If you ate just hoping to catch reps in an armor fleet the rook can already do that.


Now dose anyone have an actual problem with the rook other than x ship does something better than it.



It's not used because it sucks. It sucks because the falcon does the same thing, only with a a module that can put it in a state of 100% safety that lets you decide when your opponent gets to see it. Jamgus do the same thing but can do it so much better, that the increased cost of a 100mn or an armor jamgu doesn't mean squat. So we find that the the 'advantages' that the rook holds over the falcon, like a few hundred more native HP, better lock range, sensor strength and a bigger drone bay, aren't considered to be valuable, so much so, that it's barely used. That's an actual bonafide reason to consider rebalancing a ship.

The only reason I would ever use a rook over a falcon is as a traplord solo pvp fit to juke frigate pilots into committing sodoku while they're jamboned for the half hour it takes for rapid lights to reload. If you think it's great, be my guest and keep thinking that.

Ragnar Danskjold
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#36 - 2017-06-08 09:37:17 UTC
The problem with ECM is that you can't make it reliable enough for small engagements without making it super OP in larger ones. Already in any battle with logi jams basically win the fight.
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#37 - 2017-06-08 14:48:27 UTC
Ragnar Danskjold wrote:
The problem with ECM is that you can't make it reliable enough for small engagements without making it super OP in larger ones. Already in any battle with logi jams basically win the fight.


On the contrary, I believe the only place ECM is currently viable is in small engagements. In smaller engagements, the incoming damage is enough to pop your ship, but not enough to melt it into slag before you can react. Even if you haven't got logistics.

You've got time for a jam to miss, cycle, and try again.

In a larger engagement, when you get called primary, you're gonna pop very fast unless your logistics is able to rep through the damage (hence why pilots should always broadcast for reps on yellowbox).

If your logistics can't keep up, you won't have time for your module to cycle.

In any engagement, landing ECM on enemy logistics can be an incredible force multiplier. BUT, imagine a Lachesis with RSD scripted for scan res on the enemy logistics... they broadcast for reps, and 10 seconds later after they're all but dead, the logistics can finally start delivering reps. The same goes for the Curse neuting out logistics (except Basis, but if you're lucky and have enough numbers you could break their chain).

This is the biggest reason why I've said a lowslot would be beneficial to the Rook; more tank, or more lowslot utility, or more damage. They could fit their BCS/SDA and a DCU without as much of a sacrifice. Logistics could keep them up easier, allowing them to cycle their ECM a few more times.
FT Cold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2017-06-08 15:50:59 UTC
Old Pervert wrote:
Ragnar Danskjold wrote:
The problem with ECM is that you can't make it reliable enough for small engagements without making it super OP in larger ones. Already in any battle with logi jams basically win the fight.


On the contrary, I believe the only place ECM is currently viable is in small engagements. In smaller engagements, the incoming damage is enough to pop your ship, but not enough to melt it into slag before you can react. Even if you haven't got logistics.

You've got time for a jam to miss, cycle, and try again.

In a larger engagement, when you get called primary, you're gonna pop very fast unless your logistics is able to rep through the damage (hence why pilots should always broadcast for reps on yellowbox).

If your logistics can't keep up, you won't have time for your module to cycle.

In any engagement, landing ECM on enemy logistics can be an incredible force multiplier. BUT, imagine a Lachesis with RSD scripted for scan res on the enemy logistics... they broadcast for reps, and 10 seconds later after they're all but dead, the logistics can finally start delivering reps. The same goes for the Curse neuting out logistics (except Basis, but if you're lucky and have enough numbers you could break their chain).

This is the biggest reason why I've said a lowslot would be beneficial to the Rook; more tank, or more lowslot utility, or more damage. They could fit their BCS/SDA and a DCU without as much of a sacrifice. Logistics could keep them up easier, allowing them to cycle their ECM a few more times.


Right, it's very powerful in small gang. You do still see it in mid size gangs though, it's pretty nice to have some jamgus in WH armor brawls, and you really don't have a choice, you need it to deal with bhaals and logi blobs. It's nice in some kitey gangs too, a tengu can fit info links and a few jams to deal with threats like support fighters, bonused webs, and annoying interceptors.
Ragnar Danskjold
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2017-06-11 04:30:05 UTC
Old Pervert wrote:
Ragnar Danskjold wrote:
The problem with ECM is that you can't make it reliable enough for small engagements without making it super OP in larger ones. Already in any battle with logi jams basically win the fight.


On the contrary, I believe the only place ECM is currently viable is in small engagements. In smaller engagements, the incoming damage is enough to pop your ship, but not enough to melt it into slag before you can react. Even if you haven't got logistics.

You've got time for a jam to miss, cycle, and try again.

In a larger engagement, when you get called primary, you're gonna pop very fast unless your logistics is able to rep through the damage (hence why pilots should always broadcast for reps on yellowbox).

If your logistics can't keep up, you won't have time for your module to cycle.

In any engagement, landing ECM on enemy logistics can be an incredible force multiplier. BUT, imagine a Lachesis with RSD scripted for scan res on the enemy logistics... they broadcast for reps, and 10 seconds later after they're all but dead, the logistics can finally start delivering reps. The same goes for the Curse neuting out logistics (except Basis, but if you're lucky and have enough numbers you could break their chain).

This is the biggest reason why I've said a lowslot would be beneficial to the Rook; more tank, or more lowslot utility, or more damage. They could fit their BCS/SDA and a DCU without as much of a sacrifice. Logistics could keep them up easier, allowing them to cycle their ECM a few more times.

So a couple of things, first I want to clarify that when I say mid size engagement I am referring to approximately ten ships per side with two or three being logi. In these battles cap chain logi is very powerful and breaking the chain will generally result in victory. I don't think we disagree on that, just wanted to clarify. In these engagements all of the recon ships are very good at the task of breaking cap chain, except the hugginn, but the hugginn is still extremely useful anyway.

The thing about the rook is that it is a caldari ship so one of its
lows is a mid instead because they are meant to be shield tanked.
This is the real reason why they are not used so much because mid size PvP meta favors armor brawling. That is just the way it is, a room can easily get a shield tank similar to the other recon ships armor tank and still retain its viability as ewar. The other ewar ships not so much. This is also the reason the jamgu is preferred to the room for ecm, the jamgu can also get a survivable armor tank.
Just because it isn't used much does not mean it's bad, it has a great niche that other ships can't fill, being ewar for shield doctrines, the fact that shield doctrines are not used as much is no fault of the rook.
Previous page12