OH MY GOD MY EYES IT BURNS!!!!!!

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.

The Claymore can exceed almost any Astarte fit by about 20k EHP, while out tanking it with an XLASB by anywhere from 2 to 8 times higher local tank. Based on current market price, I overheated a Claymore to get it to 15,000 DPS local rep for 880ish million ISK while still projecting ~700 DPS. Best I could do on an Astarte was about 2000-2500 leaving room for only 1 Mag stab.

Just want to point out that this is less of a ship-specific issue and more of how huge of a gap there is in general between shield tank and armor tank active mods that gets compounded on by many different aspects.
A) Shields can actually fit oversized reppers
B) The non-oversized shield mod already gives more hp/sec (large shield booster II gives 60 hp/sec compared to armor's 53/sec, or XL shield's 120/sec, which can fit on a medium ship and easily beats medium armor repper's 26/sec)
C) higher resists from their adaptive resist mod which can also be overheated for even more, without requiring a month of (aptly named) compensation skills
D) boost amplifiers as a way to further increase ehp gain on a different stacking penalty
E) ancillery module requires no capacitor, and gist-type modules requiring drastically less cap
F) crystal implants

edit: fixed some number

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.

...balanceing is done around pvp so show me a passive shield tank used in pvp......

It's "nice" that it takes 3 module slots at a minimum (2x reppers and a cap booster) to equal a single XL-ASB's tanking potential. :balanced:

Beam Absolution now does 700-800 DPS out to 19km optimal, and 400 dps out to 71km optimal. Mix that with a 185k ehp tank, cruiser tracking abilities and the free mids and close range tech 2 ammo to boost tracking a **** ton, and you have a mammoth beast that will be hard to match at any class of ship in game. ItGÇÖs range is basically enough, hp run in the top tier of needs, itGÇÖs dps is more than enough, and itGÇÖs resist are stellar, making the logistics network awesomeGǪ ItGÇÖs also one of the few ships that can easily hide itGÇÖs bonuses within the fleet doctrine itself providing a distinct advantage.
[...]
Nighthawk:
This guy loses for so many reasons that you were warned about back with the heavy missile nerf, and far more.
As a close range brawler, it gets outmatched by the Claymore in every wayGǪ agility, damage applications, mid slot options, vastly inferior local tank, no speed or agility, no real sense of itself, smaller drone bay/projection, and horrid resist layout.
[...]
The Claymore can exceed almost any Astarte fit by about 20k EHP, while out tanking it with an XLASB by anywhere from 2 to 8 times higher local tank. Based on current market price, I overheated a Claymore to get it to 15,000 DPS local rep for 880ish million ISK while still projecting ~700 DPS. Best I could do on an Astarte was about 2000-2500 leaving room for only 1 Mag stab.
[...]
As for long range rail Astarte canGÇÖt even begin to match the Abso or a Rail Talos either. So again, while it seems good on paper, when you start to look at the big picture, it really doesnGÇÖt.

My personal fascination with the claymore comes from it's ability to blend into a classic nano-roam (vagas, artycynas, ABCs, etc.), so while those posted tankstats are archivable, it seems to me that compromises are to be done to an extent. Experimenting with fits, I personally had more success (using T2 modules) tanking things with a large SB and two op. solidifiers compared to an XL setup with fitting modules. Best thing - on TQ, it tanks double GÖÑ
The main advantage of the claymore is nano, it goes 2km/s with no imps but the skirmish mindlink, with it's announced costs of less than 100mil - ship is most likely bought with one in it's cargo for emergency-plug-in :)

The Beam abso is great, ye. Can't say otherwise, it got multi to compete with the usual scorch, and then all those other crystals. 150k EHP with 680dps at ~20k is decent at least. (380dps at ~65k using aurora, negelecting tracking)

I strongly disagree with the nighthawk. It's certainly not the kind of ship that moves around a lot, nor a ship to active tank. It seems as if the right way to tank it would be 'brick', which also leaves you with substantial passive shield recharge - when doing nothing but boosting, tanking and dps - i.E. no tackle - you get your ridiculous values already. Mobility is bad, but I'd guess still sufficient (~1km/s is the worst around, but oh so many ships aren't any faster), with the clear option of using a claymore, if the mobility is needed and no huge dps will be incoming (or can be avoided thanks to velocity)

I really can't follow on why the Eos is crap, it got amazing dps while also running double med-neuts, it still got decent dps, while running a plate+dualrepfit, it has wonderful dps using a buffer-link-ion-fit with two DDAs. Four mids are quite anemic, but it already is a decent ship on SiSi as it stands.

