| Author |
Topic |
BiggestT
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 04:46:00 - [ 31]
 Originally by: Rivqua
CS are 50% more cost then hacs (usually 120M vs 80M).
They are usually way better then 50% imo.
They are quite balanced imo, I fly Abso and Sleip, and I have buddies that fly Astarte.
Nighthawk does small glaring PG issues, but that's a fix needed there, not a whole class rebalance.
What do people want out of thease ships? They already pwn alot of battleships when flow and kitted correctly. What do you expect from them in the end?
/Riv
cs pwn bs? lol can i have some o that stuff ur smoking plz? And congratulations u just posted the most expensive hac vs. the cheapest cs. How bout i do that? 50mill (eagle) vs. 170 mill? (nighthawk) Hardly fair. P.S Oh and before ppl say, whys it so expensive if nighthawk is worst? Answer: they just happen to make good pve boats. I dont want a pve boat, the golem is a pve boat. I want a damn combat t2 bc that is BALANCED |
Hippomenes |
Posted - 2008.10.31 04:53:00 - [ 32]
Originally by: BiggestT
Edited by: BiggestT on 31/10/2008 04:27:32
Originally by: Last Wolf
Try fitting a Gang-link on anything other than a fleet-command. (Myrmidon doesn't count, it doesn't have to fit guns, therefore it cheats)
Ahh but the only point in flying a field command is to give good combat ability + bonus.
Else your just a pimped bc, that costs too much, barely out performs its t1 rivals and always gets primaried.
IMO what they need to do..
a) reduce cost: their should be more incentive to fly them over hacs
b) buff fitting: having to put fitting mods on my nighthawk just to fit a proper tank and launchers (without ganglink!) is incredibly lame considering the drake needs none.
c) reduce fitting needs for warfare links for field commands so they can fit with a decent setup.
youre a terrible poster. A. Why should their be incentive to fly any ship class over another? As with any t2 ship, its for a small increase in performance. People fly vagas instead of stabbers because theyre better, zealots instead of omens for the same reason. Never mind that the cost difference is huge, performance is king. If you are unwilling to stretch your budget for a CBC because you don't see its increase in performance over t1 bc's justifies the price, then fine, more command ships for me. It's not supposed to be as good as a BS, in the same way that HAC's are not really any better than tier 2 bc's. B. Stop crying about the NH. Seriously, everyone knows it needs a bit of a grid buff. but I doubt that the devs intend for it to fit Hams, full tank and a mwd without fitting mods. C. Again, this is really mostly a problem with the NH, and not as a whole with commands. And to be frank, as with any fitting, you need to make sacrifices to accomplish things sometimes. You can't realistically expect to have gank+tank+gangmod+tackle+mwd without making some concessions to fitting or giving up one one of them. |
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer
The Initiative. |
Posted - 2008.10.31 06:00:00 - [ 33]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Chimii Lecto
1000 dps gank astarte?
Nanosleip?
Nighthawk tank?
Absolutions awesome tank/gank?
Damnation with links and plates?
Claymore with speedlinks?
Eos in a falcon squad?
Vulture in a ghey suit?
How about you shut up before you learn the difference between FIELD commands and FLEET commands.
No, I think he served you pretty well. |
BiggestT
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 06:04:00 - [ 34]
Originally by: Hippomenes
Originally by: BiggestT
Edited by: BiggestT on 31/10/2008 04:27:32
Originally by: Last Wolf
Try fitting a Gang-link on anything other than a fleet-command. (Myrmidon doesn't count, it doesn't have to fit guns, therefore it cheats)
Ahh but the only point in flying a field command is to give good combat ability + bonus.
Else your just a pimped bc, that costs too much, barely out performs its t1 rivals and always gets primaried.
IMO what they need to do..
a) reduce cost: their should be more incentive to fly them over hacs
b) buff fitting: having to put fitting mods on my nighthawk just to fit a proper tank and launchers (without ganglink!) is incredibly lame considering the drake needs none.
c) reduce fitting needs for warfare links for field commands so they can fit with a decent setup.
youre a terrible poster.
A. Why should their be incentive to fly any ship class over another? As with any t2 ship, its for a small increase in performance. People fly vagas instead of stabbers because theyre better, zealots instead of omens for the same reason. Never mind that the cost difference is huge, performance is king. If you are unwilling to stretch your budget for a CBC because you don't see its increase in performance over t1 bc's justifies the price, then fine, more command ships for me. It's not supposed to be as good as a BS, in the same way that HAC's are not really any better than tier 2 bc's.
B. Stop crying about the NH. Seriously, everyone knows it needs a bit of a grid buff. but I doubt that the devs intend for it to fit Hams, full tank and a mwd without fitting mods.
C. Again, this is really mostly a problem with the NH, and not as a whole with commands. And to be frank, as with any fitting, you need to make sacrifices to accomplish things sometimes. You can't realistically expect to have gank+tank+gangmod+tackle+mwd without making some concessions to fitting or giving up one one of them.
Why do ignorant ppl always have to pretend their right by trolling others? A) You have no idea. T2 is not just for an advantage, all t2 ships have ROLES, if you dont know this your obviously a troll. In fact im not even going to bother further with this one coz uve just proved ur ignorance in so many ways. B) Im not talking about hams fool, i bet uve never flown a nighthawk (or any other cs)and wld have no idea. Hence the alt post. C) I never expected "gank+tank+gangmod+tackle+mwd" all i want is tank..+gang mod..+some dmg mods..with an mwd of course is manditory. Its role is tank + dmg + ganglink..it should be able to fulfill this role (look at the bonus's). And no, it is nto just with the NH, you post me a good abso/astarte fit with gangmod that isnt outperformed by a bc |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Gunship Diplomacy |
Posted - 2008.10.31 06:15:00 - [ 35]
|
Sharida |
Posted - 2008.10.31 06:25:00 - [ 36]
As a CS pilot who actually uses the gang mods, it is a very dangerous thing to have running.
Caldari / Amarr boosts your tank and everone elses, freeing up mids / lows
Galente makes ewar a joke
Minmitar make skirmishing interesting
As a field CS, run a gang mod. How much longer do you think you'd live with a 5-6% reduced sig radius, or more resists? How about higher sensor strength, making it harder to be jammed?
The sips are designed as +dam, +tank, boosters. Use them as such. |
BiggestT
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 06:27:00 - [ 37]
Originally by: Sharida
As a CS pilot who actually uses the gang mods, it is a very dangerous thing to have running.
Caldari / Amarr boosts your tank and everone elses, freeing up mids / lows
Galente makes ewar a joke
Minmitar make skirmishing interesting
As a field CS, run a gang mod. How much longer do you think you'd live with a 5-6% reduced sig radius, or more resists? How about higher sensor strength, making it harder to be jammed?
The sips are designed as +dam, +tank, boosters. Use them as such.
And id love to, but the fittings of those damn mods makes it a joke to use the field command for its slight dps advantage when i cld be giving better bonus's + better tank in a fleet command |
fivetide humidyear
Gallente
Fool Mental Junket
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 08:45:00 - [ 38]
Edited by: fivetide humidyear on 31/10/2008 08:47:23
i've always thought that field commands were for smaller gang situations where you need a bit dps and a bit more tank and a gang link. fleet commands for the larger gang where maximum ganglinks are needed and your drop in dps is irrelevent.
Exception to that is the claymore i guess which is good in any nano roaming gang.
the only reason to fly a field CS over a BS now for me is the ganglink, you have to have one on and running. a nighthawk can fit a ganglink with a grid rig and a bit of dps drop, absolution can do the same but without dropping dps and only a little tank, a sleipnir can fit one easily
come the next patch, CS maybe slightly closer to a par with BS as they can take on a wider range of targets and be more agile, but will still suffer cap issues in a straight up BSvCS fight. |
Rivqua
Caldari
Omega Wing
Snatch Victory |
Posted - 2008.10.31 11:32:00 - [ 39]
Originally by: BiggestT
Originally by: Rivqua
CS are 50% more cost then hacs (usually 120M vs 80M).
They are usually way better then 50% imo.
They are quite balanced imo, I fly Abso and Sleip, and I have buddies that fly Astarte.
Nighthawk does small glaring PG issues, but that's a fix needed there, not a whole class rebalance.
What do people want out of thease ships? They already pwn alot of battleships when flow and kitted correctly. What do you expect from them in the end?
/Riv
cs pwn bs? lol
can i have some o that stuff ur smoking plz?
And congratulations u just posted the most expensive hac vs. the cheapest cs.
How bout i do that? 50mill (eagle) vs. 170 mill? (nighthawk)
Hardly fair.
P.S Oh and before ppl say, whys it so expensive if nighthawk is worst?
Answer: they just happen to make good pve boats. I dont want a pve boat, the golem is a pve boat. I want a damn combat t2 bc that is BALANCED
No you can't have my POT! Anyway, I r not smoking, it's fact, they pwn most bs in actual combat, outside of eft warrioring, in random encounters on TQ, which is where it counts, afaik. I didn't post any specific expensive or cheap HAC, I posted the prices I am used to for the hacs I use, Munnin, Vaga, Sac, Zealot, and the CS I use, Sleipnir and Absolution, that accounts for 50% or so of the selection, so I doubt I was fooling anyone intentionally. What is not balanced with CS? The fleet CS give massive bonuses, and low dps, not solopwn mobiles, but pretty good grid and damn awesome resists, etc. The field CS are great solo/duo ships, and awesome gang ships, what's not balanced about them (beside the nighthawks issues, if those are even issues)? They have very good grid, the amarr ones have massive caps approaching BS sizes, you can fit alot of them in a multitude of ways, what's not to like? /Riv |
InsanlyEvlPerson
Gallente
Night-Stalkers
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 13:50:00 - [ 40]
One thing i think reli needs looked at is the fact that the harbinger has 1 more slot than the abso... give the abso another midslot, and i would assume the other field commands are in the same situation, but i dont know enough about them. Fix this, and the obvious nighthawk issue, and we should be good. |
BiggestT
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 14:40:00 - [ 41]
Originally by: InsanlyEvlPerson
One thing i think reli needs looked at is the fact that the harbinger has 1 more slot than the abso... give the abso another midslot, and i would assume the other field commands are in the same situation, but i dont know enough about them. Fix this, and the obvious nighthawk issue, and we should be good.
I'd settle for that, but its still annoying how they cost so damn much..spose thats less of an issue for richer players.. |
Nexus Kinnon
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED |
Posted - 2008.10.31 14:49:00 - [ 42]
Originally by: InsanlyEvlPerson
give the abso another midslot
no, the absolution is balanced. |
InsanlyEvlPerson
Gallente
Night-Stalkers
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 14:54:00 - [ 43]
Originally by: Nexus Kinnon
Originally by: InsanlyEvlPerson
give the abso another midslot
no, the absolution is balanced.
it is rather well balanced, but it still has one less slot that the hard, and if you were to allow the others another slot, you couldnt exactly leave out the abso. perhaps another lowslot if you must, but i see that as more a problem than the mid. and for as hard as it is to get into one of these ships, i think they ought to be rather powerful. and on the usual note, they do cost quite alot (i know things arent balanced on cost, but ffs they cost as much as a tier 3 BS). all the field commands need some love, leave it to the devs to decide exactly what to do, but the NH nees more PG, and they all need another slot to at least match the tier 2 BCs. what slots and how much grid would be better handled by the dev team. |
Kebast |
Posted - 2008.10.31 15:17:00 - [ 44]
Give my Abso an extra mid and 50 more PG or a Harb based CS and I'd be happy :). |
Nexus Kinnon
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED |
Posted - 2008.10.31 15:23:00 - [ 45]
The Absolution is perfectly balanced at the moment, despite slot disparities. TBH, I'd like to see CCP keep taking that route with ship balance, it doesn't ****ing matter having all ships being nice and symmetrical with their slot numbers, balance is more important. |
BiggestT
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 15:38:00 - [ 46]
Originally by: Nexus Kinnon
The Absolution is perfectly balanced at the moment, despite slot disparities. TBH, I'd like to see CCP keep taking that route with ship balance, it doesn't ****ing matter having all ships being nice and symmetrical with their slot numbers, balance is more important.
oh yeah, thats why its a good idea to keep going with their method of ignoring cs, thats ok the nighthawk doesnt neeeed a boost its fine! (<3 the feign ignorance views ccp utilize so well) |
InsanlyEvlPerson
Gallente
Night-Stalkers
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 15:39:00 - [ 47]
Originally by: Nexus Kinnon
The Absolution is perfectly balanced at the moment, despite slot disparities. TBH, I'd like to see CCP keep taking that route with ship balance, it doesn't ****ing matter having all ships being nice and symmetrical with their slot numbers, balance is more important.
well, on my setup i could RELI use another mid/low for a recharger/cpr. as for pvp, i could see where you might have an issue with it, but it isnt like i'm asking for more fitting to go with it, just the slot. would only need more fitting if it was given a 7th turret slot, but that was more of a joke than anything. i do however, in all seriousness, stand by my position that the NH needs some fitting adjustment and all the field commands (maybe even the fleet commands, but idk nearly as much about them) need another slot to give them a clearer edge on the tier 2 BCs. |
Reptar Dragon
Total Mayhem.
Northern Coalition. |
Posted - 2008.10.31 16:13:00 - [ 48]
Originally by: Waxau
Nanosleip thats soon to be nerfed? Nighthawk with a 'slightly' better drake tank? Astarte having less dps as a mega, with similar agility (with plates) and not insurable? Absolution...well..its Amarr...nuff said! 
They need a boost, to make them more varied in eve. Heck, maybe not a boost, but atleast a change. To make them stand out and be fielded (no pun intended) more than their t1 variants.
Here's an idea, stop flying the Nano-Sleip because that's not the way it's designed to be flown. Have you seen the bonuses on that ship? Christ not EVERY minmatar ship is designed to be flown fast.If you were smart enough to fit it properly you'd tank better than a battleship and do as much damage as a near-max skilled tempest. If you want to nano it against its bonuses, then suffer the product of your own bad decision. Nighthawk's tank is SLIGHTLY better than the Drake's? Which planet are you living on. To fit that tank on a Drake makes it do about 250 DPS while the nighthawk dishes out 600+. If you just had a slip of memory, I'll remind you: The Astarte is a command ship. Command ships aren't battleships, therefore they will do less damage than a battleships as INTENDED. Also the absolution is an excellent ship, with 1 less mid-slot then it should have. |
Nexus Kinnon
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED |
Posted - 2008.10.31 16:16:00 - [ 49]
Edited by: Nexus Kinnon on 31/10/2008 16:16:13 Originally by: BiggestT
Originally by: Nexus Kinnon
The Absolution is perfectly balanced at the moment, despite slot disparities. TBH, I'd like to see CCP keep taking that route with ship balance, it doesn't ****ing matter having all ships being nice and symmetrical with their slot numbers, balance is more important.
oh yeah, thats why its a good idea to keep going with their method of ignoring cs, thats ok the nighthawk doesnt neeeed a boost its fine! (<3 the feign ignorance views ccp utilize so well)
Quote where I said that other CS are not in need of some love, you thick ***got. Oh wait, that's right. I said the absolution was balanced. Originally by: InsanlyEvlPerson
well, on my setup i could RELI use another mid/low for a recharger/cpr. as for pvp, i could see where you might have an issue with it, but it isnt like i'm asking for more fitting to go with it, just the slot. would only need more fitting if it was given a 7th turret slot, but that was more of a joke than anything.
i do however, in all seriousness, stand by my position that the NH needs some fitting adjustment and all the field commands (maybe even the fleet commands, but idk nearly as much about them) need another slot to give them a clearer edge on the tier 2 BCs.
Maybe you should adjust your setup instead of expecting CCP to adjust their game. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE |
Posted - 2008.10.31 16:19:00 - [ 50]
Originally by: Reptar Dragon
Here's an idea, stop flying the Nano-Sleip because that's not the way it's designed to be flown. Have you seen the bonuses on that ship? Christ not EVERY minmatar ship is designed to be flown fast.If you were smart enough to fit it properly you'd tank better than a battleship and do as much damage as a near-max skilled tempest. If you want to nano it against its bonuses, then suffer the product of your own bad decision.
Nighthawk's tank is SLIGHTLY better than the Drake's? Which planet are you living on. To fit that tank on a Drake makes it do about 250 DPS while the nighthawk dishes out 600+.
If you just had a slip of memory, I'll remind you: The Astarte is a command ship. Command ships aren't battleships, therefore they will do less damage than a battleships as INTENDED.
Also the absolution is an excellent ship, with 1 less mid-slot then it should have.
Blast of the past.. I remember having friends in Sleipnirs soloing small BS-gangs. Was quite nasty sitting in a Pilgrim watching a Sleip taking on 2-3 BS and a BC solo and walking out victorious. Either way, that's pre-hp-boost, pre-nano etc, years ago. I doubt we'll see the same again, but yah, the Sleipnir will have a 'new' role after the speednerf. Personally I believe it has the potential of being a new FotM, guesstimation obviously. CS rivalling BS? Can definately happen, used to happen, in many situations the BS will go out on top nowadays but post-speedbalance? We'll see. CS' might just be bloody damn good in small/medium sized gangs again. |
Last Wolf
Umbra Wing |
Posted - 2008.10.31 16:27:00 - [ 51]
Before the HP buffs when you could actually kill something before you ran out of cap, CS were pretty good.
|
Fistme |
Posted - 2008.10.31 17:01:00 - [ 52]
Originally by: Last Wolf
Before the HP buffs when you could actually kill something before you ran out of cap, CS were pretty good.
Well considering that Commands were ignored on the BC hp buff I'd agree that relative to their competition they were more powerful pre HP buff. Field Commands have often been a topic for discussion every since their implementation. They have the potential to do great dmg for a bc hull and in some cases sport tanks that even well fit battleships have trouble breaking. The problem comes when you try to do both. Field Commands have always had trouble matching a Battleships tankability, ehp, and raw dps. This is not anything unexpected as they are based upon a smaller hull that has it's own set of advantages. I propose that CCP take a look at the entire field command line up. The arguments and concerns have been debated many times and the conclusion often comes down to "let me fit a god damn gang mod w/o gimping my ship". While I strongly agree with this point I don't think that a small 5 or 6% bonus is going to make them reasonably more powerful especially when you have to drop a weapon system in many cases to fit them. What do I propose for changes? 1. Carry the BC hp boost over to the Field Commands AND Fleet Commands, it makes very little sense that a Brutix has more armor and structure hp than it's t2 counterpart. 2. Either add slots/fittings needed to fit gang mods with reasonable combat fits or reduce the fitting req/cap usage by a very large margin. 3. Cap increase to allow them to actually exist and survive on a battlefield that is centered around neuting battleships. As a followup to what I've said. I suspect that Field commands in particular will see more use after the patch. Close range hacs are easily flying under the guns of Battleships on Sisi and a Command ship seems like a great counter to these newish HAC tactics. |
Rexthor Hammerfists
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative. |
Posted - 2008.10.31 17:35:00 - [ 53]
Edited by: Rexthor Hammerfists on 31/10/2008 17:36:36About the Nighthawk: Originally by: Me
As a commandship it is by definition quiet pricy,
with bonuses to rof for all missiles as well as resistances to its shield,
it also gets a bonus to Heavy Missiles Kinetic Dmg and Heavy Missiles precision.
The other 3 races commandships are built to tank and gank, being able to put out some pretty good damage, with medium guns that have a good tracking.
None of those ships have bonuses towards killing frigatesized support, but bonuses to tanks and dmg in general.
The nighthawk instead has 2 of its 4 bonuses focussed on 1 of the 3 medium missile types,
that one bonus is made to be able to hit frigate sized signature radiuses, but only works on heavy missiles instead of the assault launcher which is made for antifrig work.
(Correct me if im wrong here, i didnt bother buying a NH and checking if the description is misleading)
The Nighthawk fitted with heavy missiles and a good passive tank actually could work in fleets, the problem is that a cerberus does it alot better as it fires at twice the range - or a raven with cruise missiles which is several times cheaper then the NH.
The Nighthawk with assault launchers, fitted to take out frigate support could work as well, the problem here simply is that other ships do the job for a fraction of the price just as good, a ship investment of 150m doesnt justify the job of killing frigates,
neither do you need a godly tank to take down frigs.
The nighthawk with heavy assault missiles is where it gets interesting.
Heavy assault missiles put the caldari Bc/Cs right where it works best, in closerange of an enemy, playing out its smaller size, faster lockspeed and faster base speed/ms then a battleship while still having proper damage 500< and a proper tank.
This is exactly where commandships should be based around, where it makes sence to use a ship that costs 150m, where it can play out its advantage of the cheaper battleships and hacs.
Now the problem with a Hvy assault missile launcher setup on the nighthawk starts with the amount of medium slots - it has 5 medium slots
If you take 3 slots of tanking as a minum, it leaves one slot for a propulsion mod which is a must otherwise take a battleship and one slot for tackling gear.
The drake on the other hand has 6 medium slots, which makes it possible to fit a shieldtank which does its job with 3 slots, propulsion mods web and a warp disruptor.
The Nighthawk has 5 lowslots, while those can prove to be useful, id just move one low to a medslot, similar to the drake.
2 of the 4 bonuses dont work on the heavy assualt missiles - i suggest, a kinetic dmg bonus to all missiles and a missile velocity or flytime bonus instead.
After the hyv as miss launchers are fitted, any other pg requiring mod means you have to fit an rcu, which is fine for a t1 battlecruiser - not on a commandship tho, it needs a serious pg boost to be able to utilize its last non missile highslot.
And lastly to give ppl the final reason to fly the nighthawk over the drake, the NH needs more shields 2k<, as its missing a rigslot over the drake which leaves it with 4k shieldless on a similar fit.
Original Thread |
Take Enemy
Archron Dusyfe Industries |
Posted - 2008.10.31 19:06:00 - [ 54]
Originally by: Fafnir Drake
Originally by: Waxau
Absolution...well..its Amarr...nuff said!
Pfh. Ammar is doing pretty well right now. They're a solid race choice.
Pulses got tracking buffed and are now the ultimate at mid range combat, doing pretty good damage, while keeping decent range and excellent tracking.
Then the nerf that lowered armor EM resists 10% (and shield explosive resists 10%) made armor take more EM damage, especially Omni-tanks. Most Armor tanks neglect EM resists somewhat, so it often turns out that EM is often one of the weaker, or weakest resists.
So, overall: Some Ammar ships have some problems, but overall they're in pretty good shape, with a nice niche in combat.
Minmie Pilot: "Duct Tape aside, I can run circles around ya!"
Gallente Pilot: "Come closer, my friend, and we'll see if it does you much good."
Ammar Pilot: "Don't really care what range you're at, you'll melt just the same."
Caldari Pilot: "STFU, in a mission, idiots."
