Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 81 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Momiji Sakora
Omni Galactic
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 19:32:00 -
[1981] - Quote
I'm still not sold on it not having a ship fitting array, if you're arguing that people can just bring a Personal Depo, then why do carriers, and Orcas and various other caps have this ability? :P
Having such an array on a SoE BS just seems to make sense, especially for it's WH orientation. A Personal Depo, whilst small, isn't ideal to carry in some instances, maybe your fleet is going to spend a month or two exploring WH space, we want to maximise our cargo space, and 5 ships all carrying a PD just sits with me wrong. I don't want my fleet sat waiting for 5 Anchoring timers to tick over in a WH, 1 timer, and 4 ships refitting off the "mothership" sounds much more comfortable. This of course is entirely personal opinion, maybe it won't work, maybe PDs are just the future, but without a "Share with Fleet" option for PDs I'm not going to be entirely sold >.<
My two cents, I don't mind the price of the thing so far, it's going to be hella-steep, but I'll still buy it probably. I'm looking forward to our SoE exploration fleet my corporation is putting together. |
Roy Alleyne
Dark Horizon Logistics and Intelligence
13
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 20:34:00 -
[1982] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: I completely agree that it needs covops cloak. Rise's argument that this should only be possible on T2 ships is invalidated by the existence of the astero and stratios.
Rise did not say that only T2 hulls should have a covops, he said that they should have them FIRST. Have you forgotten that not a single BS hull has the ability to equip a covops or maybe you just missed it when Rise said that CCP isn't keen on ever giving a BS the ability to equip one? |
Divi Filus
New Xenocracy
14
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 20:40:00 -
[1983] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: [Covert cloak] is an extremely powerful capability and it's possible that it should stay off limits for battleships completely. On top of that, if there was going to be a covert battleship, black ops is where we need to start. We will be looking at them for a balance pass eventually, they are one of the remaining classes that haven't gotten their tiericide pass yet, and we can approach this topic when that happens.
Quoted for reference. |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
148
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 21:09:00 -
[1984] - Quote
I decided to use a Nestor for PvE to see what would happen, it's magical but need more cap. |
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
165
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 21:26:00 -
[1985] - Quote
Is it better at PVE than the existing battleships in eve? No? Then the last thig we need is another dps platform design for level 4 mission farming.
I'm just going to come out and say it, only an idiot would design a exploration ship without either a cloak or some kind of navigational bonuse. |
ASadOldGit
School of Applied Knowledge
232
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 21:41:00 -
[1986] - Quote
Quinn Corvez wrote:Is it better at PVE than the existing battleships in eve? No? Then the last thig we need is another dps platform design for level 4 mission farming. As a casual player that only runs up to 5 L4s a week, I'd rather CCP concentrate on nerfing the farming techniques rather than the tools I use - not that I'd ever spend 2bil on a ship to do L4s! (i.e. if you kill an NPC, he stays dead - no miraculous revival after downtime) Meh. |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
148
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 21:42:00 -
[1987] - Quote
Quinn Corvez wrote:Is it better at PVE than the existing battleships in eve? No? Then the last thig we need is another dps platform design for level 4 mission farming.
I'm just going to come out and say it, only an idiot would design a exploration ship without either a cloak or some kind of navigational bonuse. I went to null for sites, it's tanker than a hyperion, has the output of a domi, can do its own scaning, and is built to work in small teams.
If it had a cloak it would be un unstoppable monster, if it has a spotter it can go anywhere, and it does have navigation bonuses: 2.5 au warp and the align of a shield BC. It's the only battleship I've used that's light enough to do the MWD cloak trick. |
Divi Filus
New Xenocracy
14
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 21:53:00 -
[1988] - Quote
Quinn Corvez wrote:I'm just going to come out and say it, only an idiot would design a exploration ship without either a cloak or some kind of navigational bonuse.
