Nightmare

For discussion of ship fittings
User avatar
Biwako Acami
Member
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 2016.04.18 12:46
Title: Assistant Manager (Fittings), Ensign, Graduate, Management

Nightmare

Post by Biwako Acami »

Less on the ship fits but more on this statement present on the Nightmare page.
Worth noting is that you only need to train Caldari Battleship I to make nigh full use of this ship, since the Caldari skill only increases the afterburner efficiency (which is only useful if you actually fit an afterburner).
This was brought up elsewhere. I think this statement needs to be at least reworded. Nightmare shines best when in AB fit. To say 'nigh full use' without AB is incorrect in my opinion.

I would like to have it removed entirely. Its like saying you don't need Minmatar Battleship past 1 on a Bhaalgorn to use the ship which is true but is an unnecessary and misleading line in the wiki page for a ship.
Just a humble scout
User avatar
Gergoran Moussou
Member
Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 2019.04.09 05:16

Re: Nightmare

Post by Gergoran Moussou »

Agreed. I would have edited it without asking the wiki if I took note of it.

I'd also like to point out that it is more true with your example of Bhaalgorn. In fleet doctrines for pulsar wormhole systems, a shield-tanked Bhaalgorn is a fairly common support ship, and with the Minmatar Battleship bonus only applying to a mid slot module that isn't used in these fits (since it would compromise the tank). In fact, I've flown a pulsar Bhaalgorn with Minmatar Battleship I.
Former E-Uni FC (LSC/WHC).

Image
User avatar
Cassiel Seraphim
Member
Member
Posts: 3921
Joined: 2008.07.06 09:45
Title: Speaker of Truth, Timelord, Graduate

Re: Nightmare

Post by Cassiel Seraphim »

Biwako Acami wrote:I would like to have it removed entirely. Its like saying you don't need Minmatar Battleship past 1 on a Bhaalgorn to use the ship which is true but is an unnecessary and misleading line in the wiki page for a ship.
I would argue against that, for what it's worth. It has plenty of applications for PvE content, where the AB is not needed at all.

Unless your argument is that PvE is completely irrelevant for our wiki? In that case, sure, remove it. Otherwise, reword it (by all means), but leave the information there for those it applies to.
User avatar
Biwako Acami
Member
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 2016.04.18 12:46
Title: Assistant Manager (Fittings), Ensign, Graduate, Management

Re: Nightmare

Post by Biwako Acami »

If the rewording makes it clear that the context is for face tanking PvE, I guess it could work. I've seen many(ok at least 3 now that I think about it :D) Nightmares running PvE combat sites with prop in lowsec just so they can get away quickly so I'm not sure it would even be a blanket PvE statement.
Just a humble scout
User avatar
Drebin 679
Coordinator
Posts: 170
Joined: 2017.09.15 00:09
Title: Freshman

Re: Nightmare

Post by Drebin 679 »

For reference, this line was added in 2015 by Cassiel Seraphim, who built the library of wiki pages for Incursions and EVE University's Incursion Community.

For Incursions, that line is pertinent, as Nightmares generally do not use afterburners in Incursions. Nightmares are used because of their sniping ability with ten effective turrets while only having to power four, and with enough mid slots to further improve application on top of the tracking bonus, or also fit a shield tank for shield communities. In Vanguard sites, they run noprop as moving isn't necessary there. For Assaults and HQs, they run MWD because they need to keep up with other MWD-fit ships in the fleet, and even with max skills and a Gist-X 100MN AB, it will be 160 m/s slower than a meta MWD with max skills (881 m/s vs. 1046 m/s). That gap will be larger with lower skills and bling, which has potential to be a pain when doing the dual 60km sprints of a TPPH (common HQ site). Cap issues of the MWD are mitigated through their limited use, cap buddying, and occasionally a Capacitor Power Relay (which both shield HQ communities, Warp To Me and New Galaxy Age, recommend in their fits).

Outside of Incursion fits though, I took a look at what's been dying on zKill, and I struggled to find fully fit ships that didn't have an afterburner fit on them. From fits for solo PvP to mainline fleets, PvP applications of the ship seem to universally make use of the afterburner bonus. What few missioning nightmares made their way onto the killboard didn't seem to forgo AB either. With the speed bonus, the afterburners use much less cap while still being reasonably fast for a battleship.

Since Incursions is the one use case where Nightmares can seemingly be expected to not have AB, I would recommend that the blurb be written specifically with them in mind. Something like this:
The afterburner speed bonus from Caldari Battleship enables Nightmares to be agile (for a battleship) with an afterburner, freeing up capacitor for its lasers and a local repairer if it has one. Afterburners are very popular for PvP fits because of this bonus. However, for select use cases such as Incursions, where Nightmares are either fit with no propulsion module or with a microwarpdrive, the ship can be used effectively even with Caldari Battleship at level 1.
I think that such a blurb sets the conditions that you can get away with not running AB on the Nightmare a bit better.

And to be honest, considering how much the ship fittings and pages could use some love, if we can get a dozen posts in a day about one sentence, I think we can really focus that energy towards getting more ship and fitting pages more up to date beyond their circa-2014 baseline. I brought up the VNI back when it was reworked in July 2019, but didn't garner any responses. I hope we can keep this activity up, and get those pages to where they ought to be.
Incursion Coordinator, Wiki Curator
Image Image Image
User avatar
Vorkan Dosja
Titles Manager
Titles Manager
Posts: 512
Joined: 2014.04.13 00:48
Location: Michigan, United States

Re: Nightmare

Post by Vorkan Dosja »

That makes sense to me Drebin, and I am definitely churning up my "fitting cap" to help out. There isn't a fitting manager anymore, and so it falls to people like those posting here to take the mantle on.
Titles Manager

ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Taylor Moon Mahyisti
Member
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 2019.12.20 22:02

Re: Nightmare

Post by Taylor Moon Mahyisti »

Cassiel Seraphim wrote:
Biwako Acami wrote:I would like to have it removed entirely. Its like saying you don't need Minmatar Battleship past 1 on a Bhaalgorn to use the ship which is true but is an unnecessary and misleading line in the wiki page for a ship.
I would argue against that, for what it's worth. It has plenty of applications for PvE content, where the AB is not needed at all.

Unless your argument is that PvE is completely irrelevant for our wiki? In that case, sure, remove it. Otherwise, reword it (by all means), but leave the information there for those it applies to.
i mean there are people who actually like to pve and good for them, but for more people pve is only a way to make iskies for pvp. this is a pvp game
Image
User avatar
Cassiel Seraphim
Member
Member
Posts: 3921
Joined: 2008.07.06 09:45
Title: Speaker of Truth, Timelord, Graduate

Re: Nightmare

Post by Cassiel Seraphim »

Taylor Moon Mahyisti wrote:
Cassiel Seraphim wrote:
Biwako Acami wrote:I would like to have it removed entirely. Its like saying you don't need Minmatar Battleship past 1 on a Bhaalgorn to use the ship which is true but is an unnecessary and misleading line in the wiki page for a ship.
I would argue against that, for what it's worth. It has plenty of applications for PvE content, where the AB is not needed at all.

Unless your argument is that PvE is completely irrelevant for our wiki? In that case, sure, remove it. Otherwise, reword it (by all means), but leave the information there for those it applies to.
i mean there are people who actually like to pve and good for them, but for more people pve is only a way to make iskies for pvp. this is a pvp game
That's not how the wiki works. We don't limit the information on the wiki based on what the majority of people would be interested in. The wiki is there to give you information that is relevant to the article. In this case it's a ship article, so it includes information relevant to both PvP and PvE uses, because regardless what your personal preference is, regardless what the game is touted as, the ship is used for both.
User avatar
Taylor Moon Mahyisti
Member
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 2019.12.20 22:02

Re: Nightmare

Post by Taylor Moon Mahyisti »

Cassiel Seraphim wrote:
Taylor Moon Mahyisti wrote:
Cassiel Seraphim wrote:I would argue against that, for what it's worth. It has plenty of applications for PvE content, where the AB is not needed at all.

Unless your argument is that PvE is completely irrelevant for our wiki? In that case, sure, remove it. Otherwise, reword it (by all means), but leave the information there for those it applies to.
i mean there are people who actually like to pve and good for them, but for more people pve is only a way to make iskies for pvp. this is a pvp game
That's not how the wiki works. We don't limit the information on the wiki based on what the majority of people would be interested in. The wiki is there to give you information that is relevant to the article. In this case it's a ship article, so it includes information relevant to both PvP and PvE uses, because regardless what your personal preference is, regardless what the game is touted as, the ship is used for both.
nobody is saying that you should erase all pve information lol, just put it under a subheading at the bottom or something.
Image
User avatar
Ernesto Guevarti
Member
Member
Posts: 760
Joined: 2012.11.01 21:23
Title: Sophomore

Re: Nightmare

Post by Ernesto Guevarti »

Taylor Moon Mahyisti wrote:nobody is saying that you should erase all pve information lol, just put it under a subheading at the bottom or something.
I love your open minded and inclusive attitude to how people want to play this game, its what makes it such a great place.
CCP Fozzie wrote:Killing dumb people is like 1/3 of EVE's gameplay
Daniel Wittaker wrote:You could have a bright career ahead of you in Goonforums. That's some upvote-quality Helldump posting. Well done, sir.
User avatar
Taylor Moon Mahyisti
Member
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 2019.12.20 22:02

Re: Nightmare

Post by Taylor Moon Mahyisti »

Ernesto Guevarti wrote:
Taylor Moon Mahyisti wrote:nobody is saying that you should erase all pve information lol, just put it under a subheading at the bottom or something.
I love your open minded and inclusive attitude to how people want to play this game, its what makes it such a great place.
i would refer the gentleman to my previous post: "i mean there are people who actually like to pve and good for them"

theres nothing wrong with playing the game how you want to, it just doesnt make sense to have pve advice stated as general advice with no specificity
Image
User avatar
Athena Firefly
Member
Member
Posts: 323
Joined: 2017.08.13 18:29
Title: Sophomore, NSC Manager, Teaching Assistant Manager, Fittings Staff

Re: Nightmare

Post by Athena Firefly »

Taylor Moon Mahyisti wrote:nobody is saying that you should erase all pve information lol, just put it under a subheading at the bottom or something.
I think you are completely missing the point — and, indeed, the whole purpose of the wiki itself.
Oh, and for the record; this is a SANDBOX game!
~~~ I am a leaf on the wind - watch how I soar! ~~~


Teaching Assistant Manager | Fittings Staff
Former: NSC Manager | NSC Hangar Officer
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
Image Image Image Image
User avatar
Ky Hanomaa
Member
Member
Posts: 202
Joined: 2017.11.01 17:59
Location: Switzerland / CET

Re: Nightmare

Post by Ky Hanomaa »

I for one support Taylor's point. Saying that the Caldari Battleship Skill only needs to be trained to 1 "to make nigh full use of this ship" is very misguiding. If it were written as a side note, specifically explaining that this only applies in very niche cases where you fit it with an MWD (for instance in certain Incursion groups), there wouldn't be any issues.

I'm still at a loss as to how people got so riled up around this topic that we already have a second thread being filled after the first one had to be locked down due to people getting very emotional in the comments.

This is NOT about "PVE vs PVP". The Nightmare is an AB Bonused ship, thus most players will naturally fit an AB. We literally teach people to take a look at the bonuses and traits of a ship to get a picture of what to fit. Neglecting that bonus is a loss in a lot of cases as it is indeed a very powerful bonus. The section as it was quoted would leave the impression that fitting an AB generally was the exception, which is wrong. I thought the wiki was supposed to give newer players with less knowledge a picture of what a ships's strengths and uses are. You can of course fit what you want, but subtly implying they should fit it in a way that is far inferior in most cases is just wrong in my eyes.

To prove this is the rule rather than the exception, look up Nightmare losses an zKillboard.com (note that PVE losses show up there as well, not only PVP) and take a look at how many are fit with an AB vs MWD.

Now, can we finally let it rest?
Last edited by Ky Hanomaa on 2020.03.07 16:57, edited 1 time in total.
Former Assistant FCC Manager
Image- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Image- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Image
User avatar
Gergoran Moussou
Member
Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 2019.04.09 05:16

Re: Nightmare

Post by Gergoran Moussou »

People are still arguing about this more than a week after I fixed the wording?

Also:
Athena Firefly wrote:Oh, and for the record; this is a SANDBOX game!
It is a PVP game first and foremost.
Former E-Uni FC (LSC/WHC).

Image
User avatar
Vorkan Dosja
Titles Manager
Titles Manager
Posts: 512
Joined: 2014.04.13 00:48
Location: Michigan, United States

Re: Nightmare

Post by Vorkan Dosja »

Gergoran Moussou wrote:People are still arguing about this more than a week after I fixed the wording?

Also:
Athena Firefly wrote:Oh, and for the record; this is a SANDBOX game!
It is a PVP game first and foremost.
Yep, and without sarcasm, thank you for your correction Gergoran. It filled in the gap that everyone is still arguing about.

I think the PvP vs PvE is exactly what gets everyone riled up. I think some people consider that argument a form of social PvP that needs to be waged on Uni fitting forums for some reason. IMO we should all just ignore those jabs, and stop feeding the trolls, and I'm not referring to you at all.
Titles Manager

ImageImageImageImage
Post Reply