Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Commander Shale
State Section 12
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 07:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
Just returned to this game after... quite some time away. The first thing I notice upon entering my ship hangar is this atrocious abomination of a Drake look-alike. As if swapping out the best looking ship for one of the ugliest wasn't bad enough, I was then greeted by a message upon trying to undock stating: You can't leave the station until you remove one of your missile launchers, indicating that aside from a very severe "visual nerf", CCP also decided to do an actual performance nerf by taking away one of the missile hardpoints.
Maybe I'm a little late to the party in asking this but... What the heck brought on these awful changes? Was there -anyone- who ever complained that the Nighthawk was visually unappealing before? I certainly didn't when I was spending my 2+ years specializing my skills towards flying it. And performance-wise, if I recall correctly, it was mediocre at best, so what in the world justified making it even worse?
I'll stay for as long as this PLEX I used to get back lasts, but I don't think I'll be here long beyond that. As far as I'm concerned, you absolutely ruined my favorite ship in this game, and for no real reason at that. |
Gigan Amilupar
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
124
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 07:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
The command ship rebalance was quite a while ago, and they also gave half of the command ships new models (something a lot of people liked). |
Commander Shale
State Section 12
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 08:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
Is that why the market value of the ship dropped by roughly 40%? Because people love it now so much? I've also still yet to hear any viable reason behind this "rebalance". Let alone the god awful redesign of turning it into one of the least visually appealing battlecruisers. |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
227
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 08:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
The launcher reduction was countered IIRC by a change in bonuses which I think end up as a slight buff rather than a nerf...
But yes, the model changes suck. |
Termy Rockling
EVE University Ivy League
150
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 08:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
IIRC it was somethin like lose launcher but get double bonus... |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
333
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 08:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
Try the Claymore. It's better than the Nighthawk in almost every way.
As for the visual change...nighthawk is a T2 drake, not a T2 ferox. Why shouldn't it look the part?
As for the lost launcher...look at the ship bonuses. You should do at least as much damage as you were doing before, if you're using scourge ammo. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
512
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 10:56:00 -
[7] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Try the Claymore. It's better than the Nighthawk in almost every way.
As for the visual change...nighthawk is a T2 drake, not a T2 ferox. Why shouldn't it look the part?
As for the lost launcher...look at the ship bonuses. You should do at least as much damage as you were doing before, if you're using scourge ammo. why? cause nighthawk was one of the best looking ship in this game , nighthawk was outdated and weak before the launcher/bonus change , it only did a very slight change ---> nighthawk still crap |
Duchess Tjaden
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 13:38:00 -
[8] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:
As for the visual change...nighthawk is a T2 drake, not a T2 ferox. Why shouldn't it look the part?
because with all the skills needed and time put into getting to something called a Command Ship. you expect something unique and sexy looking. I never cared for ferox or drake hull look. wished they would of created something nice looking so you know youre in a top ship.
|
Odithia
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 15:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
You still have the vulture if you miss flying an elite ferox so much. It's not black though.
I kinda like the new Attack Command ships but I too would have preferred more Hull modifications than just the skin. |
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
1982
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 16:37:00 -
[10] - Quote
Performance-wise, NH got a slight buff despite the missing launcher. Visually, yeah, it's **** now. So do what everyone always does with Caldari PvE ships: zoom out and count volleys. |
|
Agondray
Truly Transdimensional The Nova Foundry
14
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 18:23:00 -
[11] - Quote
People want t2 tier 2 battle cruiser, ccp answer was to change a command ship skin, kinda like many of the programming excuses ccp gives us about their coding being to old when there's some older mmo's that have some base functions that we are missing |
Sith1s Spectre
Sky Fighters
491
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 04:27:00 -
[12] - Quote
Commander Shale wrote:Just returned to this game after... quite some time away. The first thing I notice upon entering my ship hangar is this atrocious abomination of a Drake look-alike. As if swapping out the best looking ship for one of the ugliest wasn't bad enough, I was then greeted by a message upon trying to undock stating: You can't leave the station until you remove one of your missile launchers, indicating that aside from a very severe "visual nerf", CCP also decided to do an actual performance nerf by taking away one of the missile hardpoints.
