EVE Search - Command Ship Nerf!?

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Command Ship Nerf!?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Usul78 Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.06.05 18:06:00 - [1] I've noticed on the test server that the recharge rate for shields have been changed to 1400 seconds on all command ships to put it in line with T1 battle cruisers. I thought that as the Command ship (230mil isk, requiring over 1 year of training) would have some sort of advantage over the T1 variety. As can be expected this effects shield tanks only and as Caldari are natural shield tankers this is amounting to a nerf to Drakes, some Myrmidons and the 2 Caldari commandships. As the Caldari command ships suffer from a lack of DPS, the inability to tackle or use any form of EW (as the midslots are reserved for tank), and the lack of any significant drone bay (25m^3), this nerf just seems like a really bad idea; or at least I fail to see the justification. All the whining on the forums - 'Please make it possible for me to insta pop any ship, solo' - is getting out of hand. There seems to have been a doctrine over the past year and a half that Caldari are the uber race (maybe true back then?) and need to be nerfed at every oportunity, and the only justification is that they can handle lvl4 missions due to a good tank and the ability to use multiple damage types. I think the attitude needs to be changed on this issue and a few key goals should be looked at by CPP and implemented in accordance with the requirement to balance the game for all players: 1. Improve the capability of other races so they are on the same level as caldari at running PVE environments. 2. Improve the Caldari PVP capabilities in accordance with other races. 3. Analyse the game mechanics and use this as your measure of what needs to be balanced instead of listening to 3 ppl and they're alts on the forums whinning about how they can't do everything they want all the time. Races are different and need to have advantages in certain areas, but still they all need to be able to perform in PVE, PVP and industry in a realtively balanced way. Caldari seem to suffer will all its T2 variants: Low DPS, can't use EW, too slow, too heavy, can't tackle, suffers from cap issues, but can tank fairly well (which is being nerfed ofcourse). I hope i'm not the only one thinking this, and as Caldari we do have some good ships but they are few and far between. I dont want people to see this as another whinning post, but I think the 'Nerf Caldari' dogma is still in existance, and I just want to raise the issues from a Caldari perspective. P.s. Really crazy idea, but what if all caldari ships had the number of mid and low slots flipped, and all shield tanking modules were low slot instead of mid slot. This would mean high slots for weapons, mids for EW, and low for tank. Like I said its a crazy idea and probably wouldn't work, but it might be worth considering.
Usul78 Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.06.05 18:39:00 - [2] Maybe CCP could comment on this one??? Is this nerf just for testing or is it planned to be included on TQ??
Icome4u Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.06.05 18:56:00 - [3] Edited by: Icome4u on 05/06/2007 18:55:11 What the **!?? Caldari get nerf again.... We can't tank We can't PvP We can't fit properly b/c of ty CPU WTH is this bs... ______ Originally by:** Vyger If I lose connection while walking around a station will my avatar run off in a random direction and go hide in a corner?
Arcadia1701 Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.06.05 19:31:00 - [4] Passive tanking on those was over powered. Yes im fly caldari. So no ***ing at me. But to compensate they should increase the CPU to allow for a better active setup. In general all caldari ships need a CPU inscrease, can never fit them proerly. Weras my gallente account never has trouble fitting any setup i feel like. My sig> Post with your main, or don't post at all.**
Ferocious FeAr Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.06.05 19:42:00 - [5] You have to understand, this game is ruled by cry babies. They cry they get what they want. After all passive ships can tackle they are so unbeatable! Sigh Don't hate me, learn to love me
l3lind Man	Posted - 2007.06.05 20:04:00 - [6] give absol more armor than harbinger plz
Usul78 Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.06.05 20:17:00 - [7] Yeah I can understand on the Drake, but not the Nighthawk and Vulture. I would agree that the passive tank is overpowered IF these ships had other attributes worth investing in but no, they can tank well, but thats all they can do. Whats the point of being in an engagement and lasting that little bit longer with a low dps and no tackle/ew capabilities. Its like just being there to make up the numbers :( I've done some testing and the Nighthawk has a good active tank, but it still doesn't compare with the others in its class. The Vulture has even higher resists and has an excellent tank, but again is still underpowered in all other aspects in its class. My testing has concluded that both the Nighthawk, and especially the vulture have very low DPS against all ship types, and as your mids and low slots are taken with tank you can not have any damage mods or other offensive modules. If anything I would say either keep the old shield recharge rate and increase the CPU, or stick with the nerfed recharge rate and seriously increase the DPS (maybe 10% per level insread of the current 5% on the single damage type only). Even non-Caldari pilots agree with this. So many times on the test server do people comment that fighting a Caldari Commandship is boring, cos they're not threatened by the DPS and takes longer than normal to break its tank; and i'm not just talking about other command ship pilots.
Fergus Runkle Minmatar	Posted - 2007.06.05 21:32:00 - [8] (I posted this in the topic on Ships and Modules but meh) This doesn't make sense to me at all. The command ships already lost out during the hitpoint boosts. t1 ships got 50% increase, t2 ships got a 25% increase BUT the t1 battlecruisers got a quite a bit more thus closing the gap on the command ships. What should have happened was the command ship hp should have been recaluclated from the new, increased value of the battlecruiser hull THEN the 25% boost of t2 should have been made. That was not done and we have the silly situation where the t1 hulls very nearly have more hp than the t2 hull. IF the command ships had there hp's adjusted along the above lines then the shield recharge nerf would not be too hard to take. But as it is it kinda sucks.
murder one Gallente Death of Virtue Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.05 22:57:00 - [9] I fail to see how this nerfs the Nighthawk and Vulture. Their active tanks are just fine. Because I said so...
Kaahles Decadence. Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2007.06.05 23:01:00 - [10] But the active tank breaks as soon as one heavy nos is on you and you can't fit any and the dps still sucks. So.. let us get more cpu or don't nerf the shield recharge rate for caldari command ships. The only thing they are good for is a passive tanking bait or a npc/mission ship. Everything else makes no sense. But I'm afraid that I _wasted_ over 2 years of training in caldari stuff :/
murder one Gallente Death of Virtue Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.05 23:15:00 - [11] Originally by: Kaahles But the active tank breaks as soon as one heavy nos is on you and you can't fit any and the dps still sucks. So.. let us get more cpu or don't nerf the shield recharge rate for caldari command ships. The only thing they are good for is a passive tanking bait or a npc/mission ship. Everything else makes no sense. But I'm afraid that I _wasted_ over 2 years of training in caldari stuff :/ Hmm. I guess I can't see the problem still. I mean, if my CS gets hit with one heavy nos, my tank turns off and so do my guns, reducing my DPS to zero. Lol? And that's the 'normal' situation for my CS. I fail to see (still) how running an active tank is a problem for nighthawk pilots. My corpmate is a max skilled Nighthawk pilot. He tanks on Sisi just fine. Because I said so...
Axhind Caldari Ex Coelis	Posted - 2007.06.05 23:34:00 - [12] Originally by: murder one Originally by: Kaahles But the active tank breaks as soon as one heavy nos is on you and you can't fit any and the dps still sucks. So.. let us get more cpu or don't nerf the shield recharge rate for caldari command ships. The only thing they are good for is a passive tanking bait or a npc/mission ship. Everything else makes no sense. But I'm afraid that I _wasted_ over 2 years of training in caldari stuff :/ Hmm. I guess I can't see the problem still. I mean, if my CS gets hit with one heavy nos, my tank turns off and so do my guns, reducing my DPS to zero. Lol? And that's the 'normal' situation for my CS. I fail to see (still) how running an active tank is a problem for nighthawk pilots. My corpmate is a max skilled Nighthawk pilot. He tanks on Sisi just fine. Can he actually do anything else than just tank? That is the point. They are nerfing tanking and caldari ships can basically only do that. They suck at PvP as you always need dedicated ships for tackling or you need to gank cruisers in a CS in order to be able to tackle and still have neough tank to survive.
Usul78 Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.06.05 23:35:00 - [13] The point to my post is that an already sub-par ship is being effected by a nerf which only effects Caldari battlecruisers. This nerf was introduced to balance the perceived overpowerment of the drake (T1), but the knock on effect is this nerf will also effect the T2 varients, which should, imho, have some sort of advantage over the T1 varient. The active tank is still a good one, but its the only thing that is on par with other ships in its class, as, in all other aspects, its significantly inferior. This single point is now being reduced in line with the T1 ships, and only effects the Caldari race. Applying this change to all command ships is a direct nerf to the nighthawk and vulture. Please dont be mistaken this post is not about the passive tank, but shows that an already inferior ship is being directly nerfed with this change.
murder one Gallente Death of Virtue Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.06.05 23:36:00 - [14] Originally by: Axhind Originally by: murder one Originally by: Kaahles But the active tank breaks as soon as one heavy nos is on you and you can't fit any and the dps still sucks. So.. let us get more cpu or don't nerf the shield recharge rate for caldari command ships. The only thing they are good for is a passive tanking bait or a npc/mission ship. Everything else makes no sense. But I'm afraid that I _wasted_ over 2 years of training in caldari stuff :/ Hmm. I guess I can't see the problem still. I mean, if my CS gets hit with one heavy nos, my tank turns off and so do my guns, reducing my DPS to zero. Lol? And that's the 'normal' situation for my CS. I fail to see (still) how running an active tank is a problem for nighthawk pilots. My corpmate is a max skilled Nighthawk pilot. He tanks on Sisi just fine. Can he actually do anything else than just tank? That is the point. They are nerfing tanking and caldari ships can basically only do that. They suck at PvP as you always need dedicated ships for tackling or you need to gank cruisers in a CS in order to be able to tackle and still have neough tank to survive. Last I talked to him he still fit the same set of T2 heavy launchers and a scram on his setup. So yeah, he can tackle and still has the same DPS as his passive setup. Because I said so...
