Player Features and Ideas Discussion

If I was designing these from scratch they'd have massive tanks and weapons designed to support a fleet taking down frigates. This avoids the op tank and gank. If be happy to supply links, stay alive and pick off some of the small stuff. That said I don't have a vested interest in the status quo ;-)

It didn't get that much of a DPS nerf, if you ask me. The new Astarte will be dealing 91.7% as much turret DPS while being substantially easier to fit for a gank/tank fit assuming you don't bother with links. If you do want to put links on there it's somewhat harder to fit, but at least you're buffing the fleet.

I will agree that an 8.3% DPS nerf is surprisingly substantial, but it was traded off for 2 utility highs, bonused links, more armour and structure HP, easier fitting in the same sort of gank/spank configuration, a larger cap pool, higher racial resists, less mass, better electronics, and a larger drone bay.

wanting to evaluate them on their own, and leadership spots don't receive boosts

*wing commanders

//also want to make sure the later, nano version of the fit i tried is posted :-D http://i.imgur.com/Qf4W3H4.jpg

Astarte and NH are downright Disappointing.

These were the 2 worst "pewpew" Command Ships and they'll remain the 2 worst ones after this iteration, please think this through.

I like adjustments for CS, more or less. Not very comfortable with some DPS nerf though. But to be fair I would split those hulls into two different classes. I would leave claymore for example as a command ship and change role of Sleipnir making it Heavy Assault Battlecruiser or something like that. It will have a long training curve as it is now and price of it is already high enough. So we will have same thing as with thorax/maller/moa/rupture hull. To be honest I think making a Sleipnir as a links boat is waste of that ship. Right now it those type of command ships are only competitive T2 hulls, will be shame to screw them.

On further thought, it seems CCP is trying to make small gangs happy and big fleets happy. We have 2 ships for each race, lets utilize them like this:

Make one a brick, no damage bonuses, passive resists, long range targeting, high sensors, no drone bay type ship. 4 races means you can have armor and skirmish, or armor and information, and vice versa with shield. This is a ship to be FC'ed from, it deals next to no damage so it won't become a plex/ratting ship, you can even make it anti-rat friendly so that rats won't shoot it like you did with the special edition exploring ship.

The second ship for each race will be damage bonuses, an active tank, mid range targeting, high sensor strength, can have a drone bay. This ship can still be utilized in an armor skirmish or armor information, and vice vesa with shield, depending on the role needed.

The thing with command ships is, regardless of what kind it is, what it is NOT is a more powerful HEAVY ASSAULT CRUISER. No where does the name imply it is an assault ship. It is a COMMAND ship, and should be utilized as such. It's entire reason for existing is to remain on field, give fleet bonuses, and to be COMMANDED from. FC's are known people. They're your anchors, they're infamous, they're famous, they aren't that hard to find if you know who you are fighting and/or have done any recon on your enemy.

-2 invulns for +1 LSE +1 Pithum C-type invuln from high sec 4/10 site (do they still drop there, if so this is it)

look at the capacitor time.

you can fit launchers on this with faction/deadspace modules. worth it? -2 nanos for reactor controls. +HAMs

maybe I am training CS V

For the cap you now have 5 turrets instead of 7, so with a 5% rof bonus, that is 6.6667 turrets in terms of cap comsumption.
better than before.

Most of the changes look good. However, I believe the nighthawk changes could use a review.

First, as was pointed out by another poster, it doesn't look like the nighthawk is going to have enough grid for links. Please increase the grid further.

Second, it shouldn't be the kinetic damage bonus being increased, IMO. Straightjacketing the NH into kinetic damage with a doubled kinetic bonus removes a good chunk of the reason for using missiles in the first place. That would be okay if the nighthawk's DPS was completely over the top, but it isn't. Please consider the following: set the kinetic damage bonus back to 5%. Change the RoF bonus to a universal damage bonus (increased to compensate for the DPS differences between RoF bonuses and damage bonuses), then add the 5% increase to the new universal damage bonus (EDIT: this will result in a universal heavy/HAM damage bonus of 12% per level). This will maintain the kinetic bonus while not totally gimping the ship if it tries to use other damage types. It will also reduce the server stress and ridiculous ammo usage that would be caused by increasing the RoF bonus.

Third, please consider removing a lowslot and replacing it with a midslot. With its 0% (base) EM resist and 50% (base) explosive resist, the nighthawk will need to run both an EM hardener and an invulnerability field to achieve the resists necessary to be survivable (the sleipnir can get away with only one hardener due to a better base resistance profile and superior mobility). Add in a prop mod and a warp disruptor, and you now have one slot left for the rest of your tank or any additional ewar (webs, target painters). As such, I don't see the nighthawk being viable in PvP in its current suggested format.

Hopefully these changes make the nighthawk useful in PvP without making it overpowered.

1 set should be for fleet boosting, so hp and res bonus
1 set should be for small gang, so dps and active tanking

I really don't get why they have done anything else tbh,

plus make wing boosters get there own boosts, fix that