Maybe I'm a little late to the party in asking this but... What the heck brought on these awful changes? Was there -anyone- who ever complained that the Nighthawk was visually unappealing before? I certainly didn't when I was spending my 2+ years specializing my skills towards flying it. And performance-wise, if I recall correctly, it was mediocre at best, so what in the world justified making it even worse?
I'll stay for as long as this PLEX I used to get back lasts, but I don't think I'll be here long beyond that. As far as I'm concerned, you absolutely ruined my favorite ship in this game, and for no real reason at that. Can I have your stuff?
Sky Fighters is now recruiting a few more US/AU players https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4033197#post4033197 |
Mikkir
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 05:16:00 -
[13] - Quote
Commander Shale wrote:Just returned to this game after... quite some time away. The first thing I notice upon entering my ship hangar is this atrocious abomination of a Drake look-alike. As if swapping out the best looking ship for one of the ugliest wasn't bad enough, I was then greeted by a message upon trying to undock stating: You can't leave the station until you remove one of your missile launchers, indicating that aside from a very severe "visual nerf", CCP also decided to do an actual performance nerf by taking away one of the missile hardpoints.
Maybe I'm a little late to the party in asking this but... What the heck brought on these awful changes? Was there -anyone- who ever complained that the Nighthawk was visually unappealing before? I certainly didn't when I was spending my 2+ years specializing my skills towards flying it. And performance-wise, if I recall correctly, it was mediocre at best, so what in the world justified making it even worse?
I'll stay for as long as this PLEX I used to get back lasts, but I don't think I'll be here long beyond that. As far as I'm concerned, you absolutely ruined my favorite ship in this game, and for no real reason at that.
The visual change came up because the galente got boned on the navy battlecruiser being the brutix instead of the myrmidon. They decided instead to change one of the command ships for each race to the other battlecruiser hull. The Eos was applauded, most people liked the absolution, while the sleipnir and the nighthawk had mixed reactions.
As far as performance, the nighthalk performs better now than it did before. To break it down barney style: Before Base launchers before: 6 effective launchers with command ships 5 firing non-kinetic missiles: 8 effective launchers with command ships 5 firing kinetic missiles: 10
Now Base launchers: 5 effective launchers with command ships 5 firing non-kinetic missiles: 8 effective launchers with command ships 5 firing kinetic missiles: 11 Also gets an application bonus that didn't exist before, and has a slightly better resist profile.
If you hate the drake hull that much there isn't much you can do about that, but the ship is better than it was before. |
Treborr MintingtonJr
Quantum Reality R n D Spaceship Samurai
132
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 13:00:00 -
[14] - Quote
If i was playing this game because of the way my main ship looked then I would have quit ages ago as I'm flying the space potato atm.
There is a huge selection of ships to choose from btw, the Sleipnir with the Hurricane hull looks better now. Also have you heard interceptors are all the range nower days? |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
227
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 13:23:00 -
[15] - Quote
Flying what looks cool is the best way, although as FotM is closer to FotY in EVE there is less need to worry...
But cool looks are rarely nerfed - if you're flying what you fly because it looks cool you're far less likely to be disappointed by a patch.
Personally I feel all of the changes are for the worse - the Space Train Sleipnir, the Laser Chicken, the Black Ferox and the Chin Waggler will be greatly missed (admittedly the Chin Waggler was nerfed several years ago).
|
Yokai Mitsuhide
Smegnet Corp Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers
4671
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 17:24:00 -
[16] - Quote
I loved the Nighthawk, was a beautiful ship...now it's an ugly painted drake...Why don't think just give command ships their own unique hulls instead of reusing existing ones? Especially ugly ones. All of the command ships looked far better before they changed the hulls to match Battlecruisers imo. :\ |
Mac Tir
State War Academy Caldari State
118
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 20:34:00 -
[17] - Quote
People cried all over the forums about the Command Ship models.
They complained that there wasn't enough variation.
Then the new Absolution model was unveiled. It was only then that the capsuleers of New Eden realized their mistake. |
Valleria Darkmoon
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
194
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 21:34:00 -
[18] - Quote
Termy Rockling wrote:IIRC it was somethin like lose launcher but get double bonus...
Correct, many of the command ships lost a hardpoint but had their damage bonus doubled leading to a slight increase in damage while simultaneously using up less ammo. Sounds like a win to me.
