| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Toshiro Khan
   |
Posted - 2006.02.24 23:10:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Denrace
Edited by: Denrace on 24/02/2006 16:33:31
Edited by: Denrace on 24/02/2006 16:31:17
Damage calculations based on maxed skills with 2 dmg mods.
Ship Fitter was used.
Lots of numbers..
Just out of interest, what is the DPS of all the ships with the set ups listed facing targets at 19km and then whilst being hit with tracking disrupters and finally whilst being jammed?
|
Necrologic
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 04:50:00 -
[32]
Tux can we PLEASE get your opinion on this?
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 04:56:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Selim on 25/02/2006 04:55:12
Originally by: Denrace
Edited by: Denrace on 24/02/2006 16:33:31
Edited by: Denrace on 24/02/2006 16:31:17
Damage calculations based on maxed skills with 2 dmg mods.
Ship Fitter was used.
snippy
Are you sure those numbers are right? The Absolution definitely puts out more than that... A zealot with 6 guns instead of 4, and drones?
|
KilROCK
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 05:03:00 -
[34]
Hmm, So.. IF a command ship isn't better than the hac of their race, It's not GOOD and it needs a boost?
I understand every ship in-game has a role, command ships are mostly support not uber-wtf-omfg-what-the-hell-what-that power machine.. I see the nighthawk has a crappy but effective frigate/**** cruiser ship. It does the job.
Why do you need it to be a Improved cerberus? Maybe it's just the other Command ship that needs to be lowered down in term of 'owning' abilities.
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 05:11:00 -
[35]
Originally by: KilROCK
Hmm, So.. IF a command ship isn't better than the hac of their race, It's not GOOD and it needs a boost?
I understand every ship in-game has a role, command ships are mostly support not uber-wtf-omfg-what-the-hell-what-that power machine.. I see the nighthawk has a crappy but effective frigate/**** cruiser ship. It does the job.
Why do you need it to be a Improved cerberus? Maybe it's just the other Command ship that needs to be lowered down in term of 'owning' abilities.
The question is, is the nighthawk as good as the other command ships, and I don't think it is.
Command ships being rather superior to HAC in terms of DPS and defense is another story.
------
|
KilROCK
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 05:26:00 -
[36]
Nighthawk. It's about the same when it comes to tanking, setup wise when you compare it to a cerberus. It's bulkier, slower and has a large sig radius so it's not that 'better' when it comes to reducing the damage it takes..
The problem it has... is.. Well.. It's not based on the bonuses of the HAC. It doesn't even follow the progression.
You got.
Deimos>Astarte
Zealot>Absolution
Vagabond>sliepnir (hell, i'd SOO want it to have the muninn bonuses for one hell of an alpha strike king with 7 720mm II and quake M).
Cerberus> ???
If you suggest anything to change bonus wise for the nighthawk, it should just 'have' the HAC style bonuses of the cerberus...
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 05:41:00 -
[37]
Originally by: KilROCK
Nighthawk. It's about the same when it comes to tanking, setup wise when you compare it to a cerberus. It's bulkier, slower and has a large sig radius so it's not that 'better' when it comes to reducing the damage it takes..
The problem it has... is.. Well.. It's not based on the bonuses of the HAC. It doesn't even follow the progression.
You got.
Deimos>Astarte
Zealot>Absolution
Vagabond>sliepnir (hell, i'd SOO want it to have the muninn bonuses for one hell of an alpha strike king with 7 720mm II and quake M).
Cerberus> ???
If you suggest anything to change bonus wise for the nighthawk, it should just 'have' the HAC style bonuses of the cerberus...
All the other command battlecruisers are bigger harder hitting more rugged versions of their heavy assault counterparts, except the nighthawk it has weird and stupid and useless bonuses and is completely offensively inept compared to the other command bcruisers.
So yeah, it would be nice to see the nighthawk have launcher rate of fire and perhaps missile velocity bonuses, kinetic missile damage and shield resist would make it on par with the rest of the ships of its class.
Right now it's just a joke really, who is going to train battlecruiser 5 for that crap?
------
|
Reatu Krentor
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 09:55:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Jim Raynor
Originally by: KilROCK
Nighthawk. It's about the same when it comes to tanking, setup wise when you compare it to a cerberus. It's bulkier, slower and has a large sig radius so it's not that 'better' when it comes to reducing the damage it takes..
The problem it has... is.. Well.. It's not based on the bonuses of the HAC. It doesn't even follow the progression.
You got.
Deimos>Astarte
Zealot>Absolution
Vagabond>sliepnir (hell, i'd SOO want it to have the muninn bonuses for one hell of an alpha strike king with 7 720mm II and quake M).
Cerberus> ???
If you suggest anything to change bonus wise for the nighthawk, it should just 'have' the HAC style bonuses of the cerberus...
All the other command battlecruisers are bigger harder hitting more rugged versions of their heavy assault counterparts, except the nighthawk it has weird and stupid and useless bonuses and is completely offensively inept compared to the other command bcruisers.
So yeah, it would be nice to see the nighthawk have launcher rate of fire and perhaps missile velocity bonuses, kinetic missile damage and shield resist would make it on par with the rest of the ships of its class.
Right now it's just a joke really, who is going to train battlecruiser 5 for that crap?
consider this for a second, you have the explosion radius and the explosion velocity bonuses on the nighthawk, right? Then you say the Cerberus can achieve the same results with precision missiles, yes? Then why couldn't the nighthawk just use the fury missiles and have the same result as a cerberus with normal T1 heavy missiles (provided of course that the bonuses wouldn't be bugged, which they seem to be atm)?
------------------------------------------
The ammatar are not the enemy, they are the smoke and mirrors of the amarr. |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 10:21:00 -
[39]
Edited by: j0sephine on 25/02/2006 10:20:47
"Then why couldn't the nighthawk just use the fury missiles and have the same result as a cerberus with normal T1 heavy missiles"
Fury heavy missiles have* explosion-related stats identical with tech.1 heavy missiles. They simply provide 20% more damage at the cost of nerfed cap recharge. Meaning, against targets of 'regular' size Cerberus can use them as effectively as the Nighthawk, still enjoying higher damage output in the end.
*) or should have, anyway. All other guided 'fury' missiles have these attributes identical with tech.1 version, but the heavy fury uses attributes of heavy missile from before they were tweaked :/
|
Reatu Krentor
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 11:03:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 25/02/2006 11:04:49
Originally by: j0sephine
Edited by: j0sephine on 25/02/2006 10:20:47
"Then why couldn't the nighthawk just use the fury missiles and have the same result as a cerberus with normal T1 heavy missiles"
Fury heavy missiles have* explosion-related stats identical with tech.1 heavy missiles. They simply provide 20% more damage at the cost of nerfed cap recharge. Meaning, against targets of 'regular' size Cerberus can use them as effectively as the Nighthawk, still enjoying higher damage output in the end.
*) or should have, anyway. All other guided 'fury' missiles have these attributes identical with tech.1 version, but the heavy fury uses attributes of heavy missile from before they were tweaked :/
Really? I always understood the fury missiles would be having trouble hitting targets of equivalent size(compared to the T1 missile) but in exchange do more damage, a bit like the high-damage variant of other T2 ammo. But it looks like it just is a slower missile then, hmm.
*edit: I don't really understand the T2 ammo, i'd have preferred secondary effects like nossing lasers and weird/interesting stuff like that. apologies for the offtopic  .*
------------------------------------------
The ammatar are not the enemy, they are the smoke and mirrors of the amarr. |
Glarion Garnier
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 11:13:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Glarion Garnier on 25/02/2006 11:13:48
I agree it is bit irrational for other races to have a good dmg dealer / hac kind ship but one race to not have one.
Id make it so then that if the bonuses are fixed then take away it's good ability to hit small targets with heavy missiles.
instead:
swap target navigation prediction to launcher rate of fire bonus 5% per lvl (all laucnhers)
swap the 5% dmg to heavy missiles to 5% dmg to rockets , lights & heavy missiles
swap heavy missile precision to shield boosting bonus 7.5%
how about that
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 11:22:00 -
[42]
"Really? I always understood the fury missiles would be having trouble hitting targets of equivalent size(compared to the T1 missile) but in exchange do more damage, a bit like the high-damage variant of other T2 ammo."
This is correct, but for the unguided 'rage' missiles ^^
* 'rage' rockets and torps: 50% more damage, cap recharge penalty, penalized explosion radius and velocity
* 'fury' light, heavy and cruise missiles: 20% more damage, cap recharge penalty
|
Denrace
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 12:06:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Denrace on 25/02/2006 12:07:28
Edited by: Denrace on 25/02/2006 12:07:15
Also Im pretty sure (bonus wise) that:
7.5% Shield Boost Amount > 5% Shield Ressies
Or... would you rather have a Dread Guristas Boost Amp bolted to your ship or an Invul Field? Id take the dread boost amp anyday.
