EVE Search - The Nighthawk and the incredibly complex math surrounding it's bonuses

All Channels

Ships and Modules

The Nighthawk and the incredibly complex math surrounding it's bonuses

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Elenath Gallente The Vindaloo Enema Disasters	Posted - 2006.08.23 19:00:00 - [1] Have any Devs (or Tux) been able to finally confirm what most of the player-base has already known for months - that the Nighthawk sucks until it gets an ROF bonus... and that adding the new heavy rockets to balance the ship will only break the Cerberus? Or are we looking at more months of waiting till this deeply confounding issue can be resolved?
Elenath Gallente The Vindaloo Enema Disasters	Posted - 2006.08.23 19:39:00 - [2] Edited by: Elenath on 23/08/2006 19:42:29 Interesting... someone responds who is whining about someone who isn't whining by calling a whiner. I love watching children. Explain how the idea you presented could not also be achieved by using a Caracal... for nearly 2% of the price. And then maybe, just maybe, you could run the numbers on the DPS of the other combat Command Ships compared to the Nighthawk. Yes, please... we want a very expensive, VERY skill intensive anti-frigate platform. GREAT IDEA! Use... your... brain... then post.
Elenath Gallente The Vindaloo Enema Disasters	Posted - 2006.08.23 19:50:00 - [3] You, once again, managed to respond without answering any questions. All you are doing is crying like a child about Caldari being easy mode and other assorted garbage. Your corporation name fits you PERFECTLY. Please stay out of conversations until you have something of substance to say and can answer questions properly. Stop trolling, ruining threads (as I see you have done in other places), and grow up. Until then I'm ignoring your responses... which I have failed to do up to this point.
Elenath Gallente The Vindaloo Enema Disasters	Posted - 2006.08.23 20:22:00 - [4] Originally by: Waxau What everyone is annoyed with, as am i, is that the nighthawk has THE ONLY purely specialised role out of the field CBC. Astarte - damage...sleipnir - damage...absolution - damage...nighthawk - paper fan for flies Get real - we dont want all the ships uber, just as uber as the rest of the damn ships While I understand the underlying premise... and agree that all ships should not be cookie cutter replicas of one another... nearly every single person that I have spoken with that has any long-time experience in this game with Caldari ships has absolutely no desire for a very expensive anti-frigate platform that takes months to train for... particularly when it is no better at taking out frigates than any other mid-sized Caldari ship armed with heavy or assault launchers. The TNP bonus on the ship is next to useless... and without an ROF bonus the ship cannot even achieve the same DPS as a Cerberus... which is a ship class below Command Ships. All the other combat Command Ships have equivalent tanking ability with far superior damage output... even against frigates. The Nighthawk is, in every definition of the word, redundant. Not to mention... expensive, time consuming to train for... and completely sub-par when compared with it's counterparts.
Elenath Gallente The Vindaloo Enema Disasters	Posted - 2006.08.23 22:21:00 - [5] Originally by: DoctorColossal Pervius Edited by: DoctorColossal Pervius on 23/08/2006 22:01:58 Missles = multiple frig pawnage. Caldari command ships = super tanked whether passive/active or combo. Missles = zero cap use Allows for neutralisers to rip BS tanks I assume with probably one of the best tanks in game the Caldari Command ships need not worry mch about cap issues. With no way of disrupting their weapon systems apart from standard ECM it is yet another advantage. Not 100% sure of the point your making.... guess what? Ships are different! EDIT* drones can be.....targeted and shot down. Oooooh. If you have read all the intelligible responses in this thread (ergo. ignoring most of Vyperpit's responses) and you still do not understand what the problem is... then I have no idea what else to tell you. This is a long standing issue that many people have a problem with... this is not a new or complex issue. As for your comment about drones being 'shot down'... according to that argument... so can missiles.
Elenath Gallente The Vindaloo Enema Disasters	Posted - 2006.08.24 02:53:00 - [6] Originally by: Aeaus Saying the nighthawk is the best at killing support among all the CSs is like saying a megathron has the most cargo capacity of all BSs; it may be true, but it makes you look like an ignorant forum ***** with an agenda. It's not really what people want or really care about. Good point. Not to mention that most people who are so obviously anti-Caldari seem to be so suspiciously in support of keeping the Nighthawk the pile of crap that it is at the moment. BIG surprise there. I don't get the entire anti-Caldari easy mode crybaby crap anyway. Does hitting f1 through f8 to activate turrets make you incredibly skilled versus doing the same thing for missiles? 'Oh! But I have to watch my transversal too!'. Golly gee... let's hope you don't have to chew gum and walk at the same time anytime in the near future! Being a pilot who uses both turrets and missiles... I see absolutely no 'complexity' difference in combat situations... unless you are very short on brain cells at the time.
Elenath Gallente The Vindaloo Enema Disasters	Posted - 2006.08.24 03:29:00 - [7] Originally by: bldyannoyed And while the Nighthawk is undeniably tuffer than the Sleipnir ( the Sleip will eventually run out of cap is its huge tank is based on high boost which hammers ur cap) it wont kill me. A Sleipnir will make my Gankathron dead long before its cap is an issue, while a Nighthawk just sits there firing spit balls. Untill u load up Fury missiles. But then the Nighthawks cap is so gimped it cant even run its hardeners, let alone a shield booster. Anyways, the point is, YES, a Nighthawks damage is utterly awful, but while it has a tank that could scare Satan i dont see how anyone can justify a buff. If u wanna give it more damage, fine, but u have to keep its gank/tank ratio intact and get rid of some of its tank. And i bet there aren't many Caldari pilots who would be willing to give up their impenetrable shields. I'd be more than happy to have a Nighthawk with a tank/gank ratio equivalent to any of the other combat Command Ships. The problem, as you noticed, is that it is currently a nearly 200 mill isk anti-frigate Command Ship that is no better at filling that redundant role than many other ships costing fractions and requiring magnitudes less training time. That alone is the problem. Giving ships a role is great... making a very expensive, incredibly training intensive ship fit a role that many ships can fill with a fraction of the cost on a three month old character is not. The crux of the problem is that the TNP bonus on Nighthawk provides little to no DPS advantage... and when it does... it is ONLY against frigates that are going very, VERY fast... and will be taking little to no damage anyway. Grind the numbers on what that TNP bonus offers and you'll find the problem out quickly. A Nighthawk that is equivalent to any of the other combat Command Ships would make many, many pilots very pleased. As it stands now... it's crap... and it takes elementary school arithmetic to figure that out.
Elenath Gallente The Vindaloo Enema Disasters	Posted - 2006.08.24 18:50:00 - [8] Edited by: Elenath on 24/08/2006 18:54:04 Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff Maybe they should change the CS to the role it really should be - a platform to run Gang Assist modules off of.. Forget the damage bonuses, give it Gang bonuses.. It's a COMMAND ship, not a WtfpwnanyBS ship.. In usual military terms "command" does not mean "front-line".. It's suppossed to work in groups and make those groups more effective.. The way these things are set up now, they are just over-glorified HACs (except for the Nighthawk which is going to take backseat to the Drake).. And that's the way people play them, and the way most people in this thread have been treating them - a mini BS.. This is why two types of Command Ships exist. The ship you describe exists in the fleet Command Ship... which is designed specifically to assist groups. The other type... the 'combat' Command Ship... also serves a purpose... bringing both damage and some assistance capacity to the table. It nice to see people finally speaking up who have actual experience with the Nighthawk... as opposed to someone who shall remain nameless who simply had some uninformed opinion of the ship... and no actual experience... and then decided to troll the thread. As it stands now the Nighthawk is worse at killing frigates than many other ships. Firstly, I think the idea of a Command Ship dedicated to killing frigates is utterly worthless and a complete waste of training time. Secondly, in the case that someone would want to create such a craptastic ship... it would need bonuses that are more focused on that goal - missile flight time, Guided Missile Precision, kinetic damage, and ROF. The TNP bonus is WORTHLESS. Not to mention... if it were a dedicated anti-frigate platform then it should be a quick and agile ship. At the moment the Nighthawk is one of the slowest and least agile of all the Command Ships. Add to this the fact that its DPS is magnitudes lower than the other combat Command Ships and you have essentially created a ship that fills no particular role effectively... at all. The Nighthawk is a useless ship that is expensive in both training time and isk. It needs to be fixed... it needed to be fixed months ago and we've heard nothing.
Elenath Gallente The Vindaloo Enema Disasters	Posted - 2006.08.24 23:05:00 - [9] Edited by: Elenath on 24/08/2006 23:07:44 Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff Quote: This is why two types of Command Ships exist. The ship you describe exists in the fleet Command Ship... which is designed specifically to assist groups. The other type... the 'combat' Command Ship... also serves a purpose... bringing both damage and some assistance capacity to the table. Yeah the Fleet command ship does allow 3 modules at the same time (which is nice) however to be an effective "command ship" their bonuses should amplify the gang modules, not things like hybrid turrets or uber-gankage ability.. (begin wonkage at CCP) More to the point, the Field Command ship should ALSO allow 3 modules (or at least 2) to be a more effective CS.. Right now there is no rational reason to use a Field Command over a standard BC for gang assist.. BC also gets only one active gang module, plus it's cheaper, easier to pilot, and is about 10 times less likely to become a high priority target in large battles (people will target BS over a BC).. Plus, the CS generally has the same scan resolution, target range, and target limit as it's equivalent BC.. Maybe I'm just silly, but I kinda thought that being able to see/scan the entire battlefield was important to effectively command a fleet.. Basically, the CSs do not sufficently fit their role to validate their ridiculously high skill reqs, regardless of Field or Fleet.. Seems to me that CCP kinda dropped the ball on this ship category and caved into idiot players that just view the T2 ships as bigger, badder, better pwnmobiles rather than fitting specific niches.. I agree that the fundamental design of these ships falls far short of what they could (or should, in my opinion) be. Most of the