EVE Search - Command ships also got a regen nerf?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Command ships also got a regen nerf?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
SauronTheMage Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.06.03 20:55:00 - [1] I noticed on the test server that the vulture & nighthawk both have 1400 sec regen instead of the standard 1250. I though only the T1 ships were getting changed to match 1400 sec regen and not also T2 ships (since they are T2 afterall)
Marquis Dean Demise and Vestige 9th Fleet	Posted - 2007.06.03 21:28:00 - [2] Guess not then... I'm sure they will still have very powerful tanks, despite this. --- Originally by: Galack Fyar Burn in a hole
Jin Entres Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.06.03 21:36:00 - [3] Say what? I thought Drake was the only ship that posed an imbalance. Vulture / NH are T2 versions of Ferox, a completely obsolete ship that already lacks any incentives to use. Vulture already suffers from crappy optimal bonuses and low amount of hardpoints, so nerfing the only thing it's good at (passive tank) hardly makes any sense. Oh well. ---
The Painkiller	Posted - 2007.06.03 21:50:00 - [4] why!!! why nerf the CS.. i hear no complaints, CS are meant to have a good tank, and the Vultre and NH have reasonably good tanks.... as long as you go full out tank with no damage mods... a nerf in my opinion is not needed.. kinda disopointed ccp would nerf them to be honest
Kharl Xiam Red Moon Industries	Posted - 2007.06.03 21:54:00 - [5] CCP has a bit of explaining to do...
Augeas	Posted - 2007.06.03 21:57:00 - [6] It seems CCP thought that the Eos wasn't quite overpowered enough, relative to the other CS...
Glarion Garnier Solar Wind	Posted - 2007.06.03 22:51:00 - [7] I think there was no need to touch the Command ships.
Corbain	Posted - 2007.06.03 23:38:00 - [8] Used both Drake and NH on lvl4 missions, dont mind the nerf on the Drake.. I got a passive very overpowered Drake that can tank 15 battleships + cruisers/frigs.. its ridiculus. Makes missions boring cos I can go out and grab me something to eat and whatnot and know Im still alive when I come back. Stopped useing the drake and got a Cerb with active tank to make missions more fun while training for the NH. Now on my NH I went with the active tank over the passive, passive is to good imo and and I would never ever use passive on my CS, besides passive is just boring.. but thats just me. But I kinda agree with the the original poster, the T2 ships should not get nerfed, they are supposed to be very good, alot of skilltraining needed to use them and for some people they are expensive. Mighty fine gin and tonic.
Pilk Axiom Empire	Posted - 2007.06.03 23:57:00 - [9] Patently ridiculous. A brand-new character takes about as long to train for command ships as to train for capital ships. The Vulture is basically an Eagle with HAC V, but takes months longer to train for. The tank is excellent, but it's a FLEET COMMAND SHIP. Your fleet commander, if not in a capital, is supposed to be in one, running three (or more) gang mods, likely being called primary, and he has to live long enough for his gang mods to matter. Why in the world would you do this? Caldari Cruiser V Battlecruisers V Leadership V Warfare Link Spec IV Siege Warfare V Siege Warfare Spec V Cybernetics V Long Range Targeting V Signature Analysis V Logistics IV --P Kosh: The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
MehTheTrader University of Caille	Posted - 2007.06.04 00:02:00 - [10] I think everyone in this thread probabaly has a caldari commandship, SUXORS!!!!
Mr Krosis The humble Crew Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.06.04 01:53:00 - [11] I really wouldn't mind this if command ships didn't get left behind with the HP boost. Astarte currently has less hitpoints than a Brutix I'd rather see the command ships HP boost restored than have them get a boost to shield recharge time. -- Mr Krosis The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2007.06.04 07:11:00 - [12] Originally by: SauronTheMage I noticed on the test server that the vulture & nighthawk both have 1400 sec regen instead of the standard 1250. I though only the T1 ships were getting changed to match 1400 sec regen and not also T2 ships (since they are T2 afterall) That sucks if true. Considering the amount of time and money required to train them and the lower DPS compared to a BS that's nasty. If the tank is significantly compromised it makes them far less attractive and with L5 missions coming up I have to ask the devs 'WTF, dudes?' -- (Battle hardened industrialist) [Brackley, UK] *This is not* a signature**
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2007.06.04 07:13:00 - [13] Nerfing command ships also? The "as hard to train for as a capital" command ship? Hrm... CCP your a pack of morons, get a clue. If you want to nerf their shield recharge then buff their hitpoints, buff something! Currently command ships are uneasy just from tier2 battlecruisers. Thats hardly right. Nerfing Command Ships, whats wrong with these people?
