These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

[REBALANCE] Nestor.... again
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vulfen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2014-11-10 16:51:20 UTC
So once again CCP has broken the Nestor, with carriers now able to jump gates who in their right mind would choose to take a Nestor as a heavy logistics ship? No one....

The Nestor is once again in need of a re balance because of other ships simply doing it better at all times.

CCP please revisit the nestor and try this time to do a job that isn't going to break in 6 weeks time.

Feel free everyone to post your ideas on what you think the nestor should be re balanced with in this thread.
Rowells
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2014-11-10 16:54:04 UTC
was it ever fixed?
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2014-11-10 17:04:59 UTC
Rowells wrote:
was it ever fixed?

Not really. The Nestor is a solution looking for a problem.
Vulfen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2014-11-10 17:12:07 UTC
Rowells wrote:
was it ever fixed?

It had one use we found after the last rebalance... heavy logi
However they were still not a viable replacement for Logi ships on the big engagments
Zmikund
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2014-11-10 17:25:31 UTC
Another 0.0 tears about nestor, can u understand nestor was made for wormholers? not for your "im center of everything" gameplay ...
Ix Method
Doomheim
#6 - 2014-11-10 17:27:39 UTC
Zmikund wrote:
Another 0.0 tears about nestor, can u understand nestor was made for wormholers? not for your "im center of everything" gameplay ...

They're actually around the edges. HTH.

Travelling at the speed of love.
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#7 - 2014-11-10 18:35:06 UTC
As Zmikund said, it's useful in wormholes.

I'm more concerned about the Barghest. The point range bonuses are useful, but the general speediness and lack of tank aren't that useful. BSes need huge tank, pretty simple.

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
Zmikund
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2014-11-10 19:11:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Zmikund
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
As Zmikund said, it's useful in wormholes.

I'm more concerned about the Barghest. The point range bonuses are useful, but the general speediness and lack of tank aren't that useful. BSes need huge tank, pretty simple.


Barghest has bad slot layout, it is supposted to be shield ship but i has same mid/low slot layout as armor nestor ... not to mention that 6 low slots on shield missile boat is pretty much big fail ...
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#9 - 2014-11-10 20:32:15 UTC
Zmikund wrote:
Barghest has bad slot layout, it is supposted to be shield ship but i has same mid/low slot layout as armor nestor ... not to mention that 6 low slots on shield missile boat is pretty much big fail ...

The 6 lows on the Barghest are actually fine; it's the lack of overall damage and application that sucks. I'd actually prefer a 7H-5M-8L layout, 6 launchers @ 50% damage and some kind of damage application bonus - like a fixed 20% explosion radius as a role bonus.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#10 - 2014-11-10 20:36:00 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Zmikund wrote:
Barghest has bad slot layout, it is supposted to be shield ship but i has same mid/low slot layout as armor nestor ... not to mention that 6 low slots on shield missile boat is pretty much big fail ...

The 6 lows on the Barghest are actually fine; it's the lack of overall damage and application that sucks. I'd actually prefer a 7H-5M-8L layout, 6 launchers @ 50% damage and some kind of damage application bonus - like a fixed 20% explosion radius as a role bonus.


I'd prefer a torp balance pass, as of now cruises are almost always better.

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#11 - 2014-11-10 20:46:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
I'd prefer a torp balance pass, as of now cruises are almost always better.

You won't get any argument from me. Truthfully, all they need to do is switch the explosion velocity radius from cruise missiles to torpedoes. And we need a low-slot missile damage enhancer module.

The Nestor is… still beyond hope.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
craidie
Not the corporation you're looking for -move along
#12 - 2014-11-10 20:56:42 UTC
Why not make the nestor be able to go through covop bridges, like the rest of the SOE ships?
Vulfen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2014-11-10 20:57:24 UTC
Zmikund wrote:
Another 0.0 tears about nestor, can u understand nestor was made for wormholers? not for your "im center of everything" gameplay ...


Cant remember the last time i was in 0.0 ....
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#14 - 2014-11-10 21:06:29 UTC
craidie wrote:
Why not make the nestor be able to go through covop bridges, like the rest of the SOE ships?

Not a bad idea, actually.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#15 - 2014-11-10 21:53:50 UTC
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
As Zmikund said, it's useful in wormholes.

I'm more concerned about the Barghest. The point range bonuses are useful, but the general speediness and lack of tank aren't that useful. BSes need huge tank, pretty simple.


You should try that boat out on SiSi, she is a really fast boat and if you fly her like a nano-pest, you can do cool things from far away.
Oh and the speed IS the tank.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Vulfen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#16 - 2014-11-11 09:04:39 UTC
craidie wrote:
Why not make the nestor be able to go through covop bridges, like the rest of the SOE ships?


Decent enough idea, however this would mean giving it a cov ops cloak ability as well, as only ships that can use the cov ops cloak can go through the bridge.


Personally i would like to see it get the jump drive ability, but not be able to light bridges or get a bonus to any cloak.
I think it's a more than fair change if that was the only thing it received. as it would then make a viable replacement for the now shorter range carriers as logistics to Black Ops fleets, which currently rely on very short range RRs.

Furthermore i think that considering that it has the ability to refit ships from, which is still it's best quality then it may open other doors for people.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#17 - 2014-11-11 09:54:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
And we need a low-slot missile damage enhancer module.


I'll take "Ballistic Control Units" for 600, Alex.

If you're going to say "but what about application", I'll point you to TPs. Beyond that .. I don't think you want to open the Pandora's Box of "make missiles have the same modules turrets do".
Vulfen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#18 - 2014-11-11 09:58:45 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
[quote=Warde Guildencrantz]And we need a low-slot missile damage enhancer module.


I'll take "Ballistic Control Units" for 600, Alex.

If you're going to say "but what about application", I'll point you to TPs. Beyond that .. I don't think you want to open the Pandora's Box of "make missiles have the same modules turrets do".

They still have rigs that can help application too.

Just like shield and armour have variants (tanking module options) so should the different weapon platforms i.e drones, turrets and missiles.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#19 - 2014-11-11 10:02:54 UTC
Vulfen wrote:
Just like shield and armour have variants (tanking module options) so should the different weapon platforms i.e drones, turrets and missiles.


The point I was making is that if we start giving missiles things like tracking enhancers and tracking computers and all the other things that turrets have and missiles don't, then we're going to see missiles getting modules aimed specifically at disrupting them as well, which I don't think will go over well for continuing to use missiles.
Vulfen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#20 - 2014-11-11 10:14:04 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Vulfen wrote:
Just like shield and armour have variants (tanking module options) so should the different weapon platforms i.e drones, turrets and missiles.


The point I was making is that if we start giving missiles things like tracking enhancers and tracking computers and all the other things that turrets have and missiles don't, then we're going to see missiles getting modules aimed specifically at disrupting them as well, which I don't think will go over well for continuing to use missiles.

I agree. Id rather see them just left alone in that sense
123Next pageLast page