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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Double TaP	Posted - 2006.07.06 19:04:00 - [481] Originally by: Denrace My ideal Nighthawk would have: 5% Bonus to all heavy Missile Damage 5% Bonus to Shield Hitpoints 5% Bonus to Heavy Missile ROF 5% Bonus to Kinetic Missile Damage Then.. >> Add more powergrid >> Add 1 more launcher hardpoint The shield HP bonus is unique and would help the passive shield tanking part of a NH/Cerberus, which proves so popular. The ROF and dual damage bonuses let it do some nice DPS, with not much of a range with no velocity/flightime bonus to counter the increased DPS. Sounds much more fun.... Den hehe sounds like fun, but although we want some big changes made to the bonuses, we dont want anything that radical. just a FIX from the CRAP that it is now. but a high damage low range missile boat that maybe uses say heavy rockets, would be fun, but save it for the t2 tier 2 bc thats going to be a missile boat. makes a lot more sense since the heavy rockets arnt out yet. so im still going with what i stated above 5% resists 5% RoF 10% Velocity 5% Rof All for heavy missiles only.
Necrologic	Posted - 2006.07.06 20:27:00 - [482] I completely agree with Double TaP
Nekora	Posted - 2006.07.07 01:48:00 - [483] 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.
Necrologic	Posted - 2006.07.07 20:19:00 - [484] 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.
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.07.07 20:50:00 - [485] Originally by: Copine Callmeknau Edited by: Copine Callmeknau on 02/07/2006 03:52:27 Well the ferox is a rail ship (hybrid bonus), and you guys will be getting a missile spamming BC come kali. This missile spamming BC will make a missile based nighthawk obselete. I propose you change the nighthawk into a destructive rail ship, therefore keeping it useful when you get a missile BC. This could be overpowered, afaik there is no dual damage bonus rail ship around. The range might also be too low with only one optimal bonus, but it will sure as hell hurt. -- Battlecruiser Skill bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range and 5% bonus to all shield resistances per level Command Ships Skill bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret rate of fire and 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage per level. I aggree with turning it into a rail boat. No reason why it should be a specialized missile spammer since the caracal, t1 ferox, new t2 BC and the raven all fill in well where the nighthawk could operate. The raven is a much better ship, has a great tank and is about the same speed of the nighthawk and does more damage. One thing I think about your bonuses tho is that it should have another 10% optimal instead of the RoF. Team Minmatar
Tovarishch	Posted - 2006.07.07 21:30:00 - [486] Originally by: Kaylana Syi I aggree with turning it into a rail boat. No reason why it should be a specialized missile spammer since the caracal, t1 ferox, new t2 BC and the raven all fill in well where the nighthawk could operate. The Ferox is a railboat. The Caracal is a cruiser. The Raven is a battleship. Those three ships have little to nothing to do with the Nighthawks purpose. Your argument that the Ferox eliminates the need for a t2 missile battlecruiser makes less sense than saying, 'Since the Ferox exists the Caldari need a missile-based battlecruiser.' The Nighthawk fits a perfect role.... the problem is it's bonuses. Only two things in life are certain... and Mercenary Coalition doesn't do taxes.
Nekora	Posted - 2006.07.07 21:36:00 - [487] 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.
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.07.07 23:02:00 - [488] Originally by: Tovarishch Originally by: Kaylana Syi I aggree with turning it into a rail boat. No reason why it should be a specialized missile spammer since the caracal, t1 ferox, new t2 BC and the raven all fill in well where the nighthawk could operate. The Ferox is a railboat. The Caracal is a cruiser. The Raven is a battleship. Those three ships have little to nothing to do with the Nighthawks purpose. Your argument that the Ferox eliminates the need for a t2 missile battlecruiser makes less sense than saying, 'Since the Ferox exists the Caldari need a missile-based battlecruiser.' The Nighthawk fits a perfect role.... the problem is it's bonuses. The raven can use t2 precision cruise missiles, tackling gear, ecm and damps and small t2 drones and moves about like a ferox... The Nighthawk serves no true role that the t1 ferox with t2 kit or a raven cannot do for less money. But... the bonuses on the NH do suck... everyone of them but the resistance bonus. Team Minmatar
Necrologic	Posted - 2006.07.07 23:21:00 - [489] Originally by: Nekora 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. Cool it Shatner. We're talking about missile bonuses, why would i suddenly start talking about turrets? No ship has a damage bonus to all missile damage types except the kestrel, which doesn't exactly either.