You mean the more than common shield/gank fits that were/are so popular as to creep onto ships with just 3 mids (partially replaced by ASB's now)?

PvP tanking is the same as PvE tanking in that it can either be localized (passive/active/buffer) or projected (dps) .. due to cheap bat-phones PvP tanking has been moving towards projected over the years as the kill must be achieved before the phone is picked up ... the passive (assuming you mean regen-tank) PvP tank as such died with the Drake/HML changes.

Rather than add more +50% Hp bonuses to the command ships we're starting down the path that will allow us to remove that bonus from the Damnation and get them all into better balance.

I considered dropping the armor hp bonus from the Damnation, but in the end I think it's ok for it to have a strong identity, even if that identity makes it more popular than the others for large fleet warfare.

...Rather than add more +50% Hp bonuses to the command ships we're starting down the path that will allow us to remove that bonus from the Damnation and get them all into better balance.

Rather than add more +50% Hp bonuses to the command ships we're starting down the path that will allow us to remove that bonus from the Damnation and get them all into better balance.

Ohh, balancing means in huge fight like in Fountain fleets will be getting every time a headshot of a FC. I guess this will be a hillarious PVP experience or a fleet without bonus to secure the FC. It's looking to me that CCP is working on the next level how to crash the player accounts.

Forum deleted my long post about hp/s for armor reps and shield reps
I'm too busy to do it all again but basically
Astarte/ eos 2 t2 med reps cap booster and 2 rigs gets about 160hp/s
Claymore with xl asb 360hp/s with crystals 500+
Xl t2 boosters are less somewhere around 200 and 360 with crystals
All with less slots

Ohh, balancing means in huge fight like in Fountain fleets will be getting every time a headshot of a FC. I guess this will be a hillarious PVP experience or a fleet without bonus to secure the FC. It's looking to me that CCP is working on the next level how to crash the player accounts.

Just has a thought that might be crazy.

This 7.5% armor rep per level.

What about 10% per level reduced rep time instead.

So at lvl 5 a med repper would basically have the rep of 2 med reppers
It would use more cap of course and a med injector would not be able to keep pace with 2xMAR.

This would basically be the same as Burst tank from a ASB

Increased cargo bays for the extra needed charges of course.

r.p.
Advanced Gallente system shunt heat out of armor reps with increased effeciency blah blah etc etc.

Take a look around and tell me if you see ships other than the Command Ships that can field links while having considerably more EHP than even the 4x1600 Damnation .. get back to me when you see it (hint: they are bigger)

For massive blobs (offensive ones at least) CC's or even T3's will not be the optimal choice due to the risk of being 'head shotted' as you mention, but there are other options hitherto unexplored due to off-grid functionality.

Off/On/Tangential-to topic: Why not add a CC level link bonus to the activation of the Triage module (think Rorqual deploy bonus)?

+1
But cap requirements would have to be reduced for armour reps.... but then they need to do that anyway... although it would mean AAR's would run out much quicker of nanite paste ... but they need to improve AAR's anyway less nanite paste consumption would be needed and allowing nanite skills to affect AAR's would be nice .. also change the reload times of AAR's or use an inject system so you can still rep at 75% whilst you wait for nanites to inject 15-20 secs.

I have just tried a triple-rep astarte vs 2 navy 'phoons on sisi.

The astarte was not able to hold its overheated tank for longer than 2 cycles of the dual medium capacitor boosters.

I don't think it's going to survive in a skirmish Fozzie... It either needs to be able to fit LARs, or it needs better resistances.

It's just too vulnerable against more than 1 opponent at the moment.

So you cannot solotank two ships known for their crazy damage-application SIMULTANIOUSLY while sitting under two heavyneuts in an ACTIVE tanked ship while potentially being painted and webbed. Dude, two navy BS against your command ship...