Originally by: Hamatitio

---

I dont know, it just seems like caldari got shafted in the FCS category. Astarte / Absolution do like 1300 DPS, we have 2 things that can snipe frigates. Hopefully it will be another cerberus thing though, where they truly do start to shine beyond DPS.

---

Originally by: Vina

---

Nighthawk has 40km range on heavy missiles...

---

Originally by: Tuxford

---

Vulture's targetting range seems a bit low.

As for the Nighthawk's damage output then I don't think the comparison with Absolution and Astarte are exactly fair. Heavy missiles are a long range weapon, neutron blasters are a short range weapon. Sadly there is no cruiser size short range missile but that will hopefully be added sometime in the near future.

---

Originally by: Tuxford

---

but that will hopefully be added sometime in the near future.

---

Originally by: Hamatitio

---

I dont know, it just seems like caldari got shafted in the FCS category. Astarte / Absolution do like 1300 DPS, we have 2 things that can snipe frigates. Hopefully it will be another cerberus thing though, where they truly do start to shine beyond DPS.

---

Originally by: Nafri

---

Originally by: Tuxford

---

Vulture's targetting range seems a bit low.

As for the Nighthawk's damage output then I don't think the comparison with Absolution and Astarte are exactly fair. Heavy missiles are a long range weapon, neutron blasters are a short range weapon. Sadly there is no cruiser size short range missile but that will hopefully be added sometime in the near future.

---

Uz, even when you compare them to a astarte with 250er rails, the nighthawk is loosing big time.

---

Originally by: Nafri

---

sorry, but a 300mio ISK ship just to be decent at killing frigs is bull****. A caracal with precision missles does the same job as a Nighthawk, for only 20million isk.


Sleipnier, Astarte and Absolution are real monsters in terms of DPS and tanking, a Nighthaw has a nice tank...

---

Originally by: Jin Entres

---

Originally by: Nafri

---

sorry, but a 300mio ISK ship just to be decent at killing frigs is bull****. A caracal with precision missles does the same job as a Nighthawk, for only 20million isk.


Sleipnier, Astarte and Absolution are real monsters in terms of DPS and tanking, a Nighthaw has a nice tank...

---

Again, heavy missiles are long range weapons. The lack of short range heavy missiles is indeed an issue, but a separate one. And like I said, DPS is not everything. It's the damage dealt after resistances that matters. Or why do you think the Raven still wins over a Blasterthron at close range, dare I say, most of the time?

---

Originally by: Tuxford

---

Vulture's targetting range seems a bit low.

As for the Nighthawk's damage output then I don't think the comparison with Absolution and Astarte are exactly fair. Heavy missiles are a long range weapon, neutron blasters are a short range weapon. Sadly there is no cruiser size short range missile but that will hopefully be added sometime in the near future.

---

Originally by: Jin Entres

---

As for Vulture, and other Fleet Command ships, how would changing the fourth (or is it third?) bonus to an efficiency bonus for all gang mods or say signature radius reduction? I would really like these ships to fit their role better, instead of having a T1 BC with the same efficiency but much less specialization and risk ISKwise.

The existing efficiency bonus, 3% is, in my opinion, also rather insignificant and would be better if it applied to all warfare links instead of effectively limiting ships to their racial unbalanced modules.

And of course, while we're on the subject, new types of warfare links wouldn't also hurt!

Well, anyway, the community demands many features, changes and content but there is only so much you can do for us. So, I don't mean to sound demanding, I'm just being hopeful. And if I didn't already say it, thanks for the Command Ships in the first place!

---

Originally by: Nafri

---

sorry, but a 300mio ISK ship just to be decent at killing frigs is bull****. A caracal with precision missles does the same job as a Nighthawk, for only 20million isk.


Sleipnier, Astarte and Absolution are real monsters in terms of DPS and tanking, a Nighthaw has a nice tank...

---

Originally by: Nadec Ascand

---

Originally by: Nafri

---

sorry, but a 300mio ISK ship just to be decent at killing frigs is bull****. A caracal with precision missles does the same job as a Nighthawk, for only 20million isk.


Sleipnier, Astarte and Absolution are real monsters in terms of DPS and tanking, a Nighthaw has a nice tank...

---

hum ur caracal need T2 missiles wich mean malus, add to that that ur caracal will die so fast againt any cruiser in close range setup.

---

Originally by: elFarto

---

Edited by: elFarto on 24/03/2006 09:43:21

Originally by: Vina

---

Nighthawk has 40km range on heavy missiles...

---

40km? The Nighthawk can lock as far as the Ferox can, and neither have a bonus to max. flight time/velocity, but in my Ferox I can shoot missile over 60km. I don't even have maxed missile skills.

Is there something I'm missing?

Regards
elFarto

---

Originally by: Nadec Ascand

---

did not try.
and still wondering between caldari and gallente one...

but isn't the nighthawk with this bonus a WTFP evry small target? and for that a support against all kind of inty/frig/cruiser instead of being a dmg machine?

---

Originally by: j0sephine

---

"as for the cerb actually its cost same or much more than the nighhawk "

Which just hints how much better the Nighthawk, her abilities and her bonus set is perceived by general public.

I.e. no better at all or even less preferable than regular HAC...

"engineered specifically to wreak havoc on a battlefield of many."

"geared more towards out-and-out combat."

"As befits one of the largest weapons manufacturers in the known world, Kaalakiota's ships are very combat focused."

hrhr. "it might be a piece of junk, but it's highly specialized at being it..." :/

---

Originally by: Tuxford

---

Vulture's targetting range seems a bit low.

As for the Nighthawk's damage output then I don't think the comparison with Absolution and Astarte are exactly fair. Heavy missiles are a long range weapon, neutron blasters are a short range weapon. Sadly there is no cruiser size short range missile but that will hopefully be added sometime in the near future.

---

Originally by: me

---

Again, heavy missiles are long range weapons. The lack of short range heavy missiles is indeed an issue, but a separate one. And like I said, DPS is not everything. It's the damage dealt after resistances that matters. Or why do you think the Raven still wins over a Blasterthron at close range, dare I say, most of the time?

---

Originally by: shakaZ XIV

---

As for the astarte/absolution: dps is no where near 1300, 750-850 dps or so is more realistic for Astarte (but keep in mind, its really slow, getting in blaster range is a huge pain) and 600-700 for absolution with pulse II + conflagration (not counting the 1 med nos, ofc you could fit a hvy launcher for another 30 dps...). Absolution's range with pulses is also really low.

---

Originally by: Tousaka Langley

---

What the nighthawk lacks in fire power it makes up for in survivability.

Is the impression I am getting.

---

Originally by: Vina

---

Originally by: Tousaka Langley

---

What the nighthawk lacks in fire power it makes up for in survivability.

Is the impression I am getting.

---

Incorrect.

The absolution has a better tank than a sacriledge, and more damage output than a zealot, by comparison.

---

Originally by: Nafri

---

sorry, but a 300mio ISK ship just to be decent at killing frigs is bull****. A caracal with precision missles does the same job as a Nighthawk, for only 20million isk.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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."

---

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?

---

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.

---

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)

---

Originally by: j0sephine

---

"ROF bonuses give rapidly diminishing returns."

err, no, they don't.

* 5% rof: 1 / 0.95 = 1.05 ... 5% more damage than base
* 10% rof: 1 / 0.90 = 1.11 ... 5.5% more damage than previous level
* 15% rof: 1 / 0.85 = 1.17 ... ~5.9% more damage than previous level
* 20% rof: 1 / 0.80 = 1.25 ... 6.25% more damage than previous level
* 25% rof: 1 / 0.75 = 1.33 ... ~6.7% more damage than previous level

... there's no diminishing returns here but to the contrary, each level grants you higher damage increase than the previous one.


"More bonuses only give tiny fractions of a second in improved ROF. A ROF bonus skill is not worth training at level 4 or 5 really, for the time spent on the training -- at least not as worthwhile as low levels for ROF or high levels of damage bonus skills."

This is completely wrong as you can see from the above. It might look like you are getting less out of higher levels of RoF bonus because raw amount of time taken away appears smaller ... but you are actually getting more increase in damage over time from these levels, than you get from regular damage bonus skill which always adds the same bonus amount ... while the RoF bonus keeps growing higher and higher.

---

Originally by: Tousaka Langley

---

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.

---

Originally by: j0sephine

---

"Tell me what the new T2 heavy launcher ROF should be, and I'll see if it agrees with what Show Info tells me it is."

Uhmm since you can already tell the final value by checking the Show Info, then what's the point of this..? o.O

but anyway, it should go like:

12 (base) * 0.9 (launcher skill * 0.91 (rapid launch) * 0.96 (specialization) * 0.8 (hac skill) * 0.895 (single bcu) * 0.97 (implant) ... 6.5527 sec or so

if you train the HAC skill to next level, it'll cut the time down to 6.14 sec, and increases your damage over time by ~6.7% ... i.e. quite a bit more than the "5% rof bonus per level" would made it sound. In similar way, training Rapid Launch skill to lvl.4 would cut the launch time to 6.33 seconds... it's just 0.2 second, but it means ~3.5% more damage over time, i.e. also quite a bit more than "3% faster rate of fire" description indicates.

---

Originally by: Maya Rkell

---

You know as well as I do that even with nerfed prescisons it's gonna be godly against frigs, and better still be able to do that at long range.

---

Originally by: Redblade

---

No but if there are several friggs they can alternate some to make your life harder, was more trying to point out that 30k for a long range weapon isn't realy long range.

Just compare it to any range criuser gun like beam laser or railgun, hell even use t1 and u will have way better range, and if u use t2 guns with t2 ammo the differance is insane even without range bonuses, deimos with 250 rails and spike can get over 100k optimal easy.

---

Originally by: Tousaka Langley

---

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.

---

Originally by: Naal Morno

---

Nighthawk 'frigate swatter' role is completely redundant with any missile cruiser using precision ammo... There is no need for this kind of role to be filled with uber expensive T2 ship a 20mil cruiser can fulfill. Or a raven with heavy launchers for that matter

The ship's bonuses should be adjusted to reflect other Field Command Ships' improved damage performance over their HAC little brothers.

---

Originally by: hired goon

---

Imagine if you were having sex but the girl turned into Margaret Thatcher just as you were approaching climax. That's why we hate WCS.

---

Originally by: Tuxford

---

As for the Nighthawk's damage output then I don't think the comparison with Absolution and Astarte are exactly fair. Heavy missiles are a long range weapon, neutron blasters are a short range weapon. Sadly there is no cruiser size short range missile but that will hopefully be added sometime in the near future.

---

Originally by: Maya Rkell

---

Try this bonus set as an idea:

BC:

5% to missile RoF per level
5% to shield resistances per level

Command ship:

10% to missile explosion velocity per level
15% to missile speed per level

---

Originally by: Necrologic

---

Originally by: shakaZ XIV

---

As for the astarte/absolution: dps is no where near 1300, 750-850 dps or so is more realistic for Astarte (but keep in mind, its really slow, getting in blaster range is a huge pain) and 600-700 for absolution with pulse II + conflagration (not counting the 1 med nos, ofc you could fit a hvy launcher for another 30 dps...). Absolution's range with pulses is also really low.

---

Uhh, i already get 700 dps just with my brutix and i only have level 4 skills in most areas. 1100+ dps for the astarte is compleatly realistic.

---

Quote:

---

The Caldari cruisers won't be that good anti-frigate post-prescision nerf.

---

Originally by: j0sephine

---

Edited by: j0sephine on 26/03/2006 22:26:47

"Prescision cruise are being nerfed. NH will then be the best ship."

Nah, Nighthawk gets the bonus to heavy missiles only, which still makes her a pointless ship.

consider tech.1 missiles:

* heavy missile on Nighthawk with maxed out ship and skill boosts: 70.3 m explosion radius, 1.7 km/sec explosion velocity, 150 hp base damage

* light missile with just skill boosts: 37.5 m explosion radius, 2.6 km/sec explosion velocity, 75 hp base damage

vs average 30'ish meter large frigate the damage reduction means heavy missile will be hitting for ~64 hp, the light missile for ~60... but the rate of fire on assault launcher is 80% of heavy launcher RoF, which means effective damage is 64 vs (60 / 0.8) = 75. This gets even worse when shooting fast ships like interceptors, which also trigger the explosion velocity damage reduction.

Nighthawk has one launcher more, but missile ships like Caracal and Cerberus have bonus to launcher RoF, which more than makes up for that on top of higher damage dealt to small ships when using assault launchers. Heavy missiles have ~40 km extra range, but both missile ships have bonus to missile velocity which brings that questionable advantage down to 20 km or even none (Cerberus)

In the end, the "best ship" is really a strange attempt at creating something that's good vs both cruiser and frigate sized targets ... and thanks to dumb set of bonuses winds up being good at neither of these things -- ships focused on killing cruisers can kill them more efficiently, ships focused on killing frigates can kill them more efficiently, too. Which means "on the battlefield of many" Nighthawk has no role, because there's already ships present there that can do everything she can do, better.

To briefly re-iterate: as frigate swatter no matter if precision missiles are in game or not, this ship sucks. As regular damage dealer she sucks even more.

Considering the prices of these ships... that's a lot of isk paid for lot of suck ¼¼;

edit: and if this being sucky jack of all trades thing is indeed something that makes Nighthawk the best field command ship out of them all, then fine... like i said earlier, let's give them all this great role, then -- knock down one turret from each, and replace one damage bonus with bonus to turret tracking. Then they'll be all like Nighthawk which is only fair. Let's spread this love that was for strange reson bestowed just on Caldari around... so that all can experience it XD

---

Originally by: Nadec Ascand

---

does anyone consider that with right skill only at 4 (missile bombardement and missile projection)
thoose heavy missile will go to 73,5km and with it to 5 84,375km...

and that with thoose precision heavy it would fire at 44,5 or 51,2km.. and this with an explosion velocity of 2100/2250 and an exp radius of 32 (skill 4 and cs 4) to 28,125.

and thoose still with 150 dmg...

so yeah the role is may be hard to use... but still.

---

Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda

---

Yeah, I agree with j0 on all of this. Let's just say Yuki Li won't be training Battlecruiser V until the Nighthawk's damage output is fixed.

Please, think of the Yukis.

---

Originally by: Kayosoni

---

I already trained it, and now I feel pretty ******

---

Originally by: Drayce

---

Originally by: Kayosoni

---

I already trained it, and now I feel pretty ******

---

Don't feel that way mate, I got myself a Nighthawk a couple weeks back and with 6x tech II launchers and a shield command module this thing is great for ganging up and doing higher level complexs, not to mention it flys level 3 missions faster than anything else I've flown (no need to get up close and personal with a blaster setup, just sit there and blow everything up).

I agree that in PvP it wouldn't shine so good as some of the other races equivalents but that's when I'll dust off my Vulture, sit at long range and run 3 shield command modules, trying to pick off any frigates or cruisers that come looking for an easy target (Antimatter gets a pretty good optimal).

There's always going to be people whining that theirs is better than mine... the grass always looks greener from the other side; be happy with what you have got, I know I am

---

Originally by: Maya Rkell

---

j0sephine, hence my suggestion. And versus a frigate, well..

Yuki, in case you haven't noticed the devs seem heck bent on removing the assualt launcher in favour of the heavy rocket, so that'll be GONE when they get round to it. And the Eagle is only useful for anti-frigate work at range, and has other uses as a long range sniper.

Note that I said I don't agree with the entire UberHAC concept and would like to see the other CBC's changed as well.

And again, given the "small ships are overpowered" whining...say, where ARE those people. Um yea, anyway, anti-frigate IS a real T2 role and you're beith both short sighted and narrow minded by dismissing the value of a Nighthawk if it was given a better bonus set rather than turning it into a bad copy of the Cerb.

---

Originally by: Maya Rkell

---

Edited by: Maya Rkell on 27/03/2006 23:46:46
Let me put this in small words.

It won't soon.

No more assualt launchers.
Nerfed prescision cruise.

The Nighthawk is a CBC. Not an Assualt Battlecruiser. They shouldn't BE an ABC.

---

Originally by: Prometheus Wrong

---

I wish I had something more to contribute other than my personal experience of flying both Nighthawks and Cerberi on my uber Caldari flying alt. The number presented here illustrating the utter sub-par-itude of the Nighthawk's damage dealing capabilities do not lie. It is DRAMATICALLY underpowered compared to the other racial field CBCs.

My one guess might be that they were thinking to introduce the new cruiser missile class and that their damage will come at the expense of torp-like sig radius and target velocity penalties. jO has already pointed out though, that long range setups on the other BCs do not suffer the Nighthawks abysmal damage dealing handicap. Frankly, if the new ammo is going to need sig and velocity help, I'll mount a target painter and a webber, and would MUCH prefer boni that better match the other field CBCs, not to mention the Nighthawk's description.

Thank you jO, btw, for so eloquently and consistently illustrating and supporting the points you have: I swear, some of these guys just want to argue. There is simply no way around the fact that the Nighthawk needs love.

---

Originally by: Mack Dorgeans

---

Now I know this will be shouted down by some, but wouldn't it be nice if the Nighthawk were a command ship version of the Raven? Give it dual rate-of-fire bonuses, missile velocity and flight time bonuses. Then it could hit as far out as a Cerberus, but could select damage types like a Raven (and thus also make non-kinetic heavy missiles more useful).

It seems to me the role of command ship would be better filled by a long-range bomber that can manage the battlefield than by a medium to low range frigate killer. It also plays to the Caldari racial trait of favoring long-range weapons.

I'm sure there are those who will say this makes the ship too uber, since missiles are not as limited by range concerns and other mitigating factors as turrets are. What would be another alternative then?

---

Originally by: Mack Dorgeans

---

I'm sure there are those who will say this makes the ship too uber, since missiles are not as limited by range concerns and other mitigating factors as turrets are. What would be another alternative then?

---

Originally by: Tuxford

---

Vulture's targetting range seems a bit low.

As for the Nighthawk's damage output then I don't think the comparison with Absolution and Astarte are exactly fair. Heavy missiles are a long range weapon, neutron blasters are a short range weapon. Sadly there is no cruiser size short range missile but that will hopefully be added sometime in the near future.

---

Originally by: "Oveur"

---

I don't react to threats any better than you do

---

Originally by: Mack Dorgeans

---

You mean to tell me a ship that can deal any damage type at long range isn't useful in a group? Plus there's the ability to mount a warfare link module still.

Anyway, I forgot about the innate resistance bonus, so I guess it should be that with one ROF bonus, missile velocity, and missile flight time. That still makes the Cerberus a better pure DPS ship, but gives the Nighthawk the damage selection advantage.

---

Originally by: Maya Rkell

---

Yea, if you accept the idea that a Command BC should be a better warship than a Heavy Assualt Cruiser.

Sigh. Logical disconinuity (sp) there - it's also bad for gameplay, and they're new enough to fix.

---

Originally by: Corn Meal

---

just got into my Nighthawk and vultures and WTF.... this is such trash compared to any others arround?



"
Battlecruiser Skill:
5% Shield Resistances
5% Heavy Missile Kinetic Damage

Command Ships Skill:
10% Heavy Missile Launcher ROF
5% Heavy Missile Kinetic Damage

---

Originally by: HippoKing

---

Originally by: Corn Meal

---

just got into my Nighthawk and vultures and WTF.... this is such trash compared to any others arround?



"
Battlecruiser Skill:
5% Shield Resistances
5% Heavy Missile Kinetic Damage

Command Ships Skill:
10% Heavy Missile Launcher ROF
5% Heavy Missile Kinetic Damage

---

3 damage bonuses?

---

Originally by: KilROCK

---

Originally by: Arkanor

---

Gallente missileboat might be cool.

---

Pod yourself till you got no skills.[

Originally by: Maya Rkell

---

Denrace,

A Field *COMMAND* ship is still a Command ship, and it should not be able to outdamage a HAC. I agree that it's not enough command right now...I believe I posted a suggestion about that earlier in the thread (Fleet= 3 modules, 10% bonus per lvl, Field = 2 modules).

There is every justification from my POV for altering all four ships.

And I'd again point out that once there are no assualt launchers firing light missiles, and prescision missiles are nerfed, it WILL have a unique role (and yes, it needa a missile speed bonus).

---

Originally by: El Yatta

---

100% NO to Nighthawk getting RoF or double damage bonus, and 100% NO to Astarte/Absolution/Sleipnir keeping theirs.

---

Originally by: Denrace

---

Originally by: El Yatta

---

100% NO to Nighthawk getting RoF or double damage bonus, and 100% NO to Astarte/Absolution/Sleipnir keeping theirs.

---

I can respect this opinion. At least you aren't complaining how the NH is fine and should'nt be changed or anything.

your proposition would go down well because it implies balance between all 4 ships.

Right now, my main point is that as they are now the Nighthawk is severely lacking.

---

Originally by: j0sephine

---

"Don't you think though, that boosting the Nighthawk damage-wise, to match the Astarte/Absolution/Sleipnir as they are now would be counter-productive in the long run, as once the devs have "taken a look" at CBCs, they're likely to shelve them until next time there's a general balance overhaul, which could be over a year, by which time LOADS of people will be able to fly them, and be perfectly happy with their ridiculous role of putting out mega-HAC damage and tanking like gods as well."

I can live with Nighthawk being left sucky like she is, if there's dev statement made, that indicates intention to bring the other field commands to the same level _now_ (not in a year) ... and if they actually follow through with that decision, reasonably promptly.

Otherwise you're talking pretty much about leaving one ship crippled while the other 3 run around as "uber HACs" for 'what could be over a year' ... which doesn't exactly address the issue of loads of people being able to fly them by then and perfectly happy with their overdone abilities, does it? :<

---

Originally by: Kaylana Syi

---

Originally by: Tuxford

---

Vulture's targetting range seems a bit low.

As for the Nighthawk's damage output then I don't think the comparison with Absolution and Astarte are exactly fair. Heavy missiles are a long range weapon, neutron blasters are a short range weapon. Sadly there is no cruiser size short range missile but that will hopefully be added sometime in the near future.

---

Look tux... you *DARE* look into these ships after neglecting the Minmatar targetting range for 2 years? You are treading on thin ice... don't come into the game or I pod you with tomB hax.

---

Originally by: El Yatta

---

Sorry, I wasnt being clear. When I said "could be over a year", I was referring to the next time CBCs got balanced against whatever is around and popular at the time, not the (hopefully) upcoming change. In this upcoming change, [which I pray is before Kali], you want Nighthawk boosted, I want ALL EIGHT changed quite significantly. Mine is more work, but better for the game.

My proposal isnt to "leave the nighthawk sucky" and "bring the others down", although IF you think of their role as solo ubar-warships, that would be the effect. It is to change their role entirely, so properly fill the niche they are described as and were billed for - Command ships to Gang-Assist gangs.

---

Originally by: Maya Rkell

---

"more towards out-and-out combat" | "UberHAC"

Mack Dorgeans, the devs get things wrong all the time. Take...missile armong distance. Remember THAT? I do...if I think they're wrong, I will dissent. A COMMAND BC has no reason, stated or otherwise, to seriously outperform a HAC in damage (I'm fine with them being able to tank well, and indeed it's necessary.)

In the end, no, it's not a critical issue - but I do think it's worth making my feelings on the matter clear.


Denrace,

As had been stated many times before - assualt launchers are being replaced with heacy rockets, and prescision missiles nerfed. Caracals and Cerbs will NOT be able to fill that role...and the Nighthawk WILL. And it shouldn't be an "upgrade" on the Cerb, it's not an assualt BC, it's a command one. It should have a different role.

---

Originally by: Mack Dorgeans

---

I never said they don't get things wrong. My point was I seriously doubt all the command ships were done wrong from their point of view.

---

Originally by: Denrace

---

Let's assume, just for now, that the NH was balanced and was in the same DPS league as the other three...

---

Originally by: Prometheus Wrong

---

As an owner of a HAC, a FlCBC and a FiCBC BPO, I consider myself neutral enough on class vs. class to make this point to those saying the FiCBCs shouldn't be damage dealers: We already have 3 capital class ships and the T1 BCs that fit leaderhip mods, and the FlCBCs to specialize in them. The fact that the FiCBCs strike a ballance between gang leadership-type-ship and HAC is extreamly apropriet IMO. Indeed, I think it one of the Devs' finer moments of inspiration: the skills required to use them are reasonably steep, but tend to encorage more cooperative play (gang assit mods).

Also, bear in mind that by time Kali hits, we're going to have THREE T1 Battleship chassis and another Battlecruiser for T2 varients...what the hell are all these ships supposed to DO if not deal damage? As complex as EvE is, at the end of the day, most of what people are doing with their ships is blowing crap up and (I dare say) that's what a majority of us want more variety in. Besides, if you've actually flown one of these things, they move and corner about like a battleship: HARDLY a replacement for something like a Vagabond or Deimos.

And yes, Devs, SERIOUSLY...some excellent suggestions here for alternatives to the frig-swatting bonuses the Nighthawk has been cursed with.

---

Originally by: Jagaroth

---

I'm a bit disappointed with mine... because it's no better than a Ferox for command links. As long as it has a good tank and the ability to bum its way onto a killmail I won't be too bothered IF it confers a useful set of bonuses on the rest of the gang.
However, at the moment it even doesn't do that very well.

*Jagaroth wanders off to go and buy a Vulture.

---

Originally by: Denrace

---

Please Maya. Fly the NH, THEN post.

---

Originally by: Ithildin

---

That said, maybe certain CBCs do a bit too much damage (Astarte, Absolution, etc).

---

Originally by: Maya Rkell

---

Originally by: Jagaroth

---

I'm a bit disappointed with mine... because it's no better than a Ferox for command links. As long as it has a good tank and the ability to bum its way onto a killmail I won't be too bothered IF it confers a useful set of bonuses on the rest of the gang.
However, at the moment it even doesn't do that very well.

*Jagaroth wanders off to go and buy a Vulture.

---

Right. And THAT's the department they need boosting in.

Although, yes, RoF rather than kinetic damage plz.

---

Originally by: Mack Dorgeans

---

Originally by: Jin Entres

---

As for Vulture, and other Fleet Command ships, how would changing the fourth (or is it third?) bonus to an efficiency bonus for all gang mods or say signature radius reduction? I would really like these ships to fit their role better, instead of having a T1 BC with the same efficiency but much less specialization and risk ISKwise.

The existing efficiency bonus, 3% is, in my opinion, also rather insignificant and would be better if it applied to all warfare links instead of effectively limiting ships to their racial unbalanced modules.

And of course, while we're on the subject, new types of warfare links wouldn't also hurt!

Well, anyway, the community demands many features, changes and content but there is only so much you can do for us. So, I don't mean to sound demanding, I'm just being hopeful. And if I didn't already say it, thanks for the Command Ships in the first place!

---

On the topic of warfare link bonuses, I think the Vulture's shield-based warfare link bonus is the only thing that would make me want to fly it over say the Astarte. The Eos, on the other hand, seems to have gotten the worst warfare link type. If I were picking a ship based on its gang bonuses, I'd pick all the other fleet command ships before the Eos.

---

Originally by: ElCoCo

---

Originally by: Denrace

---

Please Maya. Fly the NH, THEN post.

---

Realy know.
Do you fly the other elite battlecruisers as well?

Cause that's the only way to make an accurate comparison

---

Originally by: Jin Entres

---

Originally by: Denrace

---

Let's assume, just for now, that the NH was balanced and was in the same DPS league as the other three...

---

The thing is, missile boats should never be in the same DPS league to be balanced. At least if we are talking about the raw damage dealt and not the damage received after resistances. Missiles do more of the latter because of their ability to choose damage type, and often guarantee a steady hitting success and better versatility at different ranges (bar long range which they suck at, in change).

---

Originally by: Iberi

---

Originally by: Jin Entres

---

Originally by: Denrace

---

Let's assume, just for now, that the NH was balanced and was in the same DPS league as the other three...

---

The thing is, missile boats should never be in the same DPS league to be balanced. At least if we are talking about the raw damage dealt and not the damage received after resistances. Missiles do more of the latter because of their ability to choose damage type, and often guarantee a steady hitting success and better versatility at different ranges (bar long range which they suck at, in change).

---

There is another side.
1. In PvP possibility to choose damage doesn't help much. You may win 10%, you may loose 10%.
2. Missile boats are heavy penalized by shot delay. It is serious penalty.
3. Missiles cannot hit MWDing frigates. At least bug missiles cannot.

---

Originally by: Tuxford

---

Vulture's targetting range seems a bit low.

As for the Nighthawk's damage output then I don't think the comparison with Absolution and Astarte are exactly fair. Heavy missiles are a long range weapon, neutron blasters are a short range weapon. Sadly there is no cruiser size short range missile but that will hopefully be added sometime in the near future.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Originally by: Krulla

---

Originally by: Kaylana Syi

---

Originally by: Tuxford

---

Vulture's targetting range seems a bit low.

As for the Nighthawk's damage output then I don't think the comparison with Absolution and Astarte are exactly fair. Heavy missiles are a long range weapon, neutron blasters are a short range weapon. Sadly there is no cruiser size short range missile but that will hopefully be added sometime in the near future.

---

Look tux... you *DARE* look into these ships after neglecting the Minmatar targetting range for 2 years? You are treading on thin ice... don't come into the game or I pod you with tomB hax.

---

Um. Minnies are supposed to have short locking ranges, but very fast locks... and caldari are the reverse. Where is the problem?

---

Originally by: j0sephine

---

"1. 1000 DPS to 70% resistance = 300 DPS leak, 1000 DPS to 60% resistance = 400 DPS, which is 33.3333% more effective damage. Don't let the numbers fool you."

10 seconds it takes to change the ammo to right type, presuming you actually get the right type after that switch: 300 dps x 10 sec ... that's 3000 hp you could do meanwhile if you just fired the old ammo. With 100 dps advantage of 'better' ammunition it will take you 30 seconds extra for total of 40 seconds just to break even with the 'less damage' option. And in this time you've dealt 12 k of damage to your target which given it's leak damage rather than plain damage, is more than enough to kill pretty much anything short of very odd setups.

Don't let the numbers fool you, indeed -.o

---

Originally by: Jin Entres

---

1. 1000 DPS to 70% resistance = 300 DPS leak, 1000 DPS to 60% resistance = 400 DPS, which is 33.3333% more effective damage. Don't let the numbers fool you.

---

Originally by: Jin Entres

---

2. For long ranges, yes. However, most PvP encounters take place within 20 or 30 kilometers. At that range the delay is non-existent (especially with precision and javelin missiles, and normal heavy missiles on a Nighthawk / Cerberus travel quite fast aswell).

---

Quote:

---

3. Heavy missiles can hit those frigates a lot better than medium sized guns will.

---

Originally by: Jin Entres

---

That is completely situation-dependent. Most armor tanks are vulnerable to EX, and shield tanks to EM, and a pilot with some know-how has the correct type most of the times fitted already.

---

Originally by: Talmssar

---

Quote:

---

The thing is, missile boats should never be in the same DPS league to be balanced. At least if we are talking about the raw damage dealt and not the damage received after resistances. Missiles do more of the latter because of their ability to choose damage type, and often guarantee a steady hitting success and better versatility at different ranges (bar long range which they suck at, in change).

---

1st non dev answer to this

Take 25% off from other TII BC's except one dmg type. Predictable.

2nd non dev answer to dev's not aswering here

They got bad problem here. IF they increase DMG output like rof or more dmg on NH it will increase dmg to frigs allso, thought it wont be so "good" as it is now. This would make "nerf NH it is uber" filled up here.

3rd Personal opinion. (Who cares? )

NH is good ship, Cerb is better as HAC vs TII BC comparison. NH is lousy EVEN with frig killing role atm. Even you can counter that you will get jammed by fof's but those do so low dmg compared to others wich can keep range. NH cannot do this wich was supposed to be Caldaris racial. So I dont say boost dmg to NH way as it where proposed because I dont want to listen whines about issue wich I allready mentioned.

So what would be solution? Maybe keep low range(to Caldari ship), low overall dmg (compared to "anything") but make it extreamly good vank... err tanker. No, why? Because then there will be other 3 races fliers (Yes, I fly Caldari ones) whining about it tanks like mad and still do dmg AND it would ruin mission / complex running by that change. What other NH may suit as racially? Shield tank, missiles, range. What about making normal missiles act like FOF's below range 20km? Uber idea and then we could have some DPS bonus, but it would be pretty hard to implement and it still MAY WTFP frigs close. Another shot.. make heavy missele bonus which adds dmg to it each second it have flied by X %.... and idea is doomed again as too hard to implement? Would it.. abit % more dmg per each X km traveled..

It is not easy to boost NH without making it still "too good" frig killer so would we nerf all others? That would mean 3 more time whining on those ship users.

So I'm shoutting to get dev's answer here. Please.

---

Originally by: j0sephine

---

"1. 1000 DPS to 70% resistance = 300 DPS leak, 1000 DPS to 60% resistance = 400 DPS, which is 33.3333% more effective damage. Don't let the numbers fool you."

10 seconds it takes to change the ammo to right type, presuming you actually get the right type after that switch: 300 dps x 10 sec ... that's 3000 hp you could do meanwhile if you just fired the old ammo. With 100 dps advantage of 'better' ammunition it will take you 30 seconds extra for total of 40 seconds just to break even with the 'less damage' option. And in this time you've dealt 12 k of damage to your target which given it's leak damage rather than plain damage, is more than enough to kill pretty much anything short of very odd setups.

Don't let the numbers fool you, indeed -.o

---

Originally by: Maya Rkell

---

Jim, or they could be command ships like they're supposed to be and not retarded UberHAC's.

Gee!

Why is it that 3 of the ships are very broken and one only mildly so, the other way? Not sure, but it needs fixing.

Plus, since you've evidently not read it... prescision missiles are being nerfed. NH will maintain the sweep capacity, other missile ships WON'T. Yes, it needs some fixing - my suggestions for that are earlier on in this thread.

And expecting a COMMAND BATTLECRUISER to be better than combat than a HEAVY ASSUALT CRUISER is the real joke here.

---

Originally by: j0sephine

---

Edited by: j0sephine on 19/04/2006 14:04:43

"That is completely situation-dependent."

Of course; which is exactly why ability to adjust damage type isn't anywhere near as useful as those lacking it due to their weapon choice believe. The grass may look greener and all that, but tbh about the only practical use of selecting missile damage is hunting the NPCs, or the inexperienced NPCers.

---

Originally by: j0sephine

---

"Most armor tanks are vulnerable to EX, and shield tanks to EM (..)"

Except for those who aren't and the funny setups that don't do the cookie cutter things. And the catch of loading EM to bust shield and exp to bust armour is, the other protection layer (armour for shield, shield for armour) is highly resistant to that very damage type, meaning quite a bit of what you gain hitting the 'real' defense, you lose hitting the 'other' defense either before or after you get to the meat part.

---

Originally by: j0sephine

---

Really, how often are you hit in PvP with only the missiles that hit you the hardest? And how often you meet people who take time to switch to other damage type during the fight..? (as opposed to regular reload break)

I have yet to see someone actually do it.

---

Originally by: Iberi

---

Edited by: Iberi on 19/04/2006 14:16:21

Originally by: Jin Entres

---

1. 1000 DPS to 70% resistance = 300 DPS leak, 1000 DPS to 60% resistance = 400 DPS, which is 33.3333% more effective damage. Don't let the numbers fool you.

---

Pity, but resistances are not known. And you may miss weakest enemy point. Evenmore, if you have more than one enemy you hardly could allow to switch missiles. So this advantage(it is advantage!) mainly for PvE where all things are predictable.

---

Originally by: Iberi

---

Originally by: Jin Entres

---

2. For long ranges, yes. However, most PvP encounters take place within 20 or 30 kilometers. At that range the delay is non-existent (especially with precision and javelin missiles, and normal heavy missiles on a Nighthawk / Cerberus travel quite fast aswell).

---

I mean you are behind the enemy at one or even two salvos. It is serious disadvantage.

---

Originally by: Iberi

---

Originally by: Jin Entres

---

3. Heavy missiles can hit those frigates a lot better than medium sized guns will.

---

Nope, reasonable MWDing frigate is immune to missiles. But occasionally may get good salvo from guns. And die.
Anyway NH as frigate killer can't concur even with Cerb. Real Piece Of ****.

---

Originally by: Iberi

---

Originally by: Jin Entres

---

That is completely situation-dependent. Most armor tanks are vulnerable to EX, and shield tanks to EM, and a pilot with some know-how has the correct type most of the times fitted already.

---

One hardener t2 will change this vulnerability dramatically. And you will loose battle.

---

Originally by: Denrace

---

"Most armor tanks are vulnerable to EX."

Not true.

Most BASE armour tanks are vulnerable, but thats why people fit Explosive armour hardeners, bringing all the base resistances up to around 50-60 with a very light tank.

---

Originally by: Maya Rkell

---

Jim Raynor,

Maybe. But I have a different view and they're new enough to change. So afaik it's worth saying.

---

Quote:

---

And who's said it? The names of the ship classes, maybe, just MAYBE? Y'know, read them again. Sure, there might be a more capeable T2 ship in Eve than the HAC, given time, but a COMMAND BC shouldn't be it.

---

Quote:

---

And yes, have you gone back and read my suggested bonuses? Also, yes, 1/3 damage...at under 10km. Right. Just clearing that up. And if you look through the thread, the nerf thing's been linked a bunch of times. And I hope they DOUBLE the penalties if they keep them as they are, because the retarded thing is missiles doing more damage as T2.

---

Quote:

---

And OHNOES, HASSLE FOR A FEW MOMENTS when you can sweep a 100km are arround you clear of frigates. My heart bleeds. Oh wait, that's my nose.

---

Originally by: Maya Rkell

---

Jim,

It's just that I'd like CBC's to be good at commanding things. Is that really so much to ask? Because right now, they're...not so hot for cost, compared to a normal BC. If there's a T2 assualt BS, then sure it's going to be nasty. But there are also more...interesting things to do with T2 BC's. Game balance dosn't need MORE uber combat ships.

Also, "competition" won't really drop HAC prices unless it makes them obselete. Look at interceptor prices and how they've held up. And no, not nerfing so they're "weaker", improving them so they're useful as COMMAND BC's, rather than UberHAC's. There's an unsubtle difference.

As for T2 amo, it's stupid and it's broken. Remove it, replace with T2 amo which does secondary effects rather than more damage (and hence needs no stupid penalties) and add faction missiles. Or nerf it into uselessness, either way works for me.

And yes, a few moments CAN kill you. But you WILL be able to sweep the floor with enemy interceptors (PS, Cruise, not torps).

---

Originally by: Maya Rkell

---

No, the bottom line is that none of them are what they say on the tin, COMMAND ships.

---

Quote:

---

Command ships are engineered specifically to wreak havoc on a battlefield of many. Sporting advanced command module interfaces, these vessels are more than capable of turning the tide in large engagements. Field command ships are geared more towards out-and-out combat than their fleet command counterparts, though both ships can hold their own in battle.

---

Originally by: Maya Rkell

---

No, the bottom line is that none of them are what they say on the tin, COMMAND ships.

---

Originally by: Jim Raynor

---

Originally by: Maya Rkell

---

No, the bottom line is that none of them are what they say on the tin, COMMAND ships.

---

There are two t2 battlecruisers per race, one is the one you are speaking of, the other is the uberHAC variant. We are discussing the uberHAC ones, the Nighthawk sucks at that role.

k thnx bye

---

Originally by: Maya Rkell

---

Originally by: Jim Raynor

---

Originally by: Maya Rkell

---

No, the bottom line is that none of them are what they say on the tin, COMMAND ships.

---

There are two t2 battlecruisers per race, one is the one you are speaking of, the other is the uberHAC variant. We are discussing the uberHAC ones, the Nighthawk sucks at that role.

k thnx bye

---

It's still called a command ship, and there is still no reason for it to be a UberHAC. (Uber tank with deacent firepower? Sure.)

---

Originally by: Maya Rkell

---

Jim,

It's just that I'd like CBC's to be good at commanding things. Is that really so much to ask? Because right now, they're...not so hot for cost, compared to a normal BC. If there's a T2 assualt BS, then sure it's going to be nasty. But there are also more...interesting things to do with T2 BC's. Game balance dosn't need MORE uber combat ships.

Also, "competition" won't really drop HAC prices unless it makes them obselete. Look at interceptor prices and how they've held up. And no, not nerfing so they're "weaker", improving them so they're useful as COMMAND BC's, rather than UberHAC's. There's an unsubtle difference.

As for T2 amo, it's stupid and it's broken. Remove it, replace with T2 amo which does secondary effects rather than more damage (and hence needs no stupid penalties) and add faction missiles. Or nerf it into uselessness, either way works for me.

And yes, a few moments CAN kill you. But you WILL be able to sweep the floor with enemy interceptors (PS, Cruise, not torps).

---

Originally by: j0sephine

---

So, we have the ship tanked against explosive and thermal with single tech.1 hardeners. But now a surprise, put these hp numbers against em resistances, presuming the target didn't bother to additionally secure their armour against em damage because it's already equal to hardened resistance against its weakest point, explosive:

1500 / 1.0 + 3000 / 0.4 = 9500 hp

... and turns out that ironically enough, lack of em resistance on shield makes em damage a better overall choice when shooting armour, than explosive damage would appear to be... you get to the meat faster, and it's just as hard/easy to get through armour as it'd be if using explosive. Who would have thought? ^^

Finally, firing kinetic missiles would land you somewhere in the middle if target is sporting also kinetic hardener. But would be best option if your ship had bonus to kinetic damage. Unless your target is running only two hardeners and protecting the weakest spots, explosive and kinetic.. but it could on the other hand be using adaptive nanos, instead. Or something yet different.

This just shows there's really so many possible variables to ship setups, that ability to load something specific in your launchers remains as advantage mostly on paper. In practice, you're running with something stuck in your launchers and either it happens to do good damage vs your target or it does not, by the time you find out there's too late to switch the damage type. Which is very similar to flying with turrets and their limited damage types, in the end...

---

Originally by: Maya Rkell

---

Originally by: Jim Raynor

---

Originally by: Maya Rkell

---

No, the bottom line is that none of them are what they say on the tin, COMMAND ships.

---

There are two t2 battlecruisers per race, one is the one you are speaking of, the other is the uberHAC variant. We are discussing the uberHAC ones, the Nighthawk sucks at that role.

k thnx bye

---

It's still called a command ship, and there is still no reason for it to be a UberHAC. (Uber tank with deacent firepower? Sure.)

---

Originally by: Denrace

---

The UBERHACs you so speak of are a necessary part of EVE.

---

Originally by: Hamatitio

---

Astarte / Absolution do like 1300 DPS

---

Originally by: j0sephine

---

"Where do people get these rediculous numbers?
My absolution does 732 DPS with conflag crystals using 6 heavy pulse II, 3 heat sink II, and command ships 5."

That's because you suck ;D

but no, more seriously with maxed out all skills and tech.2 crystals for Absolution it's something like 745 dps from lasers and 70 dps from 5x tech.2 small drones ... so ~817 dps total. Astarte hits somewhat harder, with blasters being shorter range heavier hitters and stuff.

---