EVE Search - Vulture/Nighthawk Targeting Range Question

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Vulture/Nighthawk Targeting Range Question

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Nekora	Posted - 2006.06.17 22:29:00 - [1] Two questions about the Field Command Ships, If they are not supposed to be a more powerful assault ship, Why do they require assault ship skills? If they are supposed to be anti frigate ships, Would it not make more sense to give the Absolution, Astarte and Sleipnir a Tracking bonus instead of a second damage bonus?
Nekora	Posted - 2006.06.18 09:54:00 - [2] I think this has got to the point where everyone agrees that something needs to be done to balance the ships (although there is still argument over wether this is boosting the Nighthawk or Nerfing the absolution, astarte, sleipnir) and several people have pointed out the Vulture can not make use of its full range bonus without sensor boosters, Although i think that most people are less concerned about that. The problem we have now is to bring this to the attention of someone in CCP, or if they already know all this (which i would hope is the case, since it is obvious to anyone who has flown them) getting some sort of comment on what is going to be done about it. Personaly i would settle for a "Yes, we know, we will look at it later" type comment at this point...
Nekora	Posted - 2006.06.18 18:01:00 - [3] Originally by: Deathbarrage I never see a missile boat doing more DPS then a turret boat yet their effective DPS never suffers from it Most people dont have a trouble with the theoretical dps being lower as long as the practical DPS is balanced, But it is not. Even ignoreing the damage ballance with the other field command ships. Which has been a poor argument at best due to the lack of hard numbers. The Ship itself does not have a comparable improvement over its HAC counterpart. Just read the thread and you will find many people pointing out the Nighthawk has less (10%) firepower than the caracal, while the Absoulution has more (50%) firepower than the Zealot, astarte has more (40%) firepower than the deimos and the sleipnir has more (40%) firepower than the vagabond. Which I, and others are most annoyed at.
Nekora	Posted - 2006.06.19 02:19:00 - [4] that was probably my fault... i had said caracal instead of cerb a few posts back... These little slip ups tend to be infectious
Nekora	Posted - 2006.06.19 13:05:00 - [5] Okay, now THAT is disturbing, the same firepower as the caracal but for one launcher. That second bonus soooo needs to be a ROF bonus
Nekora	Posted - 2006.06.19 13:09:00 - [6] Originally by: Testy Mctest Originally by: SavageThrash I have already sucked it up and realized that i might as well put my gunnery to use and train ammar :( Or wait for the Tier 3 BS! Or fly a Railferox Or fly an Eagle Or fly a Moa So many options! But none that are comparable with the Field command ships of the other races, Which is what 90% of the thread is about.
Nekora	Posted - 2006.06.19 14:17:00 - [7] Extend range? um, right. Not so fond of that soulotion myself. I would prefer the missile precision bonus changed to ROF bonus, to bring it inline with the other ships.
Nekora	Posted - 2006.06.19 14:56:00 - [8] damage is a problem as you arenot doing anywhere near what any of the other Field command ships are doing
Nekora	Posted - 2006.06.21 21:38:00 - [9] Originally by: Trevedian Originally by: SavageThrash SavageThrash looks for a wrench Let me fix it! You've been watching too much Bob The BuilderÖ! Nighthawk is fine, it pwns lil stuff from afar and tanks like a Jovian gawd. Have you read ANY of the thread? Nobody wants to pawn frigates, other ships do that much better and it does less damage than the Cerberus? Fine? My god you would think that you wanted the ship to be laughable. Tank like a Jovian? What setup are you useing, because i would love to see that.
Nekora	Posted - 2006.06.23 16:15:00 - [10] So, dont want to release your uber tank setup? Guess we will just have to settle for practical figures based on the ship then.
Nekora	Posted - 2006.06.29 12:39:00 - [11] true that. quite a few ships, and not just caldari (Pick a minmitar ship, any minmitar ship) are not exactly art galery pieces.
Nekora	Posted - 2006.07.01 14:47:00 - [12] Heh, problem being that almost everything that needs saying has been said, However i doubt we will ever see a balance to the Feild comand ships until Kali... I dont think its something they care about that much. Or, to put it politly, The problem with the Field comand ships is not high on there to-do lists. That or they like the ships being unbalenced. This is something i can only conclude from the lack of feed back on this issue
Nekora	Posted - 2006.07.03 23:52:00 - [13] i Still Stand by changeing the 5% precision per level to 5% ROF per level to bring the bonus in line with EVERY OTHER Field command ship. the ship has pleanty of range already so a velocity bonus just seems silly, and we have pleanty of ships cappable of pinning frigates without another one.
Nekora	Posted - 2006.07.04 21:57:00 - [14] Originally by: Double TaP Originally by: Nekora i Still Stand by changeing the 5% precision per level to 5% ROF per level to bring the bonus in line with EVERY OTHER Field command ship. the ship has pleanty of range already so a velocity bonus just seems silly, and we have pleanty of ships cappable of pinning frigates without another one. You forget that the velocity bonus is to actually make t2 missiles work, and to hit smaller things. If they're going to make the Nighthawk a railboat, I honestly wouldnt mind that, as long as they promised not to gimp the t2 tier 2 bc. But if its going to stay its missile battlecruiser heavy assault ship, it needs 5% resists 5% Heavy Missile RoF (not lights) 10% Heavy Missile Velocity 5% Heavy Missile (Heres the tricky part. Either Kinetic Damage, or another RoF bonus. I don't think another RoF bonus would be overpowered, so I wish they would test it on the test server at least.) So a bonus to cancel out the penalty of T2 Ammo? Personaly i dont think its a good idea to design a ship around the concept of T2 ammo. The penaltys are designed into the ammo as part of the gameplay that goes into useing the ammo. Boni should be applicable in all situations. On the same premise Fury missiles are going to do 54km with skills anyway so range, yet again, not a problem. And they are going to be doing about 4500km/s so any target flying faster would be ~imposible to hit with turrets so i dont see there being an issue there. - You must be talking about fury, because any situation where Standard missiles work, Precision will work. (Against a target, yes it slows the ship to a crawl - see my first point) Other than the reasoning that the Velocity is for T2 Ammo to be usefull its an okay idea. I cant say that i agree that it is a viatal bonus, and i could even go to say it may cause a further ballence issue (Building on an alrady good range to out beyond the limits of boosted targeting). But thats a bit complecated to go into at the moment, expesialy since we have no idea HOW missiles will change in kaili, only that they will. But yes, A volocity bonus would be prefrable to a target navagation bonus. As this would increce the ballence with the other Field-CS when it comes to damage vs Frig's i just dont see that it would be nessasary, heck i would settile for a 5% increce in Grid output at this point (an argument for another thread. Why gimped from the Ferox? WHY?) I dont care what the fourth bonus is. As long as we get our RoF Bonus like ALL THE OTHER Field comand ships that would keep me happy - And the logical bonus to remove is the precision. (seing as the other FiCS [not FleCS] have a tanking and damage bonus also) To Clarify. It should have - Tanking (5% sheild Resists) Damage (5% Kenetic seems to be the flavour or the DEV's) RoF (5% to heavys) and a race based fourth. Um, dont care what just make it semi-usefull. Discuss. (Please dont hurt me)
Nekora	Posted - 2006.07.04 23:36:00 - [15] Edited by: Nekora on 04/07/2006 23:38:03 Edited by: Nekora on 04/07/2006 23:37:35 Would be nice, but the other races have a damage and rof. RoF actualy gives a better DPS than Damage bonus. so i can not realy justify it. if you have a reason why a second RoF as apposed to Damage, please inform us. Its always good to hear a fresh opinion/viewpoint on a topic. Ad for you lazy bum's who have not read all 16 pages, the curent (we hijacked the original thread :)) topic is the modification of the Nighthawk bonus to reflect the other Field Command Ships. Or Vice versa, although no-one seems to have taken a likeing to that. I Wonder Why?
Nekora	Posted - 2006.07.05 00:01:00 - [16] I'd say a reason to give it rof over damage is because it cuts down on it's alpha strike, which is a very handy function of missiles (1 vollying frigs with precision anyone?). also kinetic damage bonus is not particulary useful. Rof also uses up more ammo, which matters alot with t2 ammo. So it isn't all advantage. Im in agreement mostly. Alpha strike is only valid at close range. Travel time interfears with long range efectiveness. As the target is out of return fire range which invaladates Alpha strike or Its more of a beta or charlie strike by then as apponent would have had the opertunity to return one or two salvos. True a 5% Ken is not that great, so why not say 5% damage for heavys (all types) As apposed to a second RoF. Covering most of the points mentioned there. Plus Two bonus the same is a bit boring isnt it? I think the counter-argument goes something like 'but you can just switch to the damage type your target is weakest against' - I count that as afairly weak argument due to time, cargo. scaning, prediction and foresight goes. But neverless the DEV's Seem to think it should be KEN damage bonus only for caldari (hence the surgestion to apease the powers that nerf) judgeing from other missile ships. The whole 5% Ken vs 5% total issue is more complex than i first thought, thats more of an argument than i can shortly comprehend every aspect of, and relay a reasonable soulution in simplyfied terms. Erm, yeah.
Nekora	Posted - 2006.07.06 17:07:00 - [17] Edited by: Nekora on 06/07/2006 17:08:11 Originally by: Double TaP A velocity bonus doesn't cancel out the penalties of t2 ammo. You're either gimping your cap or gimping your speed. Most missile boats have a velocity bonus, its only natural. And personally I would like to see 2 RoF bonuses on the test server so I can do some dps calculations. Other than the reduced range of Fury missiles? Thats what i said, but then, what do you mean by : Originally by: Double TaP You forget that the velocity bonus is to actually make t2 missiles work Would prefer a 5% Damage and a 5% RoF bonus, saveing on ammo and hence cargo space, and cost of T2 missiles. And also increce alpha strike - Altough i will admit that has limmited effect. Any reasons you would prefer two RoF bonus as to one Damage and one Rof?
Nekora	Posted - 2006.07.07 01:48:00 - [18] So, its mainly for the extra DPS? Sure why not. Would be usefull for longer engagements. However i am still concerned by the ammo nessasary. But i suppose that can be coped with. By the way, i did not say 5% kenetic Damage. I said 5% damage, meaning all types.
Nekora	Posted - 2006.07.07 21:36:00 - [19] Originally by: Necrologic Originally by: Nekora So, its mainly for the extra DPS? Sure why not. Would be usefull for longer engagements. However i am still concerned by the ammo nessasary. But i suppose that can be coped with. By the way, i did not say 5% kenetic Damage. I said 5% damage, meaning all types. I doubt CCP would give 5% to all damage types. I don't think any ship has that. Then you are not looking hard enough, and dont tell me the 5% to Medium Projectile Turret damage, 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage and 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage don't exist. Because then you would be lieing. Pft, no ship has thas that eh.... sheeesh. Some people.
Nekora	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:20:00 - [20] Originally by: Fan3Spoitoru dev`s are lame they should resign.. prime reason .. they did an awful job with this ship. and many moire problem`s Good god no, Who else would we get to do the job? Yes i will admit there are a few things i dont like but hey, Given the rest of the game and how well they have fixed most problems i would like to think we have a very competent team of devs looking after us. They just dont pay attention to what we want fixing first, Dev's seem to have a wholely diferent set of prioritys. (Something along the lines of "Hmm, Is that Ammar ship shiny enough? no? Lets rewrite the grapics engine to work with next gen graphics, and windows Vista")
Nekora	Posted - 2006.07.20 14:17:00 - [21] 1) Yes it tanks well, not the best FiCS tank but still good, thats not the issue. Damage is. 2) Has anyone tryed a passive tank on this yet?
Nekora	Posted - 2006.07.20 21:09:00 - [22] Originally by: Double TaP For the record, this is my underpowered nigthawk crusade. But the tournament is a horrible of example of anything that has to do with pvp balance, so dont even try and relate it to anything. But you must admit, even at tournument lvl, its damage output is laughable.

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.