problem, however, lies in the shortcomings of the Command modules... which lies outside the point of this post. I do like the concept of two different Command Ships... one leaning toward fleet/group assistance... and the other being more combat oriented. The 'combat' Command ships are not uber DPS ships. They do tank well... there's no denying that fact... but their DPS (depending on which of them you are talking about) usually falls short of a standard t1 battleship. The Nighthawk is the sole exception of any of the 'combat' Command ships that actually fails to attain the DPS of its 'counterpart' HAC. Every other combat Command ship is worth flying... and fills a rather useful niche. The Nighthawk not only joins myriad other ships in its role of 'frigate killer'... but it does so with a high cost... and a huge training prerequisite. The Nighthawk is simply garbage. Tux mentioned that he'd look at it months ago.. and we've heard nothing. Does it truly take months of analysis to reach the same informed conclusion that most everyone else who has piloted the ship has reached? That the ship itself is trash and that the Target Navigation Prediction bonus on the ship is, in every sense of the word, inconsequential. Seriously... waiting for months is getting old.
Elenath Gallente The Vindaloo Enema Disasters	Posted - 2006.08.25 00:09:00 - [10] Originally by: Kaylana Syi Until we get assault missiles the bonus needs to stay as is. If the assault missiles don't particulary benefit the bonus there should be changes shortly after. In answer from my original post - Originally by: Elenath the Nighthawk sucks until it gets an ROF bonus... and that adding the new heavy rockets to balance the ship will only break the Cerberus? The ship needs to be balanced independently. Balancing a ship based upon a nascent weapon system is a recipe for disaster.
Elenath Gallente The Vindaloo Enema Disasters	Posted - 2006.08.25 12:44:00 - [11] Edited by: Elenath on 25/08/2006 12:45:32 Originally by: Metacannibal this thread shows the vast disparity between mission runners and pvp'ers. sure, in missions, tanks never break because people run bazillion isk rigs. so that gist-x nighthawk is surely overly tanked, considering its ability to totally outtank a cerberus is nullified, since the cerberus could already tank the mission well. hence the yap yap yap about the crappy ship without sufficient damage, because in reality, all people want is a higher dps missionship. in the random, daily pvp enviroment, gank is often the least important factor, especially on command ships. i fly a cbc in pvp daily, and having a nighthawk in a gang is one of the best options. it is a shiny t2 ship with an extreme tank, usually the hostile fc targets it, making the worst call right there, allowing the nighthawks gang to win the fight while the nh tanks the attacks being half afk while still delivering a very very nice amount of damage to all kinds of targets. tank>gank in most cases, leaving ew out of the mix. in missions, that rule does not apply hence people want to overpower the nighthawk I can't figure out if this post is an attempt at being scarcastically entertaining... or if you are really serious... because my only experience with the Nighthawk is in PVP... which I do full time... and the Nighthawk absolutely sucks at PVP. Damage is FAR more important than tanking in PVP as most fights are all about warping in to a contact in gang... hitting a target and then getting out before you even have to tank. The Nighthawk isn't even as good at killing support as many other ships. You mention that you fly a CBC daily in PVP... but I venture to guess that the 'CBC' you are referring to is not a Nighthawk... otherwise you'd know how there is not one situation where you'd want one instead of a Cerberus... or a Caracal... or a Scorp... or a Blackbird... etc... etc...
Elenath Gallente The Vindaloo Enema Disasters	Posted - 2006.08.25 15:51:00 - [12] Originally by: Akiman tbh when i see nighthawks abilites ti hought it was awesome...but now u say it sux...well at least ppl cant tackle u :) if u want damage u have to take kinetic damage bonus tho i know you dont want it...u want rof to be more effective...i think its a trippy ship...got different ability...tho like someone said first u want more damage then want more tank it keeps going on and on...plus i think more missiles will be coming for u...maybe u wont need that bonus anymore? Inform yourself of the situation, read the post, think... then post. The Nighthawk already has a kinetic missile damage bonus. I have also not once asked that it tank better.... only that it be on par with the other three races of combat battlecruisers. It takes mediocre skill in elementary school math to figure out that it comes up WAY short when compared to all three other combat battlecruisers.
Elenath Gallente The Vindaloo Enema Disasters	Posted - 2006.08.25 16:48:00 - [13] Edited by: Elenath on 25/08/2006 16:49:04 PS. For those of you who have not flown the Nighthawk... or have some opinion regarding it without much hands-on evidence... here are some links to some solid Nighthawk discussion threads that will put some numbers to the problem. Link One Link Two Link Three PPS. Notice that these are FIVE months old. Lightning fast reaction time to this particular problem.
Elenath Gallente The Vindaloo Enema Disasters	Posted - 2006.08.26 18:58:00 - [14] Edited by: Elenath on 26/08/2006 18:58:26 Interesting... This thread dropped off the radar very quickly after posting those links. Hopefully the Devs and some of the naysayers have perused the info contained within them... and consequently drawn the same logical conclusion that many others have - that the Nighthawk has needed fixing for months.

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.