EVE Search - *Prods Tuxford* Nighthawk Query

All Channels

Ships and Modules

*Prods Tuxford* Nighthawk Query

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Denrace	Posted - 2006.02.23 23:40:00 - [1] Hey there Tuxford (that is assuming you read this heh)!! Quick question about the Nighthawk Field Command Ship. Firstly, great job on the Shield/Armour HP fixes! Secondly, I have 3 quick questions for you, which I hope you can answer. They wont take long, I promise Why have you not given the Nighthawk a ROF bonus? What does the Target Nav bonus actually do, and how is it useful at all? What is your favourite alcoholic beverage? Regards and keep up the good work, Den ________________________________________ Replace the Nighthawk's Target Nav bonus with a ROF bonus! I make Custom Sigs.
Valea Silpha	Posted - 2006.02.24 02:01:00 - [2] Target navigation bonus relates to the ammount of effect the target ships sig radius has on the amount of damage delt. Essentially the bonus means more damage to small things with big missiles. And tux strikes me as a Jack Daniels kinda guy.
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2006.02.24 03:51:00 - [3] The Absolution is a bigger, heavier hitting, albiet slower Zealot. Other than speed and agility, it's simply a Zealot.. but better. The Nighthawk is a dubious step up from the Cerberus. Does one more launcher HP make up for the lack of bonuses? I don't think it does. Kinetic only? Bleh as usual. No ROF? 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. I would give the Nighthawk: 5% Heavy / Assault Launcher rate of fire per level 5% Shield Resitance per level. 5% Kinetic Missile damage per level. 10% Missile Velocity per level. It'd be a rather leet ship then, and on par with the Absolution. I honestly think an Absolution could easily smoke a Nighthawk or any other HAC or Command Battlecruiser right now, it's ganktastic. ------
Ace Rimmer	Posted - 2006.02.24 11:07:00 - [4] the nighthawk really needs fixing atm , as the precision skill bonus from the command skill is bugged , and is working the wrong way making this so called frigate killer , even harder to hit frigates ie heavy missile explosion radius = 125 with precision missile skill at lvl 4 = 100 (20% reduction due to skills) but on a nighthawk with lvl 3 command skill instead of it getting better by 15% its getting worse now i get a explosion radius of 115 i hope someone reads this and fixes it with next weeks patch Regards Ace Rimmer "smoke me a kipper , ill be back for breakfast"
FireFoxx80	Posted - 2006.02.24 12:01:00 - [5] I stated this in the other thread the other week, but I shall repost. Basically, all the other command ships' bonuses give an increase to overall damage. The Nighthawk's bonuses give it an increase in damage to smaller ships only. So yes, it needs a ROF bonus instead of the heavy missile precision one. Consider your sig tainted, and all your alcohol stolen - Wrangler Beer=Beer+3
Denrace	Posted - 2006.02.24 13:43:00 - [6] Originally by: Valea Silpha Target navigation bonus relates to the ammount of effect the target ships sig radius has on the amount of damage delt. Essentially the bonus means more damage to small things with big missiles. And tux strikes me as a Jack Daniels kinda guy. I thought the target navigation bonus was related to the enemies speed not sig radius. The precision bonus is what relates to the enemies sig radius. And I absolutely, completely, 100% agree with Mr. Raynor. The lack of a ROF bonus and a range/flight time bonus means a Cerberus can deal significantly more damage than a Nighthawk and can do this damage at almost twice the range, with the missiles getting to the target 50% quicker. Some may argue that a Nighthawk is geared towards taking down frigates and destroyers but lets face it, you dont need a target nav and precision bonus to take down anything the size of a cruiser or bigger. And I can just fit precision missiles in my Cerberus and kill frigates just as fast, if not faster, than a Nighthawk. Some could also argue that the Nighthawk can bypass the velocity penalty on precisions by using Tech 1 minetic Missiles with the added precision bonus, but the Nighthawk moves so damn slow anyway that this advantage is so slight that it does not make up for the fact that every other command ship can: Tank just as well as a Nighthawk Hit frigates just as well with blasters, autocannons and pulse lasers Do vastly MORE damage than a Nighthawk I think I have presented a very good argument here for why the Nighthawk simply NEEDS a ROF bonus. Den ________________________________________ Replace the Nighthawk's Target Nav bonus with a ROF bonus! I make Custom Sigs.
Darling Hassasin	Posted - 2006.02.24 14:16:00 - [7] signed
Malken	Posted - 2006.02.24 14:22:00 - [8] i think that we need to make missile training abit harder to match the turret requirements. light missiles to L4 in order to train heavies heavies to L4 in order to train Cruise and torp same with spec skills, divide lights in 2 categories, fury and precision spec heavies into fury and precision spec cruise into fury and precision spec and torp into rage and javelin spec. there now you will have same type of skill req as the turret users. its only a logical balancing of skill training.
Denrace	Posted - 2006.02.24 14:24:00 - [9] Edited by: Denrace on 24/02/2006 14:24:31 Originally by: Malken i think that we need to make missile training abit harder to match the turret requirements. light missiles to L4 in order to train heavies heavies to L4 in order to train Cruise and torp same with spec skills, divide lights in 2 categories, fury and precision spec heavies into fury and precision spec cruise into fury and precision spec and torp into rage and javelin spec. there now you will have same type of skill req as the turret users. its only a logical balancing of skill training. Stay on topic. ________________________________________ Replace the Nighthawk's Target Nav bonus with a ROF bonus! I make Custom Sigs.
Denrace	Posted - 2006.02.24 14:24:00 - [10] Originally by: Malken i think that we need to make missile training abit harder to match the turret requirements. light missiles to L4 in order to train heavies heavies to L4 in order to train Cruise and torp same with spec skills, divide lights in 2 categories, fury and precision spec heavies into fury and precision spec cruise into fury and precision spec and torp into rage and javelin spec. there now you will have same type of skill req as the turret users. its only a logical balancing of skill training. ________________________________________ Replace the Nighthawk's Target Nav bonus with a ROF bonus! I make Custom Sigs.
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.02.24 14:33:00 - [11] Originally by: Denrace Edited by: Denrace on 24/02/2006 14:24:31 Originally by: Malken i think that we need to make missile training abit harder to match the turret requirements. light missiles to L4 in order to train heavies heavies to L4 in order to train Cruise and torp same with spec skills, divide lights in 2 categories, fury and precision spec heavies into fury and precision spec cruise into fury and precision spec and torp into rage and javelin spec. there now you will have same type of skill req as the turret users. its only a logical balancing of skill training. Stay on topic. It is on topic - why should you get the same or better weapon for less skill training? Anyways. As stated above, paraphrased: "Other command ships get a bonus to overall damage. The Nighthawk gets its bonuses vs smaller ships" This is not true. 1)The Nighthawk gets its bonus vs ships smaller than the missile's explosion radius - which in some cases can be cruisers, not just frigates. 2)The Nighthawk gets a bonus to hitting faster ships - this does not include just frigates. You're wrong. Dead wrong. Just because a Nighthawk's bonuses are different, doesnt mean they're worse. If people like you had their way, then we'd all be flying cloned ships. Some things have to be different. If you think a Cerb is omgsomuch better....go fly a cerb? The Eve Guild Wars Project!
Jin Entres	Posted - 2006.02.24 14:54:00 - [12] Originally by: Malken i think that we need to make missile training abit harder to match the turret requirements. light missiles to L4 in order to train heavies heavies to L4 in order to train Cruise and torp same with spec skills, divide lights in 2 categories, fury and precision spec heavies into fury and precision spec cruise into fury and precision spec and torp into rage and javelin spec. there now you will have same type of skill req as the turret users. its only a logical balancing of skill training. And while you're at it, either combine torpedo and cruise skills or make two separate large turret skills for each race. Afterall, you wanted logical balancing, right?
Generic Dev	Posted - 2006.02.24 16:18:00 - [13] It's not Tuxford's fault.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.02.24 16:29:00 - [14] "i think that we need to make missile training abit harder to match the turret requirements. light missiles to L4 in order to train heavies heavies to L4 in order to train Cruise and torp" it's currently: medium turret: Gunnery 3, Small turret 3 medium missile (heavy): Missile Launcher 3, Standard Missiles 3 large turret: Gunnery 5, Medium turret 3 cruise missile: Missile Launcher 5, Heavy missile 3 ... i think they match already, thankyou.
Denrace	Posted - 2006.02.24 16:30:00 - [15] 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. Basic T1 Resistances are factored in also. N I G H T H A W K 6x Heavy Launcher II's w/ T1 Scourge Nighthawk versus Crusader Average DPS : 203.485 Nighthawk versus Thorax: Average DPS : 205.459 Nighthawk versus Apocalypse: Average DPS : 216.517 ---------------------------------- A B S O L U T I O N 6x Heavy Pulse II's w/ Multifrequency 1x Heavy Launcher II w/ T1 Scourge Absolution versus Crusader Average DPS : 439.219 Absolution versus Thorax: Average DPS : 439.219 Absolution versus Apocalypse: Average DPS : 439.219 ---------------------------------- A S T A R T E 7x Ion Blaster II's, w/ Antimatter Astarte versus Crusader Average DPS : 561.729 Astarte versus Thorax: Average DPS : 561.729 Astarte versus Apocalypse: Average DPS : 561.729 ---------------------------------- S L E I P N I R 7x 425mm AutoCannon II's, w/ EMP 1x heavy Launcher II w/ T2 Scourge Sleipnir versus Crusader Average DPS : 504.965 Sleipnir versus Thorax: Average DPS : 504.965 Sleipnir versus Apocalypse: Average DPS : 504.965 ---------------------------------- Just something to think about before anyone else decides to say the Nighthawk can kill frigs well. Im concerned about balance issues here, as the numbers clearly show. ________________________________________ Replace the Nighthawk's Target Nav bonus with a ROF bonus! I make Custom Sigs.
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2006.02.24 16:35:00 - [16] The Nighthawks bonuses are simply all wrong and need fixed. Denrace's chart there is pretty much correct, the nighthawks doing about half the DPS of the other command battlecruisers. The target navigation and guided precision are retarded, you don't train command ships to kill frigates, and these bonuses are worthless considering there are precision heavy missiles that do the job just as well. A cerberus outclasses a nighthawk, which technically it shouldn't (dps wise). ------
Hllaxiu	Posted - 2006.02.24 16:38:00 - [17] Originally by: Generic Dev It's not Tuxford's fault. Please enlighten us, oh anonymous one.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.02.24 16:42:00 - [18] Edited by: j0sephine on 24/02/2006 16:45:55 "6x Heavy Launcher II's w/ T1 Scourge 6x Heavy Pulse II's w/ Multifrequency 7x Ion Blaster II's, w/ Antimatter 7x 425mm AutoCannon II's, w/ EMP (..) Im concerned about balance issues here, as the numbers clearly show." One thing to keep on mind though, this is comparison between "short range high damage" weapon setups, and heavy missiles which are anything but... (there's lack of such kind of missile and/or launcher at the moment, but that's not exactly something that should result in today's heavy missile Nighthawk getting damage output anywhere near comparable to these mentioned. Precisely due to balance issues) edit: though clearly, current 'precision' bonus on the Nighthawk is beyond silly; but i whined about it already when these ships were originally introduced so will stay quiet for time being >>;;
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.02.24 16:43:00 - [19] "It's not Tuxford's fault." omg even devs post with alts now... o.o;;;
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.02.24 16:49:00 - [20] Graph with denrace setups (slightly modified, 220mm instead of 425mm for Sleipnir and neutrons instead of ions for Astarte) Apologies in advances for possible inaccuracies, as I didn't ever really double check that part of the spreadsheet. Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
Denrace	Posted - 2006.02.24 16:51:00 - [21] Originally by: j0sephine Edited by: j0sephine on 24/02/2006 16:45:55 "6x Heavy Launcher II's w/ T1 Scourge 6x Heavy Pulse II's w/ Multifrequency 7x Ion Blaster II's, w/ Antimatter 7x 425mm AutoCannon II's, w/ EMP (..) Im concerned about balance issues here, as the numbers clearly show." One thing to keep on mind though, this is comparison between "short range high damage" weapon setups, and heavy missiles which are anything but... (there's lack of such kind of missile and/or launcher at the moment, but that's not exactly something that should result in today's heavy missile Nighthawk getting damage output anywhere near comparable to these mentioned. Precisely due to balance issues) edit: though clearly, current 'precision' bonus on the Nighthawk is beyond silly; but i whined about it already when these ships were originally introduced so will stay quiet for time being >>;; Good point. Remember, however, that the Nighthawk has no bonuses to missile range or flight time. Also, and most importantly, the Astarte with Rails, the Sleipnir with Howies and the Absolution with Heavy Beams STILL outdamage the Nighthawk by a very, very large margin. ________________________________________ Replace the Nighthawk's Target Nav bonus with a ROF bonus! I make Custom Sigs.
Denrace	Posted - 2006.02.24 16:54:00 - [22] Originally by: Naughty Boy Graph with denrace setups (slightly modified, 220mm instead of 425mm for Sleipnir and neutrons instead of ions for Astarte) Apologies in advances for possible inaccuracies, as I didn't ever really double check that part of the spreadsheet. Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. Nice graph! Would you be able to do a similar one for the long ranged weapons i.e, rails/beams/howies? ________________________________________ Replace the Nighthawk's Target Nav bonus with a ROF bonus! I make Custom Sigs.
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.02.24 16:58:00 - [23] Long range (with drones) Long range (without drones) Once again, it might not be completely accurate. Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
Denrace	Posted - 2006.02.24 17:01:00 - [24] Originally by: Naughty Boy Long range (with drones) Long range (without drones) Once again, it might not be completely accurate. Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. That was >> F A S T Lub you ________________________________________ Replace the Nighthawk's Target Nav bonus with a ROF bonus! I make Custom Sigs.
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.02.24 17:17:00 - [25] Edited by: Naughty Boy on 24/02/2006 17:26:00 Originally by: Denrace That was >> F A S T Erm, yeah, even too fast... (I forgot to disable the effect of armor default resistances). This time, without resistances (to be coherent with the close range graph): Long range weapons, without drones Edit: and to explain what's happening with the cerberus outdamaging the nighthawk in the long range graph, and not the close range graph (incl. drones): Long range weapons, with drones Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
KilROCK	Posted - 2006.02.24 20:39:00 - [26] close range please -.-
HippoKing	Posted - 2006.02.24 20:57:00 - [27] yeah, replace the nav bonus with ROF. its the only field command with only 1 dmg bonus atm 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
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.02.24 21:54:00 - [28] Originally by: Naughty Boy Edit: without resistances (see below, I forgot to disable armor resistances in the above graphs) Long range (with drones) Long range (without drones) Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. I notice the sig radius is that of a Phoenix (1000m), could you do it on a Vagabond (115m), and that of a Thrasher (75m)? Now that you've shown that the Nighthawk can compete against large targets, why not show on targets where the Nighthawk's bonuses is supposed to shine? (Do the graph with the intended Nighthawk bonuses, not the currently bugged ones) Originally by: KilROCK Originally by: Arkanor Gallente missileboat might be cool. Pod yourself till you got no skills.[
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.02.24 21:55:00 - [29] http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=248724 download the spreadsheet and you can make those wonderful graphs yourselves by plugging in 3 values Originally by: Zzazzt Originally by: thoth foc PA doesnt stand for anything.. Punchbag Alliance...
HippoKing	Posted - 2006.02.24 22:15:00 - [30] Originally by: Naughty Boy Long range weapons, without drones Edit: and to explain what's happening with the cerberus outdamaging the nighthawk in the long range graph, and not the close range graph (incl. drones): Long range weapons, with drones do it again please, pulse on the abs and zealot 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
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]

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.