EVE Search - Boost The Nidhoggur

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Boost The Nidhoggur

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Almarez	Posted - 2007.03.14 16:37:00 - [31] Isn't this the way all Minmitar ships are setup. Split low and med slot layout? I don't know how many times I hear Tempest pilots say they love the dual shield/armor tank. I don't understand why but that is what I've heard. Why should the carrier be any different if that is the design philosophy of the race.
Imechal Ravpeim International Multi-Player Consortium Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.03.14 16:46:00 - [32] Originally by: Almarez Isn't this the way all Minmitar ships are setup. Split low and med slot layout? I don't know how many times I hear Tempest pilots say they love the dual shield/armor tank. I don't understand why but that is what I've heard. Why should the carrier be any different if that is the design philosophy of the race. By that standpoint Minmatar ships shouldn't exist beyond the battleship class...
Plymer Ization Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2007.03.14 17:16:00 - [33] I'm getting one for the sheer fact that they look badass. If they decide to boost it, then all the better
Capt Rob Minmatar Black Omega Security GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.03.14 17:39:00 - [34] Edited by: Capt Rob on 14/03/2007 17:36:48 Originally by: Almarez Isn't this the way all Minmitar ships are setup. Split low and med slot layout? I don't know how many times I hear Tempest pilots say they love the dual shield/armor tank. I don't understand why but that is what I've heard. Why should the carrier be any different if that is the design philosophy of the race. Because of its cap etc, it cant tank well either way. which is a pretty big prob on a 1bil ship. Also its pg and cpu are rather low for either way you wanna tank. lets say you wanna shield tank, the thanatos has more cpu then the nidhoggur and its a armor tank only....
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.03.14 17:53:00 - [35] Originally by: Chronus26 CCP have said on god-knows how many occasions that just because a Dev hasn't replied to a thread, that doesn't mean they haven't seen it. Wait till the next big patch is about to arrive, thats when changes to stuff like this are normally announced. Just because a dev has seen an issue, it doesn't mean that they feel action needs to be taken on it, regardless of how suboptimal the player base feels the current situation is. It would be good to see the Nidhoggur's bonuses changed to something more aggressive, ie in line with the Matari fleet doctrine.
Standard Deviation	Posted - 2007.03.14 17:59:00 - [36] Bonus to fighter tracking and speed. its a cap ship not a cruiser, split layout doesnt work. Make it a sheild tanker or armor tanker. Make its grid and cpu more like other carriers.
Capt Rob Minmatar Black Omega Security GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.03.14 18:02:00 - [37] Originally by: Standard Deviation Bonus to fighter tracking and speed. its a cap ship not a cruiser, split layout doesnt work. Make it a sheild tanker or armor tanker. Make its grid and cpu more like other carriers. I agree with pretty much everything here, bonus to fighter tracking or speed would most likely be more directed with the whole minmatar way.
Virusuk Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.14 20:16:00 - [38] fighter tracking 5% per level sounds good.. And lets have 5/5/6 slot layout :) ----------------------------------------------------------------
king jks New Age Solutions New Age Solutions Amalgamated	Posted - 2007.03.14 21:11:00 - [39] The two bonuses I saw being discussed that I would rather like are speed/tracking bonus to fighters or a jump range bonus, which would be in accordance with the hit and run philosophy of the minmatar, either that or just turn it into the ultimate hauler
Spaced Skunk D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.03.14 21:30:00 - [40] Edited by: Spaced Skunk on 14/03/2007 21:26:46 I dont fly the Nidhoggur atm, but to be honest the bonus does look a little 'weak'. See in my opinion I dont actually mind it having a support bonus, support/logistics is often overlooked in fleet battles, but its just not enough. I think the bonus for capital armour/shield transfer cap bonus should be changed from 5% to 7.5%, and the range bonus increased from 50% to 75%.
Maeltstome Minmatar Caldari Navy Raiders DeStInY.	Posted - 2007.03.14 22:41:00 - [41] Originally by: Spaced Skunk Edited by: Spaced Skunk on 14/03/2007 21:26:46 I dont fly the Nidhoggur atm, but to be honest the bonus does look a little 'weak'. See in my opinion I dont actually mind it having a support bonus, support/logistics is often overlooked in fleet battles, but its just not enough. I think the bonus for capital armour/shield transfer cap bonus should be changed from 5% to 7.5%, and the range bonus increased from 50% to 75%. Even that would still a shortcoming in the fittings department.
Capt Rob Minmatar Black Omega Security GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.03.15 00:59:00 - [42] Originally by: Spaced Skunk Edited by: Spaced Skunk on 14/03/2007 21:26:46 I dont fly the Nidhoggur atm, but to be honest the bonus does look a little 'weak'. See in my opinion I dont actually mind it having a support bonus, support/logistics is often overlooked in fleet battles, but its just not enough. I think the bonus for capital armour/shield transfer cap bonus should be changed from 5% to 7.5%, and the range bonus increased from 50% to 75%. In my opinion, if the nidhoggur gets a support bonus in the idea of carriers as support ships; they should all get support bonus's. Otherwise it acts as a nerf to the nidhoggur because it is no where as good as the others in the bonus and otherwise in fittings and cap etc.
Pesadel0 Vagabundos THE H0RDE	Posted - 2007.03.15 02:03:00 - [43] Originally by: Chronus26 Originally by: Chode Rizoum ye the nidhoggur and hel.. deff needs a BIG BOOST.... but i cant be bothered to argument for it anymore.. this is like the 50th post in 6 months.. ccp wont listen Or CCP did listen and want to surprise you when the next big patch comes around... We are still waiting for the "juicy" thing tux promised us for our capitals. I was sworn to absolute secrecy BY CCP.
Princess MiMi	Posted - 2007.03.15 02:20:00 - [44] I am anticipating a boost. i am so certain that i bought my carrier about 2 months sooner than i really need it so i can avoid price spike
mechtech Entropy Industries	Posted - 2007.03.15 02:38:00 - [45] Originally by: Standard Deviation Bonus to fighter tracking and speed. its a cap ship not a cruiser, split layout doesnt work. Make it a sheild tanker or armor tanker. Make its grid and cpu more like other carriers. I like the fighter tracking/speed idea, very minmatar.
Ecky X The Aforementioned	Posted - 2007.03.15 04:16:00 - [46] I personally would like to see it boosted to 7.5% per level, maybe with a capacitor use reduction too. I kinda like the bonus... can't wait to see a Hogpack actually used. Imagine how hard it would be to kill any of them. Cap isn't a problem, because really only one will be called primary. Everyone else will just turn off their own reppers, which would leave plenty for remote repping.
Chode Rizoum Minmatar Temptation inc. Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2007.03.15 06:51:00 - [47] i wish tuxford would response... PS: this has nothing to do with me training carrier V TEMPTATION INC. Killboard
Kar Anshral	Posted - 2007.03.15 09:59:00 - [48] I like the intention behind the nidhoggur's bonus but a duration bonus is ftl. a remote shield/armor boost amount bonus(like 7.5% per level) or a cap reduction bonus(-7.5% for nid, -10% for hel) would be far superior. My own preference would be cap reduction. Allowing a carrier to actually run capital remote boosters decently is hawt. There is a second problem however and that is either grid or cpu. Either it needs more grid or it needs more cpu. Shield tanking a nidhoggur is difficult with the limited cpu and armor tanking it means you'll be limited on the high slots.
Waagaa Ktlehr Amarr Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.03.15 10:19:00 - [49] I still think the Niddy needs love, but at the moment, it is the ultimate support carrier. It reps both shield and armor remote and reps more than the other carriers on a single module. Now that rigs are pretty commonplace, you can easily stick 3 cap rigs on your niddy and sustain either your capital booster/reps or one of the remote transfer mods. I see the Nidhoggur as a support vessel for smaller gangs. It does the job of repairer smaller craft better than the other carriers. If that's the role people want it to have though, that's a whole different issue. :) - -
ShadowlordUK	Posted - 2007.03.15 11:52:00 - [50] You shouldnt complain about a ship being underpowered just because you dont have the common sense to use it correctly... The minmatar carrier is actually pretty uber.... For your fleet. If dmg and getting personal killmails is all you play the game for perhaps try a different ship... I for one would much prefer to see the minmatar carrier in my fleet then any of the others.
Capt Rob Minmatar Black Omega Security GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.03.15 13:06:00 - [51] Originally by: Waagaa Ktlehr I still think the Niddy needs love, but at the moment, it is the ultimate support carrier. It reps both shield and armor remote and reps more than the other carriers on a single module. Now that rigs are pretty commonplace, you can easily stick 3 cap rigs on your niddy and sustain either your capital booster/reps or one of the remote transfer mods. I see the Nidhoggur as a support vessel for smaller gangs. It does the job of repairer smaller craft better than the other carriers. If that's the role people want it to have though, that's a whole different issue. :) Even with cap rigs, the niddy has some pretty large cap issues, with fitting probs to boot. If it is meant to be the ultimate support carrier, give it the bonus of a ultimate support carrier; as even with carrier V, the duration of cap remote reps goes down to what? around 4 seconds, thats not a hugh difference, when the other carriers can have it at 5, and they dont have all the cap issues etc.
Amy Wang	Posted - 2007.03.15 13:44:00 - [52] Just change the bonus to +7,5% repair/boost amount for capital remote reps/boosters and up the cap amount by a bit and we have a decent ship that can fullfill a role.
Kar Anshral	Posted - 2007.03.15 13:52:00 - [53] Originally by: Capt Rob Originally by: Waagaa Ktlehr ... Even with cap rigs, the niddy has some pretty large cap issues, with fitting probs to boot. If it is meant to be the ultimate support carrier, give it the bonus of a ultimate support carrier; as even with carrier V, the duration of cap remote reps goes down to what? around 4 seconds, thats not a hugh difference, when the other carriers can have it at 5, and they dont have all the cap issues etc. Nidhoggur has the same average cap recharge rate as the others, though it has lower total reserve so it does run out sooner if the need is more then the recharge can provide. The remote duration reduction comes out to an increase of about 33% at maxed carrier skill(25% more hp/s at lvl 4), so I wouldn't call that a small boost, a 7.5% amount bonus would be about the same increase(little bit more). Biggest downside of the duration reduction is that the cap need also increases, I really like the idea behind the bonus but I think the duration reduction is the wrong bonus to get a superior supporting role for the nidhoggur.
Vathar Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.03.15 14:06:00 - [54] Originally by: Kar Anshral Nidhoggur has the same average cap recharge rate as the others, though it has lower total reserve so it does run out sooner if the need is more then the recharge can provide. The remote duration reduction comes out to an increase of about 33% at maxed carrier skill(25% more hp/s at lvl 4), so I wouldn't call that a small boost, a 7.5% amount bonus would be about the same increase(little bit more). Biggest downside of the duration reduction is that the cap need also increases, I really like the idea behind the bonus but I think the duration reduction is the wrong bonus to get a superior supporting role for the nidhoggur. Yup, but total caps becomes an issue when you have to use remote reppers that suck A LOT of cap, making management a major issue. And then, to add things up, you get a bonus that increases a nid's cap consumption!!! Hey, I love the Nid because it looks awesome and I'm minnie specced, but tbh, at the moment, training for either a chimera or an archon is a sensible option (I tend to favour tanking over damage for cap ships philosophy, hence putting the thanatos behind) Originally by: Radeberger If you plan to make your alliance combat based, recruit pvpers with mining alts rather than miners with pvp alts[/qu
Waagaa Ktlehr Amarr Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.03.15 14:30:00 - [55] Originally by: Capt Rob Originally by: Spaced Skunk Edited by: Spaced Skunk on 14/03/2007 21:26:46 I dont fly the Nidhoggur atm, but to be honest the bonus does look a little 'weak'. See in my opinion I dont actually mind it having a support bonus, support/logistics is often overlooked in fleet battles, but its just not enough. I think the bonus for capital armour/shield transfer cap bonus should be changed from 5% to 7.5%, and the range bonus increased from 50% to 75%. In my opinion, if the nidhoggur gets a support bonus in the idea of carriers as support ships; they should all get support bonus's. Otherwise it acts as a nerf to the nidhoggur because it is no where as good as the others in the bonus and otherwise in fittings and cap etc. Yeah, you have to armor tank it to sustain a single remote or two capital reps. Not even an archon can sustain double remote reps unless you gimp the tank by quite a lot. a 7.5% amount / level might work, or -5% duration and -5% cap use per level orso.. - -
Capt Rob Minmatar Black Omega Security GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.03.15 14:44:00 - [56] Along with its cap issues, and odd cpu/pg. I would like to have a discussion about the slot layout, i mean this is a bil ship not a cruiser or bc. I think that thought needs to go into this as a mixed slot layout does not work on a ship of this caliber or cost.
Amy Wang	Posted - 2007.03.15 15:17:00 - [57] The slot layout has its issues, true. You can either fit a really bad armor tank (worse then thanatos with t2 tanking mods even if you use like 1 Bil in faction mods on the Nid) or you can fit a slightly better (resist wise) shield tank which is still not worth much. So the ship needs something really nice to compensate for the bad tanking abilities. Another idea: How about we keep the bad capital remote repair bonus but in turn increase the cap amount by say 1/3 while keeping the recharge time the same? So the ship gets a superior recharge rate then the other carriers which somehow makes up for the cap hungry repair duration bonus and the bad tanking options?
William Hamilton	Posted - 2007.03.15 15:21:00 - [58] 7.5 for reapair/shield transporter would be awesome...
Almarez	Posted - 2007.03.15 15:30:00 - [59] Edited by: Almarez on 15/03/2007 15:27:38 Originally by: Capt Rob Edited by: Capt Rob on 14/03/2007 17:43:14 Edited by: Capt Rob on 14/03/2007 17:36:48 Originally by: Almarez Isn't this the way all Minmitar ships are setup. Split low and med slot layout? I don't know how many times I hear Tempest pilots say they love the dual shield/armor tank. I don't understand why but that is what I've heard. Why should the carrier be any different if that is the design philosophy of the race. Because of its cap etc, it cant tank well either way. which is a pretty big prob on a 1bil ship. Also its pg and cpu are rather low for either way you wanna tank. lets say you wanna shield tank, the thanatos has more cpu then the nidhoggur and its a armor tank only....And ofc the thanatos has more pg so it can armor tank better than the nidhoggur as well. I ask the question why bother getting a nidhoggur when everything it can do, another carrier can just do better. OFC except the nidhoggur gets a small% better duration on remote reps which is SUCH A USEFULL BONUS The cpu and powergrid may both be issues and that should be looked into if there are serious fitting problems but what I thought you were having issues with was about slot layout. My point is, each race has a design philosophy and the Minmitar one is a split between low and med slots, so why would this ship be any different? As for the cap issue, again Minmitar have smaller capacitors in general, which this ship seems to follow. Just because it is a bigger ship that shouldn't change. That being said, smaller than the other races ships doesn't mean it should be so small that the ship can't do anything. So if it really is killing you to run your mods then...oh wait, isn't that the problem with just about every laser boat. I think the problem is that as a Minmitar pilot you are not used to having cap problems, welcome to our world. (Sponsored by the Amarrian Federation of Disgruntled Laser Users - AFDLU)
Almarez	Posted - 2007.03.15 15:38:00 - [60] Originally by: Jurushy i agree the carrier are over one year in the game TUXFORD prommised to take a look on the capital ships and all get 500% increase in HP but this is not enought the minmatar capships need to balance whit the others The minmatar carrier ond motherships needs it more than every other ship in this game TUXFORD IT IS TIME TO DO U WORK NOW! we wait long enough He is working on it!!! You must be patient, the Amarr were here first.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.