Kaahles Decadence. Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2007.06.06 11:27:00 - [15] But compare the DPS of the Nighthawk with dps of any other command ship... it just sucks and now even the tank is getting nerfed.
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2007.06.06 11:44:00 - [16] Actually, it's only a nerf to the Nighthawk, as the Vulture (or any other FLEET command ship) has a harder time doing SPR-passive tanking, with the usual need/want to use ganglinks, so you'll want to use PDSs and quite probably an active tank instead. Not only that, it's a nerf to non-tackling Nighthawks (so basically, mission runners), because the others also use active tanking. It's also a nerf to Astarte passive tankers (again, mission/complex runners usually). The other two race's field command ships hardly ever use passive shield tanking. And come on, it's a mere -10.7% tankable damage nerf. Not the end of the world. On the flipside, yeah, NH could use a bit more DPS (one extra launcher maybe), but that's another story. _ New char creation guide \| Module/Rig stacknerfing explained
bundy bear	Posted - 2007.06.06 11:45:00 - [17] Has anyone tried running a lvl 4 in a harbinger recently? Try that then complain that caldari ships cant do anything.
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2007.06.06 11:46:00 - [18] Have you tried using a solo Drake for PvP recently ? That's the flipside. _ New char creation guide \| Module/Rig stacknerfing explained
Kakita Jalaan Viriette Commerce and Holding	Posted - 2007.06.06 23:05:00 - [19] Hm... I never really used a passive setup on the Nighthawk, it's just better in an active/hybrid setup imho. And after the RoF bonus, the DPS was just fine. Ok, I use it for PVE mainly, but since I do missions in 0.0 it sees a fair share of pvp and it survived so far. ______________ Join the Family
R Kane Minmatar Phoenix Division FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.06.06 23:13:00 - [20] IMO, Tech 1 BC's should have their shield recharge rate changed; Tech 2 BC's (command ships) should be left alone.
Fergus Runkle Minmatar	Posted - 2007.06.06 23:54:00 - [21] If the command ships just got the hp they should have received with the boost the regen nerf would not matter.
Usul78 Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.06.07 00:48:00 - [22] I'm not refuring to the PVE aspect of the game. As i've already mentioned, it would be better to make other races more viable for PVE instead of nerfing caldari in PVP.... again. A slight nerf is not much to moan about, and yes balancing is required to make the game more competative, but this nerf, imho, effects an already sub-par ship in this class. 10% does seem like a significant change. For some skills it means the difference between a lvl1 skill and a lvl5. If i'm wrong, and caldari command ships are uber, and do actually require a nerf then please educate me? I'm sure someone out there is capable of doing the number crunching on the dps, and from my experience the caldari will come bottom. CCP, please can you confirm this change? Also if this change does go ahead, is there going to be anthing else changed to make these ships actually worth flying.
Gabriel Blade	Posted - 2007.06.07 02:41:00 - [23] I believe they address the Drakes new shield recharge rate is the last live dev blog. Essentially they said it was an error that the rate was as fast as it was.
Usul78 Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.06.07 16:05:00 - [24] Thats understandable about the drake, but i'm sure the T2 ships were not due for the change. Any news about those?
Eleana Tomelac Gallente	Posted - 2007.06.07 16:47:00 - [25] Why do caldari command ships cost so much more than gallente command ships if they are so crap? Also, the actual advantage of T2 ships is always the resistances and some bonus, not reducing a ship size specific standard value (recharge time). Originally by: Usul78 As the Caldari command ships suffer from a lack of DPS, the inability to tackle or use any form of EW (as the midslots are reserved for tank), and the lack of any significant drone bay (25m^3), this nerf just seems like a really bad idea; Amarr command ship pilots should cry for their 25 m3 drone bay too, minmatar gets 40, and gallente 50, some long time ago, caldari people decided just not to use the same weapons as their ennemies... The only command ship with a good drone bay is the Eos, and the bonus is just like the ishtar in terms of bay size, every ship can't get such bonus. I really wonder why they are so expensive if you can't do a thing with them! Also, I fought the caldari fleet command ship once, and the tanking was awesome, so much better than the other types of fleet command ships that were in that battle (he was the last to fall and a squadron engaged him from the beginning)... Originally by: Usul78 1. Improve the capability of other races so they are on the same level as caldari at running PVE environments. 2. Improve the Caldari PVP capabilities in accordance with other races. 3... Races are different and need to have advantages in certain areas, but still they all need to be able to perform in PVE, PVP and industry in a realtively balanced way. All ships should have same stats and just the color changed maybe? I think it was much like this in warcraft II, equivalent unit types with the same stats, just the "magic" changed... Originally by: Usul78 Caldari seem to suffer will all its T2 variants: Low DPS, can't use EW, too slow, too heavy, can't tackle, suffers from cap issues, but can tank fairly well (which is being nerfed ofcourse). You want snipers to have same DPS than close range ships? Caldari have most of the long range ships, if you can't use this tactical advantage, maybe you didn't choose correctly what ships to use skills in. Also, looking at the nighthawk CS bonuses, didn't you see the second bonus is made for it not to shoot big targets but have an advantage on all smaller size ships that your BS friends have a hard time to shoot with their torps or oversized guns? Ships have a role, use them properly. Originally by: Usul78 I hope i'm not the only one thinking this, and as Caldari we do have some good ships but they are few and far between. I dont want people to see this as another whinning post, but I think the 'Nerf Caldari' dogma is still in existance, and I just want to raise the issues from a Caldari perspective. Stop trying to passive tank everything, a nerf in recharge rate is only about that. I agree that either shield modules should have CPU lowered or caldari ships get more CPU, but you are not the only shield tankers, don't forget minmatar with half their tanks in shield and other armor. Also, passive tanks use all your lows, then don't complain about DPS, use active tank and use lows to upgrade DPS. The shield recharge time at 1400 was the thing to do, but active shield tanking still needs to have its CPU usage reduced! -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Happy owner of a Vexor Navy Issue and few ishkurs. The Vexor Navy Issue is much more fun than the Myrmidon !
Aleranie	Posted - 2007.06.07 16:53:00 - [26] I think it was the time on the test server when there was 4 guys in vultures in battle-cruiser ffa. They would all focus fire anyone that came in, and kill them. Then they would start trying to break each others tanks, even 3 firing at one guy couldn't manage it. It was pretty freaking ********, and after a while people just stopped trying to kill them.
Usul78 Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.06.07 17:06:00 - [27] Thanks for the detailed reply. You have, in essence, agreed with my points. The reason I persoanlly passive tank this specific ship is because even with very good skills, I can not fit an active tank worthy of keeping the ship alive. Remember, to keep any active tank running you need to use a cap booster, and in order to fit one you need to lower your active tank, by using up one of the mid slots. Unlike other command ships you can not fit any nos to maintain cap. Oh yeah, an active tank gives no chance of any EW or tackling modules because all midslots are needed. I'm not saying that the recharge rate nerf itself is bad, and agree that a balance needs to be found, but as it stands the nighthawk and vulture fall behind other command ships. This nerf just widens that gap. If the 1400 second recharge rate is introduced on TQ then I think these ships need to be looked at again by the balancing team. p.s. Amarr have it bad in a lot of respects, and i'm not trying to detract from any other race, but I do want to highlight the proposed nerf will effect a large number of pilots in a way I dont believe was intended by the dev team.
xeom Exit 13 Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.06.07 17:23:00 - [28] Why i find really really funny is how my myrm and drake can kill any command ship. Boost command ships ccp. --- 8) The coolest smiley ever!
MotherMoon	Posted - 2007.06.07 17:24:00 - [29] Originally by: xeom Why i find really really funny is how my myrm and drake can kill any command ship. Boost command ships ccp. I don't believe you I test server all of the time and while the two ships are both strong, there is no way you can easily beat one. unless it's lowly skilled. and your awesome.
Euphrezia	Posted - 2007.06.07 23:52:00 - [30] I can understand where the Devs are comming from on this one. With the Core Defense rigs, the Caldari command ships can potentially support immensly powerful passive tanks - far more than they used to. However, I certinally agree that for the huge training time that is needed to make these ships worth while, they should be something really special. CCP said it wanted to see combat on the scale of 20 Vs 20 in one of the last Live Dev Blogs, and in this enviroment, the Command ship is perfect as it is. DPS is not enough to make that much of a difference, and the fleet sizes would be enough that the command ship doesn't get popped the instand its declared as primary. Save the Vulture/Nightmare!

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.

8)