|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 46 post(s) |
Aglais
Liberation Army
306
   |
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:36:00 -
[1] - Quote
"10%(+5) bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage"
aAaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA STOP |
Aglais
Liberation Army
306
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:02:00 -
[2] - Quote
Fozzie, can we PLEASE cut the kinetic damage bonus on the Nighthawk and turn it into a general damage bonus? I don't know if this is an attempt to differentiate it from the Damnation or an attempt to keep it from being remarkable in more than like two situations. I know, it's going to have the Drake model, but it's a T2 ship, and it's going to not be cheap. What good will it be if it's only really effective with the one damage type that gets shut down the most? |
Aglais
Liberation Army
308
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
So let me get this straight here. The two shield tanking missile command ships go as follows:
Claymore:
Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire (was MPT RoF)
7.5% bonus to shield boosting amount
Command Ships skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire (was link bonus)
5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile explosion velocity (was MPT tracking)
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links
Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 6 M, 4 L, 2 turrets (-3), 5 Launchers (+2)
Fittings: 1100 PWG (-290), 525 CPU (+10)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4700(+376) / 3800(-44) / 3400(+37)
Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 75 / 60 / 40 / 50
Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 90 / 67.5 / 25 / 10
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2625 / 583s / 4.5
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 170 / 0.7(-0.004) / 12500000 / 12.13s (-0.07)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(+10) / 75(+35)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+20) / 220 / 7(+1)
Sensor strength: 22 Ladar (+6)
Signature radius: 240
Cargo capacity: 575 (+100)
Nighthawk:
Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
4% bonus to all Shield Resistances
10%(+5) bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage
Command Ships skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Heavy Assault and Heavy missile launcher rate of fire
5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and Information Warfare links
Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1)
Fittings: 825 PWG (+115), 550 CPU (-5)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5500(+695) / 3200(-163) / 3700(-144)
Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 80(+10) / 70(+7.5) / 50
Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 86.25(+6.88) / 62.5(+9.38) / 10
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2812(-187.5) / 625s(-41.7) / 4.5
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.65(+0.02) / 14810000(+800000) / 13.35s (+1.15)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km (+20) / 195 / 9(+1)
Sensor strength: 24 Gravimetric (+5)
Signature radius: 285
Cargo capacity: 700
I have bolded things that don't make any sense.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE NIGHTHAWK'S FIFTH LOWSLOT?
Why did you give the Nighthawk such an awful damage bonus? I mean you have ~6 effective launchers if you're not using kinetic damage! SIX! THAT IS HORRENDOUS! I cannot believe people are thinking that this ship is going to be better for anything. Yeah, it'll be better at failing to kill things than before that's for sure! It'll be better at being the missile command ship nobody chooses because the Claymore seems to outclass it in terms of it's offensive bonuses and slot layout (SERIOUSLY, WHY DOES THE NIGHTHAWK NEED THIS SLOT LAYOUT? CALDARI HAVE LOADS AND LOADS OF MID SLOTS. Minmatar tend to be the ones with this sort of configuration, for the sake of 'flexibility'. They can pull it off due to their stats, the Nighthawk CAN'T!
I thought the T1 battleship rebalancing changes were embarrassing- these have blown what you did to the Raven (and how you kept the Typhoon mostly better than it in most contexts) completely out of the water. I fear for what you plan on doing with Marauders, the Golem especially. Let me guess. You're going to change it's role bonus to +100% kinetic torpedo and cruise missile damage, and ignore all other damage types as you have for the Nighthawk and Cerberus. Then you're going to make it slower and heavier and vomit all over it's ability to fit anything. Because it's "too good at PvE" despite not having a role outside of mission running. |
Aglais
Liberation Army
309
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:16:00 -
[4] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Aglais wrote:So let me get this straight here. The two shield tanking missile command ships go as follows:
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE NIGHTHAWK'S FIFTH LOWSLOT? FOR A REACTOR CONTROL DUE TO LOW PG!
DUMB.
The real fix is to further increase power grid, shift fifth low to a med slot. Problem solved!
'Mandatory' PG mods are UTTER BULLSHIT and SHOULD NOT BE A CONCEPT THAT HAS TO HAPPEN. An RCU is for when you're trying to do a really shifty fit that might not work otherwise. Not trying to just do a basic fit because the ship doesn't have enough PG to fit all of what it's supposed to have in the first place. It's especially egregious on missile ships because they don't even have alternate gun sizes to upgrade/downgrade into! |
Aglais
Liberation Army
315
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:58:00 -
[5] - Quote
So are we going to be doing anything about the Nighthawk, or will it be re-released as actually worse than it is now once Odyssey 1.1 hits? Seriously, please reconsider the garbage slot layout and that awful kinetic only damage bonus.
Either that, or alter the Claymore so that it ends up with an explosive only damage bonus, and make it so that the Sleipnir only gets a bonus to the explosive damage in certain ammo types. Damnation, Sacrilege and Vengeance only get bonuses to EM missile damage too. Then you see how much sense something like this makes. (Hint: it's none. It makes no sense. Change it. For the Cerberus too. This isn't 'specialization', this is 'crippling them while trying to make it look like they're good at something'.) |
Aglais
Liberation Army
316
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sigras wrote:seriously, why do people keep making such a big deal out of a selectable (or non selectable) damage type?! It's not like people omni-tank or anything . . .  In fact if youre going to be stuck to one damage type, Kinetic isnt a bad way to go, it only makes you suck against T2 gallente ships which ATM are lulz terrible. Also, the nighthawk is fine, extra shield HP, extra resists, same DPS better lock range, more PG, higher sensor strength.
One of the biggest points about the missile weapon system in general is selectable damage types. That's one of their maybe two advantages over (most) guns. Take that away, and they're not nearly as good.
The nighthawk is NOT fine, either, because it's slot layout is... Why? Why does it have only five medslots? Claymore has more PG than the NH, too, as a note. |
Aglais
Liberation Army
320
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:31:00 -
[7] - Quote
Blastil wrote:
Seriously? your biggest complaint about the nighthawk is that your super tanky, ganglinking command ship (note not heavy assault command ship) doesn't do a lot of DPS because of a kinetic missile bonus?
Dude, screw your head on straight. We're trying to NOT turn command ships into ownmobiles, we're trying to make them viable field ships when you do decide to bring them.
Ok then. Let's completely ignore damage output forever and focus on other things.
Slot layout. That's a big thing that seems to put the NH at a disadvantage. Both the Claymore and Vulture have more medslots than the Nighthawk, and it only has 200 more shields than the Vulture. They've got the exact same resist profiles. So if you can put more defense modules on the Vulture than on the Nighthawk, and there aren't really any other major differences, then...?
Oh look, you have a less useful ship. |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
339
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 02:26:00 -
[8] - Quote
Net7 wrote:Nighthawk
"Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1)"
So... anyone wanna buy my Nighthawk?
My fit is now screwed... even with the increase for missile skills the loss of a launcher kills it, not its not fit for SOLO... OR Fleet comps... like many other's have said, Caldari gets the shaft once again
The loss of a launcher doesn't kill it now. It did in the first proposal, because it did absolutely laughable damage with non-kinetic missiles. But they changed the bonuses so that now it'll do the same amount of damage as now with non-kinetic, and do more with kinetic missiles. If anything it'll make it slightly easier to fit.
The problem is that the Claymore is better than it in almost every way, one of the biggest being slot layout. I can't even say it's like Raven vs. Typhoon here because they're both shield ships, and the Claymore just completely outperforms the Nighthawk in terms of defense capability, speed, and being able to choose damage types. Not to mention, the Claymore has more space for drones. The Nighthawk might still see use in missions vs. Guristas but that's literally it- I can't see people choosing it over the vulture for anything PvP related. Or choosing it at all, really. |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
348
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 22:49:00 -
[9] - Quote
Kevin Emoto wrote:Another great Minmatar is Fozzied to disuse...
Apparently you didn't learn from the cyclone...haven't seen one of those on the battlefield in months.
Minmatar are projectiles.... Caldari are missiles.
It's funny because the Minmatar missile ships are consistently better than the Caldari ones as of late, with exception of the Caracal. |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
358
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 21:59:00 -
[10] - Quote
Mr Doctor wrote:What happened with the model change? Its mentioned as part of 1.1 but never hit sisi...
I was literally just about to post about this.
We have about 4 days until 1.1 hits and there is no sign of these new models whatsoever. Part of me thinks they're not happening anymore. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|