| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 46 post(s) |
Grutpig Cloudwalker
The Skulls
0
   |
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
As for the Nighthawk, the loss of bonus to RLML's kills it for me.
The PG on the Nighthawk is so terrible its almost impossible to fit it without RLML, which actually made it useful against frigates.
And with all the recent drawbacks to Heavy missiles theres just no way I would fit one ever again.
I buried my Drake after the changes to HM, now I have to bury my Nighthawk along with it. |
Grutpig Cloudwalker
The Skulls
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 15:21:00 -
[2] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Malcanis wrote:Grutpig Cloudwalker wrote:As for the Nighthawk, the loss of bonus to RLML's kills it for me.
The PG on the Nighthawk is so terrible its almost impossible to fit it without RLML, which actually made it useful against frigates.
And with all the recent drawbacks to Heavy missiles theres just no way I would fit one ever again.
I buried my Drake after the changes to HM, now I have to bury my Nighthawk along with it. Did you notice that the Nighthawk got a fairly large PG increase? that and it doesnt need to fit an extra launcher for the same (relatively) dps
I thought it was +75 PG. But if it is +265 (+190 from original post + 75 from update post) then I guess the PG should be quite ok.
Still very sceptical to HMs, the RLMLs made the Nighthawk fit a specific role in a fleet, and one of few ships that could counter frigate swarms with a fairly strong tank and strong DPS against fast, small targets. The DPS on paper is in many cases far from the truth. |
Grutpig Cloudwalker
The Skulls
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 18:56:00 -
[3] - Quote
Regarding the EHP issue of command ships especially in massive battles, I would suggest the following:
- Squad commanders should get 1-2% HP bonus (shield, armor, hull) for every pilot within his squad
- Wing commanders should get the same for every pilot within his wing
- Fleet commanders should get the same for every pilot within his fleet
So for a 200+ sized fleet this would be quite substantial to the top dog. But since it scales with fleet size it would not be too powerful in small fleets. And this bonus should be tied to the fleet structure, and apply to any ship in a commanding position, not just CS.
I guess it might be a bit tricky to code, especially if you only are to receive bonuses from fleet members on grid and preferrably in a ship (not pod), so that the bonus gets weaker when the fleet gets weaker. |
Grutpig Cloudwalker
The Skulls
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 19:54:00 -
[4] - Quote
Goldiiee wrote:Grutpig Cloudwalker wrote:Regarding the EHP issue of command ships especially in massive battles, I would suggest the following:
- Squad commanders should get 1-2% HP bonus (shield, armor, hull) for every pilot within his squad
- Wing commanders should get the same for every pilot within his wing
- Fleet commanders should get the same for every pilot within his fleet
So for a 200+ sized fleet this would be quite substantial to the top dog. But since it scales with fleet size it would not be too powerful in small fleets. And this bonus should be tied to the fleet structure, and apply to any ship in a commanding position, not just CS.
I guess it might be a bit tricky to code, especially if you only are to receive bonuses from fleet members on grid and preferrably in a ship (not pod), so that the bonus gets weaker when the fleet gets weaker. Isn't that the reverse of what you want for balance, I mean the big fleet already has the advantage of being a big fleet making them nearly invincible seems the reverse of what we are wanting here. Not a jab, just asking for edification.
I am assuming that 200+ sized fleets in most cases would fight other fleets of similar sizes. And when such big fleets are focus firing the CS, it would buy him a few extra seconds at best.
I also proposed extra HP for a reason, as all it does is buy you some time. It doesnt improve your Active tanking capabilities much. |
Grutpig Cloudwalker
The Skulls
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 21:30:00 -
[5] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote: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...
It would be nice if the Nighthawk got one less low and one more mid slot. Which would also make sense when/if it becomes a T2 Drake. |
Grutpig Cloudwalker
The Skulls
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 20:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
It would be so much easier if they just put the NH in a trash can and started over:
- Use Drake as a template
- Add T2 resistances
- Remove some launchers and the corresponding CPU/PG, give some bonus to the remaining ones
- Add cap/CPU/PG worth 3 active links
- Add ability to run 3 links with some bonuses
- Hit save button. End result: T2 command ship version of a Drake.
And I guess the same should be done for most command ships, its just that the NH is in most desperate need.
There are plenty of issues with tiericide and T2 ships that's either been left behind or left too powerful. Easiest way to fix it is to start from scratch. |
Grutpig Cloudwalker
The Skulls
2
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 16:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:The presence of rapiers and lokis on field would be a good argument for the utility of laser (or even missile) ships rather than baster ships.
I think they are at least relevant to the discussion. Except that the web ranges involved eliminate all weapon systems, even HMLs from the equation so it cannot in fact be used to say anything whatsoever about blasters other than you had better have a way of dealing with LR webs regardless of what you are flying. You are Gallente so damp the bastards or lug around a few rail platforms or ... without the contingency you are facing a hard counter, the only "real" one as far as I am concerned so it would be your damn fault  Seolfor wrote:Regards to the Nighthawk - people have already Rticulated most things wrong with it. TLDR - it doesn't shine at anything, what is its niche?
I just wanted to add, in a PvE role the NHawk is not just blown away by the Tengu (always has, it's T3, it's 2-3x cost, so ok), but for Serp and Gurista it's so far and beyond outclassed by the new Cerberus, it's embarrassing. I've posted this simple point twice, the market realises this and now the NHawk isn't selling for even 190m while the Cerb is approaching 230m sells.
Is anyone even listening? I'll take your Nighthawk if you take my Damn(ation) pointless brick any day of the week Also, is the Cerberus still superior when/if all the things being worked on are sorted out, in particular the ability for a link ship to benefit from its own links? Sure it lacks some range, but even post HML nerf you still have plenty for most PvE stuff and the NH application bonus is infinitely better than whatever the Cerberus brings to the table.
Looking over Jita prices a few days after patch.
Abso buy 182m sell 194m
Damn buy 247m sell 255m
NH buy 193m sell 209m
Vulture buy 227m sell 240m
Astarte buy 257m sell 269m
Eos buy 283m sell 319m
Clay buy 231m sell 240m
Sleip buy 228m sell 238m
So I would gladly trade my NH for a Damn. The Gallente ships seems to be the obvious winners from this patch though.
NH and Abso seems to be in worst shape.
Supply and demand... |
| |
|