These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
#1981 - 2013-09-03 22:22:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Wrayeth
Lucine Delacourt wrote:
The argument that it needs more mids to fit tackle is stupid.


That's a...bold...statement. One I entirely disagree with. Sure, you can fit both a prop mod and tackle now, but you can't do that without totally gimping its tank down to the same level as a drake. Also, I am not talking about fitting both a web and a scram in addition to the prop mod; instead, I'm referring to fitting the prop mod, then either a scrambler or a disruptor.

I can't recall if you're one of the "it doesn't need to tackle because it's intended for fleets!" crowd or not since I can't be bothered to go back and search through all of the posts, but, if so, then I say the following:

1.) Large fleets are not the whole of EVE.

2.) Small gangs can and do benefit from command ship bonuses as well.

3.) Small gangs require tackle to be fitted to all of their ships to be viable.
Cade Windstalker
#1982 - 2013-09-03 23:19:47 UTC
S1dy wrote:
You clearly have no idea. The Nullsec Players were the loudest demanding that the changes aren't what they should be and were never heard. Maybe you should reread the thread.


A lot of them also wanted every command ship to have resist bonuses and 10% per level HP bonuses.

Loudest does not mean correct, often it means "loud in loo of a good argument to support my point"

Wrayeth wrote:
That's a...bold...statement. One I entirely disagree with. Sure, you can fit both a prop mod and tackle now, but you can't do that without totally gimping its tank down to the same level as a drake. Also, I am not talking about fitting both a web and a scram in addition to the prop mod; instead, I'm referring to fitting the prop mod, then either a scrambler or a disruptor.

I can't recall if you're one of the "it doesn't need to tackle because it's intended for fleets!" crowd or not since I can't be bothered to go back and search through all of the posts, but, if so, then I say the following:

1.) Large fleets are not the whole of EVE.

2.) Small gangs can and do benefit from command ship bonuses as well.

3.) Small gangs require tackle to be fitted to all of their ships to be viable.


You're forgetting "Eve is a game of tradeoffs" Blink
Lucine Delacourt
The Covenant of Blood
#1983 - 2013-09-03 23:44:33 UTC
Wrayeth wrote:
Lucine Delacourt wrote:
The argument that it needs more mids to fit tackle is stupid.


That's a...bold...statement. One I entirely disagree with. Sure, you can fit both a prop mod and tackle now, but you can't do that without totally gimping its tank down to the same level as a drake. Also, I am not talking about fitting both a web and a scram in addition to the prop mod; instead, I'm referring to fitting the prop mod, then either a scrambler or a disruptor.

I can't recall if you're one of the "it doesn't need to tackle because it's intended for fleets!" crowd or not since I can't be bothered to go back and search through all of the posts, but, if so, then I say the following:

1.) Large fleets are not the whole of EVE.

2.) Small gangs can and do benefit from command ship bonuses as well.

3.) Small gangs require tackle to be fitted to all of their ships to be viable.




Like I have said before, complaining about the NH in relation to the Claymore is fine. As for the "It needs tackle" argument, you can trade one ship having tackle for the huge bonus that links offer. Small gangs don't need each and every ship to have tackle. The same way they don't need every ship to have huge DPS. I am not sure what you and your friends fly but if the NH doesn't fit into your comp then too bad. The Chimera doesn't fit in my standard group so should it too be changed?




Just for the record: I almost exclusively fly solo or in small gangs (3-6 people).
S1dy
Uplifting Infernal Paradise
#1984 - 2013-09-04 09:46:52 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
S1dy wrote:
You clearly have no idea. The Nullsec Players were the loudest demanding that the changes aren't what they should be and were never heard. Maybe you should reread the thread.


A lot of them also wanted every command ship to have resist bonuses and 10% per level HP bonuses.

Loudest does not mean correct, often it means "loud in loo of a good argument to support my point"


Cade Windstalker wrote:
You're forgetting "Eve is a game of tradeoffs" Blink


And that was always the point with wanting 10% HP per level bonuses. I was one of the many stating this. The tradeoff was to change every weapon bonus into something usefull for fleets. There's no point in wanting a super pimped ship that gets bonuses which will be never be used. And there should always be a tradeoff.

You proofed you haven't read the thread carefully. But please go on.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1985 - 2013-09-04 11:10:54 UTC
crikey the claymore is hard to fit even with cpu rigs, nano, meta 4 long point CA 1-2 imps and still no cpu left for last mid slot

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
#1986 - 2013-09-04 11:17:26 UTC
Lucine Delacourt wrote:
Like I have said before, complaining about the NH in relation to the Claymore is fine. As for the "It needs tackle" argument, you can trade one ship having tackle for the huge bonus that links offer.


Or you could just trade your Nighthawk for a different command ship that can both tackle and provide links, which would be far more effective. As for which one, that would happen to be all of them. The Nighthawk is the only one that can't do this.

Quote:
Small gangs don't need each and every ship to have tackle. The same way they don't need every ship to have huge DPS.


Tackle can be very important if you're just flying with two or three other people and not the current "small" gang of 10-20. Remove the tackle from one of the ships and you seriously gimp your composition. As such, instead of bringing a Nighthawk, you'll just end up bringing one of the other 7 command ships that can fit tackle. This, among other reasons, is why you'll rarely see a Nighthawk flown in PvP on TQ.
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
#1987 - 2013-09-04 11:23:27 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Damage reduction from speed is extremely situational and not reliable. Plus if you're using an MWD unless you are orbiting fairly close you're reducing very little damage, especially from medium guns.
I've already given you a basic fitting concept that works for small gangs with no logi, your response was "no I want to do it my way".


No what youv'e done is taken a PvE fit you have used in the past and assumed it would work for PvP.
It is a very bad PvP fit , its far too slow and has no cap reserves

You went for MAX eft hp to try and make a point.
Comparable fits on other commands can do comparable tanks without sacrificing needed mobility and cap security.



Cade Windstalker wrote:

Yes, and all of these things necessitate fitting trade-offs. If you don't like the trade-offs the Nighthawk forces you to make then no one's forcing you to bring it on a fleet.
You will likely benefit more from the Skirmish Link bonus on the Claymore anyway.


So you agree then that NH is PvP inadequate!
Lets fix it rather than have a smaller viable choices.



Cade Windstalker wrote:

You need the tackle more on a non-missile ship though and if the thing tackling you is lightly tanked (like frigate tackle tends to be) then you have a decent chance of popping him or making him bug out with just missiles. Even more so if we get those damage mods.
As a rule though you can make up for a lack of tackle on one ship by having good fleet coordination. If everyone is pretty close together and you're focusing primaries then that frigate should be webbed down from three other ships and dead in seconds.


Sleeper tackle frigs might be easy to pop with missiles not so players.
untackled neither guns nor missiles will be able to hit a mwd frig for enough damage

Any badly fitted ship can be helped by its fleet.
Thats not an argument for saying a slot layout is ok.

Cade Windstalker
"You keep saying sleepers, those are wormhole rats not incursion rats."

Sleepers/Incursion Sansha = same A.I.
Sleepers were the original rats to carry the Sleeper/Incursion A.I. hence I refer to them as sleepers to differentiate there behaviour from belt/mission rats including Sansha.


Cade Windstalker wrote:

Also I would go for the AB for better speed tank and the fact that it can't be stopped by a Scram but that's just my personal preference. I already pointed out that you can run a MWD if you so choose without an injector and that the Claymore will have CPU issues trying to fit everything you're talking about along with links.


My clay fit just fine with an injector iirc.
and since i tested it its had a cpu increase.
Maybe some meta 4 , but thats to be expected.



Cade Windstalker wrote:

And if you're running a MWD an Arazu pilot will shut you off at 30km, what's your point? Everything has a counter, everything has potential issues. An Arazu could stagger neuts and still shut off most of your fit even with a booster.
Instead of saying it's useless how about saying it's not up to your apparently exhaustive standards?


Arazu can shut of anyones mwd !?!?!
As far as neuting a nh goes , an Inj fit is gonna have its hards and links running a hell of a lot longer than a PvE fit with no cap inj.

exhaustive standards lol.

I think with 6:4 the NH is still going to be behind the Clay for solo/sg due to speed/boost flavour and damage flavour.
But at least its going to be in the same ballpark and thats fair enough.

And for Larger fleets that extra mid will come in handy for an extra inv making it in same ballpark as vulture.

5:5 makes it bad against the vulture for fleet and bad against all other commands for sg due to lack of tackle.
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
#1988 - 2013-09-04 11:36:49 UTC
Lore Varan wrote:

I think with 6:4 the NH is still going to be behind the Clay for solo/sg due to speed/boost flavour and damage flavour.
But at least its going to be in the same ballpark and thats fair enough.

And for Larger fleets that extra mid will come in handy for an extra inv making it in same ballpark as vulture.

5:5 makes it bad against the vulture for fleet and bad against all other commands for sg due to lack of tackle.


It's difficult to disagree with this without looking like an intransigent fanboy.

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".

Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1989 - 2013-09-04 11:52:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Josilin du Guesclin
Lore Varan wrote:

While a Vulture has an advantage the NH does not.
The lack of a 6th mid cancels out it resists advantage.

So a Clay is better than a NH at fleet once its damage reduction from speed is factored in.
On the other hand The NH is wholly inadequate at smaller fleet roles.

True, but at that point the Claymore has fewer slots put into gank (because that mid came at the cost of a low). Despite being faster and smaller the Claymore takes the same damage as the NH from BC and smaller ships, so there's no advantage there - same tank, same speed/sig tank except vs battleships. However, the NH brings more DPS, even allowing for smaller drones.
Quote:

I have no problem with a NH being worse than a Clay at small fleet as long as the difference is not so massive as it is atm.

I don't think it is. It's different, not worse.
Quote:

*PvP fleets are not always based around logistics chains.
*PvP fleets also bring tackle, the smaller the fleet the more you need tackle on every ship
*PvP ships require better mobility on grid than incursion ships
*PvP ships need to be able to protect themselves from small tackle more than incursion ships do.

1) But those that aren't usually lose to those that are.
2) Which is why small PvP fleets tend to armour (aside from those 'small' 50-strong bands of Caracals), making arguments over which shield+missile command ship is better suspect.
3) But are limited by the least mobile ships anyway, and besides, the NH's longer cap duration is as useful as the Claymore's higher speed, unless they're being sent cap by logi (in which case you're limited by the speed of the logi, and IME they'll be doing ~600 m/s using a burner).
3) That's what light drones are for and webs are for.

Quote:

The slowest ships in a standard PvP fleet are approx 100% faster than your NH Build.
Just because Sleeps puttle around at a few 100 m/s and are happy to be shot from range does not mean players are.

What sort of PvP fleet are you talking about?
Quote:

Yeah shame you need to run your hards and links isnt it.
also cap stable is not the same thing as Cap secure. Cap is life it runs your hards links and propulsion
A player gets a heavy neut on you , your dead in the water unless a corpy with a transfer rescues your sorry ass.
Thats far to vulnerable a position to be in in PvP.
Also Curse pilots will luv you.

I'm not saying the NH is worthless , I'm saying it's worthless for PvP.

Totally eclipsed by the Vulture or Clay depending on gang size.
And the shame is it only needed a mid for a low to be largelly fixed.

You realise that a Claymore is just as or more vulnerable to cap warfare, right?
LadyShu
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1990 - 2013-09-04 19:30:33 UTC  |  Edited by: LadyShu
just would like to thank you!

finally the nighthawk is usable again! thank you so much! with hams and drones almost 1k dps, awesome resists. Pure power :) Waited years for that!
Cade Windstalker
#1991 - 2013-09-04 20:40:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
S1dy wrote:
And that was always the point with wanting 10% HP per level bonuses. I was one of the many stating this. The tradeoff was to change every weapon bonus into something usefull for fleets. There's no point in wanting a super pimped ship that gets bonuses which will be never be used. And there should always be a tradeoff.

You proofed you haven't read the thread carefully. But please go on.


No, I've read most of the thread and everything I read I read carefully. You say "never used" I say "not useful in huge fleet fights is not 'never used'".

Also if you read Fozzie's post on the future of Command Ships the 10% HP per level will likely stop being as relevant when the proposed changes go through.

Far better to have more Command Ships with distributed boosts actually contributing more DPS than one brick command ship that's still subject to alpha-strikes.

Lore Varan wrote:

No what youv'e done is taken a PvE fit you have used in the past and assumed it would work for PvP.
It is a very bad PvP fit , its far too slow and has no cap reserves

You went for MAX eft hp to try and make a point.
Comparable fits on other commands can do comparable tanks without sacrificing needed mobility and cap security.


And here I keep hearing and seeing all these OP ASB fits that are immune to cap warfare, silly me for thinking that's viable Roll


Lore Varan wrote:
Sleeper tackle frigs might be easy to pop with missiles not so players.
untackled neither guns nor missiles will be able to hit a mwd frig for enough damage

Any badly fitted ship can be helped by its fleet.
Thats not an argument for saying a slot layout is ok.

Cade Windstalker
"You keep saying sleepers, those are wormhole rats not incursion rats."

Sleepers/Incursion Sansha = same A.I.
Sleepers were the original rats to carry the Sleeper/Incursion A.I. hence I refer to them as sleepers to differentiate there behaviour from belt/mission rats including Sansha.


Similar AI, they're not quite the same and the tactics and ship compositions are completely different. Overall Sleepers are far worse to fight than Sanshas.

My point was not "easy to pop" so much as "more applied damage than turrets". I'm sure we can trade specific situations where one or the other of us is correct all day, but that doesn't come close to covering the miriad of variables that encompass PvP. You prefer cap boosters and tackle, I prefer logistics setups and not relying on consumables that can get me killed if the fight runs longer than my cap-booster charges do.

Lore Varan wrote:

5:5 makes it bad against the vulture for fleet and bad against all other commands for sg due to lack of tackle.


Well, we'll see. I think they were trying to have a little variation in slot layout rather than have every single shield command be 7/6/4. It'll likely see a balance pass if it doesn't get good usage numbers. Personally I think you're over-reacting.

Mournful Conciousness wrote:
It's difficult to disagree with this without looking like an intransigent fanboy.


Actually I don't even particularly like missiles, but for more or less arbitrary reasons of flavor (I'm an encourageable fan-boy of anything involving railguns). I just hate when someone is completely unwilling to try and see the good in something and reflexively hates it when it doesn't fit their preferred playstyle.
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#1992 - 2013-09-05 10:14:51 UTC
Hey Fozzie thank you for the good changes i love my New Astarte, hopefully you rethink the "Dronebay Issue" on the Eos but overall its a blast to fly full combatable Ships even in closerange plus 2 Warefare links.

Best Ship class ever!
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#1993 - 2013-09-05 10:46:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Lloyd Roses
As a complaint:

The *Command Ship model change* is still not linked. :<


On a sidenote, accidentaly wapred my hulltanked boosteos into an escalated anom by accident. I blame new boosting mechanics with their orbit forcefield at 500m requirements. It survived in half structure thanks to a good archonpilot.
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
#1994 - 2013-09-05 11:08:41 UTC
First attempt at a 2-man gank fleet last night on TQ. damnation + hyperion since that's what we had to hand.

Bagged two ratting tengus. Damnation performed well. 2 armour links + dps. Helped the hyperion to tank the tengus in a c2 magnetar (ok, they were pve failfit, but c2 magnetar gives 44% dps bonus)

:-)

killboard link

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".

Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
#1995 - 2013-09-05 11:22:32 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

And here I keep hearing and seeing all these OP ASB fits that are immune to cap warfare, silly me for thinking that's viable Roll


ASB wont run your links
ASB wont run your hardeners
ASB wont supply cap to your burner or mwd

Anyway as far as I remember ASB can be fitted to any ship there not a NH only saving grace.


Cade Windstalker wrote:

My point was not "easy to pop" so much as "more applied damage than turrets".
I'm sure we can trade specific situations where one or the other of us is correct all day, but that doesn't come close to covering the miriad of variables that encompass PvP.
You prefer cap boosters and tackle, I prefer logistics setups and not relying on consumables that can get me killed if the fight runs longer than my cap-booster charges do.


The things you say make it sound like you havn't done much PvP at all.
Frigs are not easy to pop when there not tackled, you can't turn them to dust with a volley of precision.
Just cause you have consumables does not stop you getting logistics. It does however stop you from being an unneccessay burden on your fleets logistics
They have to break there cap chains to supply you with cap ?
or are they going to drop shield transfers for extra cap transfers weakening the tank of your entire operation ?
What happens if there jammed ?
What happens if there damped ?
What happens if there down ?
What happens if your big slow fat ass is last to align and you get snagged on a gate and seperated from your fleet for 2-3 mins.
Shame to die to a couple of cruisers cause they switch off your hardners

Anyway that all irrelevant , I'm happy with em/inv/inj/booster/prop in the mids
Just that that tank is adequate for a PvP ship and not some brick as claimed by eft experts.

Problem with 5:5 is lack of fitting options.
No chance of any type of tackle* without lol tank also no chance of CP without lol tank.

* before we go round in circles again.
Tackle is a choice for defending your self not neccessarily to act as fleet tackle
and also more of an obligation for everyone the smaller the fleet size goes
Most FC's I know want as many points in there fleet as possible , so when they call Spread points you catch more than just one fish.


Cade Windstalker wrote:

Lore Varan wrote:

5:5 makes it bad against the vulture for fleet and bad against all other commands for sg due to lack of tackle.

Well, we'll see. I think they were trying to have a little variation in slot layout rather than have every single shield command be 7/6/4. It'll likely see a balance pass if it doesn't get good usage numbers. Personally I think you're over-reacting.


Variation is nice but a 7:3 vulture and a 6:4 NH would have been the way to go if variation was a design choice.
We don't have to wait and see the NH slot layout has not changed It's gonna suck at PvP for all the same reasons its allways sucked at PvP , not enough mids.


Cade Windstalker wrote:

Actually I don't even particularly like missiles, but for more or less arbitrary reasons of flavor (I'm an encourageable fan-boy of anything involving railguns). I just hate when someone is completely unwilling to try and see the good in something and reflexively hates it when it doesn't fit their preferred playstyle.


You couldn't be farther from the truth.
No one here is reflexively hating anything The NH is largelly unchanged apart from some nice grid boost. The slot layout has been the bane of the NH for ever and a day and is what has religated it to PvE only duties and this was the one chance to get something done about it.
I did lol at your balance pass comment earlier. This is ccp you know. I'll donate 1B isk to Eve uni if NH gets a slot layout change in the the next 5 years.

In 4,500 kills and excluding Ratters I can only remember fighting NH's ( 2 of them ) on 1 occasion.
I pretty sure the NH is a very unpopular ship for PvP and there's not enough in this revamp to change that.
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#1996 - 2013-09-05 11:55:39 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:

On a sidenote, accidentaly wapred my hulltanked boosteos into an escalated anom by accident. I blame new boosting mechanics with their orbit forcefield at 500m requirements. It survived in half structure thanks to a good archonpilot.


Could you please explain why the forcefield change nearly killed your Ship?
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#1997 - 2013-09-05 13:17:13 UTC
So I take it the command ship model changes have been scrapped?

I'm sad that the nighthawk won't turn into a sleek black drake or that the sleipnir won't turn into a hurricane, but I'm also kind of glad the absolution and the eos models won't change since I like them the way they are currently.
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#1998 - 2013-09-05 13:37:12 UTC
Are you Insane?! Why do you want to punish gallente Pilots with 4 Brutix! I want my T2-Myrm!! ;-)
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#1999 - 2013-09-05 14:13:49 UTC
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Are you Insane?! Why do you want to punish gallente Pilots with 4 Brutix! I want my T2-Myrm!! ;-)
I just like the Brutix in Eos colours okay leave me alone. If it's any consolation I actually think the navy brutix should have been a navy myrm and that the regular brutix should have gotten a tracking bonus instead of keeping the armor rep bonus.


Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
#2000 - 2013-09-05 14:51:40 UTC
BTW, I have a post up in Assembly Hall requesting a 6th mid for the Nighthawk if anyone wants to head over there and support it.