EVE Search - Nighthawk deemed worthless?

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Nighthawk deemed worthless?

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Topic
Harrent Caldari	Posted - 2008.10.02 14:17:00 - [1] While discussing in another thread the Nighthawk vs the Drake there were supporters and a few nay-sayers that protest that the nighthawk is useless... The thread is below Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally by: Harrent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by: Harrent on 02/10/2008 12:56:48 Comparing nighthawk to drake... --- Well, im confused now as the nighthawk has more resists to its shield, keeping the small sig radius and adds another 25% to Kin dmg and 25% to missle precision with fully trained skills. How is it so horrible then? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Futher research leads me to find it has bigger cargo (floating off of the post above) therefore salvage would be easier if i were to do that for missioning. BOOSTS from drake (stock) Negatives: -13% less shields (same recharge rate = less hp / sec) - 1 rig slot - - 1 med and high slot (prob wont use high anyway due to energy req's) Positives: - + 1 low slot -22.2 more Kin resist natively (or about 1.5x what the drake had) -34.37 more Therm resist natively (or about 1.8x what the drake had) - about 1.8x the cargo space - 188 more cap units (1% increase) - 12% increase in cap recharge time The Nighthawk should be a viable ship in any PvE situation as it can eliminate small targets quickly, this in turn leaves you unscramed and unwebbed and eliminates quite a bit of damage in some level IV's. Why the Nay-sayers? Semper Fi
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.10.02 14:19:00 - [2] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 02/10/2008 14:19:38 Because we weren't discussing performance for missions but rather for PvP, what command ships are designed for anyway. Where the NH is a failure thanks to its chronic lack of grid preventing you from fitting a warfare link + HAMs (if you want to go down that route). People not fitting a warfare link to a command ship are doing it wrong. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Harrent Caldari	Posted - 2008.10.02 14:19:00 - [3] Originally by: Gypsio III Originally by: Harrent Edited by: Harrent on 02/10/2008 12:56:48 Comparing nighthawk to drake... --- Well, im confused now as the nighthawk has more resists to its shield, keeping the small sig radius and adds another 25% to Kin dmg and 25% to missle precision with fully trained skills. How is it so horrible then? It's not horrible. It's just that it doesn't really offer anything over the Raven. The extra resists of the NH are countered by its one fewer midslot. The sig radius is not hugely smaller than that of a Raven once shield rigs and LSEs are fitted to the NH. The main attraction of the NH is its capless passive tank, allowing people to go AFK and answer the phone etc. But you can setup a permaboosting XLSB Raven that will allow you to do the same, but with better DPS. The Nighthawk is certainly better against smaller targets, like frigates and cruisers. But most of the HP in a mission is in the BS and BCs, and Cruise hits these just fine, so it matters little. Urgh, I've just read that you were actually comparing the Drake with the Nighthawk. I'm not clear if you were talking about PVE or PVP though. For PVE, yes the NH is better than the Drake - but a Raven is better still. For PVP, the Nighthawk offers very little over a Drake in terms of tank and gank (and again is inferior to the Raven), while having much less flexibility because of the one fewer midslot. The sole area where the NH has a meaningful advantage over the Drake or Raven is its ability to fit a gang mod - but it can't actually fit it because of woefully inadequate PG. Disregard... question answered. Semper Fi
Irulan S'Dijana Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.10.02 14:20:00 - [4] Edited by: Irulan S''Dijana on 02/10/2008 14:20:44 Originally by: Harrent Why the Nay-sayers? Effectiveness/Unit of cost. Where cost is defined not only in isk, but training time. edit: bah! 1 minute
Beltantis Torrence	Posted - 2008.10.02 14:24:00 - [5] No need to start a new thread. For PVE Raven > Nighthawk > Drake. Its not that the nighthawk is worthless, its that it doesn't do as much DPS for Level IV's and there's no point in running Level III's if you can run Level IV's so its advantages over the drake are irrelevant. To be honest, it seems better for PVE (over the drake specifically) if you discount the fact that if you put the SP into your mission (precision + cap management) skills instead of into Battlecruiser 5 then you wouldn't need it because your Raven would wtfbbq Level IV's. Once you put a week or two into cap management skills (which are much more important for Level IV's than passive shield skills), you won't have to fit so many cap mods which in turn means you'll do a lot better at Level IV's. So really, the only reason you're looking at Nighthawk is to avoid doing cap management skills - but honestly you're going to want/need them anyway so you may as well just train them.