________________________________________
Replace the Nighthawk's Target Nav bonus with a ROF bonus!
I make Custom Sigs. |
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 12:20:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Glarion Garnier
swap target navigation prediction to launcher rate of fire bonus 5% per lvl (all laucnhers)
swap the 5% dmg to heavy missiles to 5% dmg to rockets , lights & heavy missiles
swap heavy missile precision to shield boosting bonus 7.5%
good idea, might be a bit overpowered though - would need testing a lot. 5% boost might work better - would like to test it/
Originally by: Glarion Garnier
or additionally swap heavy missile precision to 5% dmg. for rocket's & light missiles (this chainge makes the ship a close range missile ship where other one is logn range rail ship)
how about that
absolutely terrible idea
sigs of the 23/24/25 hijack just as well -eris
yarrrr, i shall retake my sig -HippoKing
Not a chance, our 1337 sig haXx0r sk1llz are too powerful! - Wrangler
Ho-Ho-Hooooooo, Merry Saturday!11 - Immy
Yo ho ho and a bottle of BReeEEEEeee.... - Jacques ARRRRRRchambault
Stop spamming with "QFT" >:|. - Teblin
|
FireFoxx80
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 13:01:00 -
[45]
Those graphs prove that <20km the Nighthawk is a lot crappier than every other command ship. >50km, I admit it has a slight advantage.
Consider your sig tainted, and all your alcohol stolen - Wrangler
Beer=Beer+3 |
slip66
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 14:00:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Jim Raynor
Target Nav + Precision bonus = garbage, you can use precision heavy missiles and get the same effect, it's not like the nighthawk or cerberus are speed demons, the velocity penalty for the most part isn't a huge hinderance for these ships.
That means you can use a different t2 ammo type and still gain abilities as if you were using percision ammo at the same time..... DMG heavys with better TNP
Originally by: StOrM ViPeR
Theres a skill called surgical strike in game I've learned that it actually stands for Band of Brothers |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 14:09:00 -
[47]
"That means you can use a different t2 ammo type and still gain abilities as if you were using percision ammo at the same time....."
Yes, you can kill small stuff more efficiently. As opposed to other command ships which are better at killing everything (small stuff included)
Nighthawk is simply given far more narrow area of advantage in comparison to other command ships, for no good reason. :/
|
Joshua Foiritain
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 14:18:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Generic Dev
It's not Tuxford's fault.
-------
[Coreli Corporation Mainframe] |
Natasha Kerensky
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 15:30:00 -
[49]
TUX!! BUY ME A DRINK
and give the Nighthawk a ROF bonus
in that order please 
Commander, Deputy Chief of Security
Channel: CAINCOM
|
Reatu Krentor
|
Posted - 2006.02.25 15:52:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Denrace
Edited by: Denrace on 25/02/2006 12:07:28
Edited by: Denrace on 25/02/2006 12:07:15
Also Im pretty sure (bonus wise) that:
7.5% Shield Boost Amount > 5% Shield Ressies
Or... would you rather have a Dread Guristas Boost Amp bolted to your ship or an Invul Field? Id take the dread boost amp anyday.
bonuses are comparable really, say you have 100hp boost, with boost bonus that is 137.5 hp, with resist bonus the effective boosted amount(damage taken is reduced by 25%) is 133.33 hp.
------------------------------------------
The ammatar are not the enemy, they are the smoke and mirrors of the amarr. |
Denrace
|
Posted - 2006.02.28 16:39:00 -
[51]
Still no (useful) dev response.
There is still time to fix the Nighthawks crappy bonuses before the patch!!
________________________________________
Replace the Nighthawk's Target Nav bonus with a ROF bonus!
I make Custom Sigs. |
El Yatta
|
Posted - 2006.02.28 16:41:00 -
[52]
I vote no change to Nighthawk - get rid of some of the damage/RoF bonuses from the other Field Commands instead, instead of boring, "bigger HACs". More command/leadership/gang assist bonuses, please!
---:::---
|
Sirilonwe
|
Posted - 2006.02.28 16:50:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Generic Dev
It's not Tuxford's fault.
LOL? Generic Dev?
____________________________________
Free ISP users, read this if you have connections problems
[b]I'm on Eris side! |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |