| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 46 post(s) |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp
V.A.S.T.
177
   |
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
The Nighthawk's damage bonuses have been moved around, and rapid light missiles have been removed, but neither of these were called out as changes.
Currently:
Caldari Battlecruiser bonuses:
5% bonus to RLML, HAM, and HML ROF
4% bonus to shield resistances
Command ships bonuses:
5% bonus to missile kinetic damage (includes RLML)
5% bonus to heavy missile explosion velocity
After your change, the ROF bonus is on Command Ships and the damage bonus is on Caldari Battlecruiser. I guess it was moved in order to account for the loss of the launcher? Makes sense, but still might want to call it out (additionally on any other ships that may have had the same thing happen).
Also, why is the Nighthawk having its RLML bonus removed? RLMLs are awesome, and I'd hate to see the ship nerfed by not getting a damage/ROF bonus to them anymore :( |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp
V.A.S.T.
177
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
Agreed the Nighthawk doesn't look that great compared to the other two missile command ships. A flight of medium drones more than makes up the damage difference, and you can carry an additional flight of lights to handle frigates. Nighthawk needs to be 7/6/4, at least, and needs to lose the kinetic-only restriction (especially now that the restriction is 50% instead of just 25%).
It also needs to get an RLML bonus back, like it currently has on TQ. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp
V.A.S.T.
180
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 00:58:00 -
[3] - Quote
Marcus Harikari wrote:lol so you add a bonus to the nighthawk which makes it nice but then you take away 1 launcher hardpoint? LOL? so for solo work, there is still almost no point to train for and buy the much more expensive nighthawk over the drake? Lol...mmmkay  well at least it has higher resists and a bit more shield, but still meh
6 launchers with 5%/level bonus is the same as 5 launchers with 10%/level bonus at BC 5, which is required to fly the ship anyway. It just means you have less ammo usage and another utility high.
That said, the mid/low slots on the nighthawk are silly, it should be 6/4, and as it's currently written there's very little reason to use a Nighthawk instead of a Claymore. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp
V.A.S.T.
199
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 01:33:00 -
[4] - Quote
The Nighthawk needs a low dropped in favor of a mid. A two-slot shield tank after prop/web/scram is laughable. Combine that with only two rig slots, and its tank is only marginally better than a Drake's.
The Claymore can afford to drop a mid in favor of a low, especially since it needs to lose a low slot to a Co-Processor II in order to fit an XLASB.
With the current slot setup, the Claymore can fit a stronger buffer than the Nighthawk without even making use of its booster tanking bonus. That's just stupid. If you think of an XLASB as buffer, the Claymore beats the Nighthawk by >25%.
It's also faster than the Nighthawk and has a smaller signature.
Honestly, there's no reason at all to use a Nighthawk over a Claymore. Hell, even the Damnation ends up looking mighty good as a missile boat by comparison. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp
V.A.S.T.
199
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 07:17:00 -
[5] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:
You seem to have never set foot in one of these and the slot layout of the Nighthawk has always been 7/5/5.
I give you a hint,
go to SiSi and create a fitting for passive shield recharge. There are modules for that purpose.
And after that, make an active tank fit.
I had a nice reply all written out, and then the forum ate it.
Just because the slot layout has always sucked doesn't mean it has to keep sucking. Even for passive shield recharge, another mid (for an LSE) is better than another low for an SPR, since the LSE gives you buffer and doesn't kill your capacitor.
If you want to start talking about active tanking, the Claymore wins handily due to its bonus.
But yeah, you're right, I guess people could choose a Nighthawk over a Claymore in the case where they want a ship that's easy to semi-afk PvE content with, due to the big passive shield recharge tank you can get. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp
V.A.S.T.
200
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 21:21:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:With the greatest respect, until you give the devs numbers you are not in a position to tell them how to improve the design.
They're just not going to listen to "it's ****" claims.
Give a concrete example.
Here is a concrete example:
...
Nighthawk
...
That's nice.
Now do basically the same thing for the Claymore, and you'll end up with a significantly better ship. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp
V.A.S.T.
201
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 20:10:00 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Another small set of changes based on what we're hearing from the Sisi feedback:
Nighthawk:
+100 PWG
+10 CPU
Useful, thanks--but what about the slot layout? This clears up (most of) the fitting issues the Nighthawk has, but it doesn't change the fact that the Claymore's slot layout makes it able to fit a much stronger shield tank... |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp
V.A.S.T.
