Player Features and Ideas Discussion

even with null m u have more dps than the absolution and this by equal range

surely that depends on the fits?

Isn't the absolution designed to be a fleet booster, with a great deal more ehp but less need to apply damage, and the astarte an armour skirmish booster with a requirement to move, tank and deal damage where possible?

I don't think you can compare raw numbers in the same situation because these ships are designed for very different roles.

Your confusing the Abso with the Damnation, The Abso like the Slep and Astarte is the DPS ship, but with a cap bonus rather than a range bonus like the other two have. Lasters usualy win out on range but if the laser ship has no range bonus and the others all do than the lasers lose its one advantage.

I still wish commandships just dropped 150km range command probes instead of giving out bonuses as a ship

Doesn't that go triple for the Absolution with its less drones, less tracking, less midslots, less tank, less everything really .. except Scorch range?

Absolution is in a bad place if it is to be the dps/vanguard hull, granted the Devs may have laser changes in mind and thus deliberately underbuffing the hull, but if that is the case then we really ought to know.

PS: Scorch has been used to justify sub-par performance of practically all laser hulls since forever which is just plain wrong. If I had the choice between fun competitive ships and a narrow niche (projection only) single ammo type I'd choose the former every day of the week .. (read: Nerf Scorch already so that Amarr can get rid of that damn crutch once and for all).

The astarte got bonus for falloff range btw so it has quite a good range in comparison to the abso.

So I gather from the description, the nighthawk is to be used as a battlecruiser only not a command ship? Even once link fitting requirements are lowered (with all lv 5's) you need to drop 3 launchers to fit 3 links, 4 if you want to fit an MWD and give it a little survivability by putting a mediocre tank on it. Now if you don't care about DPS or HP they will work well but I thought the idea of the rebalancing ( for want of actually calling it what it is - a massive nerf, to an already below par T2 ship) was in line with the plan to remove off grid boosting. Unless of course there are plans to "rebalance" them again when off grid boosting is removed. If not, simply scrap warfare link bonuses for caldari and give the command ships a usable bonus instead.
You want to make them usable - slot layout, 7h, 6m, 4 l and give back the bonus to rapid light missiles. It would still be a mediocre command ship but would at least be usable. ( I for 1 can't afford to fly 300+ mil throw away ships)

NB; It might be a nice idea if you did some fitting tests before releasing these upcoming changes. The plan is to have command ships boosting ongrid in the future?? Try to make sure they are capable of dealing "some" DPS and have the ability to fit a tank relevant to the risk they will face being the primary target of every encounter. For large scale fleets this is probably not an issue but not everyone wants to fly in 2000 man fleets. Try balancing them to suit the average fleet of say + - 100, where the boosting ship is required to do more than just sit there getting reps to stay alive as long as possible..

so you want the only command ship that can be used on grid and survive in big fleet fights to eventually be reduced to the point it cant be used on grid in big fleet fights?

Sorry but I don't understand this at all. Where is the 50% increase in DPS coming from?? If the current changes go through as proposed, the nighthawk will have the ability to fit 3 warfare links, 1 launcher and 5 small drones ( so effectively, no dps).

What I would like to see is a command ship that doesn't need to sacrifice all its dps and or tanking ability to run links. I have pretty good boosting skills but rarely fly command ships as they are just not, and with the proposed changes will not be a practical ship to fly into combat. It is clear those who put these changes forward have never flown command ships (with links).

NB; why have 7 highslots if you have to leave 3 of them empty?? Quite simply.. The nighthawk does not have enough PG to even be considered in the "fitting trade offs" category CCP is so fond of.
I have no problem dropping "some" dps or tank to fit 3 links but to have drop next to all dps and have minimal tank?? Next time your out in your boosting tengu, warp it on grid and see how long it survives. There is a reason people boost offgrid, no right or wrong, the reason is - on grid boosting is committing suicide

That depends on how big a fleet your in, how much logi you have compared to the incoming dps.. Won't matter how much logi you have if the command ship is primary vs a high alpha fleet. The idea should be to get all command ships usable, the current imbalance is too wide but rather than nerfing the damnation down, all command ships should receive a buff to make using them in a combat situation viable. Justifiable numbers would be nearly impossible unless you also have set fleet makeup and numbers.