These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2021 - 2013-09-06 13:58:00 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

I'm assuming that since you're taking an absolution, you're in a gang?

I never put the probes on a combat ship - too many eggs in one basket.


It's not that one puts probes on intending to use them, it's that if you find yourself with a high slot open and fitting that's just enough for a probe launcher, you may as well mount one and stuff 8 probe in, just in case. Heck, if you have the slot and not the fitting, put one on and off-line it. Disasters happen, and that launcher might save you an expensive ship and clone, and a long flight back in (and your mates the inconvenience of finding you a way back in).

Now, if one can fit something more useful to a ship's role in your fleet (gang links, neuts, etc.), obviously you should. But if the slot is free, I'm a fan of a probe launcher.

Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2022 - 2013-09-06 14:56:11 UTC
Josilin du Guesclin wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

I'm assuming that since you're taking an absolution, you're in a gang?

I never put the probes on a combat ship - too many eggs in one basket.


It's not that one puts probes on intending to use them, it's that if you find yourself with a high slot open and fitting that's just enough for a probe launcher, you may as well mount one and stuff 8 probe in, just in case. Heck, if you have the slot and not the fitting, put one on and off-line it. Disasters happen, and that launcher might save you an expensive ship and clone, and a long flight back in (and your mates the inconvenience of finding you a way back in).

Now, if one can fit something more useful to a ship's role in your fleet (gang links, neuts, etc.), obviously you should. But if the slot is free, I'm a fan of a probe launcher.



Guys really its just a personal preference. I use tractor to loot shot down enemies (and friends) when we are losing and it's time to GTFO. Used to fit probe launchers but we always have a designated scout, so they were never used. U can also use standard cloak, but it will be highly situational. Small neut? My loki wing will web any frig to 10 m/s and then it's a turkey shooting from there.
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
#2023 - 2013-09-06 15:20:28 UTC
the example fit I posted has a medium neut. you can also get dual neut on it...

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".

Aplier Shivra
#2024 - 2013-09-06 18:28:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Aplier Shivra
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Cassius Invictus wrote:
Aplier Shivra wrote:
I notice most of the command ships have two hardpoints for their off-weapon to put in those utility highs if they want. I can understand the Eos being left out of this (it already has drones as primary and turrets as secondary, and drones actually have a utility high slot mod), but why is the Absolution the only one left out of this benefit, with it's one launcher getting removed with the patch instead of another launcher added?


If Abso got 2 launchers that would make a lot of sense... since it can actually fit them. Also they compliment dps without using any cap. My current abso fit includes a medium smartbomb and a tractor beam (u can also use cloak, core launcher etc.) but I don’t think it's optimal. Why CCP removed a single launcher in the first place is beyond me...


You fitted a tractor beam and you wonder if that's optimal for pvp?

seriously though, with 3 heat sinks and conflag the abso is pushing out close to 1000dps of em/therm. thats pretty powerful, considering that it can also fight at range with scorch.

It's a seriously good ship as it stands.


shall I point out Astarte's 1300 turret dps, with the ability to also use medium drones and two launchers, and with enough mids to actually dictate range? Oh, and astarte gets the actually useful extra skirmish bonus, info links have a lot less applications
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
#2025 - 2013-09-06 18:37:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Mournful Conciousness
Aplier Shivra wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Cassius Invictus wrote:
Aplier Shivra wrote:
I notice most of the command ships have two hardpoints for their off-weapon to put in those utility highs if they want. I can understand the Eos being left out of this (it already has drones as primary and turrets as secondary, and drones actually have a utility high slot mod), but why is the Absolution the only one left out of this benefit, with it's one launcher getting removed with the patch instead of another launcher added?


If Abso got 2 launchers that would make a lot of sense... since it can actually fit them. Also they compliment dps without using any cap. My current abso fit includes a medium smartbomb and a tractor beam (u can also use cloak, core launcher etc.) but I don’t think it's optimal. Why CCP removed a single launcher in the first place is beyond me...


You fitted a tractor beam and you wonder if that's optimal for pvp?

seriously though, with 3 heat sinks and conflag the abso is pushing out close to 1000dps of em/therm. thats pretty powerful, considering that it can also fight at range with scorch.

It's a seriously good ship as it stands.


shall I point out Astarte's 1300 turret dps, with the ability to also use medium drones and two launchers, and with enough mids to actually dictate range?


By all means. All ships have their pros and cons. The astarte does indeed have 1300 (just about) dps at range 3km only. That fit also has 30k less buffer than the asbo and no neuts.

I don't think we're having a 1v1 pissing contest here, just looking to optimise the asbo for small gang use.

In comparison with the astarte, the asbo gains in utility and damage projection what it loses in pure dps under perfect conditions.

I favour blaster ships, it's what I've always used to. But blasters are by no means the last word in pvp.

In a gang fight, I'd prefer to have laser ships around me - because they will get more damage on more targets sooner. In an entire confrontation I'll probably get 1 perfect volley from my blaster ship. The rest will be in falloff or with a little too much transversal.

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".

Aplier Shivra
#2026 - 2013-09-06 19:07:37 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Aplier Shivra wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Cassius Invictus wrote:
Aplier Shivra wrote:
I notice most of the command ships have two hardpoints for their off-weapon to put in those utility highs if they want. I can understand the Eos being left out of this (it already has drones as primary and turrets as secondary, and drones actually have a utility high slot mod), but why is the Absolution the only one left out of this benefit, with it's one launcher getting removed with the patch instead of another launcher added?


If Abso got 2 launchers that would make a lot of sense... since it can actually fit them. Also they compliment dps without using any cap. My current abso fit includes a medium smartbomb and a tractor beam (u can also use cloak, core launcher etc.) but I don’t think it's optimal. Why CCP removed a single launcher in the first place is beyond me...


You fitted a tractor beam and you wonder if that's optimal for pvp?

seriously though, with 3 heat sinks and conflag the abso is pushing out close to 1000dps of em/therm. thats pretty powerful, considering that it can also fight at range with scorch.

It's a seriously good ship as it stands.


shall I point out Astarte's 1300 turret dps, with the ability to also use medium drones and two launchers, and with enough mids to actually dictate range?


By all means. All ships have their pros and cons. The astarte does indeed have 1300 (just about) dps at range 3km only. That fit also has 30k less buffer than the asbo and no neuts.

I don't think we're having a 1v1 pissing contest here, just looking to optimise the asbo for small gang use.

In comparison with the astarte, the asbo gains in utility and damage projection what it loses in pure dps under perfect conditions.

I favour blaster ships, it's what I've always used to. But blasters are by no means the last word in pvp.

In a gang fight, I'd prefer to have laser ships around me - because they will get more damage on more targets sooner. In an entire confrontation I'll probably get 1 perfect volley from my blaster ship. The rest will be in falloff or with a little too much transversal.


I know there's a lot more to it than just the biggest numbers on paper. At only 3 mids, and the most cap-heavy weapons even after a hull bonus to reduce that, with only the same base recharge as the other command ships, and less effective turrets, Absolution already feels rather gimped on the utility spectrum. I won't deny that the abso is still quite nice now for small gang pvp, but outside of that it, in comparison to other command ships, it feels rather left behind.
ConranAntoni
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2027 - 2013-09-07 01:42:39 UTC  |  Edited by: ConranAntoni
So i'm just going to leave this here for CCP to look at, as y'now, Nighthawk is still abysmal.

Quote:
It needs a lot of things. In theory, it'd be decent for bearing... but everyone uses Tengus for that now anyways.

The real problem is that the NH has an extremely strong competitor in the Claymore. It ends up being close to an apples-to-apples comparison:

Both are tech 2 BCs
Both are shield tanked. They even have similar resists; the NH gets a resist bonus, while the Claymore has absurdly good base resists.
(The NH has higher base shields though; it has more raw shield HP with an LSE than the Claymore gets with two LSEs.)
Both have five missile hardpoints and a bonus to a missile soft stat.
(NH has exp radius, while Clay has exp velocity; the former is technically better, but they're both pretty good.


The biggest differences end up being:

Claymore: 7/6/4 and 1400m/s, 5 med drones, decent missile bonuses. +200 grid advantage over the NH.
Nighthawk: 7/5/5 and 1000m/s, 5 light drones, sicknastyop missile bonuses. +30 cpu advantage over the Claymore.


Nighthawk has GREAT missile DPS, but it's slow as **** -- even with a nano fitted, an active-tank Hyperion will outrun it, as will a single-plate two-trimark Megathron. And five mids forces you to make a terrible choice in terms of tank versus tackle.

Claymore is absurdly faster -- 500m/s faster with a reasonable fit, 800m/s faster if you use one of the Claymore option highs for a Rapid Deployment link. While its tank is slightly thinner, it gets to either fit an extra tank mod, or fit a web. Its lower missile DPS gets offset by the fact that it can carry a full set of Valks, plus a spare set of Warriors as well.

You can make the argument that the NH makes a better buffer-tanked largefleet ship due to its higher buffer; however, in that case, 4-5 HMLs is really not doing that much for you. You're better off assuming that you're going to be primary. It's a Vulture with no cyno, no smarties, and half the tank. Not really selling itself to me. It comes down to this, once both ships have their own links:

HAM Claymore: 95k EHP, 1800m/s, 460dps @ 20km with CN Scourge + 128dps from Valks = 600dps. Can pack either a web or an extra invuln (+10k EHP)
HAM Nighthawk: 108k EHP, 1100m/s, 650dps @ 20km with CN Scourge + 80dps from Warriors = 730dps. Longpoint or TP only
HML Nighthawk: 108k EHP, 1100m/s, 475dps @ 63km with CN Scourge + 80dps from Warriors = 550dps. Longpoint or TP only.

As far as XLASB solo fits go, the Claymore wins hands down. The active tank bonus goes a lot farther, it's got the web, and the extra 200 grid allows it to pack a medium neut.

In summary:

The Nighthawk doesn't have a niche. The Vulture outperforms it for a large-fleet FC platform. The Tengu outperforms it for a large-fleet missile platform. The Claymore outperforms it for small-gang and solo PvP. The Tengu outperforms it for PvE.


Credit to Namamai for running these numbers on another *cough* banned forum. Not that i'm pointing out NH is still useless of course.

Simple question needs to be asked and a solid answer needs to be given; whats it for?

Empyrean Warriors - Recruiting now.

Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#2028 - 2013-09-07 07:45:41 UTC
ConranAntoni wrote:
...Simple question needs to be asked and a solid answer needs to be given; whats it for?

Since all of those numbers and the conclusions hinges on the tank discrepancy twixt NH and Vulture, the question you should be asking is how you are going to nerf (the missile performance) the NH when/if CCP manages to decouple the CC's expected TTL from EHP in blobby weather. Big smile

That one point is one that is continually ignored, even after RisingFozzie has stated that a dps/EHP war with the playerbase is something CCP neither wants nor seeks or can win for that matter (read: they want the EHP decoupling).

Nighthawk will be downright godlike if they manage it, one of the best dps application platforms in Eve no longer having to worry about being swamped .. *shudder*
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2029 - 2013-09-08 13:20:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Cassius Invictus
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
the example fit I posted has a medium neut. you can also get dual neut on it...


Great Mate. But Abso is the least suited ship to fit neuts. Lasers drain so much power that fitting nets should be left for other ship that simply do it better. Like Astrate who uses much less cap. On the other hand HAMs are a perfect addition to absos role in the fleet: a slow moving, hard hitting, armoured brick. It can't tackle, it can't persue target, and it can't put fancy modules in the mids. But it can shoot and tank. With 1300 dps on Astrate adding two HAMs for Abso is hardly overpowered (and Astrate CAN fit two HAMs like it doesent have enough dps already...).
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#2030 - 2013-09-08 13:54:13 UTC
Cassius Invictus wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
the example fit I posted has a medium neut. you can also get dual neut on it...


Great Mate. But Abso is the least suited ship to fit neuts. Lasers drain so much power that fitting nets should be left for other ship that simply do it better. Like Astrate who uses much less cap. On the other hand HAMs are a perfect addition to absos role in the fleet: a slow moving, hard hitting, armoured brick. It can't tackle, it can't persue target, and it can't put fancy modules in the mids. But it can shoot and tank. With 1300 dps on Astrate adding two HAMs for Abso is hardly overpowered (and Astrate CAN fit two HAMs like it doesent have enough dps already...).



Also to mention, absos got like up to two times the buffer, and way better resistances. And the option to just properly fit it to be a 680dps 130k EHP brick that shoots with acceptable gang-tracking at 20ish km.
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
#2031 - 2013-09-08 13:57:04 UTC
Cassius Invictus wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
the example fit I posted has a medium neut. you can also get dual neut on it...


Great Mate. But Abso is the least suited ship to fit neuts. Lasers drain so much power that fitting nets should be left for other ship that simply do it better. Like Astrate who uses much less cap. On the other hand HAMs are a perfect addition to absos role in the fleet: a slow moving, hard hitting, armoured brick. It can't tackle, it can't persue target, and it can't put fancy modules in the mids. But it can shoot and tank. With 1300 dps on Astrate adding two HAMs for Abso is hardly overpowered (and Astrate CAN fit two HAMs like it doesent have enough dps already...).


It sounds like you'll be favouring an astarte over an absolution for close-up work. I think that's reasonable. Whether it's more effective or not with depend on more factors that we can theorycraft here.

Back to the original point though, the absolution can be fitted fairly cheaply, without implants to have the following:
980 (theoretical, overheated) dps @ 8km
2 medium neuts
99.4k ehp.
a point
cap stable with 400 charges. (+41/-33 peak)

It's hardly going to be a liability in a gang, and it certainly doesn't seem to be unsuited to fitting neuts. Sure it's not going to be catching any cruisers by it'self. But neither is an astarte.

The equivalent astarte will struggle for cap if it's self-repping, and won't get close to the ehp of the absolution if it's buffer fitted.

For the record, I wouldn't turn either away...

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".

Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2032 - 2013-09-08 14:21:08 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Cassius Invictus wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
the example fit I posted has a medium neut. you can also get dual neut on it...


Great Mate. But Abso is the least suited ship to fit neuts. Lasers drain so much power that fitting nets should be left for other ship that simply do it better. Like Astrate who uses much less cap. On the other hand HAMs are a perfect addition to absos role in the fleet: a slow moving, hard hitting, armoured brick. It can't tackle, it can't persue target, and it can't put fancy modules in the mids. But it can shoot and tank. With 1300 dps on Astrate adding two HAMs for Abso is hardly overpowered (and Astrate CAN fit two HAMs like it doesent have enough dps already...).


It sounds like you'll be favouring an astarte over an absolution for close-up work. I think that's reasonable. Whether it's more effective or not with depend on more factors that we can theorycraft here.

Back to the original point though, the absolution can be fitted fairly cheaply, without implants to have the following:
980 (theoretical, overheated) dps @ 8km
2 medium neuts
99.4k ehp.
a point
cap stable with 400 charges. (+41/-33 peak)

It's hardly going to be a liability in a gang, and it certainly doesn't seem to be unsuited to fitting neuts. Sure it's not going to be catching any cruisers by it'self. But neither is an astarte.

The equivalent astarte will struggle for cap if it's self-repping, and won't get close to the ehp of the absolution if it's buffer fitted.

For the record, I wouldn't turn either away...


You are rising an important issue. From my pvp experience there are two general small/medium fleet situations:

1) U are wining a fight and the targets are dropping fast: Abso is way better because you can shoot all the time no matter the range and reloads. I often apply much more dps than my friends in Proteus/Astarte because of that.

2) The fight is even and you are struggling to kill anything and brake trough logis rr: Astare/ Proteus is much better because you need as much dps as you can. The range does not matter - all ships will want to go close to 0 so they can hit with their strongest ammo at its optimal. So raw dps and tracking is much more important.

Since I believe that the balance should be done according to the second situation (as it is real pvp and not turkey shooting of inferior enemy) the Gallente ships have huge advantage over Amarr. Even Lokis/Hurricanes are better in that situation because they can shoot in the resist hole.

Ps. I hope that CCP will do something with lasers altogether. The last AT showed that it is the mostly underutilized weapon system (like PL executioners fitted with autocannons...)
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
#2033 - 2013-09-08 15:06:47 UTC
Cassius Invictus wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
...


You are rising an important issue. From my pvp experience there are two general small/medium fleet situations:

1) U are wining a fight and the targets are dropping fast: Abso is way better because you can shoot all the time no matter the range and reloads. I often apply much more dps than my friends in Proteus/Astarte because of that.

2) The fight is even and you are struggling to kill anything and brake trough logis rr: Astare/ Proteus is much better because you need as much dps as you can. The range does not matter - all ships will want to go close to 0 so they can hit with their strongest ammo at its optimal. So raw dps and tracking is much more important.

Since I believe that the balance should be done according to the second situation (as it is real pvp and not turkey shooting of inferior enemy) the Gallente ships have huge advantage over Amarr. Even Lokis/Hurricanes are better in that situation because they can shoot in the resist hole.

Ps. I hope that CCP will do something with lasers altogether. The last AT showed that it is the mostly underutilized weapon system (like PL executioners fitted with autocannons...)


Yes I think I agree that most situations are as you described, although as the fleet scales up in size I am always happy to trade some dps for depth of buffer, just to give the logi guys an easier time.

There was a time, not so long ago, when lasers were the best choice for pvp, and to be honest I don't think they are any worse than any other. In terms of damage application, pulse lasers are approximately equivalent to gardes on a dominix, which currently have the spotlight as the 'must have' weapons system-du-jour.

This things have more to do with fashion than anything else in my view.

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".

Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2034 - 2013-09-08 18:43:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Cassius Invictus
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


Yes I think I agree that most situations are as you described, although as the fleet scales up in size I am always happy to trade some dps for depth of buffer, just to give the logi guys an easier time.

There was a time, not so long ago, when lasers were the best choice for pvp, and to be honest I don't think they are any worse than any other. In terms of damage application, pulse lasers are approximately equivalent to gardes on a dominix, which currently have the spotlight as the 'must have' weapons system-du-jour.

This things have more to do with fashion than anything else in my view.


Hmm, lasers have some serious drawback IMHO.

1) General resists layout hits lasers hard as EM is arguably the weakest dmg type.

2) Lasers cap use lowers the usability of utility mods (like neuts) who use a lot of cap themselves.

3) Cap use forces you to equip cap boosters in mids (and you don't have a lot of mids) lowering your tackle and therefore being less useful to the fleet.

3) Cap use not only impacts weapons themselves it also screws the hulls as most of them have -10 cap use bonus. This makes laser using hulls a lot weaker that equivalent hybrid or projectile hulls.

4) Lasers are generally balanced around scorch ammo. How hard they suck without scorch can be seen on Revelation vs other turret dreads: no real range advantage, less tracking, less dps, huge cap use, and of course half less hull bonuses because of -10% to cap use.

5) Range is nice sometimes but it does not allow you to kite the enemy. It only balances out the fact that Amarr ships are slow moving bricks and are unable to dictate range.

6) When u equip dmg mods (BCS, Gyros) you gain dps. But when you equip Heatsinks you increase dps AND increase cap use.

7) Last 2 Alliance Tournaments showed that pilots don't consider lasers worth equipping (like PL autocannon fitted executioners). It also showed that Gallente ships are quite imbalanced and CCP is planning to buff them further (hello Astrate). I don't want EVE where everyone is flying gallente...
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#2035 - 2013-09-08 22:19:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
Cassius Invictus wrote:
It also showed that Gallente ships are quite imbalanced and CCP is planning to buff them further (hello Astrate). I don't want EVE where everyone is flying gallente...


Please explain a real world situation where the Astarte is better than other commands.



In terms of 1v1, the claymore woops it (and does better vs most targets) and is faster.

In terms of armor fleet pvp, the absolution will apply more dps AND has a much stronger tank via better resistances and an extra low slot.

If you can find a situation where the ship is actually "better" than it's competition beyond lol 1300 eft 3km dps fail fits please let me know.



Atm I think it's niche is off grid skirmish/armor link ship (better than eos because it's like 100m cheaper atm). Once links go on grid only, the EOS will clearly be the better booster.



All that being said... I don't think it's a "bad" ship, it's just obviously not OP BBQ as the quoted poster seems to believe.
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2036 - 2013-09-08 23:06:08 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
By all means. All ships have their pros and cons. The astarte does indeed have 1300 (just about) dps at range 3km only. That fit also has 30k less buffer than the asbo and no neuts.

I don't think we're having a 1v1 pissing contest here, just looking to optimise the asbo for small gang use.

In comparison with the astarte, the asbo gains in utility and damage projection what it loses in pure dps under perfect conditions.

I favour blaster ships, it's what I've always used to. But blasters are by no means the last word in pvp.

In a gang fight, I'd prefer to have laser ships around me - because they will get more damage on more targets sooner. In an entire confrontation I'll probably get 1 perfect volley from my blaster ship. The rest will be in falloff or with a little too much transversal.


The problem with medium laser and AC platforms right now is with skirmish links a fed navy web, which isnt even that pricey, goes to >25km. That means a blaster ship typically has no problem getting into close range and can't really be kited unless the laser or AC platform has a range bonus.
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
#2037 - 2013-09-08 23:21:11 UTC
Cassius Invictus wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


...
This things have more to do with fashion than anything else in my view.


Hmm, lasers have some serious drawback IMHO.

1) General resists layout hits lasers hard as EM is arguably the weakest dmg type.

2) Lasers cap use lowers the usability of utility mods (like neuts) who use a lot of cap themselves.

3) Cap use forces you to equip cap boosters in mids (and you don't have a lot of mids) lowering your tackle and therefore being less useful to the fleet.

3) Cap use not only impacts weapons themselves it also screws the hulls as most of them have -10 cap use bonus. This makes laser using hulls a lot weaker that equivalent hybrid or projectile hulls.

4) Lasers are generally balanced around scorch ammo. How hard they suck without scorch can be seen on Revelation vs other turret dreads: no real range advantage, less tracking, less dps, huge cap use, and of course half less hull bonuses because of -10% to cap use.

5) Range is nice sometimes but it does not allow you to kite the enemy. It only balances out the fact that Amarr ships are slow moving bricks and are unable to dictate range.

6) When u equip dmg mods (BCS, Gyros) you gain dps. But when you equip Heatsinks you increase dps AND increase cap use.

7) Last 2 Alliance Tournaments showed that pilots don't consider lasers worth equipping (like PL autocannon fitted executioners). It also showed that Gallente ships are quite imbalanced and CCP is planning to buff them further (hello Astrate). I don't want EVE where everyone is flying gallente...


Without looking to start an opinion war, I can offer some coutnerpoints:

1) EM is wonderful against shield tankers - particularly when they have been eneergy neutralised. It's also the best damage type to attack a T2 gallente ship in general.

2) Lasers generally come on ships that are designed to have a deep armour buffer, rather than an expensive cap-hungry self-repair system. Amarr ships generally have the largest cargo holds for cap boosters.

3) Taking a gallente ship into a fight without a cap booster is asking for trouble. Yes, many amarr ships trade a mid slot for a low slot. Utility for survivability. That's a valid trade.

4) I have used dreads for high-end wormhole work and some POS work. I'd take a revelation over a moros any day - the range versatility is more useful. The moros is (arguably) the best fleet ship for blapping nearby webbed battleships, but in reality I'd say it's too close to call.

5) if we ignore the navy omen, I agree - amarr ships are slow. But their ability to project damage is very good. They may nt dictate range, but they can hit well at all ranges.

6) The extra cap use also affects hybrids. The ships have strong enough capacitors, and enough cargo space to cope with it.

7) Comparing an alliance tournament match to pvp is like comparing a ladies boxing competition to a squad of special forces storming a machine gun nest. It's simply not comparable.

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".

Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2038 - 2013-09-09 05:41:09 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


Without looking to start an opinion war, I can offer some coutnerpoints:

1) EM is wonderful against shield tankers - particularly when they have been eneergy neutralised. It's also the best damage type to attack a T2 gallente ship in general.

2) Lasers generally come on ships that are designed to have a deep armour buffer, rather than an expensive cap-hungry self-repair system. Amarr ships generally have the largest cargo holds for cap boosters.

3) Taking a gallente ship into a fight without a cap booster is asking for trouble. Yes, many amarr ships trade a mid slot for a low slot. Utility for survivability. That's a valid trade.

4) I have used dreads for high-end wormhole work and some POS work. I'd take a revelation over a moros any day - the range versatility is more useful. The moros is (arguably) the best fleet ship for blapping nearby webbed battleships, but in reality I'd say it's too close to call.

5) if we ignore the navy omen, I agree - amarr ships are slow. But their ability to project damage is very good. They may nt dictate range, but they can hit well at all ranges.

6) The extra cap use also affects hybrids. The ships have strong enough capacitors, and enough cargo space to cope with it.

7) Comparing an alliance tournament match to pvp is like comparing a ladies boxing competition to a squad of special forces storming a machine gun nest. It's simply not comparable.


Not at all, your arguments are very true. Than again with all their pros and cons lasers ARE underutilized. I'm not asking to make them overpowered. I'm asking that they have a certain role that no other weapon system can fill (So one day I can hear a FC say: we need laser for that :) ). Won't elaborate further as there are a lot of topics on lasers.
Roime
Shiva Furnace
#2039 - 2013-09-09 06:31:56 UTC
Xequecal wrote:

The problem with medium laser and AC platforms right now is with skirmish links a fed navy web, which isnt even that pricey, goes to >25km. That means a blaster ship typically has no problem getting into close range and can't really be kited unless the laser or AC platform has a range bonus.


Max boosts take overheated navy web range to 23.7km, but yeah they are currently at quite reasonable prices.

.

Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2040 - 2013-09-09 07:26:49 UTC
Roime wrote:
Xequecal wrote:

The problem with medium laser and AC platforms right now is with skirmish links a fed navy web, which isnt even that pricey, goes to >25km. That means a blaster ship typically has no problem getting into close range and can't really be kited unless the laser or AC platform has a range bonus.


Max boosts take overheated navy web range to 23.7km, but yeah they are currently at quite reasonable prices.



No Man :). You put faction webs on lokis (~45 km) and rapiers (don't fly them but i think ~70 km is possible...).