These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123
 

The Nightmare and why it needs changed

Author
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#41 - 2016-09-19 10:56:18 UTC
FT Cold wrote:
Try using if for PVP and I think your opinion of it will change.


I'll consider your words, since they were proffered in such a hospitable manner. I think the situations are very different for two reasons, in pvp you generally have reps and cap transfer which completely eliminates the problems the nightmare has.

But again, i'll keep an open mind on the subject.

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

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#42 - 2016-09-19 10:58:55 UTC
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


I didnt read your post first but i actually did do this today, it worked but it seems quite wrong to me that it functions better (but still sub par armor tanked vs shield tanked)

Thanks for the input, had i not already tried it I certainly would have.

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

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#43 - 2016-09-19 11:00:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Rowells wrote:
I don't really see a good reason as to why this specific case needs to break from the standard. Regardless of why it makes sense in of itself, it would be a very unusual exception to the rule.


Okay, thanks for the post.

Actually, i think the idea could possibly apply to other ships but i'll stick to the nightmare for this discussion because every other ship ive flown never felt so gimped by its core design.

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

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#44 - 2016-09-19 11:15:54 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
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?


The DCU takes up a 4th heat sink slot which is still relevant dps loss. I used two active hardeners, EM and Thermal (since the targets do primarily this damage type i dont see a problem with my choice). Even so outfitted it under performed compared to say the apoc which gets a base 50% resist to EM and the EM active hardener (assuming set up the same). So the apoc gets 79.5% EM resist whereas the nightmare only gets 50% from the same number of slots used.

This is true for thermal as well, it has a base number (dont remember it) but it adds 50% resist hardener and gets a higher total than the nighmare fitted the exact same way. There is in fact no way to outfit a nightmare such that it ever even comes close to the apoc if you outfit them the same, this problem is further exacerbated by stacking penalties because for any number of resists the apoc pilot wishes to achieve vs EM and Thermal he will always have fewer penalties (again assuming equal numbers of defense slots/rigs are used).

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

Arden Elenduil
Unlimited Bear Works
#45 - 2016-09-19 11:29:33 UTC
Ok, now i wonder. What exactly are you using for a criterium to consider something "underperforming"?
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#46 - 2016-09-19 11:43:08 UTC
Arden Elenduil wrote:
Ok, now i wonder. What exactly are you using for a criterium to consider something "underperforming"?


Relative to even the apoc which is a T1 BS it doesnt tank as well and its damage application despite having fewer equivalent turrets rivals the nightmare and can actually apply its dps at range better due to its optimal bonus.

What we should really compare the nightmare to those is other pirate BSs and when you compare it to that beast that must not be named (okay its the rattlesnake) the nightmare cannot even dream of that kind of tank, dps application from range, total lack of concern for the number of opponent ships it aggros in pocket, more cap than it will ever need, easily fits all the tank and all the gank it can and laughs its butt off ripping L4s a new one.

But....really nothing should be compared to a rattlesnake i guess, at least not until CCP nerf bats the thing back down to at least the level of being, "just", OP (i really think we need a new term for the rattlesnake, perhaps super-OP might work).

And for anyone wondering, why doesnt he just fly a rattlesnake, i have, it was fun, now im bored and even if i went back to flying the rattlesnake that doesnt fix the nightmare.

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

Lugh Crow-Slave
#47 - 2016-09-19 11:51:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Idk i spent 5 minutes making a fit for this ship 139k EHP (160 em/therm) lowest resist 813 dps and cap stable (i know how ocd you runners are about that)
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#48 - 2016-09-19 14:10:05 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
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.

There is a solid basis in fact that the shield resist mods would have to be nerfed, the fact that you cannot see it or that you willfully choose to ignore it is not relevant. All EM shield mods and how they affect the game are balanced using the zero percent resistance of the base shields as their reference point. Change that reference point and you change the entire balance of the EM modules and how they affect the game. So yes in fact any increase in the base EM resist of shields would have to be balanced by a reduction in resist benefits the other modules give.

Moving on your nightmare has one extra mid slot when compare to the Navy Apoc, and 2 extra mids when compared to the standard Apoc. Curiously when you fit a T2 resist mod into that extra slot you magically have the same 55% resist before you start the rest of your fit. If you fit a cap battery into that second slot compared to the standard apoc most of your cap issues will go away and curiously you still have the same number of mid slots.

One does not use a hammer to remove a screw, and one does not use a screwdriver to pound in a nail.
In EvE that means if the nightmare does not meet your needs for a mission ship then try something else, like the Paladin or maybe those Apocs you are constantly referring back to. EvE is about choices and consequences and the nightmares "shortcoming" as a mission ship are just another of those choices and consequences things.

After three pages of your responses the answer is still no to changing the base em resist on the shields of the nightmare or any other ship because of the game wide balance issues it would cause.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#49 - 2016-09-19 16:44:10 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
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.


There is no situation where that wasn't a laughable shitfit.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#50 - 2016-09-19 17:14:46 UTC
This is a **** fit Nightmare. It tanks 500+ against BR/Sansha. It deals 900+ dps with IN Multi. Clips along at 746m/s, and the tachs actually track. Oh, and it's cap stable:

[Nightmare, mishin stable :( update]
Imperial Navy Heat Sink
Imperial Navy Heat Sink
Imperial Navy Heat Sink
Capacitor Power Relay II
Capacitor Power Relay II
Capacitor Power Relay II

Gist C-Type X-Large Shield Booster
EM Ward Field II
Thermal Dissipation Field II
Shield Boost Amplifier II
Shield Boost Amplifier II
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
100MN Afterburner II

Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Auto Targeting System II
[empty high slot]

Large Capacitor Control Circuit I
Large Capacitor Control Circuit I
Large Capacitor Control Circuit I

How is a NApoc in any way comparable to that?

From there you could actually adjust and make it, you know, a decent fit.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#51 - 2016-09-19 18:32:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Idk i spent 5 minutes making a fit for this ship 139k EHP (160 em/therm) lowest resist 813 dps and cap stable (i know how ocd you runners are about that)


I never run combat ships cap stable. I understand this is necessary for some forms of pve but i havent done those things. I can tell you that 139k ehp is way overtanked but anyways could you post the fit you have ?

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

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#52 - 2016-09-19 18:36:51 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
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.


There is no situation where that wasn't a laughable shitfit.


Dont be coy share your fit.

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

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#53 - 2016-09-19 21:11:37 UTC
Okay that's enough!

I had my laughs and giggles and to put it blunt, the Nightmare is fine. One of mine killed a thanatos. Yes thanatos pilots, obey your master!!

Draben Sansha demands it.


I don't know how you fit your Nightmare but tanking is a very complex subject and I could write essays about it but you are a very ungrateful crowd, so I don't.

My take on the beautiful Nightmare is, she is a nightmare on the field for everyone else, the kind of nightmare you will have nightmares about for weeks to come.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Lugh Crow-Slave
#54 - 2016-09-19 21:40:31 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Idk i spent 5 minutes making a fit for this ship 139k EHP (160 em/therm) lowest resist 813 dps and cap stable (i know how ocd you runners are about that)


I never run combat ships cap stable. I understand this is necessary for some forms of pve but i havent done those things. I can tell you that 139k ehp is way overtanked but anyways could you post the fit you have ?



[Nightmare, tank]

Damage Control II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Capacitor Power Relay II
Capacitor Power Relay II

Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II
Large Shield Extender II
100MN Afterburner II
Cap Recharger II
Large Shield Extender II

Mega Beam Laser II, Gleam L
Mega Beam Laser II, Gleam L
Mega Beam Laser II, Gleam L
Mega Beam Laser II, Gleam L
[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]

Large Core Defense Field Extender II
Large Core Defense Field Extender II
Large Core Defense Field Extender II


the point was to over tank because you were complaining it couldn't tank
FT Cold
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#55 - 2016-09-20 01:40:59 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
FT Cold wrote:
Try using if for PVP and I think your opinion of it will change.


I'll consider your words, since they were proffered in such a hospitable manner. I think the situations are very different for two reasons, in pvp you generally have reps and cap transfer which completely eliminates the problems the nightmare has.

But again, i'll keep an open mind on the subject.


I've never used it with remote reps, I've tried it with both an active armor and active shield fit. It's brutally powerful for how much it costs, which dirt cheap for a faction ship after insurance. I guess I'm not really sure why you're having issues with it's native shield resists, I haven't used it that often for PVE, as there are much better options (read rattlesnake/mach.) Is it really just that it shoots EM/Therm and the native shield resists don't match that profile?
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#56 - 2016-09-20 16:18:09 UTC
Okay seems i have a couple fits to try, ill give them a go.

thanks everyone (except the trolls of course)


Cheers Maldiro!

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

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#57 - 2016-09-20 16:29:31 UTC
FT Cold wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
FT Cold wrote:
Try using if for PVP and I think your opinion of it will change.


I'll consider your words, since they were proffered in such a hospitable manner. I think the situations are very different for two reasons, in pvp you generally have reps and cap transfer which completely eliminates the problems the nightmare has.

But again, i'll keep an open mind on the subject.


I've never used it with remote reps, I've tried it with both an active armor and active shield fit. It's brutally powerful for how much it costs, which dirt cheap for a faction ship after insurance. I guess I'm not really sure why you're having issues with it's native shield resists, I haven't used it that often for PVE, as there are much better options (read rattlesnake/mach.) Is it really just that it shoots EM/Therm and the native shield resists don't match that profile?


Im used to raven, navy raven, macharial, rattlesnake, and a lot of others. The macharial i flew for quite awhile and it had plenty of tank and damage application was amazing but ive never much liked its poor attack visual (best amarr, second hybrids, third missiles with projectiles a significant last).

Anyways ive got some fits to try and perhaps that has been the problem all along. I'll give them a try and revive the thread if my feelings on the subject are unchanged.

Thanks for your posts,

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

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#58 - 2016-09-20 16:34:12 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:
This is a **** fit Nightmare. It tanks 500+ against BR/Sansha. It deals 900+ dps with IN Multi. Clips along at 746m/s, and the tachs actually track. Oh, and it's cap stable:

[Nightmare, mishin stable :( update]
Imperial Navy Heat Sink
Imperial Navy Heat Sink
Imperial Navy Heat Sink
Capacitor Power Relay II
Capacitor Power Relay II
Capacitor Power Relay II

Gist C-Type X-Large Shield Booster
EM Ward Field II
Thermal Dissipation Field II
Shield Boost Amplifier II
Shield Boost Amplifier II
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
100MN Afterburner II

Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Auto Targeting System II
[empty high slot]

Large Capacitor Control Circuit I
Large Capacitor Control Circuit I
Large Capacitor Control Circuit I

How is a NApoc in any way comparable to that?

From there you could actually adjust and make it, you know, a decent fit.


Thanks ill give the fit a go and see how it performs in game!

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

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#59 - 2016-09-20 16:34:58 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Idk i spent 5 minutes making a fit for this ship 139k EHP (160 em/therm) lowest resist 813 dps and cap stable (i know how ocd you runners are about that)


I never run combat ships cap stable. I understand this is necessary for some forms of pve but i havent done those things. I can tell you that 139k ehp is way overtanked but anyways could you post the fit you have ?



[Nightmare, tank]

Damage Control II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Capacitor Power Relay II
Capacitor Power Relay II

Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II
Large Shield Extender II
100MN Afterburner II
Cap Recharger II
Large Shield Extender II

Mega Beam Laser II, Gleam L
Mega Beam Laser II, Gleam L
Mega Beam Laser II, Gleam L
Mega Beam Laser II, Gleam L
[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]

Large Core Defense Field Extender II
Large Core Defense Field Extender II
Large Core Defense Field Extender II


the point was to over tank because you were complaining it couldn't tank


Thanks for the fit, i have a couple to try out.

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

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#60 - 2016-09-20 17:41:08 UTC
You need to try the new meta 4x mining laser and 2x heavy neut and tripple rep one, is really good.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Previous page123