Graalum Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.06.04 08:27:00 - [14] aye boost command ship hitpoints.
Hotice	Posted - 2007.06.04 08:29:00 - [15] their data base might be linked for all 3 ships? drake is indeed overpowered as a BC. I don't see how NH/Vulture fits into this though. Command ships are T2 with deep training requirments after all. Maybe ccp will realize. However, for what it is worth, I don't passive tank my NH anyway. It is a pve ship so use an active shield booster on it is not a big deal.
Cpt Branko	Posted - 2007.06.04 08:31:00 - [16] Don't you get it? They're (slightly) nerfing passive shield tanking. It's quite obvious that CCP thinks active shield tanks or armour tanks should work better then passive shield tanks, considering they use cap, are suspect to NOS warfare and can't be played AFK (what, they're saying shouldn't be done, anyway). It actually makes sense, too.
Dionisius Gallente LEGI0N SOUL CARTEL	Posted - 2007.06.04 09:19:00 - [17] Its way overpowered and it needed to be fixed, ( the drake ), dunno about the command ships, they are supposed to have mean ass tanks. _______________________ What we have here is total lack of respect for the law...
Xequecal	Posted - 2007.06.04 09:48:00 - [18] You guys do realize the Nighthawk can currently passive tank about 1,250 DPS with just T2 fittings, right? It can tank one blasterthron forever even without moving, and two standard gank fitted blasterthrons will run out of capacitor before pounding through the 21,000 shield HP.
Jin Entres Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.06.04 10:04:00 - [19] Originally by: Xequecal You guys do realize the Nighthawk can currently passive tank about 1,250 DPS with just T2 fittings, right? It can tank one blasterthron forever even without moving, and two standard gank fitted blasterthrons will run out of capacitor before pounding through the 21,000 shield HP. Show me the setup. And it better A. have a scrambler because without one it's not a PvP setup and B. be able to recharge cap to travel (warp) without limitations. P.S. Vulture is designed for hybrids. It needs even more cap to run them, so more than two SPR is not viable. ---
Xequecal	Posted - 2007.06.04 10:12:00 - [20] Originally by: Jin Entres Originally by: Xequecal You guys do realize the Nighthawk can currently passive tank about 1,250 DPS with just T2 fittings, right? It can tank one blasterthron forever even without moving, and two standard gank fitted blasterthrons will run out of capacitor before pounding through the 21,000 shield HP. Show me the setup. And it better A. have a scrambler because without one it's not a PvP setup and B. be able to recharge cap to travel (warp) without limitations. P.S. Vulture is designed for hybrids. It needs even more cap to run them, so more than two SPR is not viable. 5x SPR II in lows, 3x LSE II, 2x Invulnerability Field II, 2x Core Defense Shield Purger I, Siege Warfare Link - Active Shielding, Siege Warfare Mindlink implant. All relevant skills maxed. Hey, I never said anything about it being a great PvP fit. I merely said it was possible to tank 1,250 DPS. BTW, you can get a Vulture active tanking about 5,500 DPS (Kin/Therm) indefinetly with a Gist X-type Large Shield Booster, a crystal set, the two relevant shield warfare links, two shield boost rigs and a single Cap Recharger II plus 4x Cap Power Flux II to keep up the capacitor.
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2007.06.04 10:29:00 - [21] Originally by: Xequecal Originally by: Jin Entres Originally by: Xequecal You guys do realize the Nighthawk can currently passive tank about 1,250 DPS with just T2 fittings, right? It can tank one blasterthron forever even without moving, and two standard gank fitted blasterthrons will run out of capacitor before pounding through the 21,000 shield HP. Show me the setup. And it better A. have a scrambler because without one it's not a PvP setup and B. be able to recharge cap to travel (warp) without limitations. P.S. Vulture is designed for hybrids. It needs even more cap to run them, so more than two SPR is not viable. 5x SPR II in lows, 3x LSE II, 2x Invulnerability Field II, 2x Core Defense Shield Purger I, Siege Warfare Link - Active Shielding, Siege Warfare Mindlink implant. All relevant skills maxed. Hey, I never said anything about it being a great PvP fit. I merely said it was possible to tank 1,250 DPS. BTW, you can get a Vulture active tanking about 5,500 DPS (Kin/Therm) indefinetly with a Gist X-type Large Shield Booster, a crystal set, the two relevant shield warfare links, two shield boost rigs and a single Cap Recharger II plus 4x Cap Power Flux II to keep up the capacitor. Lol. What are you putting on it for weaponry? With your suggested setup you only have around 500 CPU and powergrid for the highslots. What weaponry are you fitting that only needs 83 CPU/powergrid? I suppose you could put 6 assault launchers on it but not much else and without BCUs..meh. Fear me for I fly the tank of doom and kill you with sheer boredom :-/ If L5 missions weren't on the drawing board I wouldn't mind so much because tbh with a more normal T2 tank (2BCU II; 3SPR II; Invul II; Rat specific II;2 LSE II;Recharge booster) you will rarely see your shield go below 70% if you're sensible and that fitting lets you fit T2 Heavy Missile Launchers. But with L5 coming up..the NH needs its uber tank to remain useful. I can understand the BC nerf because a BC is not supposed to be as good or better than a BS in anything except price and skill requirements (at least as I understand it). But an NH is more expensive than a BS (at least to buy the hull if not, perhaps, the equipment) and has way higher skills requirements. It is justifiable for it to be better in some areas and I think a better tank makes more sense than better fire power. -- (Battle hardened industrialist) [Brackley, UK] *This is not* a signature**
Jin Entres Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.06.04 10:57:00 - [22] Originally by: Xequecal Originally by: Jin Entres Originally by: Xequecal You guys do realize the Nighthawk can currently passive tank about 1,250 DPS with just T2 fittings, right? It can tank one blasterthron forever even without moving, and two standard gank fitted blasterthrons will run out of capacitor before pounding through the 21,000 shield HP. Show me the setup. And it better A. have a scrambler because without one it's not a PvP setup and B. be able to recharge cap to travel (warp) without limitations. P.S. Vulture is designed for hybrids. It needs even more cap to run them, so more than two SPR is not viable. 5x SPR II in lows, 3x LSE II, 2x Invulnerability Field II, 2x Core Defense Shield Purger I, Siege Warfare Link - Active Shielding, Siege Warfare Mindlink implant. All relevant skills maxed. Hey, I never said anything about it being a great PvP fit. I merely said it was possible to tank 1,250 DPS. BTW, you can get a Vulture active tanking about 5,500 DPS (Kin/Therm) indefinetly with a Gist X-type Large Shield Booster, a crystal set, the two relevant shield warfare links, two shield boost rigs and a single Cap Recharger II plus 4x Cap Power Flux II to keep up the capacitor. I haven't seen any blasterthrons in PVE, have you? Unrealistic, unpractical setups contribute nothing to the discussion of balance. So please don't bring such setups up as an argument to support the nerf. BTW, faction modules are really good on any ship, and active tanking is not getting nerfed here. ---
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2007.06.04 12:03:00 - [23] Originally by: Jin Entres Unrealistic, unpractical setups contribute nothing to the discussion of balance. Yeah. I'm getting really teed off with people posting triple LSE setups for Nighthawks. I don't know whether the annoyance is with the impracticality of the suggestion or frustation that I can't have 3 LSE BTW:I had another go at that BS over the weekend and if I chase it down and get within drone range I can pop it and only reload once. -- (Battle hardened industrialist) [Brackley, UK] *This is not* a signature**
Waut 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.06.04 13:46:00 - [24] Great, another useless nerf. First EANM, now command ships In Soviet EVE, roids pop YOU
Donathan Slade Kay Korporation Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.06.04 13:53:00 - [25] Its a shield regen nerf right? Not a capacitor nerf? And thats why everybody is ****ed off about the drake? Seriously, who the hell cares about gallente shield regen, they are armor tanks, why would you passive tank? Besides the fact that a passive shield myrm is a a little op from what people "say".
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2007.06.04 14:08:00 - [26] Originally by: Donathan Slade Its a shield regen nerf right? Not a capacitor nerf? And thats why everybody is **ed off about the drake? Seriously, who the hell cares about gallente shield regen, they are armor tanks, why would you passive tank? Besides the fact that a passive shield myrm is a a little op from what people "say". Are you drunk, mad or a troll? Point 1:The Drake and Nighthawk are both Caldari ships. Point 2:The Drake and Nighthawk both shield tank. Point 3:Passive tanking has several advantages for PvE players who are (probably) the biggest users of these ships. Point 4:What are you on about? -- (Battle hardened industrialist) [Brackley, UK] This is not a signature**
Donathan Slade Kay Korporation Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.06.04 15:05:00 - [27] Well, now i know its a shield regen rate nerft. Now, as per the drake, I'm sorry, doing L4 in a drake with passive shield is a little insane when it required a BS for every other race. And have you noticed that its nearly mostly and only the PvEers that are complaining about the nerft? I wonder why!? :P
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2007.06.04 15:17:00 - [28] Edited by: Nian Banks on 04/06/2007 15:20:11 Edited by: Nian Banks on 04/06/2007 15:16:57 CCP Needs to do atleast one of two things to put command ships in the rightful place. Boost Capacitor Capacity / Regen. Boost Armor & Shield hitpoints. a Cookie Cut PvP Field Command Ship should normally win by a good margin against a Cookie Cut PvP Tier2 Battlecruiser, not loose/draw/flee when in 1 v's 1. Its a command ship "Command", this is from a US Navy web page, they have command ships by the way... Quote: The command ship serves as the flagship for the Commander, Third Fleet. Command ships provide communications and accommodations for fleet commanders and staff. Ships are equipped air and surface radars, helicopter, chaff launchers, and an electronic warfare suite. ttp://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=700&ct=4 Ok coolio, basically a command ship as we know it has commanders and other higher ranking officers living aboard and are intended to be a mobile command and control, they have excellent defences and good speed. This is obvious as it is intended to keep their passengers safe. One other point to make is that during WWII Battleships were used as command vessels but sadly the current modern day command ship has poor armor, this is ofcourse because battleships are few and far between now thanks to de-commissioning. Battleships aren't the flavour of the month in modern navies. So lets boost the Command Ships, capacitor means an improved active tank and gang module running, hitpoints mean a harder tank. Eithers fine. But buff them if your going to nerf another bit of them.
Rensalot Minmatar	Posted - 2007.06.04 15:18:00 - [29] Originally by: Donathan Slade Well, now i know its a shield regen rate nerft. Now, as per the drake, I'm sorry, doing L4 in a drake with passive shield is a little insane when it required a BS for every other race. And have you noticed that its nearly mostly and only the PvEers that are complaining about the nerft? I wonder why!? :P /me reminds you that this is about command ships.
The Painkiller	Posted - 2007.06.04 16:22:00 - [30] I knew this would happen tbh, spend months training for a CS and when i finally finish it gets nerfed :( and on the point of a CS tanking a lot of DPS for example the Nighthawk, it maybe able to tank a blasterthron but it also cant kill a blasterthron, if you fit the uber tank that tanks alot its damage output is going to suck and you probably cant kill a bs, whereas the fleet command ship for example the vulture is meant to tank a lot of DPS and is not meant to deal damage but give gang bonuses so the uber tank may work, and its meant to be able to tank alot, as said before, its a 'Commandship' whats the point in a commandship if you die within the first 10seconds of a fight?

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.