EVE Search - PvP Nighthawk?

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Ships and Modules

PvP Nighthawk?

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Topic
Omarvelous Caldari Destry's Lounge	Posted - 2008.10.02 14:48:00 - [1] Edited by: Omarvelous on 02/10/2008 14:49:15 Just doing a comparison vs. the Drake - for the same support job. 4x Ballistic Control Unit II Damage Control Unit II 10MN MWD II Photon Field II Invulnerability Field II 2x Large Shield Extender II 6x Assault Missile Launcher II Siege Warfare Link - Something shieldy 2x Core Defence Field Extender 5x light drones ____________________________________________________________________________________ Ballistic Control II Reactor Control Unit II Co-Processor II Damage Control Unit II Y-T8 Overcharged MWD Photon II 2x Invul II 2x LSE II 7x HM II Siege Warfare Link - Shield thingy 3x Core Defence Field Extender 5x light drones __________________________________________________________________________________ - Effective HP difference <10,000 HP Drake is better vs some damage types - about even vs lasers - nighthawk is much better vs hybrids (20k hp better). - DPS is about the same @ 400. - Drake can hit out to >80 km. - Nighthawk can hit smaller/faster ships better due to light missiles. - Both can fit a siege warfare link. - Both have MWD - Same Sensor Strength - Same 'agility'. - Drake has almost 200 more grid?! I don't see a justification for flying a Nighthawk over a Drake for a siege warfare link + mwd capable role. Sup brosef! Destry's Lounge is looking for a few good drunks - contact me in game.
Omarvelous Caldari Destry's Lounge	Posted - 2008.10.02 15:00:00 - [2] NO MWD? NightHawk: DC II 2x PDU II 2x BCU II Photon II 2x Invul II 2x LSE (best named - argh grid!) 6x HM II Siege Warfare 2x CDFE ___________________________________________________________________________ Drake: BCU II Co-Processor II RCU II DCU II Photon II 2x Invul II 3x LSE II 7x HM II Siege Warfare 3x CDFE ______________________________________________________________________________ Similar effective HP (140,000 omni - edge goes to Nighthawk vs. hybrids 170k vs 140k) DPS tanked goes to Nighthawk DPS Nighthawk 420 (no drones) vs drake's (308 no drones) so about 36% more. Both have siege warfare Both have no MWD. ____________________________________________________________________________________ DPS isn't spectacular and the MWD is gone. Meh.... Sup brosef! Destry's Lounge is looking for a few good drunks - contact me in game.
Last Wolf Umbra Wing	Posted - 2008.10.02 15:47:00 - [3] Check price tag. Nighthawk is awesome for PvE, but in PvP. There is just no reason to use it over the drake. Sliepnir/Absolution/Astarte all offer significantly more for PvP(and PvE) Mainly because they are better in every way. Fittings/slots/DPS/Tank. it needs to be able to fit HAMS/MWD/Capbooster/Warfare link, but its grid is just pethetic __________________________________________________________ Originally by: Liang Nuren wrong forum isroy i am vjery drunm
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.02 15:49:00 - [4] Originally by: Last Wolf Check price tag. Nighthawk is awesome for PvE, but in PvP. There is just no reason to use it over the drake. Sliepnir/Absolution/Astarte all offer significantly more for PvP(and PvE) Mainly because they are better in every way. Fittings/slots/DPS/Tank. it needs to be able to fit HAMS/MWD/Capbooster/Warfare link, but its grid is just pethetic This.. Needs a boost Awesome EVE history
Omarvelous Caldari Destry's Lounge	Posted - 2008.10.02 16:49:00 - [5] Originally by: BiggestT Originally by: Last Wolf Check price tag. Nighthawk is awesome for PvE, but in PvP. There is just no reason to use it over the drake. Sliepnir/Absolution/Astarte all offer significantly more for PvP(and PvE) Mainly because they are better in every way. Fittings/slots/DPS/Tank. it needs to be able to fit HAMS/MWD/Capbooster/Warfare link, but its grid is just pethetic This.. Needs a boost Its as though I posted these setups with stats to prove that point..... Sup brosef! Destry's Lounge is looking for a few good drunks - contact me in game.
Yoko Lee Caldari	Posted - 2008.10.02 17:19:00 - [6] Buy a drake, NH bad to pvp just good for pve.
Impolite Andevil The Shadow Knights Bionic Dawn	Posted - 2008.10.02 21:06:00 - [7] I think there is universal agreement among players that the NH needs a grid boost.
supr3m3justic3 Caldari Hakata Group	Posted - 2008.10.02 21:11:00 - [8] wow,and to think i was about to train for this.....well then BS 5 here i come!!! __________________________________________________
Omarvelous Caldari Destry's Lounge	Posted - 2008.10.02 21:24:00 - [9] Originally by: Impolite Andevil I think there is universal agreement among players that the NH needs a grid boost. Sad when the Tech 2 variant has LESS grid than the tech 1 counter part that costs 100 million (mandatory Dr. Evil voice) less. Sup brosef! Destry's Lounge is looking for a few good drunks - contact me in game.
supr3m3justic3 Caldari Hakata Group	Posted - 2008.10.02 21:28:00 - [10] Originally by: Omarvelous Sad when the Tech 2 variant has LESS grid than the tech 1 counter part that costs 100 million (mandatory Dr. Evil voice) less. your paying for the badass paint job...come on....we need a Pimp my spaceship show. I think my navy raven would look pretty good with some 24's and a bad ass system in it.....ROFL.... __________________________________________________

Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.10.02 22:12:00 - [11] Originally by: BiggestT Originally by: Last Wolf Check price tag. Nighthawk is awesome for PvE, but in PvP. There is just no reason to use it over the drake. Sliepnir/Absolution/Astarte all offer significantly more for PvP(and PvE) Mainly because they are better in every way. Fittings/slots/DPS/Tank. it needs to be able to fit HAMS/MWD/Capbooster/Warfare link, but its grid is just pethetic This.. Needs a boost This cannot be repeated enough. Field Commands need a kick in the arse to get going. Really, all the T2 ships are a little too bad at one or two of the things they are supposed to be doing, and should be able to kick the butt of a T1 ship a class above them, no question, and swiftly enough or well enough that they won't have to suffer too much if the enemy's only got one support craft of the same class or lower with them. As is, I think only Interceptors are able to achieve this nine times out of ten. Come on. We pay a shitload for these things. AFs should be able to kick Cruisers after the boost. Recons and HACs should be able to wipe their shoes on battlecruisers the same way. And Field Commands should be able to take on at least tier 1 and 2 battleships if not in the wrong arena. Fleet Commands? No. They're like Logistics; no one expects them to do a thing on their own.
velmistr Ecco Caldari InNova Tech Inc Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2008.10.03 10:30:00 - [12] Edited by: velmistr Ecco on 03/10/2008 10:30:30 They are always more options, you can make drake pretty much NOS proof (less HP, more DPS): [Drake, Test pvp HML Ganglink copy 1] Ballistic Control System II Reactor Control Unit II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II Heat Dissipation Amplifier II Kinetic Deflection Amplifier II Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I Hornet EC-300 x5 IMHO Nighthawk is marginally better and you must pay around 160M more for better efectivness as a support ship - nighthawks is better at clearing small targets than drake. I like passive drakes more. Quote: Weirdtopia > i need help in eve Bloodspoon > ...you installed eve? Weirdtopia > ya 14 day trial Bloodspoon > did you unistall WoW Weirdtopia > no Bloodspoon > then i can't help ya
Delichon The First Foundation SOLAR FLEET	Posted - 2008.10.03 10:49:00 - [13] Nighthawk 6 x HML T2 1 LSE T2 1 EM Res T2 Web(pref. faction) - Dis - MWD 3 Overdrive T2 1 I-stab T2 1 BCU T2 2 x Polycarbons Try doing this in a Drake :) ------------------------------------------ All nerfs are meant to hurt you personally. They will be nerfing you directly next. EVE A new game every 6 months. (c) Atomos Darksun
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2008.10.03 11:26:00 - [14] Edited by: Andrue on 03/10/2008 11:26:19 Don't. Just..don't. -- (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 11:47:00 - [15] Originally by: Delichon Nighthawk 6 x HML T2 1 LSE T2 1 EM Res T2 Web(pref. faction) - Dis - MWD 3 Overdrive T2 1 I-stab T2 1 BCU T2 2 x Polycarbons Try doing this in a Drake :) errm..u cld do it quite easily in a drake. Better in fact due to an extra rig slot for poly's x) Awesome EVE history
Connor Banks Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.10.03 13:22:00 - [16] Even if the nighthawk got a boost to powergrid it would still be subpar with the other field command ships. To compensate, the NH should get a 7th launcher.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.10.03 13:27:00 - [17] It really doesn't need a seventh launcher - its DPS is fine once you've fitted 3 BCS. An extra launcher would be overpowered, it just needs to PG to fit the six that it has.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.03 15:21:00 - [18] Originally by: Gypsio III It really doesn't need a seventh launcher - its DPS is fine once you've fitted 3 BCS. An extra launcher would be overpowered, it just needs to PG to fit the six that it has. Considering its insane cost it SHOULD be overpowered Unless of course they reduce cost, then id be happy :D Awesome EVE history
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.10.03 15:51:00 - [19] All the field CS cost pretty much the same, I believe. A higher sell price is just a result of mission-runner demand.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.03 17:14:00 - [20] Originally by: Gypsio III All the field CS cost pretty much the same, I believe. A higher sell price is just a result of mission-runner demand. This is true, however if build costs for all cs was brought down (ie less moon mins req'd etc) then prices would soon drop. Awesome EVE history

Liadan Khanum	Posted - 2008.10.03 17:20:00 - [21] Not sure if it would make sense for the other field CS, but now that it exists the Nighthawk should be based on the Drake and not the Ferox. This includes everything from ship model to base stats (speed, drone bay, etc.), bonuses and slots. This should also specifically apply to invention. Some stat/slot changing could of course occur as is normal when going from T1->T2 ship.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.03 17:25:00 - [22] Originally by: Liadan Khanum Not sure if it would make sense for the other field CS, but now that it exists the Nighthawk should be based on the Drake and not the Ferox. This includes everything from ship model to base stats (speed, drone bay, etc.), bonuses and slots. This should also specifically apply to invention. Some stat/slot changing could of course occur as is normal when going from T1->T2 ship. IMO all field cs should be t2 builds of their tier 2 counterparts. The tier 1 hull shld be fleet and teir 2 field. Hence the follow over stats etc would be much more suitable Awesome EVE history
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.10.03 21:14:00 - [23] Originally by: Gypsio III It really doesn't need a seventh launcher - its DPS is fine once you've fitted 3 BCS. An extra launcher would be overpowered, it just needs to PG to fit the six that it has. Its dps with 3x BCU II is just slightly more than a Drake with 3x BCU II, and only with Command Ships V. The lack of a 7th launcher is obviously due to pre-Drake balance, and CCP being too lazy to update the stats. Which is not too surprising, as there is unanimous agreement that the ship needs more grid, but what has been done about it?
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.04 03:28:00 - [24] Edited by: BiggestT on 04/10/2008 03:28:23 Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: Gypsio III It really doesn't need a seventh launcher - its DPS is fine once you've fitted 3 BCS. An extra launcher would be overpowered, it just needs to PG to fit the six that it has. Its dps with 3x BCU II is just slightly more than a Drake with 3x BCU II, and only with Command Ships V. The lack of a 7th launcher is obviously due to pre-Drake balance, and CCP being too lazy to update the stats. Which is not too surprising, as there is unanimous agreement that the ship needs more grid, but what has been done about it? They wont be doing anything about cs untill the nano-nerf is done and feedback heard to see if CS are better or not. Although I think nh needs boosting anyway as it cant fit a damn warfare link properly. But thats CCP for you Oh and I wont be suprised if this nano nerf never even happens edit: typo Awesome EVE history

Pages: [1] :: 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.