These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123Next page
 

The Nightmare and why it needs changed

Author
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#21 - 2016-09-17 17:10:56 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
The nightmare currently has a messed up resist profile. It is an Amarr energy turret boat and so only effectively deals EM and Thermal damage. This means that if you pve with this ship you will be fighting enemies that deal EM and Thermal damage BUT your nightmare is shield tanked and has ZERO em resist and 20% thermal resist.

Im asking myself if i knew my ship was going to be shield tanked and was going to be mostly fighting EM and Thermal enemy damage why would i design my shield to resist explosive and kinetic damage that it doesnt need to resist.

My suggestion then is to reverse the armor and shield resist profiles on the Nightmare so it can at least make sense with regards to its tanking of EM and Thermal damage dealing enemies.



Based on your T2 burst aerator w/ 5x magstab talos loss, I'm going to go ahead and hazard a guess that you might be horrible at fitting ships, and that this is the actual source of the problem - not the ship itself.


the ship was used to destroy stray MTUs the fit was perfect for the job.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#22 - 2016-09-17 17:14:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Christopher Mabata wrote:
Even Active tank you shouldn't have any issues with a resist hole, your only fighting EM/THERM damage according to the post. so you only need 2 hardeners and a Rig or 2 Specifics and an adaptive, that still leaves plenty of fit for a shield booster and the amenities, then you add a damage control and get another small buff to shield strength Implants such as crystals will help the tank even more.

But if your just really not satisfied with one of the most popular pirate battleships next to the vindicator / Rattler for PVE you could always train a Paladin or Golem.



I can fly a golem, the thing makes you sleepy running L4s same with the rattlesnake. The popularity of a ship is irrelevant. i already put 2 hardeners and an active on the ship it still doesnt solve the ships essential problem that it is a weaker defense ship due to its resists not fitting its shield tank.

Also, get a different ship doesnt solve a ships problem either.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#23 - 2016-09-17 17:17:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Donnachadh wrote:
O% resistance to EM shield damage is standard on virtually every single ship in the game, please tell me why the Nightmare should be different than every other ship in the game.



I did and the situation should be changed not only for the nightmare but every ship that tanks its own resist hole, for the reason i stated. If you were going to build a combat ship, knew it would be fighting EM and Therm and made that the weakest rest you had on your shield tanked ship, you wouldnt just get fired from your job you would probably be taken out and shot by your boss.

Also, the argument that because it is a wide spread situation that is currently accepted is one of the worst arguments in favor or against anything.

Example: in the United States it was once impossible for women to vote, blacks to drink from the same water fountains as whites and many more things accepted at the time but ultimately found to be outright wrong.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#24 - 2016-09-17 17:31:31 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
You.... you do understand the game doesn't begin and end with pve right? And that there are loads of ships that deal damage in their own holes


It doesnt have to begin and end with pve, but this not such a specialized ship as an logistics ship one my reasonable expect would mostly or entirely be used for pvp.

If a ship has to play to its own resist hole it is seriously disadvantaged compared to ships that dont find themselves in the same situation. I could fly a boat that is armor tanked the amarr certainly have them but fly another ship doesn't fix the ship you want to fly's problem.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#25 - 2016-09-17 17:49:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Caldari 5 wrote:
You could always armor tank it instead of shield tanking it, and fill the mids with something else, Tackle/ECM/TP/TC/etc, or some DualProp config


Yes, i could bootstrap something but that kind of thinking doesnt solve problems it just attempts to avoid them but utlimately just moves the problem from tank to dps application which dosent solve anything.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#26 - 2016-09-17 17:55:08 UTC
Shallanna Yassavi wrote:
EM Ward Amplifier II
2x Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
DCU II
Large Shield Booster II
A few cap mods and rigs
[Rest of ship]


I appreciate the advice but this still just moves the problem for the ship from a resist hole to a ship not living up to its dps potential because the ship is trying to bootstrap a solution to its core problem of having a misaligned tanking style to its resistance profile.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#27 - 2016-09-17 17:58:01 UTC
You still have not given us any reason why this needs to change other than the "it does not make sense" argument and that fails here.

Any change to the base resist would have to be matched by a reduce effectiveness of the mods that boost EM resist so the net affect would be that our ships remain the same as they are now. Sp why go through all of the balance hassles this would cause game wide simply to change something so it makes sense to you.

Currently for shield tanked level 4's I fly Golem, Vargur, Rattlesnake, Raven. Raven Navy Issue and Tengu just to name a few and I never have a problem with tank in general OR the EM damage specifically. Based on that experience I have to ask what is your problem. If you post up skills and your fits perhaps we can help you solve the problem without destroying the balance on every single ship in the game.

For now because you have not given us sufficient justification for this change my response is

-1
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#28 - 2016-09-17 18:37:36 UTC
Old Pervert wrote:
This would be a... nightmare... to balance. Everything has resist holes. You can plug them if you want. If it doesn't work for the role you want, use a different ship.



Use a different ship doesnt solve the nightmares problem.

Yes, every ship has resist holes and im all for that, it makes for VERY interesting game play, but not every ship has the completely non-nonsensical misalignment between its tanking style and its resistance profile.

Also, not every ship needs to have its resistance and tanking style aligned either, the rattlesnake for instance is misaligned as well but it has a tanking bonus, deals it's full damage potential at stupefying ranges, selectable damage type (and well we could go on for an hour how OP the rattlesnake is) but the point being it is so OP it could have ZERO inherent resists, not shield, armor or tank and still be OP.

The nightmare isnt accompanied by so many other factors contributing to its overall capability, in fact it carries a host of crippling factors: cap issues, tracking concerns, optimal concerns, being target disrupted (by npcs it is supposed to fight), needing damage mods, needing defense mods, a misaligned tank to resist profile, limited damage dealing selection. The nightmare has to pay homage to too many masters and solving its tank alignment would certainly bring its viability for the most part to a level that other pirate ships enjoy (okay no were near the rattlesnake that thing needs hammered hard with the nerf bat).

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#29 - 2016-09-17 19:08:45 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Use a different ship doesnt solve the nightmares problem.

The Nightmare doesn't have a problem any more than any other ship has an problem with regards to resistances.

The facts of the matter are...

- Faction Ships are technically Tech 1 ships... ergo they get the standard Tech 1 resistance profile plus 10% resistance in the "damage profile" their "nemesis race" deals.
(see: Amarr ships get a bonus against explosive damage, Minmatar Ships get a bonus against EM damage, Gallente get a bonus against Kinetic, Calrdari get a bonus against Thermal).

- Tech 2 ships get boosted resistances in the damage profile of their "nemesis race"
(see: Caldari and Gallente ships get bonuses against Thermal and Kinetic damage because that is what their "enemy's" weapons traditionally deal... Amarr get bonuses against Explosive and Kinetic... Minmatar get bonuses against EM and Thermal).
(also see: what NPCs that dwell in an area is not taken into account... at all)

Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Yes, every ship has resist holes and im all for that, it makes for VERY interesting game play, but not every ship has the completely non-nonsensical misalignment between its tanking style and its resistance profile.

Depends on who you are fighting and where.

Some ships are simply better against certain NPCs than others. You have to choose the best ship for the job.

But if you prefer a certain ship over others... you have to accept it will not be optimal in some ways against all foes.


Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
the rattlesnake for instance is misaligned as well but it has a tanking bonus

It is a Caldari-Gallente ship, with emphasis on Caldari origin. Ergo... it gets the standard Tech 1 profile plus resistances against Thermal damage.

It follows the same paradigm as all other ships do. There is no "misalignment" here.

Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
The nightmare isnt accompanied by so many other factors contributing to its overall capability, in fact it carries a host of crippling factors: cap issues, tracking concerns, optimal concerns, being target disrupted (by npcs it is supposed to fight), needing damage mods, needing defense mods, a misaligned tank to resist profile, limited damage dealing selection.

You mean... MORE OR LESS LIKE EVERY SHIP EVER?

The Abaddon has; cap issues, tracking concerns, optimal concerns, being target disrupted, needs damage mods, needs defense mods (even with the tanking bonus), limited damage dealing selection.
The Hyperion has; cap issues, tracking concerns, optimal concerns, being target disrupted, needs damage mods, needs defense mods (even with the tanking bonus), limited damage dealing selection.
The Megathron has; cap issues, tracking concerns, optimal concerns, being target disrupted, needs defense mods, limited damage dealing selection.
The Rokh has; cap issues, tracking concerns, being target disrupted, needs damage mods, needs defense mods (even with the tanking bonus), limited damage dealing selection.
The Maelstrom has; cap issues, tracking concerns, optimal concerns, being target disrupted, needs damage mods, needs defense mods (even with the tanking bonus), limited damage dealing selection.

The Vindicator has: cap issues, optimal concerns, being target disrupted, needs defense mods, limited damage dealing selection.
The Barghest has: cap issues, needs damage mods, needs defense mods

And on and on we go.


Every ship has drawbacks.


Except for Marauders. But they pay for their "optimalness" by becoming stationary bricks when put into Bastion Mode.


Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
The nightmare has to pay homage to too many masters and solving its tank alignment would certainly bring its viability for the most part to a level that other pirate ships enjoy (okay no were near the rattlesnake that thing needs hammered hard with the nerf bat).

I will give you that the Nightmare needs a little more... "oomph"... but what you are asking for is a major change with implications that go well beyond PvE.


Also... understand that the DEVs balance ships around PvP... while still maintaining some "lore" / "racial flavor" aspects.

The reason for this is that balancing around PvP is VERY HARD. Refitting or shoehorning a PvP ship to do PvE is very easy.





edit: looking through you posting history... I get the impression that you do not like to make sacrifices or tradoffs in anything.

You are aware that is pretty much how everything is balanced, right? You are not supposed to be able to get everything "optimal."
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#30 - 2016-09-17 19:37:58 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
You still have not given us any reason why this needs to change other than the "it does not make sense" argument and that fails here.

Any change to the base resist would have to be matched by a reduce effectiveness of the mods that boost EM resist so the net affect would be that our ships remain the same as they are now. Sp why go through all of the balance hassles this would cause game wide simply to change something so it makes sense to you.

Currently for shield tanked level 4's I fly Golem, Vargur, Rattlesnake, Raven. Raven Navy Issue and Tengu just to name a few and I never have a problem with tank in general OR the EM damage specifically. Based on that experience I have to ask what is your problem. If you post up skills and your fits perhaps we can help you solve the problem without destroying the balance on every single ship in the game.

For now because you have not given us sufficient justification for this change my response is

-1


Your argument that EM resist mods would have to be nerfed has no basis, in fact, the resistance level for both armor and shields is 55% for active hardeners and these fit onto ships whether or not their tanking aligns with their resistance profile or not. It is just that if your ship has misaligned tanking to resist profile you get 55% resist in EM whereas if they are aligned as they are in the apocalypse navy issue the base EM armor resist is already 55% even before you add a defense mod, so adding a 55% armor hardener on top of that gets you somewhere around 79.75%, where a nightmare would only have 55% in the same case. This is precisely the problem and precisely why it needs fixed.

I chose the apoc navy as comparison since comparing a T1 to a pirate faction isnt a fair comparison. The navy apoc has 20 slots available to it and the nightmare only has 19, the navy apoc has 400 calibration while the nightmare has only 350. So again the navy apoc has more room for defense and starts in a better place to begin with (the nightmare does benefit from being pirate, im not saying it doesnt it just doesnt benefit enough to offset all the crutches it has to deal with).

I also have flown all the missile boats you mentioned and have never felt they needed to have their tanks aligned with their resistance profiles. The reasons are that the sum total of the ship means that filling the resist holes is a non-issue. Lets compare a missile boat to the nightmare.

Missile boat: selectable damage, full damage application regardless of range, ability to hit any NPC that im aware of even if that npc is in a fast frigate and you are using torpedos to blast it at point blank range, capacitor is a complete non-issue, your guns dont need it you'll never run out unless you are underskilled SP wise to fly the ship. Ability to speed tank without any concern that your damage will be reduced because of it. Plenty of slots for both offense and defense mods and plenty of calibration even on pirate missile boats like the rattlesnake (you'll never feel like the rattlesnake is underpowered in anyway at all while mission running).

Nightmare: must deal with tracking disruption from its primary opponents (blood, sansha), needs optimal, needs tracking, cannot hit small ships if they get, 'under your guns', has less calibration than most of the ships you listed and overall has less callibration + slots than even the rattlesnake. Doesnt have selectable damage dealing, has to be concerned with speed tanking because it reduces its own damage levels, has to be concerned with range because it reduces its own damage dealing. Has to try and somehow come up with defense while having to also stack a bunch of other mods just to allow it to stay engaged in combat long enough and have its weapons actually work (tracking comps, sebos, optimals, tracking enhancers) while still needing heat sinks in its low slots to get its damage up.

In short missile boats generally and the rattlesnake will always, outperform the local turret ship running missions. While this is acceptable in some cases; for instance, i flew a machariel (local turret pirate ship) in angel space and it felt good at damage dealing and had plenty of defense, no cap issues and plenty of space for things like tracking comps. This is not the case for the nightmare (local turret pirate ship) that is sub par do to its misaligned tanking and defense profile.

p.s. the -1 thing is just tacky.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Gustav Kleist
State War Academy
Caldari State
#31 - 2016-09-18 10:46:53 UTC
Assuming that this is no troll post: a single t2 EM rig, along with 3 CN hardeners (1 EM, 1 TH, 1 adaptive) and a dc II will get your EM and TH resistances into the high 70's. That's more than enough for a ship with the range and firepower available to the Nightmare. Yes, you may have to Taylor your fits to the mission. If you can't be bothered, get a Paladin.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#32 - 2016-09-18 11:50:21 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
You.... you do understand the game doesn't begin and end with pve right? And that there are loads of ships that deal damage in their own holes


It doesnt have to begin and end with pve, but this not such a specialized ship as an logistics ship one my reasonable expect would mostly or entirely be used for pvp.

If a ship has to play to its own resist hole it is seriously disadvantaged compared to ships that dont find themselves in the same situation. I could fly a boat that is armor tanked the amarr certainly have them but fly another ship doesn't fix the ship you want to fly's problem.



You're right and I really want to use an ibis but I fly in capital fights or should be given dread tank and dps so I can fly out
Lugh Crow-Slave
#33 - 2016-09-18 11:52:21 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Shallanna Yassavi wrote:
EM Ward Amplifier II
2x Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
DCU II
Large Shield Booster II
A few cap mods and rigs
[Rest of ship]


I appreciate the advice but this still just moves the problem for the ship from a resist hole to a ship not living up to its dps potential because the ship is trying to bootstrap a solution to its core problem of having a misaligned tanking style to its resistance profile.



... exactly how are you losing dps to a dcuii and some mid slots?
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#34 - 2016-09-18 12:17:20 UTC
I believe that, for RP and other purposes (see: TS armour mods), the Nightmare is apparently supposed to be armour tanked...and indeed the slot layout may have been different in days of yore.

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#35 - 2016-09-18 16:40:12 UTC
Bumblefck wrote:
I believe that, for RP and other purposes (see: TS armour mods), the Nightmare is apparently supposed to be armour tanked...and indeed the slot layout may have been different in days of yore.

It was. That is why Slave Implant sets (which you can only get from Sansha) affect armor.

But that is not what the OP is complaining about.


He is bitching about how the Nightmare has a Tech 1 resistance profile (specifically, that shields have 0% resistance against EM damage) when the NPCs in Amarr/Sansha space primarily deal EM damage.

He wants the Nightmare (and many other ships) to have their resistance profiles "normalized" / "redone" so that they can easily tank the damage of NPCs in the area they are supposed to come from... and/or have no resistance holes to begin with.


If you look at his posting history you will notice that he has a history of asking for changes to the game because he does not like making tradeoffs and/or wants things to be as convenient as possible.
Arden Elenduil
Unlimited Bear Works
#36 - 2016-09-19 05:42:46 UTC
Pretty much the above. All I'm seeing in this thread is people saying the Nightmare is perfectly fine the way it is (spoiler warning: it is) and the OP complaining that CCP won't give him what he's crying for.
FT Cold
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#37 - 2016-09-19 06:00:11 UTC
Try using if for PVP and I think your opinion of it will change.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#38 - 2016-09-19 10:24:03 UTC
Gustav Kleist wrote:
Assuming that this is no troll post: a single t2 EM rig, along with 3 CN hardeners (1 EM, 1 TH, 1 adaptive) and a dc II will get your EM and TH resistances into the high 70's. That's more than enough for a ship with the range and firepower available to the Nightmare. Yes, you may have to Taylor your fits to the mission. If you can't be bothered, get a Paladin.


This points to the problem and not the solution: the nightmare has too many masters to serve, you cannot add all those hardeners without giving up dps. Yes all ships have a trade off between gank and tank ive flown BSs from all four races and their pirate faction mixes.

Lets take the caldari missile boats, they have an EM hole and almost an Thermal hole as well but they have very little else to worry about, my raven fit had all the tank it ever needed and never had application, cap issues or any of the rest of the host of crippling problems facing the nightmare. Even other amarr based ships (those armor tanked) dont have so many masters to serve because 2 hardeners and a rep and they are set, 3 slots and it is done.

Even in your own suggestion it takes 4 hardeners, a rig slot and an armor repper to tank the ship, thats 6 slots to do the same job the apocalypse does in 3. It is precisely the need for 3 extra slots to tank the nightmare that is the problem. If that was all the nightmare had to worry about, no problem, none, zilch, zero BUT it also must fit cap recharging mods or rigs, it needs tracking asistance (TP or comp), optimal scripted, and let us not forget that it only effectively fights sansha and blood both of which tracking disrupt so you have to consider yet another mod slot.

Additionally, you can stack more tank onto the apocalypse (assuming you use just 2 hardeners) if you want to because so far you only have 1 hardener of each type, if you need to really harden up tank on the nightmare it starts running into stacking problems faster and will always come up short to the apocalypse which due to its higher base tank will always out tank the nighmare. The two share other crippling traits so it is really on their tank that is the issue. Also, the apocalypse has an optimal bonus so it not only tanks better but when it comes to stacking for sniper fits the apocalypse wins again.

It isnt JUST the resists that complicates the problem it is ALL the things the nightmare is being asked to do that is the problem, it needs something lifted off its shoulders.

......Today i took my own advice, i armor tanked the nightmare instead of shield tanking it the way it was designed, it was better off, just like the apocalypse it now took only 3 defense mods to hold up tank against about 10 BSs plus the standard assortment of BCs, cruisers and frigates. Let me be clear here though, it still was sub par and things got sketchy but it did work.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#39 - 2016-09-19 10:29:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
ShahFluffers wrote:
Bumblefck wrote:
I believe that, for RP and other purposes (see: TS armour mods), the Nightmare is apparently supposed to be armour tanked...and indeed the slot layout may have been different in days of yore.

It was. That is why Slave Implant sets (which you can only get from Sansha) affect armor.

But that is not what the OP is complaining about.


He is bitching about how the Nightmare has a Tech 1 resistance profile (specifically, that shields have 0% resistance against EM damage) when the NPCs in Amarr/Sansha space primarily deal EM damage.

He wants the Nightmare (and many other ships) to have their resistance profiles "normalized" / "redone" so that they can easily tank the damage of NPCs in the area they are supposed to come from... and/or have no resistance holes to begin with.


If you look at his posting history you will notice that he has a history of asking for changes to the game because he does not like making tradeoffs and/or wants things to be as convenient as possible.


Did you know that some of the things i asked for are now a part of the game!

For example, since your so keen on bringing irrelevant commentary about my past posting history, i asked that barges and exhumers get 6 target locks when before they only had 4. I got tons of forum backlash for asking for the change but apparently CCP thought the idea worthy of being implemented.

p.s. Miners you are welcome !

UPDATE: While i dont remember what else i might have asked for and is now in game (although feel free to go trolling around in my old forum posts if you like.), freighters needing slots was another one and yes, it is now that way in the game (not exactly what i asked for but i guess CCP did what it felt it could within its own parameters of game balance).

p.s. Freighter pilots you are welcome !

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#40 - 2016-09-19 10:48:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
repost, removed. Tone was bad anyways.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Previous page123Next page