This is what I've been saying: it needs something that helps it get around in unfriendly skies. The low mass was clearly intended to be that bonus, but a) as a travel bonus it only benefits wormholers (not that they donGÇÖt need some love) and b) even the wormholers have said that itGÇÖs not enough to make the ship attractive compared to T3s, etc. The warp speed bonus is nice to have but is also not enough to make it stand out. It needs somethingGÇöa jump drive, a covops, a cloaked speed bonus, core stability bonus, somethingGÇöto incentivize the Nestor versus the wide varierty of well performing and substantially cheaper options currently available.
|
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
165
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 21:53:00 -
[1989] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:Quinn Corvez wrote:Is it better at PVE than the existing battleships in eve? No? Then the last thig we need is another dps platform design for level 4 mission farming.
I'm just going to come out and say it, only an idiot would design a exploration ship without either a cloak or some kind of navigational bonuse. I went to null for sites, it's tanker than a hyperion, has the output of a domi, can do its own scaning, and is built to work in small teams. If it had a cloak it would be un unstoppable monster, if it has a spotter it can go anywhere, and it does have navigation bonuses: 2.5 au warp and the align of a shield BC. It's the only battleship I've used that's light enough to do the MWD cloak trick.
The ship simply isn't needed. Most BS are capable of handling any site the a Nestor can and whe you need something better, we have the brand new bastion enabled marauders to aim for.
2.5 AU warp speed ain't worth ****! And if you have a spotter to check gate cameos for you, that spotter could also be in a covert ops the scan and run data/relic sites, making the ship and it's bonuses even more pointless. |
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
165
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 22:01:00 -
[1990] - Quote
Divi Filus, a lot of people are saying that but CCP won't listen.
They should give it a covert cloak and remove the gun slots or reduce pg so a big tank and a full rack of turrets are not possible IMO.
|
|
Divi Filus
New Xenocracy
14
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 22:12:00 -
[1991] - Quote
Quinn Corvez wrote:Divi Filus, a lot of people are saying that but CCP won't listen.
They should give it a covert cloak and remove the gun slots or reduce pg so a big tank and a full rack of turrets are not possible IMO.
If you increased the sensor recalibration time to the 20-30s range I don't think removing the guns would be necessary, but that's me. |
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
165
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 22:24:00 -
[1992] - Quote
I think the fear of giving a BS a cloak is that it will do too much dps and have too big a tank. Dropping the guns solves that issue while making it a viable exploration ship and a new type of cloaky logi.
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1208
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 22:35:00 -
[1993] - Quote
A cloak would make this ship overpowered. Themepark carebears are only happy with power creep, the more they cry, the better CCP is doing it's job. The Tears Must Flow |
Divi Filus
New Xenocracy
14
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 22:35:00 -
[1994] - Quote
Quinn Corvez wrote:I think the fear of giving a BS a cloak is that it will do too much dps and have too big a tank. Dropping the guns solves that issue while making it a viable exploration ship and a new type of cloaky logi.
Tank and gank mean nothing unless you can bring them to bear. The big advantage of a cloak in combat is being able to drop in on your target at the time and place of your choice; forcing you to wait half a minute or more before you can begin locking targets would, I think, largely neutralize that advantage, while keeping its travel benefits. |
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
165
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 22:45:00 -
[1995] - Quote
I live in wormhole space and know all about cloaks my friend :)
The dps will always be an issue because you can simply get a friend in a smaller ship to point a target, and have the Nestor melt it when it gets a lock.
I agree that if the Nestor got a cloak it would be a good idea to give it a longer recalibration time that a cruiser. Between 8 and 10 seconds would do it. |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
148
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 22:52:00 -
[1996] - Quote
If you give it a cloak it literally is a covert-ops logi and covert-ops battleship at the same time, neither of those things has been done for a variety of reasons and doing them at the same time would be broken more than I can state.
Use the ship on the test server, then complain. |
Divi Filus
New Xenocracy
14
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 23:10:00 -
[1997] - Quote
Quinn Corvez wrote:I live in wormhole space and know all about cloaks my friend :)
The dps will always be an issue because you can simply get a friend in a smaller ship to point a target, and have the Nestor melt it when it gets a lock.
I agree that if the Nestor got a cloak it would be a good idea to give it a longer recalibration time that a cruiser. Between 8 and 10 seconds would do it.
GrantedGÇöbut how is that different from having a small ship (say an Astero or other covops) point a target, and then having a battleship warp in from some nearby off-grid location? In that scenario, youGÇÖre probably applying battleship DPS faster than a recalibration-penalized Nestor would. You could even have the off-grid BS sit with a prototype cloak until the target is pointed.
HiddenPorpoise wrote: If you give it a cloak it literally is a covert-ops logi and covert-ops battleship at the same time, neither of those things has been done for a variety of reasons and doing them at the same time would be broken more than I can state.
Use the ship on the test server, then complain.
Oh, the test server! Why have I not thought to check the test server! What a fool IGÇÖve been!
I have been and am continuing to use the ship on the test server, and IGÇÖm sure IGÇÖm not the only one who has done so and still is dissatisfied. Its cap life is horrendous, and its bonuses are insufficient to incentivize using it to explore instead of cheaper and better-performing battleships or strat cruisers.
|
GordonO
42
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 23:18:00 -
[1998] - Quote
Haven't read all 100 pages of this thread.. but curious why give us a ship that can be armor or shield tanked but only give one option\bonus to its remote repair capabilities... . |
Divi Filus
New Xenocracy
14
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 23:23:00 -
[1999] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:If you give it a cloak it literally is a covert-ops logi and covert-ops battleship at the same time, neither of those things has been done for a variety of reasons and doing them at the same time would be broken more than I can state.
Use the ship on the test server, then complain.
Look, IGÇÖm not saying it needs a covert cloak. IGÇÖm saying it needs something that amounts to a buff to NestorGÇÖs ability to move around in hostile space. The other SoE ships have this in the form of the covert cloak. The Nestor, in theory, has that in the low mass and the high(er) warp speed, but neither are particularly helpful: the low mass doesnGÇÖt make up for the fact that strat cruisers (with or without logi support) can fill the same roles as the Nestor while costing much less in terms of mass; the warp speed makes traveling somewhat less time consuming but will not help you evade or outrun any real pursuit in the slightest. So, in my opinion, it needs something else. That could mean a sufficiently penalized covert cloak, or any of half a dozen other options that have been thrown around in this thread (a number of which I mentioned on this very page). |
Savira Terrant
Valhollr
193
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 23:48:00 -
[2000] - Quote
Please guys. Why do you start asking for a covert cloak and the RR bonuses? Just drop RR already and make this ship usable to support exploration. And yes if that means it will end up as a 2 billion (or whatever) non plus ultra anom and DED runner (which does not nessesarily mean most DPS), so be it. . |
|
Divi Filus
New Xenocracy
14
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 23:56:00 -
[2001] - Quote
Who's asking for a covops on top of RR? |
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
165
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 00:00:00 -
[2002] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:If you give it a cloak it literally is a covert-ops logi and covert-ops battleship at the same time, neither of those things has been done for a variety of reasons and doing them at the same time would be broken more than I can state.
Use the ship on the test server, then complain.
You clearly haven't read anything I said above so I'll spell it out for you...
1. Remove some or all gun slots 2. Give the ship a covert cloak
1+2= A battle ship that can cloak but does the same dps as stratios or a cloaky T3.
And FYI I have tried it on sisi and it's as pointless as I thought it was. Not saying it isn't a good ship as a dps and tank platform, I'm saying it is a pointless ship that ads nothing new to the game. EVE does not need this ship!
Ps. There are cloaky logistic ships in game already. There is no cloaky BS for the reasons I explained in one of my last posts. Read up. |
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
165
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 00:14:00 -
[2003] - Quote
Savira Terrant wrote:Please guys. Why do you start asking for a covert cloak and the RR bonuses? Just drop RR already and make this ship usable to support exploration. And yes if that means it will end up as a 2 billion (or whatever) non plus ultra anom and DED runner (which does not nessesarily mean most DPS), so be it.
Because we already have combat ships designed for exploration, so why do we need another.
What we do not have is a viable cloaky logistics ship. |
ASadOldGit
School of Applied Knowledge
232
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 01:00:00 -
[2004] - Quote
Quinn Corvez wrote:Wouldn't it be better to have something new than to have existing roles repeated in a new hull that is not fit for purpose? I think part of the problem is that this ship hasn't had its role defined properly. Even if it's meant to be multi-role, it would still have 2-3 main roles defined - it can't have infinite roles.
Why did the Sisters invent this ship? Why was it introduced into the game? What were the devs thinking when they thought "We need a Sisters battleship!" Did they have a vision behind this ship?
With regards to the stated theme of "exploration" - what exactly is "exploration" in the context of this ship? Highsec exploration is quite different to wormhole or nullsec exploration, often requiring completely different ships, and certainly different fits and, as Quinn stated, these ships already exist.
Meh. |
Fortorn Lonshanks
Adeptus Incursio
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 01:05:00 -
[2005] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:If you give it a cloak it literally is a covert-ops logi and covert-ops battleship at the same time, neither of those things has been done for a variety of reasons and doing them at the same time would be broken more than I can state.
Use the ship on the test server, then complain.
I think that at the end of the day, the ship itself is not the essential issue here. In its current iteration it is a decent plaything, very adaptive.
What I think is lost is the price. It needs to be cut.... roughly in half.
That can be done in a few ways of course. Up the conversion rate for concord LP and primarily reduce the LP cost for ship/BPC.
That would bring it in line with other Pirate BSs. This thing properly fitted simply could not cover its own cost through its utility.
Personally, I think if you are going to do a logi battleship, it should be done like a triage carrier, not the mauraders.
I also think the rep idea is neat, but doesnt fall in line with the other two ships, namely it cant cloak and warp at same time. I am in the pro cloak side of this argument.
My biggest issue/fear is that you can have this ship potentially as a logi hub, spidering with several others. It will apply tremendous DPS through sentries (via drone bunny) while providing local reps to snipers/itself. It will be heavily tanked and largely immobile. Current logis rely on signature and speed to tank, this will not. It will be raw tank as well as DPS and logi. Wouldn't replace ships but could potentially create a much larger force projection onto battlefield for those with money. This is essentially buying power. Yes the pirate ships are powerful, but full of weakness in their own way. This Nestor has far fewer I think.
In only this will it "potentially" be worth the price however I think it is still too high even for the above mentioned specialized situation. |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
90
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 02:38:00 -
[2006] - Quote
Fortorn Lonshanks wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:If you give it a cloak it literally is a covert-ops logi and covert-ops battleship at the same time, neither of those things has been done for a variety of reasons and doing them at the same time would be broken more than I can state.
Use the ship on the test server, then complain. I think that at the end of the day, the ship itself is not the essential issue here. In its current iteration it is a decent plaything, very adaptive. What I think is lost is the price. It needs to be cut.... roughly in half. That can be done in a few ways of course. Up the conversion rate for concord LP and primarily reduce the LP cost for ship/BPC. That would bring it in line with other Pirate BSs. This thing properly fitted simply could not cover its own cost through its utility. Personally, I think if you are going to do a logi battleship, it should be done like a triage carrier, not the mauraders. I also think the rep idea is neat, but doesnt fall in line with the other two ships, namely it cant cloak and warp at same time. I am in the pro cloak side of this argument. My biggest issue/fear is that you can have this ship potentially as a logi hub, spidering with several others. It will apply tremendous DPS through sentries (via drone bunny) while providing local reps to snipers/itself. It will be heavily tanked and largely immobile. Current logis rely on signature and speed to tank, this will not. It will be raw tank as well as DPS and logi. Wouldn't replace ships but could potentially create a much larger force projection onto battlefield for those with money. This is essentially buying power. Yes the pirate ships are powerful, but full of weakness in their own way. This Nestor has far fewer I think. In only this will it "potentially" be worth the price however I think it is still too high even for the above mentioned specialized situation. Your fear is completely unfounded. It doesn't have the slot layout to tank tremendously AND do a lot of DPS. It doesn't even have the base cap to do that much repping. Pirate ships traditionally have distinct advantages over their faction/t1 counterparts. Vindicator has DPS/Web. Machariel has speed and damage projection. Bhaalgorn has neuts and webs. Nestor has... ??????
It's a 2 billion isk lossmail waiting to happen.
PvPers who want to do this kind of thing will continue to use the Dominix and real logistics like Guardians and Oneiros. PvE players will use T3 Cruisers for exploration or the Stratios... or Dominix and Guardians as well.
The only people who have a legit reason to buy this ship are collectors. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2767
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 03:43:00 -
[2007] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:It's a 2 billion isk lossmail waiting to happen. Make that $2.5-$3 billion ISK, because there's no way players are going to be running T1 modules on a $2-billion hull. So think of the $2-billion Nestor as the base model. $3-billion "nicely equipped"... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Roy Alleyne
Dark Horizon Logistics and Intelligence
13
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 07:39:00 -
[2008] - Quote
ASadOldGit wrote:Quinn Corvez wrote:Wouldn't it be better to have something new than to have existing roles repeated in a new hull that is not fit for purpose? I think part of the problem is that this ship hasn't had its role defined properly. Even if it's meant to be multi-role, it would still have 2-3 main roles defined - it can't have infinite roles. Why did the Sisters invent this ship? Why was it introduced into the game? What were the devs thinking when they thought "We need a Sisters battleship!" Did they have a vision behind this ship? With regards to the stated theme of "exploration" - what exactly is "exploration" in the context of this ship? Highsec exploration is quite different to wormhole or nullsec exploration, often requiring completely different ships, and certainly different fits and, as Quinn stated, these ships already exist. Having an undefined role and/or niche is the reason that this thread has 101 pages and will likely have many more before it's all over.
You do ask a pointed question though that I may have heavily hinted at but never come right out and answered since I started posting. The way I see 'exploration' in terms of the Nestor is a small fleet of no more than a dozen pilots traveling from wh to wh, running PVE sites and hunting isolated players. Most importantly this fleet would have the ability to stay in deep Wspace for weeks without ever seeing a station or deploying a POS.
Granted that is a dream that would take a some major pull to work out but in general we already have BSs for running PVE that perform better, RR ships that rep better, solo exploration ship's that perform far better, and the ship's roles arn't even complimentary to eachother, leaving no niche for a ship such as the Nestor. The ship could easily fill the role of fleet support ship that could keep up with more nimble ships and pull it's weight in a small fleet. The closest analogues to such a ship would be a carrier or an Orca but carriers are only mobile in Kspace and their cynos pull a lot of attention for a group trying to remain below the radar of whichever faction's backyard they are flying in while Orcas are slow, heavy, lightly armored, and stick out like a sore thumb, not to mention full of things explorers don't need like an ore bay or mining foreman links.
Tbh, I think I'd be satisfied if Rise and his team pull through with a cloaked velocity bonus but it never hurts to lay all your cards on the table for examination and discussion. For the above role to be possible any number of the role bonuses could go to make room, starting with the scanning bonus. |
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
166
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 08:37:00 -
[2009] - Quote
^ I like that senario. Maybe salvaging bonuses should should be added in place of the turret bonuses to make a nomadic Nestor fleet more viable... And a covert cloak of course |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1065
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 09:29:00 -
[2010] - Quote
Quinn Corvez wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:If you give it a cloak it literally is a covert-ops logi and covert-ops battleship at the same time, neither of those things has been done for a variety of reasons and doing them at the same time would be broken more than I can state.
Use the ship on the test server, then complain. You clearly haven't read anything I said above so I'll spell it out for you... 1. Remove some or all gun slots 2. Give the ship a covert cloak 1+2= A battle ship that can cloak but does the same dps as stratios or a cloaky T3. And FYI I have tried it on sisi and it's as pointless as I thought it was. Not saying it isn't a good ship as a dps and tank platform, I'm saying it is a pointless ship that ads nothing new to the game. EVE does not need this ship! Ps. There are cloaky logistic ships in game already. There is no cloaky BS for the reasons I explained in one of my last posts. Read up.
BATTLEship... means BATTLE.. emans no GUNs is wrong conceptually :P "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 81 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |