EVE Search - [Odyssey 1.1] Command Ships

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

[Odyssey 1.1] Command Ships

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 46 post(s)
Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution 97	Posted - 2013.08.02 08:17:00 - [1] - Quote Most of the changes look good. However, I believe the nighthawk changes could use a review. First, as was pointed out by another poster, it doesn't look like the nighthawk is going to have enough grid for links. Please increase the grid further. Second, it shouldn't be the kinetic damage bonus being increased, IMO. Straightjacketing the NH into kinetic damage with a doubled kinetic bonus removes a good chunk of the reason for using missiles in the first place. That would be okay if the nighthawk's DPS was completely over the top, but it isn't. Please consider the following: set the kinetic damage bonus back to 5%. Change the RoF bonus to a universal damage bonus (increased to compensate for the DPS differences between RoF bonuses and damage bonuses), then add the 5% increase to the new universal damage bonus. This will maintain the kinetic bonus while not totally gimping the ship if it tries to use other damage types. It will also reduce the server stress and ridiculous ammo usage that would be caused by increasing the RoF bonus. Third, please consider removing a lowslot and replacing it with a midslot. With its 0% (base) EM resist and 50% (base) explosive resist, the nighthawk will need to run both an EM hardener and an invulnerability field to achieve the resists necessary to be survivable (the sleipnir can get away with only one hardener due to a better base resistance profile). Add in a prop mod and a warp disruptor, and you now have one slot left for the rest of your tank or any additional ewar (webs, target painters). As such, I don't see the nighthawk being viable in PvP in its current suggested format. Hopefully these changes make the nighthawk useful in PvP without making it overpowered.
Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution 97	Posted - 2013.08.04 11:55:00 - [2] - Quote My previous reply seems to have been missed by several of the people talking about the Nighthawk changes. I'm not sure if it's because they thought the suggestions were stupid/overpowered/underpowered, but still might be worth reading. Linky tl:dr; 1.) Add powergrid so it can run ganglinks Benefit: Self-explanatory Drawbacks: None. 2.) Set kinetic damage bonus back to 5%. Remove RoF bonus and replace it with a 12% universal HAM/HML damage bonus (compensates for the differences between RoF and damage bonuses and also rolls in the extra 5% damage bonus that was applied to kinetic in Fozzie's post). End result: 10 effective turrets. Benefit: Still more effective to use kinetic missiles, but now the NH is viable with non-kinetic missile types. Possible drawback (from a game balance perspective): huge alpha. 3.) Swap a lowslot for a midslot. Benefit: The nighthawk can now fit a disruptor while still having a survivable tank. Drawback: None that I can think of.
Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution 98	Posted - 2013.08.04 14:30:00 - [3] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: http://i.imgur.com/j9HG5EX.png - even going for HAMs with damage augmentors and stuff. It looks quite useful to me. As a flavor also avaiable with two extender rigs, invul + em-ward for some 10k EHP more against omni or good bit less against blasters. Edit: downgrade one LSE to meta-4, and you can run complete siege with ~155k EHP. Or you could run all three infolinks. That fit has some nice defenses. Unfortunately, the EHP drops massively when you remove even a single extender, which it will need to do if you want to run a warp disruptor or a scrambler. As such, it needs another mid. If you add one, however, it needs to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is your lows. This will either make it unable to run the second extender due to removal of a PDS, or gimp its damage by removing a damage mod. Since the goal of these changes, as I understand it, is to put these ships onto the PvP battlefield in a combat role, Fozzie's initial version just does not work. EDIT: As a caveat, it may work on a larger battlefield with dozens or hundreds of people fighting where a disruptor is not required, but if that's the only vision for the ship's use then it's already dead to me.
Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution 98	Posted - 2013.08.07 15:26:00 - [4] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: ....and caught up with this thread. Updates based on your feedback coming very soon. Awesome. Hopefully we'll be seeing meaningful changes coming to the nighthawk so I have a reason to go out and buy one again. :D I sold off my last PvP nighthawk a long time ago because it just wasn't up to par in combat. :(
Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution 99	Posted - 2013.08.07 16:28:00 - [5] - Quote Nice changes to the nighthawk bonuses. I honestly wasn't expecting a DPS increase. If I might ask, though, what's the reasoning behind not moving a lowslot to a mid? Do you feel that it would step on the toes of other ships? Are you concerned that it might be overpowered? Personally, I can't imagine the Nighthawk being worth the ISK if it continues to have only 5 mids; even the Drake has more. As such, even with the bonus changes, I can't see myself purchasing one. I'll probably stick to my Sleipnir and Absolution, and maybe throw in a Claymore.
Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution 99	Posted - 2013.08.07 16:34:00 - [6] - Quote Maximus Andendare wrote: Keep 5 lows for when tracking enhancers affect missiles. Presto! Longer range Nighthawk! But seriously, since it's definitely a shield ship, 5 mids is pretty scarce. I'm afraid I don't see that in any way balancing out the Nighthawk's lack of ability to fit a good tank at the same time it fits the necessary tackling/utility gear for PvP. Range is not in any way my priority interest on the NH - we have the Vulture for that.
Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution 99	Posted - 2013.08.07 16:47:00 - [7] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: Blaster optimal is so small that a bonus to it gives virtually no noticeable advantage. I do agree that it certainly doesn't hurt, but falloff serves it much better. Thought on making the Vulture more versatile: change one of the two optimal bonuses to falloff. Then it will have both an optimal and a falloff bonus. Disclaimer: I've yet to fly a Vulture, so this is all theorycrafting. Also, \o R1.
Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution 99	Posted - 2013.08.11 13:10:00 - [8] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: [quote=Battlingbean] Don't mess up the quoting. A 7/5/5 nighthawk has 150k EHP+ (179k to be precise, using a vanilla fit linking itself including siege link) A 7/7/3 nighthawk would push that tank up a lot and also push it's passive recharge to the 600s, being full buffer fit (it's 400ish right now) - which would result in a solo-pwnmachine. But yeah, if you think that 200k+ EHP, 700dps and a passive recharge of around 3 stabbers worth isn't godmode, pls tell me what is then. Mean, sure make it 7/7/3, I fly that thing anyways... No issue with my ships being ridiculously OP - but I'd really dislike facing them in a fight. I'm assuming your fits don't bother running any sort of tackle on them. As such, I'd like to see you re-run those numbers with tackle included. I'm sure they'll change significantly and show you that the Nighthawk, in its current 7/5/5 configuration, is pretty weak. As far as 7/7/3, sure I'd LOVE to have that, but that's just a pipe dream in all likelihood. It needs to be at least 7/6/4, however, to be viable in any sort of PvP where it fits both a prop mod and a point. If this doesn't happen, it will continue to be relegated to the trash bin of history and passed up for other, more effective ships. Hopefully we'll see it get the love it needs to become viable. Help me, CCP Fozzie. You're my only hope!
Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution 99	Posted - 2013.08.12 03:41:00 - [9] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: http://i.imgur.com/5dp9KGc.png I'm not sure if just a point is 'tackle', but again (linking itself + siege mindlink) it seems rather acceptable. Can switch the EM-hardener for a EM-resistance amp to mount a third link. As long as it's around tanking and hitting, I really can't see an issue with the nighthawk. I have a couple of issues with this. First, tech II rigs were used, which are far too expensive to run on run-of-the-mill ships. If you're faction/deadspace fitting it, that's one thing, but tech II rigs add too much to the cost for standard use ships. Second, you're factoring a ganglink into the stats. The idea of the change was to make them effective combatants with or without ganglinks. If you have to use a ganglink to give the ship comparable stats to the other command ships without links, then there's an issue. With such glaring flaws, I'm not sure why you made the argument you posted. All I can think is that you wish to push people into a false belief that the nighthawk's current state is okay. I can't see any reason for that aside from an anti-Caldari bias that some posters on these forums show, mostly because they look at Caldari ships as the carebear's ship of choice and they hate carebears. I can't say if this applies to you or not, but it's all I can think of at the moment.
Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution 99	Posted - 2013.08.20 09:00:00 - [10] - Quote No news on the Nighthawk slot layout, eh? I haz a sad. As nothing's been said about it at all, I'd expect that there's still internal debate going on at CCP's end regarding it, otherwise Fozzie would've just come out and said, "Nope, not changing the Nighthawk's slot layout at this time. We feel the NH is competitive as-is." or something to that effect. Since that hasn't been said, but nothing's been mentioned in favor of the idea either, that tells me that it's still under discussion within the balancing team. I.E. there's still hope.

Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution 99	Posted - 2013.08.28 02:37:00 - [11] - Quote Bullet Therapist wrote: Wow, theyre really going live with the nighthawk having 5 lows and 5 mids... sheesh The loss of that one low amounts to the loss of 40 dps, or about 12-13%, but the gain in mid would account for on the order of 20% or so ehp, which is the primarily what CSs need. In the case of the NH, its the difference not being sure weather or not you want to use a drake, or actually spending the isk and taking the NH out for a spin. This. Many times, this. Fozzie, would you be able to provide us some insight as to the reason(s) behind this design decision? It would be very much appreciated.
Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution 101	Posted - 2013.09.02 16:03:00 - [12] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: The second is that the Fleet/Field distinction had a number of inherent problems with it and left us with a situation where 5 out of 8 hulls of a given ship type were almost completely unused. I think the only use I ever heard of for a Nighthawk was a very niche passive tank fit for either an Epic Arc or a Level 5 mission. I'm afraid you probably won't be seeing the Nighthawk used much after the patch, either, seeing as how it can't fit a warp disruptor/scrambler and prop mod without compromising its tank. A 3-slot (4 with DCU) tank is not enough on a 200 million ISK ship.
Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution 102	Posted - 2013.09.02 16:50:00 - [13] - Quote Some small part of me wonders if Fozzie is trolling us and it will actually be 7/6/4 when it hits TQ. It's almost certainly not going to happen, but it would be hilarious (and awesome!) if it does.
Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution 102	Posted - 2013.09.02 17:02:00 - [14] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Overall though most Caldari ships aren't built to be solo ships, they're much better lending muscle to a small to medium gang where they don't need to fit, say, both a point AND a web but can better leverage their excellent tank. True...except with 5 mids, it's not an excellent tank unless you drop either the prop mod or the the disruptor/scrambler. While 7 mids would be amazing, it would be too much, IMO. 6, however, are required for this ship to be viable in PvP if survivability matters at all to you.
Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution 103	Posted - 2013.09.03 22:22:00 - [15] - Quote Lucine Delacourt wrote: The argument that it needs more mids to fit tackle is stupid. That's a...bold...statement. One I entirely disagree with. Sure, you can fit both a prop mod and tackle now, but you can't do that without totally gimping its tank down to the same level as a drake. Also, I am not talking about fitting both a web and a scram in addition to the prop mod; instead, I'm referring to fitting the prop mod, then either a scrambler or a disruptor. I can't recall if you're one of the "it doesn't need to tackle because it's intended for fleets!" crowd or not since I can't be bothered to go back and search through all of the posts, but, if so, then I say the following: 1.) Large fleets are not the whole of EVE. 2.) Small gangs can and do benefit from command ship bonuses as well. 3.) Small gangs require tackle to be fitted to all of their ships to be viable.
Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution 104	Posted - 2013.09.04 11:17:00 - [16] - Quote Lucine Delacourt wrote: Like I have said before, complaining about the NH in relation to the Claymore is fine. As for the "It needs tackle" argument, you can trade one ship having tackle for the huge bonus that links offer. Or you could just trade your Nighthawk for a different command ship that can both tackle and provide links, which would be far more effective. As for which one, that would happen to be all of them. The Nighthawk is the only one that can't do this. Quote: Small gangs don't need each and every ship to have tackle. The same way they don't need every ship to have huge DPS. Tackle can be very important if you're just flying with two or three other people and not the current "small" gang of 10-20. Remove the tackle from one of the ships and you seriously gimp your composition. As such, instead of bringing a Nighthawk, you'll just end up bringing one of the other 7 command ships that can fit tackle. This, among other reasons, is why you'll rarely see a Nighthawk flown in PvP on TQ.
Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution 105	Posted - 2013.09.05 14:51:00 - [17] - Quote BTW, I have a post up in Assembly Hall requesting a 6th mid for the Nighthawk if anyone wants to head over there and support it.

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.