Quote:

---

I wouldn't actually mind if the NH had its bonuses changed to EW

---

Originally by: Calprimus

---

Originally by: Darling Hassasin

---

Originally by: Skeltek

---

Edited by: Skeltek on 01/05/2006 16:25:34

Originally by: j0sephine

---

Edited by: j0sephine on 24/03/2006 17:12:30

So, let's see how damage of each field command ship scales in comparison to 'damage dealing' HAC of their race.

* Zealot: 4 turrets with 25% dmg, 25% rof bonus ... equals 6.7 'raw' turrets
* Absolution: 6 turrets with 25% dmg, 25% rof bonus ... equals 10 'raw' turrets

* Deimos: 5 turrets with 56.25% dmg bonus ... equals 7.8 turrets
* Astarte: 7 turrets with 56.25% dmg bonus ... equals 10.9 turrets

* Vagabond: 5 turrets with 25% dmg, 25% rof bonus ... equals 8.3 turrets
* Sleipnir: 7 turrets with 25% dmg, 25% rof bonus ... equals 11.7 turrets

* Cerberus: 5 launchers with 25% dmg, 25% rof bonus ... equals 8.3 launchers
* Nighthawk: 6 launchers with 25% dmg nonus ... equals 7.5 launchers

to summarize:

* absolution: 150% damage of zealot
* astarte: 140% damage of deimos
* sleipnir: 140% damage of vagabond
* nighthawk: 90% damage of cerberus

---

I am not sure, but doesn¦t the simple fact, that you do not take the additional lowslot of the Nighthawk into accout or slotlayouts from the other ships totaly falsify your whole "calculations"?
for example if you put a BCU II on a Cerb and two BCU II on a Nighthawk, the Nighthawk would get an additional 10.172% faster fireing bonus(stacking penalty already taken into account; 10.172%faster firing equals aproximately 9.233% better RoF) and an additional good percentage of damage per missile, making it equal at least 8% more damage than the Cerb does.
And a ship with better damage than Cerb AND precision&targetnavigation bonuses is not to be neglected in terms of damage(think about the Precision Missile nerf).

I did not want to take all other advantages from the Nighthawk towards the Cerberus into account, because people here were mainly arguing it had far worse damageoutput than the Cerb, which is not true as I have shown with my tiny little lowslot...

best regards, Skeltek


ps: You might want to put a Turret on the seventh high slot of the Nighthawk; even though it has no bonuses on turrets, it should no be overseen. If I add this to my upper damage advantage, the Nighthawk should do at least 120% more damage than the Cerb, which suprisingly enough... implies a totaly different impression than your 90% from your Calculation.
ahh, I almost forgot to add that the Nighthawk has more than 3 times more Cap reserves and a 50% faster Capregeneration than Cerb, which should also not make much difference.

I make myself a fool, because I am trying to argue against powering up the only Command Ship that I will be able to fly in a long time...

---

I fit 3 BCUII on my Cerb always ... i am told the nighthawk cant be set up with so many ...

---

Yes it can. My set up on another char:
6 x Heavy Missile Launcher II (normal scourge)
1 x empty (no powergrid left)

2 x Large Shield Extender II
2 x Invulnerability Field II
1 x AB II

3 x BCU II
2 x Shield Power Relay

all relevant skills at 5 execept for Command at 4.
Waiting for Command 5 to try Lv4 missions
Yes, PG is a major problem. With the above set up there is nothing left for anything.
That means, for a combat set up or a duo formation, we cannot mount a command module.

Regarding damage I cannot comment, doing only Lv3 mission with the NH.
Curious to test it on Lv4.

---

Quote:

---

Hey Talmssar, mind to elaborate more? What's wrong with my above set up fo mission running?

---

Originally by: HyJek

---

So could a dev fill us in on when this change will happen?

---