| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Matrim Acoma
   |
Posted - 2006.10.04 15:34:00 -
[1]
Quick question...
I was looking at the shield resists on the Sleipnir and Nighthawk..
Sleipnir: 62.5 EM, 60 Exp, 40 Kin, 50 Therm
Nighthawk: 0 EM, 60 Exp, 62.5 Kin, 70 Therm
Slot layout:
Sleipnir: 5 Low, 5 Mid, 8 High
Nighthawk: 5 Low, 5 Mid, 7 High
Battlecruiser Bonus:
Sleipnir: 5% RoF & 7.5% Shield Booster
Nighthawk: 10% Target Navigation Prediction & 5% Resistances
Command Ships:
Sleipnir: 5% Dmg & 5% Falloff
Nighthawk: 5% Kin Dmg & 5% Missile Precision
Command ships are one of the most skill intensive everyday ships in the game. The Nighthawk is completely screwed on it's bonuses. Leave a gaping EM hole of 0%, then waste a bonus to plug it to 25%? I'd rather get the shield boosting bonus and give it a base of 60% EM resist. I can drop an Invuln II into a mid-slot to improve my resists thank you very much.
5% to only Kinetic dmg? Every Calderi bonus is to Kin dmg. Heck, for PvP, just get a Kin hardener when you are fighting Calderi. Can we make this any more predictable?
So, the other two bonuses for the Nighthawk are the target nav & missile precision. What...is this ship intended to be a frig killer? That is why you need Heavy Assault IV, Squardron Command IV, Battlecruiser V, Cruiser V and Command Ships I....to kill frigs w/ heavy missiles?
The Nighthawk doesn't just need some love, it needs an overhaul.
- Mat
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 15:43:00 -
[2]
Nighthawk also does less damage than a cerberus, unlike ... well basically every other command ship.
Actually, that's not entirely true. Vulture does about the same as an Eagle.
|
Dr Fighter
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 15:46:00 -
[3]
/signed.
While i dont fly T2 BCs, i do fly the cerburus and cancelled my BC 5 training when i saw the confermed bonuses for the nighthawk.
|
Tasty Burger
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 15:48:00 -
[4]
Nighthawk has seriously nuts tanking abilities.
|
xeom
Veto.
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 15:49:00 -
[5]
It is getting a DPS buff soon.
---
CCP how about the pith X & A mods?
"Those nuclear missiles are for domestic heating." - Scagga
|
Matrim Acoma
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 15:54:00 -
[6]
What would be cool would be for it to get some RoF & Fitting Bonuses for Cruise Launchers to go along w/ the target navigation & Missile precision.
- Mat
|
Matrim Acoma
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 15:56:00 -
[7]
 Originally by: Tasty Burger
Nighthawk has seriously nuts tanking abilities.
Yeah, just like the Passive Ferox, or the Hawk. Great tank, but you can't kill anything because DPS is so low T1 ships can also tank you with ease.
- Mat
|
Laythun
Undercover Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 15:58:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Matrim Acoma
What would be cool would be for it to get some RoF & Fitting Bonuses for Cruise Launchers to go along w/ the target navigation & Missile precision.
- Mat
No that wouldnt be 'cool' it would be stupid.
Proud Member of the Anti Whine 14 |
Matrim Acoma
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 16:12:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Laythun
Originally by: Matrim Acoma
What would be cool would be for it to get some RoF & Fitting Bonuses for Cruise Launchers to go along w/ the target navigation & Missile precision.
- Mat
No that wouldnt be 'cool' it would be stupid.
And your reasoning is?
Cruise Launchers are appropriate for the ship class and would provide a respectable DPS increase, and using the target nav & missile precision focus it on fighting Cruisers class ships. It has a sig radius large enough for a BS to torp it to death but can still deal respectable damage to BS's.
It seems reasonable that a Field Command can stand up to a HAC or BS. Heck, it takes significantly more skills for the Command ship than either the BS or HAC.
- Mat
|
Jim McGregor
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 16:14:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Matrim Acoma
Cruise Launchers are appropriate for the ship class and would provide a respectable DPS increase, and using the target nav & missile precision focus it on fighting Cruisers class ships. It has a sig radius large enough for a BS to torp it to death but can still deal respectable damage to BS's.
It seems reasonable that a Field Command can stand up to a HAC or BS. Heck, it takes significantly more skills for the Command ship than either the BS or HAC.
Cruise launchers are for battleships. They are not appropriate for the ship class. The command ships use Medium Turrets and Heavy Launchers.
---
Eve Wiki | Eve Tribune | Eve Pirate |
Twilight Moon
Minmatar
Malicious Intentions
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 16:29:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Matrim Acoma
Cruise Launchers are appropriate for the ship class
No, they're not. Cruise are BS weaponry.
You'll be getting Assault Missiles soon enough, like Torps for cruiser sized launchers. They'll give you the DPS increase.
----------------
...on the other hand using a banana might be a viable alternative.
Anyone Recruiting? 8m SP PvP Character looking for a new home, for a life as a pirate. Contact Via EVE-Mail. |
Matrim Acoma
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 16:32:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Cruise launchers are for battleships. They are not appropriate for the ship class. The command ships use Medium Turrets and Heavy Launchers.
The stealth bomber has fitting bonuses for cruise launchers. Just shape the fitting bonus such that you can only fit T1 cruise launchers instead of T2 or if you go T2, you are at 5 instead of 6. This along with the slot layout continues to differentiate from the BS class.
- Mat
|
Zadra
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 16:37:00 -
[13]
Maybe they could make the nighthawk fit 7 launchers that would help abit instead of changing the bonuses alot, but as for fitting cruise missiles that would make the nighthawk way over powerd imo.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 16:45:00 -
[14]
So, just hypothetically, would an "assault missile" be launched from the (existing) "Assault Missile Launcher" then ?
Would that make the AM a "heavy light" missile or what the heck ?
Or will that launcher be renamed to something else (suggestions welcome), and the new, proper "assault launchers" will have different stats (slower rate of fire and higher capacity compared to heavy launchers) ?
__
Always question everything. Including yourself. |
Murukan
Minmatar
The Priory
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 16:55:00 -
[15]
cruise missles on a bc? How about no you stupid tit. God forbid one caldari ship isn't as good as it's counterparts, i know ******* scary!!
In rust we trust!!! |
Varkyl Wydon
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 17:00:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Akita T
So, just hypothetically, would an "assault missile" be launched from the (existing) "Assault Missile Launcher" then ?
Would that make the AM a "heavy light" missile or what the heck ?
Or will that launcher be renamed to something else (suggestions welcome), and the new, proper "assault launchers" will have different stats (slower rate of fire and higher capacity compared to heavy launchers) ?
What about a Heavy Assualt Launcher. Basically a heavy with a better ROF.
|
Matrim Acoma
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 17:03:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Murukan
cruise missles on a bc? How about no you stupid tit. God forbid one caldari ship isn't as good as it's counterparts, i know ******* scary!!
Now that you got your 'anti-caldari' whine out of the way.
It's not about the NH not being as good as it's counterparts. It's about it being a steaming pile of crap, for a ship that has pretty serious skill requirements. I just chose to compare against Sleipnir because I'm training Caldari/Minmatar both.
- Mat
|
Twilight Moon
Minmatar
Malicious Intentions
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 17:03:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Matrim Acoma
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Cruise launchers are for battleships. They are not appropriate for the ship class. The command ships use Medium Turrets and Heavy Launchers.
The stealth bomber has fitting bonuses for cruise launchers. Just shape the fitting bonus such that you can only fit T1 cruise launchers instead of T2 or if you go T2, you are at 5 instead of 6. This along with the slot layout continues to differentiate from the BS class.
You can have that the day I can get a rack of seven BS sized Blasters on my Brutix. 
----------------
...on the other hand using a banana might be a viable alternative.
Anyone Recruiting? 8m SP PvP Character looking for a new home, for a life as a pirate. Contact Via EVE-Mail. |
Murukan
Minmatar
The Priory
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 17:03:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Varkyl Wydon
Originally by: Akita T
So, just hypothetically, would an "assault missile" be launched from the (existing) "Assault Missile Launcher" then ?
Would that make the AM a "heavy light" missile or what the heck ?
Or will that launcher be renamed to something else (suggestions welcome), and the new, proper "assault launchers" will have different stats (slower rate of fire and higher capacity compared to heavy launchers) ?
What about a Heavy Assualt Launcher. Basically a heavy with a better ROF.
k cool they can also be bship modules like how assaults are cruiser
In rust we trust!!! |
Montero
Black Omega Security
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 17:04:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Montero
Originally by: Matrim Acoma
Originally by: Murukan
cruise missles on a bc? How about no you stupid tit. God forbid one caldari ship isn't as good as it's counterparts, i know ******* scary!!
Now that you got your 'anti-caldari' whine out of the way.
It's not about the NH not being as good as it's counterparts. It's about it being a steaming pile of crap, for a ship that has pretty serious skill requirements. I just chose to compare against Sleipnir because I'm training Caldari/Minmatar both.
- Mat
Yeah the NH does need some love, but you really are a ****-wit.
---------
Scrapheap Challenge
|
Montero
Black Omega Security
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 17:04:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Montero on 04/10/2006 17:04:26
blegh @ dbl post.
---------
Scrapheap Challenge
|
Varelse Wiggin
Minmatar
Sector 7
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 17:06:00 -
[22]
All of you geniuses are talking about fitting a nighthawk with missiles. It's based on the Ferox hull and shares bonuses...one could only assume then that it is a railgun boat, as is the Ferox.
|
Murukan
Minmatar
The Priory
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 17:12:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Matrim Acoma
Originally by: Murukan
cruise missles on a bc? How about no you stupid tit. God forbid one caldari ship isn't as good as it's counterparts, i know ******* scary!!
Now that you got your 'anti-caldari' whine out of the way.
It's not about the NH not being as good as it's counterparts. It's about it being a steaming pile of crap, for a ship that has pretty serious skill requirements. I just chose to compare against Sleipnir because I'm training Caldari/Minmatar both.
- Mat
yes it has issues, however the way to fix it is not to give it battleship weapons lol
In rust we trust!!! |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 17:12:00 -
[24]
And you don't see loads of heavy missile feroxes around, now do you ? [/sarcasm]
heck, I'd slap on missile launchers even on the VULTURE, not only on the Nighthawk.
Anyway, Caldari gets a missileboat tier 2 BC, and I expect the hull design to be upgraded in the (near?) future to either two new (T2) fleet/field command ships (one of each), or a completely new T2 design to expand on all those 4 new racial tier 2 BCs (which are supposed to be damage-oriented rather than tank-oriented like their 4 existing tier 4 "brothers").
__
Always question everything. Including yourself. |
Varelse Wiggin
Minmatar
Sector 7
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 17:17:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Akita T
And you don't see loads of heavy missile feroxes around, now do you ? [/sarcasm]
heck, I'd slap on missile launchers even on the VULTURE, not only on the Nighthawk.
Anyway, Caldari gets a missileboat tier 2 BC, and I expect the hull design to be upgraded in the (near?) future to either two new (T2) fleet/field command ships (one of each), or a completely new T2 design to expand on all those 4 new racial tier 2 BCs (which are supposed to be damage-oriented rather than tank-oriented like their 4 existing tier 4 "brothers").
Sure there are plenty of heavy missile 'roxs around, but that doesn't mean that missiles are the best fitting solution, now does it? Missiles make PVP easy and are good to use with lower skillpoints, but if you're in a command ship you had better have damn high skills in just about everything, including gunnery.
I'm willing to bet that a railgun toting Nighthawk would toast a heavy missile Nighthawk with minimal effort.
|
Matrim Acoma
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 17:21:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Twilight Moon
You can have that the day I can get a rack of seven BS sized Blasters on my Brutix.
We are talking about T2command ships, not T1 battlecruisers. I also suggested sizing the fitting requirements so you can't get a full rack anyway.
Also, if you place a PG/CPU limit in there to keep it T1 for the launchers, it doesn't come anywhere near doubling the dmg.
T2 Rage Heavy - 180dmg
T1 Cruise - 300 dmg
However, the ROF for the T2 is 12sec, but the RoF for the Arby T1 Cruise is 17.6sec.
Just some quick napkin math....
6x T2 Rage (180 dmg) = 1020dmg every 12 seconds = 85dps
6x T1 Heavy (150 dmg) = 75 dps
6x T1 Cruise (300 dmg) = 1800dmg every 17.6sec = 102 dps
All other skills would affect both Heavy/Cruise the same. However, the Cruise also has lower explosion velocity.
Let's not forget that Heavy Missiles are .06m3 each while Cruise are .1m3. The Arby Cruise launcher holds 2.4m3, or 24 Cruise, while the HL II holds 2.4m3 also, which means 48 regulary heavy missiles or 40 Rage Heavy Missiles. This means reloading more often, which further reduces the DPS gap.
-Mat
|
Montero
Black Omega Security
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 17:32:00 -
[27]
You are actualy a complete retard.
---------
Scrapheap Challenge
|
Tovarishch
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 17:45:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Tasty Burger
Nighthawk has seriously nuts tanking abilities.
The tanking ability of the Nighthawk is in no way different from the incredible tanks that the other combat oriented Command Ships are capable of fielding.
The Nighthawk is an utter failure in ship design... and has been.
Firstly, the premise that months and months and months of training are worth having a dedicated frigate killer that is only marginally better than a Caracal is ubsurd.
Secondly, it doesn't even kill frigates well. The Caracal and Cerberus are far better at that role because they have a missile velocity bonus that will push heavy missile velocity high enough to threaten frigates and intys. The Nighthawks missiles are too slow to catch most frigates and intys.
Lastly, a Nighthawk in the hands of a highly skilled missile pilot has two useless bonuses. Both the TNP and GMP bonuses provide little - to - NO benefit if a pilot has already trained the TNP and GMP skills themselves to 5.
The ship is a joke. It needs at least to have the TNP bonus changed to ROF... and hopefully the GMP bonus changed to velocity.
All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise. |
Crellion
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 17:53:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Tovarishch
Originally by: Tasty Burger
Nighthawk has seriously nuts tanking abilities.
The tanking ability of the Nighthawk is in no way different from the incredible tanks that the other combat oriented Command Ships are capable of fielding.
The Nighthawk is an utter failure in ship design... and has been.
Firstly, the premise that months and months and months of training are worth having a dedicated frigate killer that is only marginally better than a Caracal is ubsurd.
Secondly, it doesn't even kill frigates well. The Caracal and Cerberus are far better at that role because they have a missile velocity bonus that will push heavy missile velocity high enough to threaten frigates and intys. The Nighthawks missiles are too slow to catch most frigates and intys.
Lastly, a Nighthawk in the hands of a highly skilled missile pilot has two useless bonuses. Both the TNP and GMP bonuses provide little - to - NO benefit if a pilot has already trained the TNP and GMP skills themselves to 5.
The ship is a joke. It needs at least to have the TNP bonus changed to ROF... and hopefully the GMP bonus changed to velocity.
See? even in a thread where most posts can only be graded "limited value: type: commedy value" you ll find somebody making sense.
|
Varelse Wiggin
Minmatar
Sector 7
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 17:54:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Tovarishch
Originally by: Tasty Burger
Nighthawk has seriously nuts tanking abilities.
The tanking ability of the Nighthawk is in no way different from the incredible tanks that the other combat oriented Command Ships are capable of fielding.
The Nighthawk is an utter failure in ship design... and has been.
Firstly, the premise that months and months and months of training are worth having a dedicated frigate killer that is only marginally better than a Caracal is ubsurd.
Secondly, it doesn't even kill frigates well. The Caracal and Cerberus are far better at that role because they have a missile velocity bonus that will push heavy missile velocity high enough to threaten frigates and intys. The Nighthawks missiles are too slow to catch most frigates and intys.
Lastly, a Nighthawk in the hands of a highly skilled missile pilot has two useless bonuses. Both the TNP and GMP bonuses provide little - to - NO benefit if a pilot has already trained the TNP and GMP skills themselves to 5.
The ship is a joke. It needs at least to have the TNP bonus changed to ROF... and hopefully the GMP bonus changed to velocity.
PUT RAILGUNS ON IT
You Caldari kids need to learn that not every ship you have is a missile boat. Your new battleship is going to be a railgun boat, the eagle and moa are railguns boats, and guess what, the ferox is also a railgun boat, that's why they're adding a missile battlecruiser along with the new battleship.
Stop talking about a Nighthawk with missiles and try putting T2 rails on it, then you'll shred. That's like me complaining about my tempest not doing good with a rack of megapulses on it.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |