| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tousaka Langley
   |
Posted - 2006.03.24 19:18:00 -
[1]
What the nighthawk lacks in fire power it makes up for in survivability.
Is the impression I am getting.
|
Tousaka Langley
|
Posted - 2006.03.24 20:21:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: j0sephine
"Were talking about the vulture and nighthawk, not the sac and absolution.
Please keep to the topic"
Kayo is on topic here -- the argument was offered that inferior damage of Nighthawk is justified by better tanking. Which doesn't quite fly because other field command ships are given as much increase of survability as Nighthawk _and_ siginificant boost to damage.
Nighthawk on the other hand is given no survability increase better than any other field command, but on top of it not only she doesn't get damage increase (in comparison to matching HAC) ... but has actually some of that 'base' damage taken away.
However, the Cerberus is fragile as innoscense while a properly fitted Nighthawk has absolutely absurd resistences and shields. I'm no expert (and don't claim to be) but the passive shield tanking capabilities of a NH appear to be insane.
|
Tousaka Langley
|
Posted - 2006.03.24 20:41:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Naal Morno
But your argument is still not valid since ALL OTHER field command have higher tankability AND higher damage over Nighthawk. This is not the case with Nighthawk. Why are you arguing it is ok when it is not?
Please break down why all other field command ships are better at tanking then the NH. I am not sure what you mean by "this is not the case with the nighthawk."
|
Tousaka Langley
|
Posted - 2006.03.24 20:51:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Naal Morno
Originally by: Tousaka Langley
Originally by: Naal Morno
But your argument is still not valid since ALL OTHER field command have higher tankability AND higher damage over Nighthawk. This is not the case with Nighthawk. Why are you arguing it is ok when it is not?
Please break down why all other field command ships are better at tanking then the NH. I am not sure what you mean by "this is not the case with the nighthawk."
"AND" is the key word.
Albeit tanking is on par, damage output is not. I am talking about Nighthawk being subpar to other Field Commands with its inferior comparative damage delta (negative!!!) vs its HAC counterpar.
I don't beleive that the NH is merely on par with other FC's. I think it is down right superior. Certainly the lack of EM resists hurts, but it's above par ability to negate thermal and kinetic damage along with the natural bonus to resistences and higher base shield lead me to beleive it is better then it's foriegn competition. If someone can break down for me that it is on par with other ships in tanking instead of superior, then I will openly admit that something is seriously wrong.
|
Tousaka Langley
|
Posted - 2006.03.24 20:57:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Tousaka Langley on 24/03/2006 20:59:55
Originally by: j0sephine
"However, the Cerberus is fragile as innoscense while a properly fitted Nighthawk has absolutely absurd resistences and shields. I'm no expert (and don't claim to be) but the passive shield tanking capabilities of a NH appear to be insane."
Leaving aside what Naal already pointed out, Cerberus is actually not that far from Nighthawk as far as defense goes. Both of them have 5 mid slots, base resistance are about equal even with Nighthawk resitance bonus maxed out (Nighthawk will have more EM/explosive resistance while Cerberus has higher therm/kinetic resistance) ... overall the difference boils down to 2.5 k more shield --i.e. higher shield recharge out of box-- and 1 extra low slot.
If you fit both ships for comparable passive tank (3x shield extenders, 2x hardeners, pdus/shield relay in lows next to 2 damage mods on each ship, full rack of heavy launchers in the high slots) the end stats go somewhat like:
* Cerberus: 67 / 72 / 79 / 86 resists, 10.7 k shield, 40 hp/sec passive regen
* Nighthawk: 75 / 79 / 80 / 84 resists, 13.2 k shield, 62 hp/sec passive regen
... while Nighthawk does have noticeably better defense, Cerberus is by no means squishy (and due to quite a bit smaller signature radius will also take less damage when fired upon)
Oh wow, could it be possible for you to break down how the other FC's compare to HAC counterparts in their respective tanking capabilities? (That would be exactly what I am looking for.)
|
Tousaka Langley
|
Posted - 2006.03.24 23:57:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Tousaka Langley on 24/03/2006 23:57:49
Why would a NightHawk need precision missiles? I mean, I guess it would increase damage to frigs, but even without that if you have decent enough missile skills the things already ignore a huge portion of speed and sig radius. The difference in swatting elite frigates with just one level of increased precision was noticeable.
Also, has anyone taken using a 250mm T2 Railgun in the last HS of the NH into account for damage calculations? I mean, it's not much, but it is there. To note, I am not trying to say the NH isn't broken, I am just approaching it from all angles.
|
Tousaka Langley
|
Posted - 2006.04.05 15:16:00 -
[7]
A Dev response to why they thought it would be fun to gimp one of the primary later-game Caldari missile boats would be nice. Especially after giving all the other races such awesome ships.
|
| |
|