201
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 17:15:00 -
[8] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Capt Canada wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Another small set of changes based on what we're hearing from the Sisi feedback:
Nighthawk:
+100 PWG
+10 CPU
Sleipnir:
+50 CPU Fozzie, if your really basing these small changes on player feedback, PLEASE 7 highs, 6 mids, 4 lows for the nighthawk. It ain't gonna happen. The design team have the caldari ships pegged as fleet boosters, not active tankers. The nighthawk is no longer a superdrake. For that, look no further than the Claymore.
Except that 6/4 is better for fleet boosting since you can fit a stronger buffer, while 5/5 is fine for active since you need a coproc for the XLASB anyway. Drake is 6/4, Cyclone is 5/5. The Nighthawk and Claymore are backwards. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp
V.A.S.T.
217
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 18:57:00 -
[9] - Quote
Well, this drops tomorrow, so I doubt they're going to be fixing the Caldari boats.
Nighthawk's slot layout is awful and it's outshined by the Claymore for PvP of any kind. PvE-only boat...expensive Drake with only barely better tank. Yay.
Vulture does less damage than a Ferox.
Hopefully they'll fix these mistakes at some point in the future.
I won't be holding my breath. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp
V.A.S.T.
217
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 19:11:00 -
[10] - Quote
Lucine Delacourt wrote:Why are people trying to use their NH as tackle? There are ships built for that. Bring your NH for a little DPS, links and fairly decent tank. I know it's shocking that the ship is better at its intended task instead of something else but that doesn't make the ship broken.
Except that the Claymore's slot layout makes it better than the NH at basically everything, regardless of the hull bonus.
The fact that a shield boost bonused ship can fit a comparable buffer to a shield buffer bonused ship is broken. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp
V.A.S.T.
217
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 19:12:00 -
[11] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
The Nighthawk has better resists than the Claymore and is therefore preferable for any kind of logi supported fleet PvP.
Except that the Claymore has a much better starting resist profile and can fit an extra invuln in its extra mid, more than making up for the difference.
Edit: All of these people who think the Nighthawk is fine and haven't actually compared it properly to the Claymore worry me--they're going to go out there and use Nighthawks anyway even though they're terrible, which is going to make CCP think that they're fine, since obviously people wouldn't use them if they weren't fine, right?
When in reality, people are just using them because they don't bother to figure things out for themselves and just think "oh, a resist bonus is obviously better for fleets than a boosting bonus!" |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp
V.A.S.T.
217
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 01:01:00 -
[12] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
So, with 2 Invuls, a T2 EM Rig, and a DC 2 I get better Shield EHP out of the Nighthawk than the Slephnir with 3 Invuls, DC2, and a T2 Kinetic Rig at least partly due to the Nighthawk's much higher base shield HP. If we do the smart thing for a resists tank and swap that EM rig for an EM Screen Mod then we end up with even better EHP and better across the board resists overall. The EM is squishier but not hugely and the Thermal and Kinetic resists are huge compared to the Slephnir which means against Hybrids, some Lasers, any Kinetic bonused missile boat, and most Projectiles you're going to do way better than the Slephnir.
If we throw an Explosive Rig in the lows that turns to all projectiles except EMP.
All of this combines to make it a solidly better resist tanked ship than the Claymore, especially since the Claymore seems likely to run into fitting issues trying to squeeze in an extra LSE to make up for the shield HP and resists difference.
Overall though I'd rather run the Vulture in large fleets and the Nighthawk in small ones due to higher damage at range and better damage application against small targets, not to mention having overall higher DPS than the Claymore.
Plus if Rise follows through and we do get missile damage application/projection mods then that low becomes a lot more useful. As things stand I'd just fit an Overdrive Injector or Nano so you can better make use of the aforementioned damage at range.
Don't look at EHP, look at average resistance--Claymore has 6.421 with that fit, Nighthawk has 6.24. The average resistance is what matters when taking into account logi.
Also, three invulns hits stacking penalties hard. Try using a kinetic hardener instead of the third invuln (and then an explosive rig instead) on the Claymore and it gets even better.
Claymore has no troubles sticking an extra LSE on--certainly fewer troubles than the Nighthawk since the NH doesn't even have the slot to spare.
Even if you use a nano for the low on the Nighthawk, it's still 300m/s slower than the Claymore under MWD. |
| |
|