I don't think he meant what you think he meant... |
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 19:17:00 - [ 55]
The bad part about field commands is that they're based on Tier 1 BC hulls, slot layouts, and to some extent, bonuses. They do gain +1 slot over Tier 1 BCs, true - but over Tier 2 BCs they gain exactly 0 slots. This is one of their problems - which doesn't really impact Fleet CS because they have a important role which they fill. To be honest, I would much prefer field CS based on Tier 2 BC hulls, with bonuses inherited generally from Tier 2 BCs (with resist bonuses applied to all, if they are to get tank bonuses), and +1 slot over them, and naturally the HP boost which BCs recieved applied to them as well - furthermore, with everyone having the fittings for 1 warfare link (which is the real reason to take one over a BS) + heavy guns. If you look at HACs vs their base hulls, they get 2-3 slots extra. There is no reason for field CS to get 0 slots over a Tier 2 BC. Originally by: Fistme
As a followup to what I've said. I suspect that Field commands in particular will see more use after the patch. Close range hacs are easily flying under the guns of Battleships on Sisi and a Command ship seems like a great counter to these newish HAC tactics.
HACs are easily dealt with by using 2 battleships or more. That is not a problem and definitely not a reason to use CS - and to be honest, I'd be less inclined to fly a CS post patch solo then on TQ. |
EFT Warrior |
Posted - 2008.10.31 19:22:00 - [ 56]
So you're basically complaining that the nighthawk sucks for PvP. Did you ever consider flying the Vulture? Your job in a CS isn't to do OMG great damage, it's to give bonuses to the rest of your fleet, doing pretty good (HAC) but not awesome damage, with the equivalent tank of a battleship with the maneuverability of a BC.
They could use some tweaking (Nighthawk needs to be able to fit a link) but nothing radical.
By the way if your command ship isn't like how I just described, you're doing it wrong. |
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 19:38:00 - [ 57]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 31/10/2008 19:39:18 Originally by: EFT Warrior
Role of Field CS is sucking horribly.
It shouldn't be. Also, learn to read. Nobody said anything about Fleet CS. The thread title says "Field" CS. That cannot be that hard to grasp, most people do understand the topic of a thread with "Field CS" in title means it's a discussion of Field CS. |
ElCoCo
KIA Corp
KIA Alliance |
Posted - 2008.10.31 19:42:00 - [ 58]
|
Fistme |
Posted - 2008.10.31 20:19:00 - [ 59]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
HACs are easily dealt with by using 2 battleships or more. That is not a problem and definitely not a reason to use CS - and to be honest, I'd be less inclined to fly a CS post patch solo then on TQ.
You make the assumption that I'm talking about flying Command Ships to support BS against Hacs. Now well I think that would be a fun role to play you and I both know that game mechanics may prevent that from being more effective than using another BS. However you missed the point I was trying to make. Imagine 2 Command ships instead of 2 Battleships, the 2 Command ships WILL deal with the HACS more effectively and quicker than the use of 2 Battleships. Now Maybe my vision of a Field Command ship is different than yours but I seem them as an option to a battleship that enables more personal defensive capabilities against smaller craft with the trade off of less raw muscle and EHP of a battleship. Overall Branko I don't want you to misunderstand me here. I'm fully on board for increasing the fighting capabilities of field commands against larger ships however I don't want them to ever trump a BS for slugging, something probably prevented by the use of medium mods anyway. |
InsanlyEvlPerson
Gallente
Night-Stalkers
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 20:23:00 - [ 60]
Originally by: Nexus Kinnon
Maybe you should adjust your setup instead of expecting CCP to adjust their game.
i dont expect it, but when some1 makes a thread about boosting field commands, i'm always going to throw it out there. i do think it needs another mid slot. i dont think it is a good thing that tier 2 BC have a slot advantage over a TECH 2 ship of the same class hull. which tech 1 cruiser has more slots than a HAC? i'm not saying it isnt good, i'm not saying it sucks, i'm simply stating that a couple of *minor* changes are in order to bring it in line with where other T2 ships stand in comparison to their T1 counterparts. oh, and on a side note, all u are going to accomplish by being belligerent is making ppl angry, and when ppl get angry at you, they dont listen. so why not just chill out and be constructive, mkay? |
|
All Channels
Ships and Modules
