These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dinozauriusz II Urwiryj
DinoSquad
#1941 - 2013-09-02 12:44:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Dinozauriusz II Urwiryj
It's not about satisfying everybody - In fact it is impossible. It's about keeping game varied.
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#1942 - 2013-09-02 13:15:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Lephia DeGrande
I am on your side, but as you see we are in the minority...

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Cade Windstalker
#1943 - 2013-09-02 15:46:37 UTC
Dinozauriusz II Urwiryj wrote:
IMHO this rebalance is bad idea. All EVE magic is about that every ship is specialised and is filling some, special role. Dividing command ships to fleet and field was very good! Now we will receive two identical ships just with different weapons - senseless. I assume that next time Recons will be mixed into the-same-with-different-weapons? I liked when ships were specialised. Now it seems that we are going to make it straight line: every next ship is just bigger, with better guns.
My opinion is: Do not follow this path. Keep this game complex and sophisticated. Introduce even more ships, even if they would not be specialised, just different for the same role (wolud be great to have more T1 frigates, or two types of stealth bomers for every faction, or two eWar ships, more destroyers, etc.). Just don't mix ships into one formless, kindless mass - you want fleet or field command ship with different weapon? Introduce two new Command ships (Naga hull would be great for fleet Command, keep Ferox as field command), just don't kill complexity of this game.
Please.

PS. bring more T3 ships (frigates would be interesting).


I have two problems with this.

First, there is absolutely no evidence that the Recon hulls are going to be homogenized. Both hulls for each race see use and it's hardly like they each use a different weapons system to start with.

The second is that the Fleet/Field distinction had a number of inherent problems with it and left us with a situation where 5 out of 8 hulls of a given ship type were almost completely unused. I think the only use I ever heard of for a Nighthawk was a very niche passive tank fit for either an Epic Arc or a Level 5 mission. The Eos, Claymore, Absolution, and Vulture were similarly un-used for various reasons, with the Damnation only being used for bait and the very odd occasional on-grid boost.

The tanky ships didn't deal enough damage and the damage ships weren't tanky enough, either way you wouldn't want one in a small fleet unless it was the Slephnir or the Astarte because those were the two that could actually deal damage effectively. However, their lack of tank prevented them from ever being used as an actual "Command Ship" they were just T2 Battlecruisers.

I fail to see how you can claim that this was a better situation for Command Ships to be in than one where every one can actually be used as a *Command Ship* and still contribute to fleets.
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
#1944 - 2013-09-02 16:03:13 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
The second is that the Fleet/Field distinction had a number of inherent problems with it and left us with a situation where 5 out of 8 hulls of a given ship type were almost completely unused. I think the only use I ever heard of for a Nighthawk was a very niche passive tank fit for either an Epic Arc or a Level 5 mission.


I'm afraid you probably won't be seeing the Nighthawk used much after the patch, either, seeing as how it can't fit a warp disruptor/scrambler and prop mod without compromising its tank. A 3-slot (4 with DCU) tank is not enough on a 200 million ISK ship.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1945 - 2013-09-02 16:10:34 UTC
Wrayeth wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
The second is that the Fleet/Field distinction had a number of inherent problems with it and left us with a situation where 5 out of 8 hulls of a given ship type were almost completely unused. I think the only use I ever heard of for a Nighthawk was a very niche passive tank fit for either an Epic Arc or a Level 5 mission.


I'm afraid you probably won't be seeing the Nighthawk used much after the patch, either, seeing as how it can't fit a warp disruptor/scrambler and prop mod without compromising its tank. A 3-slot (4 with DCU) tank is not enough on a 200 million ISK ship.


I have to agree there. I've been very upbeat about these CS changes and will be using the minny and gallente ones on grid in wormholes.

But the slot layout on the NH is difficult to understand in PVP context. Maybe the devs have plans for damage application mods for missiles and would like to see them on the NH to give it more range?

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".
Cade Windstalker
#1946 - 2013-09-02 16:23:34 UTC
Wrayeth wrote:
I'm afraid you probably won't be seeing the Nighthawk used much after the patch, either, seeing as how it can't fit a warp disruptor/scrambler and prop mod without compromising its tank. A 3-slot (4 with DCU) tank is not enough on a 200 million ISK ship.


I'm not particularly concerned about that. Caldari ships have always been more fleet focused and with its current stats it ends up being fairly similar to a Tengu. As for your assertion about a 3 slot tank not being enough, well I'm sure someone out there who doesn't see the ship as much of a loss will disagree with you (especially if you factor in T2 medium shield rigs).

Regardless of your personal fitting preferences the Nighthawk is in a vastly improved position as are all of the other unused CS hulls.
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
#1947 - 2013-09-02 16:45:52 UTC
Wrayeth wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
The second is that the Fleet/Field distinction had a number of inherent problems with it and left us with a situation where 5 out of 8 hulls of a given ship type were almost completely unused. I think the only use I ever heard of for a Nighthawk was a very niche passive tank fit for either an Epic Arc or a Level 5 mission.


I'm afraid you probably won't be seeing the Nighthawk used much after the patch, either, seeing as how it can't fit a warp disruptor/scrambler and prop mod without compromising its tank. A 3-slot (4 with DCU) tank is not enough on a 200 million ISK ship.


Its the one disappointing thing to come out of this thread.
So many of those who have commented on the Nighthawk have said it needs a better slot layout 6:4 not 5:5

Theres way to much competition for mids on this hull compared to others in the class.

Em hard
Invuln
Booster
Injector
Propulsion

would be my prefs for a base setup

Leaving it 2 slots short if used as a T2 BC
point X
web X

For a tanky or boosty CS it can't do either
2nd Inv X
or
Command Processor X


It would be interesting to know what the slot layout is designed around other that PvE only Passive Tank.
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
#1948 - 2013-09-02 16:50:39 UTC
Some small part of me wonders if Fozzie is trolling us and it will actually be 7/6/4 when it hits TQ. It's almost certainly not going to happen, but it would be hilarious (and awesome!) if it does. Lol
Cade Windstalker
#1949 - 2013-09-02 16:51:56 UTC
Lore Varan wrote:
Its the one disappointing thing to come out of this thread.
So many of those who have commented on the Nighthawk have said it needs a better slot layout 6:4 not 5:5

Theres way to much competition for mids on this hull compared to others in the class.

Em hard
Invuln
Booster
Injector
Propulsion

would be my prefs for a base setup

Leaving it 2 slots short if used as a T2 BC
point X
web X

For a tanky or boosty CS it can't do either
2nd Inv X
or
Command Processor X

It would be interesting to know what the slot layout is designed around other that PvE only Passive Tank.


I'm not sure why you thought you were ever going to get a 7 mid-slot Battlecruiser. Also you can fit an ASB rather than doing both a booster and an injector since your guns don't use cap and then NOS in the highs as a counter to neuting.

Overall though most Caldari ships aren't built to be solo ships, they're much better lending muscle to a small to medium gang where they don't need to fit, say, both a point AND a web but can better leverage their excellent tank.
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
#1950 - 2013-09-02 17:02:02 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Overall though most Caldari ships aren't built to be solo ships, they're much better lending muscle to a small to medium gang where they don't need to fit, say, both a point AND a web but can better leverage their excellent tank.

True...except with 5 mids, it's not an excellent tank unless you drop either the prop mod or the the disruptor/scrambler. While 7 mids would be amazing, it would be too much, IMO. 6, however, are required for this ship to be viable in PvP if survivability matters at all to you.
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
#1951 - 2013-09-02 17:07:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Lore Varan
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Lore Varan wrote:
Its the one disappointing thing to come out of this thread.
So many of those who have commented on the Nighthawk have said it needs a better slot layout 6:4 not 5:5

Theres way to much competition for mids on this hull compared to others in the class.

Em hard
Invuln
Booster
Injector
Propulsion

would be my prefs for a base setup

Leaving it 2 slots short if used as a T2 BC
point X
web X

For a tanky or boosty CS it can't do either
2nd Inv X
or
Command Processor X

It would be interesting to know what the slot layout is designed around other that PvE only Passive Tank.


I'm not sure why you thought you were ever going to get a 7 mid-slot Battlecruiser. Also you can fit an ASB rather than doing both a booster and an injector since your guns don't use cap and then NOS in the highs as a counter to neuting.

Overall though most Caldari ships aren't built to be solo ships, they're much better lending muscle to a small to medium gang where they don't need to fit, say, both a point AND a web but can better leverage their excellent tank.


No ones suggesting a 7 slotter that's entirelly your own misunderstanding.
If you go scram/web on a nh its fair to drop 1 of the standard mids ( probably the invuln ).

Although 7/3 on the Vulture might have been interesting to compete more with the Damnation.

Being tied in to an ASB booster is not acceptable ( to little fitting choice imo )
The slot layout of the ship should not dictate that ASB must be used.
Large are underpowered and XL require gimped fits.

Also in a role where you dont have own tackle and are doing the CS booster thing.
An injector is needed to keep that MWD running.

Also the Caldari arnt solo excuse is very old and lame.
Given that I think 40% of the player base come in as Caldari your saying all those players can't enjoy solo commands until they have cross trained ? gtfo.
Cade Windstalker
#1952 - 2013-09-02 17:18:40 UTC
Wrayeth wrote:
True...except with 5 mids, it's not an excellent tank unless you drop either the prop mod or the the disruptor/scrambler. While 7 mids would be amazing, it would be too much, IMO. 6, however, are required for this ship to be viable in PvP if survivability matters at all to you.


Lore Varan wrote:
No ones suggesting a 7 slotter that's entirelly your own misunderstanding.
If you go scram/web on a nh its fair to drop 1 of the standard mids ( probably the invuln ).

Although 7/3 on the Vulture might have been interesting to compete more with the Damnation.

Being tied in to an ASB booster is not acceptable ( to little fitting choice imo )
The slot layout of the ship should not dictate that ASB must be used.
Large are underpowered and XL require gimped fits.

Also in a role where you dont have own tackle and are doing the CS booster thing.
An injector is needed to keep that MWD running.


In any sort of fleet setup with logistics (which thanks to T1 Support Cruisers is a pretty common thing, even in small fleets) you don't need any sort of active tank at which point you can run an absolutely massive resist tank with just 5 slots. 2x Invul, EM Ward, LSE, AB for a little speed tank. DCU2 in the lows and a Thermal rig. You now have an awesome shield tank, do 3 BCU2s in the lows and a Nano and you AB around pretty well too. Let other ships that are better at playing tackle play tackle and support the fleet with links and/or DPS.

In a solo situation you're probably better off with a Navy Drake or HAC. Since the primary role of Command Ships is fleet boosting it's fine that some of them aren't great solo ships.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1953 - 2013-09-02 17:22:04 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

In any sort of fleet setup with logistics (which thanks to T1 Support Cruisers is a pretty common thing, even in small fleets) you don't need any sort of active tank at which point you can run an absolutely massive resist tank with just 5 slots. 2x Invul, EM Ward, LSE, AB for a little speed tank. DCU2 in the lows and a Thermal rig. You now have an awesome shield tank, do 3 BCU2s in the lows and a Nano and you AB around pretty well too. Let other ships that are better at playing tackle play tackle and support the fleet with links and/or DPS.

In a solo situation you're probably better off with a Navy Drake or HAC. Since the primary role of Command Ships is fleet boosting it's fine that some of them aren't great solo ships.


Agree - i would never take a CS on grid without some logistics.

Navy drake is the wrong choice for solo though - it's the weakest of the navy BCs.

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".
Cade Windstalker
#1954 - 2013-09-02 18:28:45 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Agree - i would never take a CS on grid without some logistics.

Navy drake is the wrong choice for solo though - it's the weakest of the navy BCs.


Still a better choice for solo work than the Nighthawk though, and it meets his slot requirements.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1955 - 2013-09-02 18:47:40 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Agree - i would never take a CS on grid without some logistics.

Navy drake is the wrong choice for solo though - it's the weakest of the navy BCs.


Still a better choice for solo work than the Nighthawk though, and it meets his slot requirements.


Well yes, but that's like saying when going to a gunfight, it's better to take a cucumber than a rubber chicken...

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".
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#1956 - 2013-09-02 18:57:26 UTC
Well, this drops tomorrow, so I doubt they're going to be fixing the Caldari boats.

Nighthawk's slot layout is awful and it's outshined by the Claymore for PvP of any kind. PvE-only boat...expensive Drake with only barely better tank. Yay.

Vulture does less damage than a Ferox.

Hopefully they'll fix these mistakes at some point in the future.

I won't be holding my breath.
Lucine Delacourt
The Covenant of Blood
#1957 - 2013-09-02 18:58:48 UTC
Why are people trying to use their NH as tackle? There are ships built for that. Bring your NH for a little DPS, links and fairly decent tank. I know it's shocking that the ship is better at its intended task instead of something else but that doesn't make the ship broken.
Cade Windstalker
#1958 - 2013-09-02 19:10:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Chris Winter wrote:
Well, this drops tomorrow, so I doubt they're going to be fixing the Caldari boats.

Nighthawk's slot layout is awful and it's outshined by the Claymore for PvP of any kind. PvE-only boat...expensive Drake with only barely better tank. Yay.

Vulture does less damage than a Ferox.

Hopefully they'll fix these mistakes at some point in the future.

I won't be holding my breath.


So, no the Vulture does more damage at high SP levels than the Ferox does, if only by a little, and has better range and tank by a mile. 5 * 1.5 = 7.5 effective turrets of DPS which is greater than the Ferox's 7

The Nighthawk has better resists than the Claymore and is therefore preferable for any kind of logi supported fleet PvP.

~working as intended~

In the future please math before posting.

Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Well yes, but that's like saying when going to a gunfight, it's better to take a cucumber than a rubber chicken...


This is going in my Bio with the rest of my hilarious quotes. I think leaving out the context makes it even better xD
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#1959 - 2013-09-02 19:11:06 UTC
Lucine Delacourt wrote:
Why are people trying to use their NH as tackle? There are ships built for that. Bring your NH for a little DPS, links and fairly decent tank. I know it's shocking that the ship is better at its intended task instead of something else but that doesn't make the ship broken.

Except that the Claymore's slot layout makes it better than the NH at basically everything, regardless of the hull bonus.

The fact that a shield boost bonused ship can fit a comparable buffer to a shield buffer bonused ship is broken.
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#1960 - 2013-09-02 19:12:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Chris Winter
Cade Windstalker wrote:

The Nighthawk has better resists than the Claymore and is therefore preferable for any kind of logi supported fleet PvP.

Except that the Claymore has a much better starting resist profile and can fit an extra invuln in its extra mid, more than making up for the difference.

Edit: All of these people who think the Nighthawk is fine and haven't actually compared it properly to the Claymore worry me--they're going to go out there and use Nighthawks anyway even though they're terrible, which is going to make CCP think that they're fine, since obviously people wouldn't use them if they weren't fine, right?

When in reality, people are just using them because they don't bother to figure things out for themselves and just think "oh, a resist bonus is obviously better for fleets than a boosting bonus!"