Double TaP	Posted - 2006.07.08 00:17:00 - [490] hmm. if 2 RoF bonuses uses too much ammo, youd have to reload to often which isnt practical. The Nighthawk could get the same bonus as the kestrel maybe, with 1 RoF bonus. So it would be 5% bonus to shield resists 5% bonus to heavy missile RoF 10% Missile Velocity 10% bonus to Kinetic missile damage and 5% bonus to EM, Explosive, and Thermal missile damage per level. That would be balanced imo. Kinetic would still be dealing more damage, but you wouldnt be gimped and wasting a bonus if you went with another damage type.
Necrologic	Posted - 2006.07.08 00:37:00 - [491] Edited by: Necrologic on 08/07/2006 00:39:23 Originally by: Double TaP hmm. if 2 RoF bonuses uses too much ammo, youd have to reload to often which isnt practical. The Nighthawk could get the same bonus as the kestrel maybe, with 1 RoF bonus. So it would be 5% bonus to shield resists 5% bonus to heavy missile RoF 10% Missile Velocity 10% bonus to Kinetic missile damage and 5% bonus to EM, Explosive, and Thermal missile damage per level. That would be balanced imo. Kinetic would still be dealing more damage, but you wouldnt be gimped and wasting a bonus if you went with another damage type. That would do except for the slight problem that that is 5 bonuses. The kestrel has 2, 5% to kinetic and 5% to all, giving 10% kinetic and 5% the rest. It would have to loose the rof bonus to have that one, and honestly i'd prefer 2 rof bonuses.
Double TaP	Posted - 2006.07.08 00:49:00 - [492] Edited by: Double TaP on 08/07/2006 00:52:10 Originally by: Necrologic Edited by: Necrologic on 08/07/2006 00:39:23 Originally by: Double TaP hmm. if 2 RoF bonuses uses too much ammo, youd have to reload to often which isnt practical. The Nighthawk could get the same bonus as the kestrel maybe, with 1 RoF bonus. So it would be 5% bonus to shield resists 5% bonus to heavy missile RoF 10% Missile Velocity 10% bonus to Kinetic missile damage and 5% bonus to EM, Explosive, and Thermal missile damage per level. That would be balanced imo. Kinetic would still be dealing more damage, but you wouldnt be gimped and wasting a bonus if you went with another damage type. That would do except for the slight problem that that is 5 bonuses. The kestrel has 2, 5% to kinetic and 5% to all, giving 10% kinetic and 5% the rest. It would have to loose the rof bonus to have that one, and honestly i'd prefer 2 rof bonuses. Yea but look at the way I wrote it. Looks like 1 bonus to me Edit: you could even make it look like 1 bonus by lowering the kinetic to 5% by saying "5% bonus to heavy missile damage". that way youre not reloading every couple seconds. although i prefer the way i stated it originally.
Tovarishch	Posted - 2006.07.08 01:22:00 - [493] Originally by: Kaylana Syi The Nighthawk serves no true role that the t1 ferox with t2 kit or a raven cannot do for less money. And why is the above statement true? Because of - (drum roll please) Originally by: Tovarishch ...the problem is it's bonuses. The Nighthawk needs it's bonuses fixed... it's that easy. Any ships role depends largely on it's bonuses. Only two things in life are certain... and Mercenary Coalition doesn't do taxes.
Herring	Posted - 2006.07.08 02:50:00 - [494] Originally by: j0sephine Edited by: j0sephine on 24/03/2006 17:12:30 "As for the Nighthawk's damage output then I don't think the comparison with Absolution and Astarte are exactly fair." Let's try a more fair comparison. then. Field commands are effectively "beefed up HACs" since they rely on the heavy assault skill, and are expected to be "damage dealers" of the command ships according to their description. 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 ... do you still think one ship out of these 4 doesn't stand out in curious manner, here.. as far as damage output goes? :/ (in order to make the Nighthawk match the other field commands, she'd need to be given one more launcher hardpoint --as all other field commands get +2 primary weapons-- ... and one precision bonus changed to 25% rof, since the field commands practically copy the damage boosts of 'their' HACs ... with Nighthawk being one odd exception) hmmm...time to quit thinking about training for that piece of junk Wishing for better mining ships in a system near you.
Double TaP	Posted - 2006.07.08 05:22:00 - [495] ah **** tuxford, please fix my ship
Necrologic	Posted - 2006.07.08 06:32:00 - [496] Originally by: Double TaP ah **** tuxford, please fix my ship
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.07.08 07:38:00 - [497] Originally by: Tovarishch Originally by: Kaylana Syi The Nighthawk serves no true role that the t1 ferox with t2 kit or a raven cannot do for less money. And why is the above statement true? Because of - (drum roll please) Originally by: Tovarishch ...the problem is it's bonuses. The Nighthawk needs it's bonuses fixed... it's that easy. Any ships role depends largely on it's bonuses. Its not a very mobile ship. Its prime targets with the current bonuses and shoddy %'s move too fast for it to be truely effective at what it does unless its on defense duties. Any ship capable of tackling and fielding 5 small t2 drones will be as capable as it. So now what you have is a ship that seeks a role with new bonuses to do another role. Well... here is the other problem. You can give it good damage bonuses but its still not going to amount to a good skilled raven since both ships move about the same agile movement. Your raven stats might not look like a better tanker but it has more diversity and cap and the ability to field t2 medium drones and lights. So... where does the NH fit in? With rail bonuses that would make it the premier 250mm II platform in range and damage... something that only a megathron does with 425mm rails atm. But... no... your right... lets keep it a mediocre pile of dung so we can buy them at 160mil for several months to stockpile them. Team Minmatar
Annabella Rose	Posted - 2006.07.08 07:43:00 - [498] How about 7 missile slots instead of 6 Battlecruiser Skill Bonus 10% bonus to Heavy missile target navigation prediction Command Ships Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to heavy missile Kinetic damage and 5% bonus to heavy missile and assault missile launcher ROF per lvl I havent done the math but this should be quite close ? btw. the Vulture allready is a Hybrid sniper Platform so why you guys suggest two sniper command ships
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.07.08 08:17:00 - [499] Originally by: Annabella Rose btw. the Vulture allready is a Hybrid sniper Platform so why you guys suggest two sniper command ships because it could do more damage Team Minmatar
Necrologic	Posted - 2006.07.08 08:43:00 - [500] Originally by: Kaylana Syi Originally by: Annabella Rose btw. the Vulture allready is a Hybrid sniper Platform so why you guys suggest two sniper command ships because vulture doesn't do any damage Fixed for accuracy I would be happy with the suggested rail platform as long as it had the grid for it.
Ishmael Hansen	Posted - 2006.07.08 11:57:00 - [501] NH atm is just crap, everyone have seen it by now. I only don't regret the BC lvl 5 I trainned cos in a few weeks sleipnir, here I go.
Double TaP	Posted - 2006.07.08 14:36:00 - [502] Yes, and the vulture doesn't do any damage, and it doesn't need to. The t1 merlin, isnt a missile boat, so why is the hawk? Because some people use missiles and some people use hybrids. Its okay if they make the nighthawk a missile boat, and its okay if they make it a rail platform. The problem is that right now, its just a floating pile of jet black crap. The problem with making the nighthawk much of a rail platform is that its maneuverability and speed is so bad im not quite sure how its going to pull it off. It cant very well do anything if all the ships it goes against dictate the range. Thats why i think its fine as a missile boat. It doesn't move around much, it just hits what it can whenever they get in range. The problem is that it hits about the same as a caracal. If you're going to make it a rail platform, which I wouldn't be against, but is going to cause a lot of the missile users who trained for it to whine, you're going to have to make it a pimped up Eagle. A ship that does about 150% the damage of the eagle. If you're going to just leave it how it is as a missile boat, and change the bonuses, well than ******* do it soon.
Ishmael Hansen	Posted - 2006.07.08 15:04:00 - [503] Originally by: Double TaP Yes, and the vulture doesn't do any damage, and it doesn't need to. The t1 merlin, isnt a missile boat, so why is the hawk? Because some people use missiles and some people use hybrids. Its okay if they make the nighthawk a missile boat, and its okay if they make it a rail platform. The problem is that right now, its just a floating pile of jet black crap. The problem with making the nighthawk much of a rail platform is that its maneuverability and speed is so bad im not quite sure how its going to pull it off. It cant very well do anything if all the ships it goes against dictate the range. Thats why i think its fine as a missile boat. It doesn't move around much, it just hits what it can whenever they get in range. The problem is that it hits about the same as a caracal. If you're going to make it a rail platform, which I wouldn't be against, but is going to cause a lot of the missile users who trained for it to whine, you're going to have to make it a pimped up Eagle. A ship that does about 150% the damage of the eagle. If you're going to just leave it how it is as a missile boat, and change the bonuses, well than ******* do it soon. Can we make it 150% damage of the Thorax, the eagle damage would be crappy.
Double TaP	Posted - 2006.07.08 15:26:00 - [504] Originally by: Ishmael Hansen Originally by: Double TaP Yes, and the vulture doesn't do any damage, and it doesn't need to. The t1 merlin, isnt a missile boat, so why is the hawk? Because some people use missiles and some people use hybrids. Its okay if they make the nighthawk a missile boat, and its okay if they make it a rail platform. The problem is that right now, its just a floating pile of jet black crap. The problem with making the nighthawk much of a rail platform is that its maneuverability and speed is so bad im not quite sure how its going to pull it off. It cant very well do anything if all the ships it goes against dictate the range. Thats why i think its fine as a missile boat. It doesn't move around much, it just hits what it can whenever they get in range. The problem is that it hits about the same as a caracal. If you're going to make it a rail platform, which I wouldn't be against, but is going to cause a lot of the missile users who trained for it to whine, you're going to have to make it a pimped up Eagle. A ship that does about 150% the damage of the eagle. If you're going to just leave it how it is as a missile boat, and change the bonuses, well than ******* do it soon. Can we make it 150% damage of the Thorax, the eagle damage would be crappy. hehe the thought of ever seeing a blasterhawk seems very wrong for some reason. how about we just fix the missile bonuses?
Tovarishch	Posted - 2006.07.08 16:52:00 - [505] Edited by: Tovarishch on 08/07/2006 16:52:17 Originally by: Kaylana Syi Its not a very mobile ship. You don't fly Command Ships because you are seeking high mobility. Originally by: Kaylana Syi Its prime targets with the current bonuses... Yes, that's why we are posting in a thread regarding changing it's bonuses. Stunning! Originally by: Kaylana Syi Any ship capable of tackling and fielding 5 small t2 drones will be as capable as it. So now what you have is a ship that seeks a role with new bonuses to do another role. See my previous response above. Originally by: Kaylana Syi Well... here is the other problem. You can give it good damage bonuses but its still not going to amount to a good skilled raven since both ships move about the same agile movement. Your raven stats might not look like a better tanker but it has more diversity and cap and the ability to field t2 medium drones and lights. Once again... the Raven is a battleship... meaning it's going to be using cruises and torps... which have a field of usefulness different than heavy missiles and the upcoming heavy rockets. Different ship, different bonuses, different weapons. This is not rocket science. (Pun intended). Why do you insist on comparing them because they are both slow and lack agility? That's akin to saying that Motherships and Battleships are vying for the same role because they are both slow and lack agility. It comes down to bonuses. I've said that enough times now. Only two things in life are certain... and Mercenary Coalition doesn't do taxes.
Necrologic	Posted - 2006.07.09 08:45:00 - [506] I've been getting a bunch of pvp experiance in this thing as i'm trying to find a way to make it useful. So far i'm failing. The only thing i've killed is a rifter, and only because he sat on a gate and didn't jump while i unloaded the 4 or 5 vollies it took (no precision). PLEASE fix this thing!
Double TaP	Posted - 2006.07.09 16:30:00 - [507] Originally by: Necrologic I've been getting a bunch of pvp experiance in this thing as i'm trying to find a way to make it useful. So far i'm failing. The only thing i've killed is a rifter, and only because he sat on a gate and didn't jump while i unloaded the 4 or 5 vollies it took (no precision). PLEASE fix this thing! lol welcome to the club. the only thing thats made this ship worth anything is that it can tank reasonably well. but the damage problem is rather pestering especially since tux or anyone else hasnt said anything. i mean i feel for the man, he shouldn't have to respond to every "tux plz fix this" but this is 17, about to become 18, and still climbing pages long so theres probably an issue. id really like to see this fixed. or something said about the being fixed. because so far i have no indication that anythings going to be done.
Ishmael Hansen	Posted - 2006.07.09 17:44:00 - [508] Want to trade 28m sp's caldari character able to fly Nighthawk for one able to fly sleipnir.
SavageThrash	Posted - 2006.07.09 18:41:00 - [509] I had a dream that tux replied to this thread and said it was going to be fixed on Sunday, unfortunatly it was only aa dream :( 17 days till amarr cruiser 5
Ishmael Hansen	Posted - 2006.07.10 12:32:00 - [510] is this thread dying?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.