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2008.10.02 14:44:00 - [6] Edited by: Andrue on 02/10/2008 14:44:25 For PvP an NH is a pretty silly choice. The Drake does pretty much all that a Nighthawk can do for substantially lower cost. However for PvE a Nighthawk is actually one of the best ships in the game. With decent skills its DPS output is-on average-better than anything a Raven can do and on par with a Cruise CNR. Note my use of on average. The reason I say that is because L4 mission ships are not all BS size. Far from it. In fact I'd tentatively guess that most L4 missions are skewed toward small ships. The NH uses heavy missiles and they are adequately effective against any size ship you will encounter. By way of contrast a cruise missile is great against BS, adequate against cruisers and poor against frigs. I've been flying a NH for over a year now and have just started flying a CNR as a 'fixer upper' project. You can check my skills on In-Eve.Net - maxed out across the board. I've been tracking time to complete every mission and so far the NH has been equal to the CNR for the majority. The only one that stands out as significantly faster in the CNR is GE4. I did it in 58 minutes in my CNR and 1hr20 in the NH. For everything else it's 'even Stevens'. Most missions take between 10 and 20 minutes in either ship. Where the NH really shines though is its tank. Now a lot of ships can tank L4s but most of them require that you keep an eye on your shields or armour and activate a booster or repairer. Then you have to keep an eye on your cap. With a passive tanked NH you just activate your hardeners when you warp to the mission BM... ...and that's it. No need to look at the shields. No need to care about the cap. If the telephone rings or your partner suddenly gets friendly then just leave the NH where it is. It'll still be there when you get back. Very few other ships have that AFK survivability factor and those that do normally need a huge Isk investment. A T2 NH will be able to do that in most L4s and even with a faction setup it's still unlikely to cost more than 500mil. So an NH is a very competent mission runner simply on normal terms. But for those of us that don't want to baby sit our ship or simply want the security of an unbreakable tank it is (IMO) the best PvE ship in the game. -- (Sarcastic mission running veteran, 4+ years) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.10.02 15:32:00 - [7] Originally by: Harrent -22.2 more Kin resist natively (or about 1.5x what the drake had) -34.37 more Therm resist natively (or about 1.8x what the drake had) sigh Resists aren't linear. And the actual resists bonuses compared to a Drake at equal skill levels are 62.5% thermal and 37.5% kinetic (Vulture gets 75% and 50%). Or, in other words, it's x2.66(6) on thermal and x1.6 on kinetic. _ SHOPS \|\| Mission rewards revamp \|\| better nanofix
Last Wolf Umbra Wing	Posted - 2008.10.02 15:40:00 - [8] Its black. Therefore Nighhawk > Raven. (I wish the Premium client NH was as bad-ass looking as the Classic) __________________________________________________________ Originally by: Liang Nuren wrong forum isroy i am vjery drunm
Harrent Caldari	Posted - 2008.10.02 15:40:00 - [9] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Harrent -22.2 more Kin resist natively (or about 1.5x what the drake had) -34.37 more Therm resist natively (or about 1.8x what the drake had) sigh Resists aren't linear. And the actual resists bonuses compared to a Drake at equal skill levels are 62.5% thermal and 37.5% kinetic (Vulture gets 75% and 50%). Or, in other words, it's x2.66(6) on thermal and x1.6 on kinetic. True, i was stating from a purly statistical standpoint without skills or any other foreign factors being involved. Semper Fi
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.02 15:44:00 - [10] The Nighthawk is designed for pvp and fleet boosting. The fact that it can do neither effectively (especially considering cost) deems it useless Awesome EVE history

slothe Caldari Murky Inc.	Posted - 2008.10.02 17:39:00 - [11] the easiest and fairest way to improve the nighthawk, in line with other races, is actually to nerf the drake.which is arguably so good it renders the nh useless.
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.10.02 19:10:00 - [12] Originally by: slothe the easiest and fairest way to improve the nighthawk, in line with other races, is actually to nerf the drake.which is arguably so good it renders the nh useless. This is an odd twist in logic. Nerfing the Drake won't make the NH any better unless ALL you're going to compare it to is the Drake. NH STILL won't be able to perform a reasonable, cost effective PVP role.
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2008.10.03 07:02:00 - [13] Originally by: Last Wolf Its black. Therefore Nighhawk > Raven. (I wish the Premium client NH was as bad-ass looking as the Classic) ^this^. The NH should be black body with black fittings and black striping. The red on the wings should be dark red. -- (Sarcastic mission running veteran, 4+ years) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.03 07:04:00 - [14] Originally by: Derek Sigres Originally by: slothe the easiest and fairest way to improve the nighthawk, in line with other races, is actually to nerf the drake.which is arguably so good it renders the nh useless. This is an odd twist in logic. Nerfing the Drake won't make the NH any better unless ALL you're going to compare it to is the Drake. NH STILL won't be able to perform a reasonable, cost effective PVP role. When did I say to nerf the drake? The NH needs a boost either combat wise (bonus's), fittings wise (grid), or cost/effective wise (production costs, therefore sale costs)) Awesome EVE history
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.10.03 08:29:00 - [15] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 03/10/2008 08:30:04 Three problems with the Nighthawk: 1) Crippled fitting with gang mod + MWD (required modules for PvP). You just can't fit a proper setup on the ship, even with just HMLs instead of HAMs, you're fitting at least one RCU (usually two) to get even a single LSE for your tank. With HAMs, you end up with LESS dps than the equivalent HML setup, because you have to give up another BCU. 2) Pre-Drake balance gives it only 6 launchers. Now that the Drake exists, the Nighthawk should have a full 7. 3) High price tag keeps it from being cost-effective. While it's better in every way than the Drake, it's not better enough to justify the massive price increase. Unless you have so much money that you don't care about cost, of course, but most people don't, and the Nighthawk remains the less popular choice. So no, not a bad ship, it just needs more grid/CPU and another launcher hardpoint. Give it the following setup, and the ship will be awesome: 7x HML II, gang mod MWD II, 2x LSE II, choice of 2x hardener/scram/etc 3x BCU II, 2x PDU II Problem solved, and the Nighthawk is competitive with the other command ships.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.03 08:33:00 - [16] Originally by: Merin Ryskin 7x HML II, gang mod MWD II, 2x LSE II, choice of 2x hardener/scram/etc 3x BCU II, 2x PDU II Problem solved, and the Nighthawk is competitive with the other command ships. OMG I WANT that ship Awesome EVE history
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.10.03 09:19:00 - [17] Originally by: slothe the easiest and fairest way to improve the nighthawk, in line with other races, is actually to nerf the drake.which is arguably so good it renders the nh useless. Or rework the NH so that it's a T2 Drake, with an explosion velocity bonus instead of the precision bonus.
Strill	Posted - 2008.10.03 09:40:00 - [18] Edited by: Strill on 03/10/2008 09:43:26 Originally by: Harrent -22.2 more Kin resist natively (or about 1.5x what the drake had) -34.37 more Therm resist natively (or about 1.8x what the drake had) I honestly have no idea where you got these numbers. I can't figure any way to make sense of them. They're not the difference in resists between the nighthawk and drake before or after taking their 5% resist/level bonuses into account. They're also not the difference in resists if you only take the drake's 5% resist/level bonus into account. What are they supposed to be?
Rawr Cristina Caldari Naqam Exalted.	Posted - 2008.10.03 09:54:00 - [19] Nighthawk is great for Missions, no doubt about that. PvP however it's tragic. At minimum it needs 150 more PG and a Lowslot moved to Med, IMO. Right now the Sleipner has over double the PG of the Nighthawk, and the Stabber only has 10 less. Nighthawk has the PG of a low-tier Cruiser - Infectious -
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.04 03:34:00 - [20] Originally by: Rawr Cristina Nighthawk is great for Missions, no doubt about that. PvP however it's tragic. At minimum it needs 150 more PG and a Lowslot moved to Med, IMO. Right now the Sleipner has over double the PG of the Nighthawk, and the Stabber only has 10 less. Nighthawk has the PG of a low-tier Cruiser The power-grid is lower due to lower grid requirements for weapons, though i agree it is much too low to be viable for warfare link

Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.10.04 07:37:00 - [21] Originally by: BiggestT The power-grid is lower due to lower grid requirements for weapons Think again: compare the grid requirements of missile launchers to autocannons. The difference is FAR less than the difference between the Sleipnir and Nighthawk. Despite having only a 5-grid difference between a HML II and a 220mm AC II, the Sleipnir fits an X-large booster tank with zero fitting mods, while the Nighthawk can't even fit a large booster without grid mods. This difference is just absolutely stupid and needs to be changed ASAP.
Jokerret Ventis Secundis Send More Paramedics	Posted - 2008.10.04 09:38:00 - [22] Edited by: Jokerret on 04/10/2008 09:45:36 Originally by: Strill Edited by: Strill on 03/10/2008 09:43:26 Originally by: Harrent -22.2 more Kin resist natively (or about 1.5x what the drake had) -34.37 more Therm resist natively (or about 1.8x what the drake had) I honestly have no idea where you got these numbers. I can't figure any way to make sense of them. They're not the difference in resists between the nighthawk and drake before or after taking their 5% resist/level bonuses into account. They're also not the difference in resists if you only take the drake's 5% resist/level bonus into account. What are they supposed to be? Because big guy when you add the the % to a higher base resist then you get more resists bonus per lvl of BC... BASE RESISTS: Drake kin resist =40% Drake Therm resist =20% NH kin resist =62.5% NH Thermal resist =70%
Strill	Posted - 2008.10.04 10:08:00 - [23] Edited by: Strill on 04/10/2008 10:09:14 Originally by: Jokerret Edited by: Jokerret on 04/10/2008 09:45:36 Originally by: Strill Edited by: Strill on 03/10/2008 09:43:26 Originally by: Harrent -22.2 more Kin resist natively (or about 1.5x what the drake had) -34.37 more Therm resist natively (or about 1.8x what the drake had) I honestly have no idea where you got these numbers. I can't figure any way to make sense of them. They're not the difference in resists between the nighthawk and drake before or after taking their 5% resist/level bonuses into account. They're also not the difference in resists if you only take the drake's 5% resist/level bonus into account. What are they supposed to be? Because big guy when you add the the % to a higher base resist then you get more resists bonus per lvl of BC... BASE RESISTS: Drake kin resist =40% Drake Therm resist =20% NH kin resist =62.5% NH Thermal resist =70% I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say, but you seem to have completely misunderstood my post. So I'll restate my original post: I was trying to figure out where "-22.2" and "-34.37" came from. I tried comparing the base resists of the nighthawk and drake, but since 70 - 20 is not 34.37, it can't be the difference in base resists. Likewise, when you apply the 5% resists/level bonus for each ship and get RESISTS AFTER SHIP BONUS LEVEL 5: Drake kin resist =55% Drake Therm resist =40% NH kin resist =72% NH Thermal resist =78% 78 - 40 is not 34.37, so he can't be comparing the reisistances of the drake and nighthawk after taking their resistance bonuses into consideration. So I tried comparing the drake at battlecruiser level 5 to the nighthawk without battlecruiser. (yes I know the nighthawk has battlecruiser 5 as a prerequisite but I couldn't think of any other way to make the numbers come out) Drake kin resist =55% Drake Therm resist =40% NH kin resist =62.5% NH Thermal resist =70% Since 70 - 40 is still not 34.37 I'm baffled as to where it could possibly have come from.
Jokerret Ventis Secundis Send More Paramedics	Posted - 2008.10.04 10:27:00 - [24] /me corrected ty
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.10.04 10:33:00 - [25] Edited by: Akita T on 04/10/2008 10:34:09 Originally by: Jokerret /me corrected ty I still believe you don't get it, even you think you just did. See below. Originally by: Harrent Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Harrent -22.2 more Kin resist natively (or about 1.5x what the drake had) -34.37 more Therm resist natively (or about 1.8x what the drake had) sigh Resists aren't linear. And the actual resists bonuses compared to a Drake at equal skill levels are 62.5% thermal and 37.5% kinetic (Vulture gets 75% and 50%). Or, in other words, it's x2.66(6) on thermal and x1.6 on kinetic. True, i was stating from a purly statistical standpoint without skills or any other foreign factors being involved. THOSE inside my quote are the exact bonuses to resists a NH and a Vulture have over a Drake on the exact same pilot (i.e. identical skill levels) without any (other) foreign factors involved. P.S. You might want to read this for instance too, probably give you a better idea. _ Alternate resist display \|\| Mission reward revamp \|\| better nanofix
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.10.04 10:41:00 - [26] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 04/10/2008 10:42:19 Really, I don't know where any of you are getting your numbers from. Please learn how resists work. I'll use thermal as the example: Base shield resist: 20% With 62.5% bonus from being a T2 ship: 70% With 25% resist bonus from Battlecruisers skill: 77.5% Assuming you can fly both ships, you have BC V and both ships get the same 25% resist bonus. This means the Nighthawk gets a 62.5% bonus to thermal over the Drake, which is a massive increase. The only reason the Drake comes anywhere near the Nighthawk's EHP is because the Nighthawk's crippled grid prevents it from fitting as many LSE IIs.
Strill	Posted - 2008.10.04 10:53:00 - [27] Edited by: Strill on 04/10/2008 10:55:01 Edited by: Strill on 04/10/2008 10:54:33 Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 04/10/2008 10:34:09 Originally by: Jokerret /me corrected ty I still believe you don't get it, even you think you just did. See below. No, I believe jokerret does get it seeing as how her post and mine have nothing to do with any of the stuff in the "see below" section. Originally by: Merin Ryskin Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 04/10/2008 10:42:19 Really, I don't know where any of you are getting your numbers from. Please learn how resists work. I'll use thermal as the example: Base shield resist: 20% With 62.5% bonus from being a T2 ship: 70% With 25% resist bonus from Battlecruisers skill: 77.5% Assuming you can fly both ships, you have BC V and both ships get the same 25% resist bonus. This means the Nighthawk gets a 62.5% bonus to thermal over the Drake, which is a massive increase. The only reason the Drake comes anywhere near the Nighthawk's EHP is because the Nighthawk's crippled grid prevents it from fitting as many LSE IIs. I know very well how resists work. All I want to know is where 22.2 and 34.37 came from.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.10.04 10:56:00 - [28] Originally by: Strill I know very well how resists work. All I want to know is where 22.2 and 34.37 came from. Nowhere. They have absolutely nothing to do with any relevant number on the Nighthawk. Pretend that post never existed, it's just pure nonsense.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.10.04 11:00:00 - [29] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: Strill I know very well how resists work. All I want to know is where 22.2 and 34.37 came from. Nowhere. They have absolutely nothing to do with any relevant number on the Nighthawk. Pretend that post never existed, it's just pure nonsense. That's what I was saying too The actual bonuses are 62.5% thermal and 37.5% kinetic (Vulture gets 75% and 50%), like I've already said (twice).
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.10.04 13:10:00 - [30] Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 04/10/2008 13:10:59 Originally by: Irulan S'Dijana Effectiveness/Unit of cost. Where cost is defined not only in isk, but training time. This, and Originally by: BiggestT The Nighthawk is designed for pvp and fleet boosting. The fact that it can do neither effectively (especially considering cost) deems it useless this, and Originally by: slothe the easiest and fairest way to improve the nighthawk, in line with other races, is actually to nerf the drake.which is arguably so good it renders the nh useless. this, and Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: slothe the easiest and fairest way to improve the nighthawk, in line with other races, is actually to nerf the drake.which is arguably so good it renders the nh useless. Or rework the NH so that it's a T2 Drake, with an explosion velocity bonus instead of the precision bonus. and this: Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: BiggestT The power-grid is lower due to lower grid requirements for weapons Think again: compare the grid requirements of missile launchers to autocannons. The difference is FAR less than the difference between the Sleipnir and Nighthawk. Despite having only a 5-grid difference between a HML II and a 220mm AC II, the Sleipnir fits an X-large booster tank with zero fitting mods, while the Nighthawk can't even fit a large booster without grid mods. This difference is just absolutely stupid and needs to be changed ASAP. Generally, the Nighthawk suffers a little of the same syndrome as certain HACs and especially Recons; a lack of comparative usefulness over its T1 sibling when skill training time and especially ship cost is factored in. Flying one into PvP is like driving an AMG Mercedes to a dirt race free-for-all, compared to the Drake's cheap, reinforced crash wagon. You may just win the race, being a little bit faster and better, but if you lose you're paying dearly. And this situation is even worsened because of the grid. Oh, and just for the record; I hate the Drake with a searing, fiery sense of disgust that stings me to the very core of the shriveled, blackened lump of coal I call my 'heart'.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.