These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
#1961 - 2013-09-02 19:25:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Lore Varan
Cade Windstalker wrote:

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


While I agree that run boost and lob missiles in, is about the only PvP role a NH can take your assessment of great tank is based on a design that would only be appropriate with multiple logistics backup due to lack of cap.
This is getting into large fleet territory.
Where the tank you have is not going to be appealing when there is the better choice of a Vulture.

For small/medium roams it needs an Injector on it to turn it into a PvP fit.
So you don't also have to rely on logistics for cap as well.
Your not the only ship they have to keep alive.
You can't rely on multiple logistics ship availability to validate a ship design.

with 10mn ab its too slow even with the nano.
so your left with 100mn ab or 10mn mwd fits for viable run and boost tactics.
This means injector.

So mwd/em/inv/inj/booster
ok now you can run away and fire missiles in.
but tank is not what it should be on a T2 command playing the CS role.

Run and lob missiles is a bad tactic for small gang where damage application and tackle from every ship is going to be important.

So to sum up
Small gangs not viable due to lack of tackle.
Medium gangs , moderately viable with 1 kind of setup although a little light on tank
Big gangs not enough tank.

I'll grant you there's one setup which somewhat works.
This is not enough , the whole purpose of having slots is so you can design different setup and put the ship to work in different ways.
Otherwise if a ship can only do one thing why bother with slots in game at all.

There needs to be choices when ftting a NH as there are for all ships.
Do I fit tackle ?
Do I fit max tank ?
Do I add mid slot ewar ?

The NH needs 6 mids not 5 lows.

The only use of a 5th low slot is for Passive Shield Recharge PvE designs.
Ships should never be designed around PvE unless the whole class is designed for that role.
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
#1962 - 2013-09-02 19:37:05 UTC
Lucine Delacourt wrote:
Why are people trying to use their NH as tackle? There are ships built for that. Bring your NH for a little DPS, links and fairly decent tank. I know it's shocking that the ship is better at its intended task instead of something else but that doesn't make the ship broken.


People are not trying to use there NH as tackle but to give there NH tackle .
A choice that can be made on all other commands.

So you have options to help deal with ships that tackle you.

Other wise any frig can come in and hold you under scram and web to be blown apart as soon as the big ships arrive and there is absolutely nothing you can do to kill off the tackle on you.
Cade Windstalker
#1963 - 2013-09-02 23:26:37 UTC
Lore Varan wrote:
While I agree that run boost and lob missiles in, is about the only PvP role a NH can take your assessment of great tank is based on a design that would only be appropriate with multiple logistics backup due to lack of cap.
This is getting into large fleet territory.
Where the tank you have is not going to be appealing when there is the better choice of a Vulture.

For small/medium roams it needs an Injector on it to turn it into a PvP fit.
So you don't also have to rely on logistics for cap as well.
Your not the only ship they have to keep alive.
You can't rely on multiple logistics ship availability to validate a ship design.

with 10mn ab its too slow even with the nano.
so your left with 100mn ab or 10mn mwd fits for viable run and boost tactics.
This means injector.

So mwd/em/inv/inj/booster
ok now you can run away and fire missiles in.
but tank is not what it should be on a T2 command playing the CS role.

Run and lob missiles is a bad tactic for small gang where damage application and tackle from every ship is going to be important.

So to sum up
Small gangs not viable due to lack of tackle.
Medium gangs , moderately viable with 1 kind of setup although a little light on tank
Big gangs not enough tank.

I'll grant you there's one setup which somewhat works.
This is not enough , the whole purpose of having slots is so you can design different setup and put the ship to work in different ways.
Otherwise if a ship can only do one thing why bother with slots in game at all.

There needs to be choices when ftting a NH as there are for all ships.
Do I fit tackle ?
Do I fit max tank ?
Do I add mid slot ewar ?

The NH needs 6 mids not 5 lows.

The only use of a 5th low slot is for Passive Shield Recharge PvE designs.
Ships should never be designed around PvE unless the whole class is designed for that role.


So, a couple of points.

Multiple logistics is not "Large Fleet Territory" in fact with the T1 Logistics it's perfectly viable to have at least one logi in a small gang since these are cheap and fairly easy to fit out.

Case and point, incursions are set up much like a small to medium sized gang and tend to run about 2-3 logi out of every 11 people.

You don't define "too slow" you just say that this ship is it.

More than that you are trying to fit a ship in a way that is not going to be as effective as other ships. You would really be better off ASB fitting the thing or just using it with any amount of logistics.

The fifth low lets you fit speed which better helps you maintain the damage at range advantage of missiles. Alternatively it may be used for damage projection depending on if we get missile mods or not.

Lore Varan wrote:
People are not trying to use there NH as tackle but to give there NH tackle .
A choice that can be made on all other commands.

So you have options to help deal with ships that tackle you.

Other wise any frig can come in and hold you under scram and web to be blown apart as soon as the big ships arrive and there is absolutely nothing you can do to kill off the tackle on you.


Or you could use the solid damage application of Precision missiles to turn that frig into a cloud of dust where any turret based Command Ship would be shooting at it in vain, probably even with a web on it.

Chris Winter wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:

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

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

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

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


So, with 2 Invuls, a T2 EM Rig, and a DC 2 I get better Shield EHP out of the Nighthawk than the Slephnir with 3 Invuls, DC2, and a T2 Kinetic Rig at least partly due to the Nighthawk's much higher base shield HP. If we do the smart thing for a resists tank and swap that EM rig for an EM Screen Mod then we end up with even better EHP and better across the board resists overall. The EM is squishier but not hugely and the Thermal and Kinetic resists are huge compared to the Slephnir which means against Hybrids, some Lasers, any Kinetic bonused missile boat, and most Projectiles you're going to do way better than the Slephnir.

If we throw an Explosive Rig in the lows that turns to all projectiles except EMP.

All of this combines to make it a solidly better resist tanked ship than the Claymore, especially since the Claymore seems likely to run into fitting issues trying to squeeze in an extra LSE to make up for the shield HP and resists difference.

Overall though I'd rather run the Vulture in large fleets and the Nighthawk in small ones due to higher damage at range and better damage application against small targets, not to mention having overall higher DPS than the Claymore.

Plus if Rise follows through and we do get missile damage application/projection mods then that low becomes a lot more useful. As things stand I'd just fit an Overdrive Injector or Nano so you can better make use of the aforementioned damage at range.
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
#1964 - 2013-09-03 01:01:35 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

So, with 2 Invuls, a T2 EM Rig, and a DC 2 I get better Shield EHP out of the Nighthawk than the Slephnir with 3 Invuls, DC2, and a T2 Kinetic Rig at least partly due to the Nighthawk's much higher base shield HP. If we do the smart thing for a resists tank and swap that EM rig for an EM Screen Mod then we end up with even better EHP and better across the board resists overall. The EM is squishier but not hugely and the Thermal and Kinetic resists are huge compared to the Slephnir which means against Hybrids, some Lasers, any Kinetic bonused missile boat, and most Projectiles you're going to do way better than the Slephnir.

If we throw an Explosive Rig in the lows that turns to all projectiles except EMP.

All of this combines to make it a solidly better resist tanked ship than the Claymore, especially since the Claymore seems likely to run into fitting issues trying to squeeze in an extra LSE to make up for the shield HP and resists difference.

Overall though I'd rather run the Vulture in large fleets and the Nighthawk in small ones due to higher damage at range and better damage application against small targets, not to mention having overall higher DPS than the Claymore.

Plus if Rise follows through and we do get missile damage application/projection mods then that low becomes a lot more useful. As things stand I'd just fit an Overdrive Injector or Nano so you can better make use of the aforementioned damage at range.

Don't look at EHP, look at average resistance--Claymore has 6.421 with that fit, Nighthawk has 6.24. The average resistance is what matters when taking into account logi.

Also, three invulns hits stacking penalties hard. Try using a kinetic hardener instead of the third invuln (and then an explosive rig instead) on the Claymore and it gets even better.

Claymore has no troubles sticking an extra LSE on--certainly fewer troubles than the Nighthawk since the NH doesn't even have the slot to spare.

Even if you use a nano for the low on the Nighthawk, it's still 300m/s slower than the Claymore under MWD.
Cade Windstalker
#1965 - 2013-09-03 02:08:57 UTC
Chris Winter wrote:

Don't look at EHP, look at average resistance--Claymore has 6.421 with that fit, Nighthawk has 6.24. The average resistance is what matters when taking into account logi.

Also, three invulns hits stacking penalties hard. Try using a kinetic hardener instead of the third invuln (and then an explosive rig instead) on the Claymore and it gets even better.

Claymore has no troubles sticking an extra LSE on--certainly fewer troubles than the Nighthawk since the NH doesn't even have the slot to spare.

Even if you use a nano for the low on the Nighthawk, it's still 300m/s slower than the Claymore under MWD.


First off, I did the three invuls entirely because it's what you stated, unless you somehow assumed 1 invul base on a Nighthawk.

Second, the Kinetic Hardener fit comes out to 84.675 average resist value, where as the Nighthawk fit comes out to 87.175. The original triple invuln fit only comes out slightly below the Kin hardener fit at 84.475.

Not sure where your numbers came from but I fit out a deadspace setup and the Nighthawk still wins, 92.35 to 91.475. This is without links but those are stacking penalized and therefore will have a pretty minor effect in the final resist totals. I can only assume you somehow weren't factoring in that the Nighthawk's resist bonus isn't stacking penalized.

Also the Claymore runs out of CPU well before it can squeeze on another LSE, let alone the MWD which means you need to either drop a BCS for a CPU mod or use up a rig slot that would be better spent on tank.
Valfreyea
Zervas Aeronautics
The Bastion
#1966 - 2013-09-03 04:16:27 UTC
So, is the Eos still going to be stuck with that random medium hybrid tracking bonus?
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
#1967 - 2013-09-03 08:46:55 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Multiple logistics is not "Large Fleet Territory" in fact with the T1 Logistics it's perfectly viable to have at least one logi in a small gang since these are cheap and fairly easy to fit out.


There no need to get into a arguement about what constitutes large
The point is you need mulitple logistics ships to make your fit work, its a bad fit.
Other ships in this class need far less support whatever size fleet there boosting.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

Case and point, incursions are set up much like a small to medium sized gang and tend to run about 2-3 logi out of every 11 people.


Sleepers while better than standard rats are still pretty dumb opponents.
Incursions are not PvP
Incursion fleets are not PvP fleets.
Most players for instance wont stay on grid and let you blow them to bits unless there tackled.

If you want a 5slot passive recahrge fit for incursions say so and stop hiding behind bs fits that don't work for PvP.


Cade Windstalker wrote:

Or you could use the solid damage application of Precision missiles to turn that frig into a cloud of dust where any turret based Command Ship would be shooting at it in vain, probably even with a web on it.


Do you even PvP ?
Precision heavys are pants against anything doing more than 300m/s if memory recalls.

Maybe you should use the damage graph on EFT against a moving target.
See what you get against a ab frig orbiting you at 1k/s or a mwd frig at 2.5k/s




Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
#1968 - 2013-09-03 09:16:30 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

You don't define "too slow" you just say that this ship is it.

More than that you are trying to fit a ship in a way that is not going to be as effective as other ships. You would really be better off ASB fitting the thing or just using it with any amount of logistics.

The fifth low lets you fit speed which better helps you maintain the damage at range advantage of missiles. Alternatively it may be used for damage projection depending on if we get missile mods or not.


500m/s is too slow by a massive amount for damage at range tactics in PvP.
Even the slowest BS can push 1k/s easilly with MWD.

Pretty much every ship in the enemy fleet will be on top of you in a few 10's of seconds at best if the enemy FC calls you.

500m/s if it does that might help you keep at range from rats or even sleepers, it wont be enough for those tactics in PvP.

You need MWD for Damage at range in PvP.
If you run this for more than 3 minutes. This means you either cap out and lose harderers and gank links or you fit an injector or you have a logi semi dedicated to supplying you with cap basically lowering the effective tank of all the other ships in your fleet.
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
#1969 - 2013-09-03 09:25:42 UTC
Lore Varan wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:



You need MWD for Damage at range in PvP.


It seems to me that the fleet/field command distinctions have not disappeared. It's simply that amarr/caldari CSs are now fleet command and the others for field command.

In this context, the NHs speed need not be such an issue.

What will be an issue for it I think is the 5-mid tank in that context. It seems to me that the Vulture is a lot more viable as an on-grid booster than the NH in all circumstances.

This of course suggests that very few new nighthawks will be bought for the purpose of fleet PVP.

I have said it before. I am supportive of the CS changes. But I do agree that the nighthawk is currently looking a little unusable.

In PVE it might still work, but that wouldn't interest me.

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".

Serenity Zipher
#1970 - 2013-09-03 12:17:08 UTC
Any update on model changes yet Fozzie?
Valfreyea
Zervas Aeronautics
The Bastion
#1971 - 2013-09-03 13:18:58 UTC
I guess you guys aren't changing anything, regardless of the logic behind it.

The Eos is basically required to use three different offensive and defensive systems to make use of all of its bonuses?

Heavy drones, active tank, and freaking medium hybrids on 4 turret slots?

I guess the myrmidon skin is going to be its sole saving grace.

So when's that coming out?
Cade Windstalker
#1972 - 2013-09-03 13:37:24 UTC
Valfreyea wrote:
So, is the Eos still going to be stuck with that random medium hybrid tracking bonus?


Since it's probably there so you can't fit a full rack of Links without trading at least one bonus I'm going to go with yes.

Lore Varan wrote:
There no need to get into a arguement about what constitutes large
The point is you need mulitple logistics ships to make your fit work, its a bad fit.
Other ships in this class need far less support whatever size fleet there boosting.


Ships are generally designed to be better in different circumstances. Generally Caldari ships are better in a fleet setup where they can better make use of their large tanks and damage projection.

Both of the Minmattar command ships are going to be better able to fit a local tank due to their local tank bonus and, as you pointed out, solid resists spread however they tank with logistics less well than the Caldari ships do. This is balance through differing roles.

Lore Varan wrote:
Sleepers while better than standard rats are still pretty dumb opponents.
Incursions are not PvP
Incursion fleets are not PvP fleets.
Most players for instance wont stay on grid and let you blow them to bits unless there tackled.

If you want a 5slot passive recahrge fit for incursions say so and stop hiding behind bs fits that don't work for PvP.


No, my point was simply that the setup for incursion fleets is very similar to a small gang PvP fleet and they run logistics. Trying to passive-recharge ANYTHING in incursions would be a hilariously bad idea since these sites do about 2-3000 DPS. You are welcome to try though, please let me know if you do because I love a good laugh Lol

Lore Varan wrote:
Do you even PvP ?
Precision heavys are pants against anything doing more than 300m/s if memory recalls.

Maybe you should use the damage graph on EFT against a moving target.
See what you get against a ab frig orbiting you at 1k/s or a mwd frig at 2.5k/s


You're right, they don't do great damage. But a quick check of those EFT graphs against an Interceptor says that you're doing way more than the flat zero a turreted ship would be doing.

Lore Varan wrote:
500m/s is too slow by a massive amount for damage at range tactics in PvP.
Even the slowest BS can push 1k/s easilly with MWD.

Pretty much every ship in the enemy fleet will be on top of you in a few 10's of seconds at best if the enemy FC calls you.

500m/s if it does that might help you keep at range from rats or even sleepers, it wont be enough for those tactics in PvP.

You need MWD for Damage at range in PvP.
If you run this for more than 3 minutes. This means you either cap out and lose harderers and gank links or you fit an injector or you have a logi semi dedicated to supplying you with cap basically lowering the effective tank of all the other ships in your fleet.


Um, no, most battleships cap out around 1000m/s with a MWD just based on skills and the prop mod. If you're going to start assuming speed combat boosters and OGBs then you should assume them for both sides.

If you have a logi supplying you cap it's because he has the spare ET (always a good idea because cap warfare) and the 500m/s on a Nighthawk beats "can't fit a MWD, DPS, and Links without fitting mods" on a Claymore. Oh and interestingly enough the Nighthawk is cap stable with a MWD and nothing else running, meaning you can use that extra low for a CPR, fit an ASB, and run the entire thing cap stable without an injector.

We are looking at a high DPS missile boat with good tank. Just because the slot layout is not your ideal does not magically make it worthless.
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
#1973 - 2013-09-03 16:23:57 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Ships are generally designed to be better in different circumstances. Generally Caldari ships are better in a fleet setup where they can better make use of their large tanks and damage projection.

Both of the Minmattar command ships are going to be better able to fit a local tank due to their local tank bonus and, as you pointed out, solid resists spread however they tank with logistics less well than the Caldari ships do. This is balance through differing roles.


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.

The concept that Caldari players should not be able to enjoy small fleet actions unless they spend 6 months cross training to Mini is also a bad place to start from.

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.


Cade Windstalker wrote:

No, my point was simply that the setup for incursion fleets is very similar to a small gang PvP fleet and they run logistics. Trying to passive-recharge ANYTHING in incursions would be a hilariously bad idea since these sites do about 2-3000 DPS. You are welcome to try though, please let me know if you do because I love a good laugh Lol


This is why you fail to understand the issues.
There are only superficial simalarities between Incursion fleet setups and PvP small fleets.

*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.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

You're right, they don't do great damage. But a quick check of those EFT graphs against an Interceptor says that you're doing way more than the flat zero a turreted ship would be doing.


So now you see the need for tackle ?
If not try some PvP instead of incursions.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

Um, no, most battleships cap out around 1000m/s with a MWD just based on skills and the prop mod. If you're going to start assuming speed combat boosters and OGBs then you should assume them for both sides.


1k/s is a ballpark figure for speed of MWD bs what you on about ?
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.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

Oh and interestingly enough the Nighthawk is cap stable with a MWD and nothing else running, meaning you can use that extra low for a CPR, fit an ASB, and run the entire thing cap stable without an injector.
We are looking at a high DPS missile boat with good tank. Just because the slot layout is not your ideal does not magically make it worthless.


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.


Face it.
Unless your doing a PSR fit for ratting that 5th low has to little value atm.
might as well be a 5:4 slot layout.
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
#1974 - 2013-09-03 16:29:11 UTC
nice communication with the community ccp, oh wait...
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1975 - 2013-09-03 17:49:09 UTC
Florian Kuehne wrote:
nice communication with the community ccp, oh wait...


They talked to the null sec cartel - dominated CSM about these changes.
Clearly, that group is a perfect cross-section of all the player demographic in the game.
Or rather, all the players that matter.

Why would you expect anything else?
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#1976 - 2013-09-03 17:50:19 UTC
Communication dont mean they have to change things to your favor.
Cade Windstalker
#1977 - 2013-09-03 18:37:13 UTC
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.

The concept that Caldari players should not be able to enjoy small fleet actions unless they spend 6 months cross training to Mini is also a bad place to start from.

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.


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".

Lore Varan wrote:
This is why you fail to understand the issues.
There are only superficial simalarities between Incursion fleet setups and PvP small fleets.

*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.


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.

Lore Varan wrote:
So now you see the need for tackle ?
If not try some PvP instead of incursions.


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.

Lore Varan wrote:
1k/s is a ballpark figure for speed of MWD bs what you on about ?
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.


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

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.

[/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.

Face it.
Unless your doing a PSR fit for ratting that 5th low has to little value atm.
might as well be a 5:4 slot layout.
[/quote]

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?
Lucine Delacourt
The Covenant of Blood
#1978 - 2013-09-03 19:47:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucine Delacourt
Chris Winter wrote:
Lucine Delacourt wrote:
Why are people trying to use their NH as tackle? There are ships built for that. Bring your NH for a little DPS, links and fairly decent tank. I know it's shocking that the ship is better at its intended task instead of something else but that doesn't make the ship broken.

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

The fact that a shield boost bonused ship can fit a comparable buffer to a shield buffer bonused ship is broken.



This is a completely different complaint than the one I was referring to. Saying the Claymore is better than a NH is a legit argument. The argument that it needs more mids to fit tackle is stupid.




Edit: I forgot to mention that while I feel the NH can do it's intended job just fine the way it is, I will agree that the Claymore seems prohibitively better in almost every way and that should probably be fixed.
Cade Windstalker
#1979 - 2013-09-03 21:39:46 UTC
Lucine Delacourt wrote:
This is a completely different complaint than the one I was referring to. Saying the Claymore is better than a NH is a legit argument. The argument that it needs more mids to fit tackle is stupid.

Edit: I forgot to mention that while I feel the NH can do it's intended job just fine the way it is, I will agree that the Claymore seems prohibitively better in almost every way and that should probably be fixed.


Not really, Nighthawk has slightly better CPU, tank, and damage.
S1dy
Uplifting Infernal Paradise
#1980 - 2013-09-03 22:04:00 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Florian Kuehne wrote:
nice communication with the community ccp, oh wait...


They talked to the null sec cartel - dominated CSM about these changes.
Clearly, that group is a perfect cross-section of all the player demographic in the game.
Or rather, all the players that matter.

Why would you expect anything else?


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.