The few people who cried over a Sleipnir going down to 5 turrets failed to realize paired 10% damage bonuses leading to the possibility of upwards of 6k alpha by fitting 720s. The loss of a hardpoint is not the disaster you make it out to be. If you don't like the new drake model at least I can feel your pain there, I preferred the Prophecy model for my Absolution too but such is life.
I do like my Hurricane based Sleipnir though but that was a little tougher as I also like the look of the cyclone. |
Dorian Wylde
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
402
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 21:40:00 -
[19] - Quote
Commander Shale wrote:Is that why the market value of the ship dropped by roughly 40%? Because people love it now so much? I've also still yet to hear any viable reason behind this "rebalance". Let alone the god awful redesign of turning it into one of the least visually appealing battlecruisers.
Maybe you should, I don't know, start looking around the forums instead of making whine threads. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
4333
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 05:30:00 -
[20] - Quote
Gigan Amilupar wrote:The command ship rebalance was quite a while ago, and they also gave half of the command ships new models (something a lot of people liked).
Something a lot of people didn't like.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
Sid Crash
54
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 07:27:00 -
[21] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Gigan Amilupar wrote:The command ship rebalance was quite a while ago, and they also gave half of the command ships new models (something a lot of people liked). Something a lot of people didn't like. -Liang
- Ferox hull is iconic and I still don't like the drake hull, it looks silly. - Prophecy hull is probably one of the best designs in the game, it's awesome. Harb looks like a bag of dicks (I do like the T2 paint scheme on it though) - Cyclone is old school and has a real Minnie feel to it, Cane is also really nice but the T2 cane is boring - Brutix is another amazing ship design, not saying the Myrm is bad but it's too slick/sleek imo
For me 2 out of 4 are bad changes, one makes sense but I'm not a fan of it and one is... acceptable but lacks effort. Not trying to sound or be elitist but it might have to do with having played from before tier 2 BC existed, at least partially, although that of course doesn't change the fact that the Harb doesn't at all look like an Amarr ship, same for the Drake. |
Random Woman
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
116
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 08:44:00 -
[22] - Quote
I used to run the abso all the time, now that it's aesthetically challenged I skilled drones and use the Eos. It's just impossible to use the Abso anymore. Also they changed the best looking command ship to some ******* hurricane. |
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
412
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 13:37:00 -
[23] - Quote
Commander Shale wrote:Maybe I'm a little late to the party in asking this but... What the heck brought on these awful changes? Protip: there's a small item at the top of the page labelled 'Search forums'.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=283149
|
Ace Echo
The Shadow Raiders Fleet Coordination Coalition
48
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 16:46:00 -
[24] - Quote
I think that the other races drew the short straw with the command ship re-hulling. However, I've been slowly training for an Eos and I like how the drone-carrier command ship finally got re-hulled to the t1 drone carrier. Finally makes sense and looks really slick. |
Shayla Aki
Wraithguard. Dirt Nap Squad.
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 18:21:00 -
[25] - Quote
I, too, was soul crushed when I saw my Abso turned into the harbinger hull, and the sleip as a cane. I mean, yeah, I get it, give the ships different models, but then change it like kestrel -> manticore, where the model is modified but it's still that. |
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
1192
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 18:30:00 -
[26] - Quote
I think you whiners should just be happy that both command ship variants are viable in the combat role and booster role now. "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Hanna Cyrus
Paranocxium Brotherhood Of Silent Space
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 18:45:00 -
[27] - Quote
I never undock with Nighthawk and Sleipnir anymore. Why the hell can't be an election where all actual eve players have to say yes or no? How many players has started this petition? How many players has seen this really before it happens?
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13525
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 19:18:00 -
[28] - Quote
From a utilitarian point of view the Nighthawk is unambiguously better.
From an aesthetic point of view... *shrug* De gustibus non est disputandum.
1 Kings 12:11
|
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
597
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 19:49:00 -
[29] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Try the Claymore. It's better than the Nighthawk in almost every way.
As for the visual change...nighthawk is a T2 drake, not a T2 ferox. Why shouldn't it look the part?
As for the lost launcher...look at the ship bonuses. You should do at least as much damage as you were doing before, if you're using scourge ammo.
The Nighthawk was a T2 Ferox before they turned it into a Drake... |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
335
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:56:00 -
[30] - Quote
IIshira wrote:
The Nighthawk was a T2 Ferox before they turned it into a Drake...
Ferox uses guns, drake uses missiles.
Nighthawk uses missiles.
Ergo, Nighthawk is a T2 Drake. QED.
Also, why do people have a problem with the Drake model? It has a certain sleekness that the Ferox lacks... |
|
Cordo Draken
ABOS Industrial Enterprises The Marmite Collective
74
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 22:20:00 -
[31] - Quote
The rebalance was warranted, but the Model change was like getting blindsided by a semi-truck. Deake is a piece of bent sheet metal scrap... Looks terrible and I don't care that it now fits in line as a T2 Drake... When I look at it, it just does own the name "Nighthawk". They seriously neeed to remodel it like the did the Scorpion and make it look fierce like it should be. The Eagle has the same problem... Ship name just doesn't fit the crappy ship model. eëÆWhomever said, "You only get one shot to make a good impression," was utterly wrong. I've made plenty of great impressions with my AutocannonseëÆ eÉà |
The Renner
Canadian Operations Yulai Federation
49
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 00:37:00 -
[32] - Quote
Yeah not a fan of the changes either, the Prophecy hull is one of the best looking and most iconic in the game. At least CCP didn't give the Damnation the Harbinger treatment....yet.
Although I do kinda miss the old Khanid paint scheme. |
Maxor Swift
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 01:34:00 -
[33] - Quote
i Have to agree with the OP the drake skin is maybe the worse looking ship in the game.
But then apart from some of the Amarr ships(oracle) all the design work in EvE is very poor IMHO, it has zero SiFi styling and many of the ships look like that where made out of lego bricks,and whats with all the asymmetry and ships facing the wrong way around (ferox) .Maybe CCP 40 seconds does the design work too lol. |
Goldensaver
Lom Corporation WHY so DERP'D
354
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 01:49:00 -
[34] - Quote
The Renner wrote:Yeah not a fan of the changes either, the Prophecy hull is one of the best looking and most iconic in the game. At least CCP didn't give the Damnation the Harbinger treatment....yet.
Although I do kinda miss the old Khanid paint scheme. Damnation (most likely) won't be getting the Harbinger treatment. In case you hadn't noticed, there is now a single Command ship for each T1 combat BC hull. I don't see them doing this, then flipping it so it's all skewed up again.
There is a method to their madness, even if people don't like it. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
598
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 09:40:00 -
[35] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:IIshira wrote:
The Nighthawk was a T2 Ferox before they turned it into a Drake...
Ferox uses guns, drake uses missiles. Nighthawk uses missiles. Ergo, Nighthawk is a T2 Drake. QED. Also, why do people have a problem with the Drake model? It has a certain sleekness that the Ferox lacks...
Merlin uses guns, Harpy uses guns, Hawk uses missiles and use the same model. I didn't see CCP make the hawk into a Kestrel with the AF rebalance. This is no different than the Ferox uses guns, Vulture uses guns and the Nighthawk uses missiles.
The Drake looks plain. This is fine for the Drake but not an awesome ship like the Nighthawk. All CCP did was take the same model and add some red color... |
Enya Dorne
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 09:49:00 -
[36] - Quote
IIshira wrote: Merlin uses guns, Harpy uses guns, Hawk uses missiles and use the same model. I didn't see CCP make the hawk into a Kestrel with the AF rebalance. This is no different than the Ferox uses guns, Vulture uses guns and the Nighthawk uses missiles.
It would make sense if they did that, but you would get the old skin for the manticore as that was in Lai Dai colours.. |
Sid Crash
62
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 10:13:00 -
[37] - Quote
In short, there is no logic based on weapon systems, so people using that as an argument for why CCP decided to do what it did make no sense. Seemingly they went for "switch the old combat CS to tier 2 hull" but then they got to the Eos and decided differently. For the Eos it makes sense (but I still don't like it).
The problem isn't so much the change as such, it's the fact that some of the tier 2 BC look silly imo, most notably the Harbinger and Drake. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
598
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 10:23:00 -
[38] - Quote
Enya Dorne wrote:IIshira wrote: Merlin uses guns, Harpy uses guns, Hawk uses missiles and use the same model. I didn't see CCP make the hawk into a Kestrel with the AF rebalance. This is no different than the Ferox uses guns, Vulture uses guns and the Nighthawk uses missiles.
It would make sense if they did that, but you would get the old skin for the manticore as that was in Lai Dai colours..
Just as they made the Manticore look different from the T1 Kestrel perhaps that's what they should do to the Nighthawk.
I'm not saying it can't be based off the Drake. If CCP wanted to change the hull from something that already looked nice they should've put a bit more effort than splash red on a T1 Drake model... |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
914
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 00:49:00 -
[39] - Quote
It is sad but in many ways caldari are no longer the best at missile usage. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
Kat Bandeis
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 03:33:00 -
[40] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Chris Winter wrote:Try the Claymore. It's better than the Nighthawk in almost every way.
As for the visual change...nighthawk is a T2 drake, not a T2 ferox. Why shouldn't it look the part?
As for the lost launcher...look at the ship bonuses. You should do at least as much damage as you were doing before, if you're using scourge ammo. why? cause nighthawk was one of the best looking ship in this game , nighthawk was outdated and weak before the launcher/bonus change , it only did a very slight change ---> nighthawk still crap
I breathed a serious sigh of relief that they didn't touch the Vulture. |
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
843
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 09:49:00 -
[41] - Quote
I'm not aware of any Nighthawk nerf. If you see a change in the model as a nerf, then don't fly it. I'm more willing to fly a Nighthawk after the change, especially if their price is going down. But maybe you should actually check the stats of a ship before assuming that a lost launcher hardpoint is a nerf. The Naglfar lost 2 launcher hardpoints. If every Naglfar pilot reacted the way you do, they would probably ragequit EVE, completely unaware of the huge buff their favorite ship just got. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
470
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 18:28:00 -
[42] - Quote
While I freely admit I have wanted a T2 Drake for a long time, someone got the Claymore and Nighthawk backwards. Why does Claymore have more mids and less lows than Nighthawk? Fail... Free Ripley Weaver! |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
337
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 18:48:00 -
[43] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:While I freely admit I have wanted a T2 Drake for a long time, someone got the Claymore and Nighthawk backwards. Why does Claymore have more mids and less lows than Nighthawk? Fail... I pointed this out like a dozen times while the ships were on sisi and never got so much as an acknowledgement from the devs. The slot layout means that the Claymore can completely ignore its tanking bonus and fit a stronger buffer tank than the Nighthawk, even though the Nighthawk's tanking bonus helps buffer. If the Claymore does the XLASB thing, it blows the Nighthawk's tank completely out of the water. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
843
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 19:01:00 -
[44] - Quote
The Nighthawk is more ideal for a passive regen tank, and low slots help that. But that's no excuse for giving it less mid slots than the Claymore. Similar story with the Megathron and the Armageddon. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
338
|
Posted - 2014.01.13 21:48:00 -
[45] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:The Nighthawk is more ideal for a passive regen tank, and low slots help that. But that's no excuse for giving it less mid slots than the Claymore. Similar story with the Megathron and the Armageddon. Another mid slot instead of a low would help out with passive regen tank just as much. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
491
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:26:00 -
[46] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:IIshira wrote:
The Nighthawk was a T2 Ferox before they turned it into a Drake...
Ferox uses guns, drake uses missiles. Nighthawk uses missiles. Ergo, Nighthawk is a T2 Drake. QED. Also, why do people have a problem with the Drake model? It has a certain sleekness that the Ferox lacks...
from what I remember the ferox was more or less equally good with guns or missiles (lol medium hybrids!), and the drake didn't exist. therefor the nighthawk was a t2 ferox. You can trust me, I have a monocole |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
599
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:34:00 -
[47] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:Chris Winter wrote:IIshira wrote:
The Nighthawk was a T2 Ferox before they turned it into a Drake...
Ferox uses guns, drake uses missiles. Nighthawk uses missiles. Ergo, Nighthawk is a T2 Drake. QED. Also, why do people have a problem with the Drake model? It has a certain sleekness that the Ferox lacks... from what I remember the ferox was more or less equally good with guns or missiles (lol medium hybrids!), and the drake didn't exist. therefor the nighthawk was a t2 ferox.
This would explain why the Nighthawk was a T2 Ferox and not a Drake.
I'm just sad that they took the one thing that the Nighthawk was superior over the Tengu away... It's cool looking Ferox hull. |
Kat Bandeis
Laboratoires Armageddon 1121 Ventures
15
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 22:53:00 -
[48] - Quote
IIshira wrote:I'm just sad that they took the one thing that the Nighthawk was superior over the Tengu away... It's cool looking Ferox hull.
This. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
339
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 22:21:00 -
[49] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
from what I remember the ferox was more or less equally good with guns or missiles (lol medium hybrids!), and the drake didn't exist. therefor the nighthawk was a t2 ferox.
Not really. It had unbonused launcher slots, sure, but bonused hybrids. |
All Purpose
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 23:37:00 -
[50] - Quote
To be honest , CCP fuc*ed up my favorite sleipnir too.
RIP Sleipnir (beautiful cyclone hull)
|
|
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
600
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:44:00 -
[51] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
from what I remember the ferox was more or less equally good with guns or missiles (lol medium hybrids!), and the drake didn't exist. therefor the nighthawk was a t2 ferox.
Not really. It had unbonused launcher slots, sure, but bonused hybrids.
Did it actually have a useful weapon bonus back then or do mean that optimal range bonus that is sooooo awesome? I don't think heavy missiles needed a range bonus back then either. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
855
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:25:00 -
[52] - Quote
I did once seek out a ferox fit. I looked everywhere, pulled up tons of fits, stuff on battleclinic or the forums, or elsewhere. Fits for all sorts of purposes. Not one of them was anything but a missile fit. I even did specific searches on railgun ferox fits. but came up with nothing. Back then when they had the hybrid bonus, people only used the launcher hardpoints, even though it was subpar to the drake in almost every way. The increased powergrid was the only thing going for it, and after you factored in the reduced slots, you still couldn't fit as much on it.
Take it for what it's worth. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Shpenat
Galactic Exploration and Mining Corporation The Obsidian Front
63
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:14:00 -
[53] - Quote
IIshira wrote:Enya Dorne wrote:IIshira wrote: Merlin uses guns, Harpy uses guns, Hawk uses missiles and use the same model. I didn't see CCP make the hawk into a Kestrel with the AF rebalance. This is no different than the Ferox uses guns, Vulture uses guns and the Nighthawk uses missiles.
It would make sense if they did that, but you would get the old skin for the manticore as that was in Lai Dai colours.. Just as they made the Manticore look different from the T1 Kestrel perhaps that's what they should do to the Nighthawk. I'm not saying it can't be based off the Drake. If CCP wanted to change the hull from something that already looked nice they should've put a bit more effort than splash red on a T1 Drake model...
With stealth bombers it was not matter of choice. They had to remodel those ships because they introduced new launcher models. And there was just not a way to fit battleship size launcher on the frigate hull and not look comic.
CCP also stated a desire to have T2 ships look differently from their T1 counterpart. It is not as easy though as many people are attached to their hulls and might not like the new design. See how many stir changing just 4 hulls made? Changing every T2 hull would make much more people to rage. It is no win scenario.
For example many people wanted Eos to be myrmidon hull. I myself hate that hull and would rather have Myrmidon changed to Brutix hull rather than Eos to Myrmidon. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
864
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 19:31:00 -
[54] - Quote
I liked the command ship hull change for variety's sake, but I can feel for people who don't like the look of a particular hull. I wish they would see the bigger picture, but we know they wont. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
601
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:34:00 -
[55] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I liked the command ship hull change for variety's sake, but I can feel for people who don't like the look of a particular hull. I wish they would see the bigger picture, but we know they wont.
Looking at the bigger picture I understand why they changed it from a T2 Ferox to a T2 Drake. This doesn't excuse them from being lazy throwing red marks on a Drake and calling it a Nighthawk. They could've took some time like they did with stealth bombers and made it look nice. I don't know many people that think the Drake looks nice so when you make an awesome ship like a Drake that's bleeding it's not going to be liked either. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
864
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:31:00 -
[56] - Quote
You also gotta realize how much work went into those stealth bomber redesigns. They are amazing, but they were also the better part of the expansion. A lot of the rest came from what was already done during previous expansions. Most of this stuff is a year or more in the making. The command ship hull redesigns were a temporary fix because they weren't ready to release the hull rebuilds (if they even have them drafted up yet). It was done as a small feature going along with the rebalancing, fitting because the attributes of battlecruisers were being rebalanced. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
602
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:49:00 -
[57] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:You also gotta realize how much work went into those stealth bomber redesigns. They are amazing, but they were also the better part of the expansion. A lot of the rest came from what was already done during previous expansions. Most of this stuff is a year or more in the making. The command ship hull redesigns were a temporary fix because they weren't ready to release the hull rebuilds (if they even have them drafted up yet). It was done as a small feature going along with the rebalancing, fitting because the attributes of battlecruisers were being rebalanced.
I'm not saying the SB redesigns didn't take some effort but the point was CCP made a nice looking ship look like garbage and that's why people are upset. Yes there was a reason behind this but don't change the model without actually making a decent new one first. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1185
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:22:00 -
[58] - Quote
Mikkir wrote:
If you hate the drake hull that much there isn't much you can do about that.
Zoom out a long way.
is all I can think of though. |
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
1290
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:38:00 -
[59] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:The Nighthawk is more ideal for a passive regen tank, and low slots help that.
Passive regen tanking, especially on a nighthawk, is SO last decade. Seriously, who does this anymore? "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Kat Bandeis
Laboratoires Armageddon 1121 Ventures
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:36:00 -
[60] - Quote
Batelle wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:The Nighthawk is more ideal for a passive regen tank, and low slots help that. Passive regen tanking, especially on a nighthawk, is SO last decade. Seriously, who does this anymore?
It's soooo much more awesome to burn cap when you don't have to. Oh, and fitting a module to replenish that burned cap is just the best way to go, eh? |
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
870
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:43:00 -
[61] - Quote
Here's a question: if Caldari ships are so good at passive shield tanking, why do they have all that cargohold space that's so useful for active shield tanking? Why are Minmatar ships getting the shaft? Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Sigras
Conglomo
655
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:34:00 -
[62] - Quote
Why do people complain about things before looking to see what the actual change was? |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
150
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:28:00 -
[63] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:While I freely admit I have wanted a T2 Drake for a long time, someone got the Claymore and Nighthawk backwards. Why does Claymore have more mids and less lows than Nighthawk? Fail...
I've been campaigning for them to rectify this since 2007 with no luck. I once had a dev say they'd "look at it during the next command ship rebalance". Four years later, the rebalance finally happened...and no love for the nighthawk in regards to its slot layout. |
Desmond Strickler
End-of-Line
33
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 02:39:00 -
[64] - Quote
They tore my heart out with the sleipnir and absolution changes and I promptly sold my nighthawk once they revealed it was a drake. At least they didn't touch the Astarte The Black Prince of Wormholes-á
Part-Time Moon Bear and Full-Time Black Guy
"My other dread is a Swaglafar" |
kyrv
hirr RAZOR Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 13:45:00 -
[65] - Quote
The OP is right and further more whilst trying to fit a nighthawk or say a curse which neither work anymore, I found in three days and 10 or more sites it is also impossible to make isk at all to pay for anything else that might work.
-More isk -Better ships
Oh I have worked out what does work:
- Hacs work best in solo operations and will win vs a commandship -Commandships are for pvp, not solo work and cannot pve - worse than hac - Battleships are not to be touched anymore there too slow, nerf your fleet and are horrible to fit up for anything yet alone use. - Black-ops are Battleships that are weaker, great for showing off to your friend with a portal though - Dread need larger tracking or smaller sig on there guns also too expensive prone to blow up in reasonable fights/get a hac - Carriers are great best used for ratting the best of all ships - Supers are rl isk sumps for characters - main chanracters, holding characters, cannot dock, use 0.4 sec for bombers or fighters (barely get used) and are ugly, small not super and have a distinct lack of not.. not getting tackled, if you think there scrambler immunity is anything to go upon think again. -Titans are great! if you own some C&P^^ supers above.
Best things are frigates and hacs only thus far in Eve everything else is a placeholder.
OH sisters of eve and other faction stuff is great too, only who pve's sites with battleships anyway. RR setups pfft :p. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |