Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 70 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 46 post(s) |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
100
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 12:26:00 -
[1951] - Quote
Try to bring Balance for all the PVP Whiners without equal the Ships altogether.
Hint: Its impossible. |
Dinozauriusz II Urwiryj
DinoSquad
6
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 12:44:00 -
[1952] - Quote
It's not about satisfying everybody - In fact it is impossible. It's about keeping game varied. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
100
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 13:15:00 -
[1953] - Quote
I am on your side, but as you see we are in the minority... |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
86
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 15:46:00 -
[1954] - Quote
Dinozauriusz II Urwiryj wrote:IMHO this rebalance is bad idea. All EVE magic is about that every ship is specialised and is filling some, special role. Dividing command ships to fleet and field was very good! Now we will receive two identical ships just with different weapons - senseless. I assume that next time Recons will be mixed into the-same-with-different-weapons? I liked when ships were specialised. Now it seems that we are going to make it straight line: every next ship is just bigger, with better guns. My opinion is: Do not follow this path. Keep this game complex and sophisticated. Introduce even more ships, even if they would not be specialised, just different for the same role (wolud be great to have more T1 frigates, or two types of stealth bomers for every faction, or two eWar ships, more destroyers, etc.). Just don't mix ships into one formless, kindless mass - you want fleet or field command ship with different weapon? Introduce two new Command ships (Naga hull would be great for fleet Command, keep Ferox as field command), just don't kill complexity of this game. Please.
PS. bring more T3 ships (frigates would be interesting).
I have two problems with this.
First, there is absolutely no evidence that the Recon hulls are going to be homogenized. Both hulls for each race see use and it's hardly like they each use a different weapons system to start with.
The second is that the Fleet/Field distinction had a number of inherent problems with it and left us with a situation where 5 out of 8 hulls of a given ship type were almost completely unused. I think the only use I ever heard of for a Nighthawk was a very niche passive tank fit for either an Epic Arc or a Level 5 mission. The Eos, Claymore, Absolution, and Vulture were similarly un-used for various reasons, with the Damnation only being used for bait and the very odd occasional on-grid boost.
The tanky ships didn't deal enough damage and the damage ships weren't tanky enough, either way you wouldn't want one in a small fleet unless it was the Slephnir or the Astarte because those were the two that could actually deal damage effectively. However, their lack of tank prevented them from ever being used as an actual "Command Ship" they were just T2 Battlecruisers.
I fail to see how you can claim that this was a better situation for Command Ships to be in than one where every one can actually be used as a *Command Ship* and still contribute to fleets. |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
101
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 16:03:00 -
[1955] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:The second is that the Fleet/Field distinction had a number of inherent problems with it and left us with a situation where 5 out of 8 hulls of a given ship type were almost completely unused. I think the only use I ever heard of for a Nighthawk was a very niche passive tank fit for either an Epic Arc or a Level 5 mission.
I'm afraid you probably won't be seeing the Nighthawk used much after the patch, either, seeing as how it can't fit a warp disruptor/scrambler and prop mod without compromising its tank. A 3-slot (4 with DCU) tank is not enough on a 200 million ISK ship. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
290
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 16:10:00 -
[1956] - Quote
Wrayeth wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:The second is that the Fleet/Field distinction had a number of inherent problems with it and left us with a situation where 5 out of 8 hulls of a given ship type were almost completely unused. I think the only use I ever heard of for a Nighthawk was a very niche passive tank fit for either an Epic Arc or a Level 5 mission. I'm afraid you probably won't be seeing the Nighthawk used much after the patch, either, seeing as how it can't fit a warp disruptor/scrambler and prop mod without compromising its tank. A 3-slot (4 with DCU) tank is not enough on a 200 million ISK ship.
I have to agree there. I've been very upbeat about these CS changes and will be using the minny and gallente ones on grid in wormholes.
But the slot layout on the NH is difficult to understand in PVP context. Maybe the devs have plans for damage application mods for missiles and would like to see them on the NH to give it more range?
Winter marauders - Mutant Ninja Space Turtles
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
86
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 16:23:00 -
[1957] - Quote
Wrayeth wrote:I'm afraid you probably won't be seeing the Nighthawk used much after the patch, either, seeing as how it can't fit a warp disruptor/scrambler and prop mod without compromising its tank. A 3-slot (4 with DCU) tank is not enough on a 200 million ISK ship.
I'm not particularly concerned about that. Caldari ships have always been more fleet focused and with its current stats it ends up being fairly similar to a Tengu. As for your assertion about a 3 slot tank not being enough, well I'm sure someone out there who doesn't see the ship as much of a loss will disagree with you (especially if you factor in T2 medium shield rigs).
Regardless of your personal fitting preferences the Nighthawk is in a vastly improved position as are all of the other unused CS hulls. |
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 16:45:00 -
[1958] - Quote
Wrayeth wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:The second is that the Fleet/Field distinction had a number of inherent problems with it and left us with a situation where 5 out of 8 hulls of a given ship type were almost completely unused. I think the only use I ever heard of for a Nighthawk was a very niche passive tank fit for either an Epic Arc or a Level 5 mission. I'm afraid you probably won't be seeing the Nighthawk used much after the patch, either, seeing as how it can't fit a warp disruptor/scrambler and prop mod without compromising its tank. A 3-slot (4 with DCU) tank is not enough on a 200 million ISK ship.
Its the one disappointing thing to come out of this thread. So many of those who have commented on the Nighthawk have said it needs a better slot layout 6:4 not 5:5
Theres way to much competition for mids on this hull compared to others in the class.
Em hard Invuln Booster Injector Propulsion
would be my prefs for a base setup
Leaving it 2 slots short if used as a T2 BC point X web X
For a tanky or boosty CS it can't do either 2nd Inv X or Command Processor X
It would be interesting to know what the slot layout is designed around other that PvE only Passive Tank.
|
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
102
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 16:50:00 -
[1959] - Quote
Some small part of me wonders if Fozzie is trolling us and it will actually be 7/6/4 when it hits TQ. It's almost certainly not going to happen, but it would be hilarious (and awesome!) if it does. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
86
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 16:51:00 -
[1960] - Quote
Lore Varan wrote:Its the one disappointing thing to come out of this thread. So many of those who have commented on the Nighthawk have said it needs a better slot layout 6:4 not 5:5
Theres way to much competition for mids on this hull compared to others in the class.
Em hard Invuln Booster Injector Propulsion
would be my prefs for a base setup
Leaving it 2 slots short if used as a T2 BC point X web X
For a tanky or boosty CS it can't do either 2nd Inv X or Command Processor X
It would be interesting to know what the slot layout is designed around other that PvE only Passive Tank.
I'm not sure why you thought you were ever going to get a 7 mid-slot Battlecruiser. Also you can fit an ASB rather than doing both a booster and an injector since your guns don't use cap and then NOS in the highs as a counter to neuting.
Overall though most Caldari ships aren't built to be solo ships, they're much better lending muscle to a small to medium gang where they don't need to fit, say, both a point AND a web but can better leverage their excellent tank. |
|
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
102
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 17:02:00 -
[1961] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: Overall though most Caldari ships aren't built to be solo ships, they're much better lending muscle to a small to medium gang where they don't need to fit, say, both a point AND a web but can better leverage their excellent tank.
True...except with 5 mids, it's not an excellent tank unless you drop either the prop mod or the the disruptor/scrambler. While 7 mids would be amazing, it would be too much, IMO. 6, however, are required for this ship to be viable in PvP if survivability matters at all to you. |
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 17:07:00 -
[1962] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Lore Varan wrote:Its the one disappointing thing to come out of this thread. So many of those who have commented on the Nighthawk have said it needs a better slot layout 6:4 not 5:5
Theres way to much competition for mids on this hull compared to others in the class.
Em hard Invuln Booster Injector Propulsion
would be my prefs for a base setup
Leaving it 2 slots short if used as a T2 BC point X web X
For a tanky or boosty CS it can't do either 2nd Inv X or Command Processor X
It would be interesting to know what the slot layout is designed around other that PvE only Passive Tank.
I'm not sure why you thought you were ever going to get a 7 mid-slot Battlecruiser. Also you can fit an ASB rather than doing both a booster and an injector since your guns don't use cap and then NOS in the highs as a counter to neuting. Overall though most Caldari ships aren't built to be solo ships, they're much better lending muscle to a small to medium gang where they don't need to fit, say, both a point AND a web but can better leverage their excellent tank.
No ones suggesting a 7 slotter that's entirelly your own misunderstanding. If you go scram/web on a nh its fair to drop 1 of the standard mids ( probably the invuln ).
Although 7/3 on the Vulture might have been interesting to compete more with the Damnation.
Being tied in to an ASB booster is not acceptable ( to little fitting choice imo ) The slot layout of the ship should not dictate that ASB must be used. Large are underpowered and XL require gimped fits.
Also in a role where you dont have own tackle and are doing the CS booster thing. An injector is needed to keep that MWD running.
Also the Caldari arnt solo excuse is very old and lame. Given that I think 40% of the player base come in as Caldari your saying all those players can't enjoy solo commands until they have cross trained ? gtfo. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
87
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 17:18:00 -
[1963] - Quote
Wrayeth wrote:True...except with 5 mids, it's not an excellent tank unless you drop either the prop mod or the the disruptor/scrambler. While 7 mids would be amazing, it would be too much, IMO. 6, however, are required for this ship to be viable in PvP if survivability matters at all to you.
Lore Varan wrote:No ones suggesting a 7 slotter that's entirelly your own misunderstanding. If you go scram/web on a nh its fair to drop 1 of the standard mids ( probably the invuln ).
Although 7/3 on the Vulture might have been interesting to compete more with the Damnation.
Being tied in to an ASB booster is not acceptable ( to little fitting choice imo ) The slot layout of the ship should not dictate that ASB must be used. Large are underpowered and XL require gimped fits.
Also in a role where you dont have own tackle and are doing the CS booster thing. An injector is needed to keep that MWD running.
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.
In a solo situation you're probably better off with a Navy Drake or HAC. Since the primary role of Command Ships is fleet boosting it's fine that some of them aren't great solo ships. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
290
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 17:22:00 -
[1964] - Quote
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.
In a solo situation you're probably better off with a Navy Drake or HAC. Since the primary role of Command Ships is fleet boosting it's fine that some of them aren't great solo ships.
Agree - i would never take a CS on grid without some logistics.
Navy drake is the wrong choice for solo though - it's the weakest of the navy BCs.
Winter marauders - Mutant Ninja Space Turtles
|
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 17:43:00 -
[1965] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Wrayeth wrote:True...except with 5 mids, it's not an excellent tank unless you drop either the prop mod or the the disruptor/scrambler. While 7 mids would be amazing, it would be too much, IMO. 6, however, are required for this ship to be viable in PvP if survivability matters at all to you. Lore Varan wrote:No ones suggesting a 7 slotter that's entirelly your own misunderstanding. If you go scram/web on a nh its fair to drop 1 of the standard mids ( probably the invuln ).
Although 7/3 on the Vulture might have been interesting to compete more with the Damnation.
Being tied in to an ASB booster is not acceptable ( to little fitting choice imo ) The slot layout of the ship should not dictate that ASB must be used. Large are underpowered and XL require gimped fits.
Also in a role where you dont have own tackle and are doing the CS booster thing. An injector is needed to keep that MWD running. 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. In a solo situation you're probably better off with a Navy Drake or HAC. Since the primary role of Command Ships is fleet boosting it's fine that some of them aren't great solo ships.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
87
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 18:28:00 -
[1966] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Agree - i would never take a CS on grid without some logistics.
Navy drake is the wrong choice for solo though - it's the weakest of the navy BCs.
Still a better choice for solo work than the Nighthawk though, and it meets his slot requirements. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
290
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 18:47:00 -
[1967] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Agree - i would never take a CS on grid without some logistics.
Navy drake is the wrong choice for solo though - it's the weakest of the navy BCs. Still a better choice for solo work than the Nighthawk though, and it meets his slot requirements.
Well yes, but that's like saying when going to a gunfight, it's better to take a cucumber than a rubber chicken...
Winter marauders - Mutant Ninja Space Turtles
|
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
217
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 18:57:00 -
[1968] - Quote
Well, this drops tomorrow, so I doubt they're going to be fixing the Caldari boats.
Nighthawk's slot layout is awful and it's outshined by the Claymore for PvP of any kind. PvE-only boat...expensive Drake with only barely better tank. Yay.
Vulture does less damage than a Ferox.
Hopefully they'll fix these mistakes at some point in the future.
I won't be holding my breath. |
Lucine Delacourt
The Covenant of Blood
16
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 18:58:00 -
[1969] - Quote
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. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
87
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 19:10:00 -
[1970] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Well, this drops tomorrow, so I doubt they're going to be fixing the Caldari boats.
Nighthawk's slot layout is awful and it's outshined by the Claymore for PvP of any kind. PvE-only boat...expensive Drake with only barely better tank. Yay.
Vulture does less damage than a Ferox.
Hopefully they'll fix these mistakes at some point in the future.
I won't be holding my breath.
So, no the Vulture does more damage at high SP levels than the Ferox does, if only by a little, and has better range and tank by a mile. 5 * 1.5 = 7.5 effective turrets of DPS which is greater than the Ferox's 7
The Nighthawk has better resists than the Claymore and is therefore preferable for any kind of logi supported fleet PvP.
~working as intended~
In the future please math before posting.
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Well yes, but that's like saying when going to a gunfight, it's better to take a cucumber than a rubber chicken...
This is going in my Bio with the rest of my hilarious quotes. I think leaving out the context makes it even better xD |
|
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
217
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 19:11:00 -
[1971] - Quote
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. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
217
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 19:12:00 -
[1972] - Quote
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!" |
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 19:25:00 -
[1973] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:[quote=Wrayeth] 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
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 19:37:00 -
[1974] - Quote
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
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
89
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 23:26:00 -
[1975] - Quote
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
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
217
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 01:01:00 -
[1976] - Quote
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
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
89
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 02:08:00 -
[1977] - Quote
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 Unthinkables
17
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 04:16:00 -
[1978] - Quote
So, is the Eos still going to be stuck with that random medium hybrid tracking bonus? |
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 08:46:00 -
[1979] - Quote
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
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 09:16:00 -
[1980] - Quote
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 70 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |