EVE Search - Field Command Ships - what a waste of time

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Field Command Ships - what a waste of time

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2006.12.02 00:20:00 - [1] Originally by: Drogo Targaryen um akita I hate to point this out mate but your maths is out. Both ships have the same damage mods so we can discount that. That leaves us with a straight comparison between the rof bonus on 6 launchers and the additional launcher on the drake. So thats 25% bonus on 6 launchers gives us = 7.5 launchers So thats .5 of 7 which gives us a 7.14% damage differance in favour of the nighthawk. If you stick an invulnerablity field 2 (tech 2 mods are the only thing worth tech 2ing now) in the spare slot you can get you close to the resistance levels you get on the nighthawk. If you then take into the account the extra shield and recharge rate you get with the drake I think this almost balances out. So the tank is slightly in favour of the nighthawk. OK so we have established the nighthawk is the better ship. BUT is it worth the extra isk? Is it worth the extra 2 months training time? When you think that the drake is fully insurable I would say not. a 5% ROF bonus becomes a 25% rof bonus. 25 ROF = 1/3 more damage. 6 * 1/3 = 2 It's 8 launchers. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2006.12.02 00:25:00 - [2] Originally by: Bradstone Edited by: Bradstone on 01/12/2006 15:12:38 Nighthawk can kick a drakes behind with the nighthawks resists and rof. Please don't nerf it cos i said that!! - NH has the extra low slot - My NH has a ROF of 4.3 seconds... don't think a drake can match that Command ships are still well worth the training i think, if anything they look good. 4.3sec with heavies? What's your setup. With 3 BU II my rof was around 4.5 or so. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2006.12.02 00:31:00 - [3] Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker Originally by: Goodtime Girl Quote: TBFH, the percentage boosts were just fine. True, BCs got a huge boost, but CBCs got slightly above average boosts too (compared to normal, T1 ships... don't get me started on what other T2 ships got), so it's more than fair in this aspect too. This must be a Tuxford alt ... How can it be fine that T1 ships now have more HP than their T2 counterpart. T2 should not allways be better in every stat then T1. T2 takes longer to train for, and T2 mods are harder to fit. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2006.12.02 00:32:00 - [4] Originally by: Popsikle BC's can only have one active gang mod at a time. Fleet Command Ship's can have 3. I am assuming thats why Command ships are in game, and CCP wanted to add a combat platform for the pilots that were training a Gang platform. As such, I dont think you are comparing the right things. I dont think Field Command Ship were supposed to really be a huge upgrade to a BC pilots, but they had to give some bonuses to it so they Fleet Command pilots had something to pew pew in when they werent safespotted giving out bonuses. If that were true then both ships would require the same skills to fly. They don't. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2006.12.06 04:45:00 - [5] Originally by: Natasha Kerensky The REAL question is: Can the Drake solo lvl4 missions? A passive tanked missile Ferox can solo some level 4s, so... Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2006.12.06 04:58:00 - [6] Originally by: Enkilil Edited by: Enkilil on 05/12/2006 22:51:45 Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker the Ferox didnt do all that bad in L4 angels ganza. and whats the big deal if the drake can do it. it doesnt hurt you in any way if a tech 1 ship can perform close to that of tech 2. next thing people will complain the new BCs are better then HACs as well. But... they are... by quite a large margin... example, just off the top of my head: anyone w/ the skills to fly a Deimos would benefit more from a Myrmidon than they ever would from that nerfed up camoflauge P.O.S. Why train 1 1/2 months for a HAC when (unless you fly Minmatar or a Cerberus) they are pretty much useless nerfed cruisers with a few resistances? please... anyone with half a brain would drop the 50 mil and get a BC with a few days of training and accomplish the same thing. No one expects any ship to be a solo pwnmobile... but I would expect a ship to justify what I just spent xxx days training for. ghey. If HAC costs were back down around 50-60mil like they were when I started last year, you'd jump into one without thinking twice. You don't accomplish the same things, because the two ships are not ment to be the same. Personally I'd use a Cerb over a Drake if they both cost around the same (the cerb's cheaper to build I remind you), or even if the cerb was alittle more. Course NH > both so meh. HACs do justify the time you spent training for them, they are specialized ships. You specialize for an edge, not to be the embodiment of pwnage. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2006.12.06 05:01:00 - [7] Originally by: The Hardman Originally by: Malthros Zenobia T2 takes longer to train for, and T2 mods are harder to fit. Well, that is true of T2 modules. But what was the weakness of T2 ships? Limited availability, much more logistics required in their creation, much more materials used in construction, longer build time, long training time before you can use them, overconfidence, poor gas mileage, large insurance gap due to high demand and low supply. Originally by:* kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2006.12.06 05:07:00 - [8] Originally by: Akita T snip If T2 SPRs aren't seeded in the lottery, you won't be able to invent them. Your math isnt anything new though, I posted similiar info in pottsey's thread about having a 218/shield peak on her (gallente) ship. Use a Vulutre if you're going for ultimate passive tank though, it's even more powerful. Also, with the passive tank setup you have listed, you cannot fit a rack of T2 heavy missile launchers. You need two PDU IIs and near-max fitting skills to get 3 T2 extenders and 6 launchers fitted. You'll get 3-4 on your uber tank setup, and while nobody will break your tank easily, you won't be breaking theirs either. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2006.12.06 05:11:00 - [9] Originally by: Akita T To put it into perspective, if you EVER encounter 2 NOS-Domis, regardless of drones they might use, and no matter how much NOSing they might try to "suck" out of you, your shields will keep steady at around 45-55% with you AFK. right up until your hardeners deactivate because you have no cap. Then you have a nice EM-hole, and they swap drones, and you die. Lets not forget that 5 SPRs will completely destroy your cap regen, and keeping hardeners running forever with 5 sprs isn't possible. Even with max cap skill, 2 invulns will drain your cap with 2 SPRS fitted unless you have PDUs to help offset. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2006.12.07 00:23:00 - [10] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 06/12/2006 05:38:47 Edited by: Akita T on 06/12/2006 05:23:08 Originally by: Malthros Zenobia right up until your hardeners deactivate because you have no cap. Then you have a nice EM-hole, and they swap drones, and you die. Lets not forget that 5 SPRs will completely destroy your cap regen, and keeping hardeners running forever with 5 sprs isn't possible. Even with max cap skill, 2 invulns will drain your cap with 2 SPRS fitted unless you have PDUs to help offset. HELLO ? Have you even READ my post ? 5x SPR, 3x LSE IIs, 2x Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II I was using PASSIVE EM hardners, there's not a single module in the entire setup that uses any capacitor whatsoever. Oh right, I haven't seen passive hardeners for so long I forgot their name. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2006.12.07 00:36:00 - [11] Originally by: Pottsey Edited by: Pottsey on 06/12/2006 19:38:20 öUse a Vulutre if you're going for ultimate passive tank though, it's even more powerfulàà. You'll get 3-4 on your uber tank setup, and while nobody will break your tank easily, you won't be breaking theirs either.ö You just answer why we donÆt use a Vulture a tank that can do nothing else is useless. ThatÆs why I like my Eos great tank and great DPS. Same for the Nighthawk much better DPS over a Vulture. That's not really true. The setup listed above with the 3 extenders, full lows of SPRS...etc, does not fit with a full rack of t2 launchers. I dont believe a full rack of Malkuth heavies fit either (dont have 6 to check with). If you can only fit 3-4 Heavy Missile launchers on the Nighthawk, your DPS are going to be in-line with a Vulture's, so unless you drop some SPRs for PDUs, which weakens the tank a fair bit, you won't have the full DPS edge with the NH over the Vulture. It's an uber setup, but due to the lack of launchers, the DPS will not be very noteworthy, and the DPS advantage of the NH over the Vulture diminshes. Don't get me wrong, I love my NH, and my fitting skills are nearly maxxed, but if you're using a T2 setup, you're not fitting 3 extenders and 6 launchers without 2, possibly 3 PDUs (depends on fitting skills). Dropping down to named launchers to avoid an extra PDU is possible, but you're looking at at least a 2-10% DPS drop at the least. Considerably more if you use a 'lower grade' named type like Malkuth, and you're sitting on a lvl 4 or 5 heavy missile spec. As much as I love my NH, the idea of quite possibly cutting my DPS in half to have some uber tank, which in many cases isn't needed, is something I'm not really in favor of. But the ability to have utterly insane passive tanking isn't new to me, I mentioned the ability to go over 300shield/sec peak a week or so ago. However getting that tanking means your DPS are not going to be very good, and when you're either not fitting a full rack of launchers, or fitting slow firing named launchers, compared to T2 rails on the Vulture, both having no damage mods, the DPS advantage of the NH becomes smaller, and the slightly better tank of the Vulture is indeed a factor in the two. The upsde is the NH won't need cap, the Vulture will, and with 5 SPRs, you're pretty screwed for firing your guns. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2006.12.09 02:49:00 - [12] Originally by: Karrihn Originally by: Malthros Zenobia Originally by: Natasha Kerensky The REAL question is: Can the Drake solo lvl4 missions? A passive tanked missile Ferox can solo some level 4s, so... It can solo all level 4's. You can solo a lvl 4 vengance mission with a passive tanked missile ferox? Impressive, considering that the final NPc can tank cruise missile ravens that do 2x the DPS of a missile ferox. Unless you meant the Drake, which can most likely kill em all, but that Vengeance guy would be nasty and take a couple warpouts probably. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2006.12.15 21:06:00 - [13] Originally by: Sorja Have you ever seen a Sleipnir in action ? What the OP is saying boils down to: 'since the Nighthawk sucks, the Drake has to suck harder'. /me goes away still dreaming about a high damage Caldari ship, which the Drake was supposed to be and is not. /me wonders when we're getting our teir 2 gank BCs since we've not got the tier 2 tank BCs. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2006.12.16 06:09:00 - [14] Originally by: Talos Darkhart This was not a nerf to T2 it was a nerf to long term players after 9months of nooobs whinging and moaning they nerfed EvE into EvE lite were you can be uber in weeks with little to no effort or risk wellcome to the new dawn walcome to Kali the death of EVE. Is that why a lot of older players seem to love that they can finally have a viable PVP ship, that isn't a battleship, and doesn't send them to the poor house, or take several months to train for? Let new players use the new ships to NPC or whatever. I know I'm going to be a hell of alot more afraid of a DRake coming at me than a Ferox though. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.