EVE Search - Sleipnir & Nighthawk...

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Sleipnir & Nighthawk...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Eve Hel	Posted - 2006.10.04 17:54:00 - [31] absolute this ship needs some loving, but please OP drop the non-sence talk about putting cruiser missiles on it that will only weaken you'r post. maybe the furture assault missiles will help some, but the 1 most importent thing that need a change is the frig hittin bonuses which is of noo use to any caldari pilot with any respect for him/her self.
Ohmy Fugod	Posted - 2006.10.04 17:55:00 - [32] For those who asked: Rockets : Standard Missiles Torpedoes : Cruise Missiles Assault : Heavy Missiles Or so was the idea the last time I read about it. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ *Quod Natura non da, Salamantica non praesta*
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.10.04 17:56:00 - [33] Edited by: Tovarishch on 04/10/2006 17:56:50 Originally by: Varelse Wiggin 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. My... God.... WHAT HAVE I BEEN DOING ALL THIS TIME!?!?! THANK YOU!!!! All life is sacred... until the client says otherwise.
Eve Hel	Posted - 2006.10.04 17:59:00 - [34] Edited by: Eve Hel on 04/10/2006 17:59:45 Edited by: Eve Hel on 04/10/2006 17:59:09 Originally by: Varelse Wiggin 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. lol i do believe we have a winner for this tread, for the most weird and funny post. cool m8 keep it up i need more laughs
Ohmy Fugod	Posted - 2006.10.04 18:02:00 - [35] Edited by: Ohmy Fugod on 04/10/2006 18:05:15 Originally by: Varelse Wiggin PUT RAILGUNS ON IT Stop talking about a Nighthawk with missiles and try... Hell yeah, and fit Autocannons or Artillery on Apocs, right? And why not beams on a Vagabond? Ahh... maybe people talk about Nighthawk with missiles because the developers gave it some missile boni? Edit: hehe had to delete the rest cause you guys beat me to it lol -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ *Quod Natura non da, Salamantica non praesta*
Matrim Acoma	Posted - 2006.10.04 18:06:00 - [36] Originally by: Varelse Wiggin 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. Now that you have managed to suggest putting rails on this about a dozen times. The Nighthawk has 1 turret hardpoint and 6 launcher hardpoints. It is clearly intended to be a missile boat. The bonuses need to be fixed, it does not need to become a rail boat. Missiles are the primary weapon type for Caldari. Their main Field Command Ship should be missiles. - Mat
Amarr knight LoneStar Industries Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.10.04 19:32:00 - [37] Originally by: Varelse Wiggin 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. Dude i want what you are smoking.
Aegis Osiris Gallente Demonic Retribution Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.10.04 19:54:00 - [38] Just in case everyone else bashing on this didn't get the point through to you, I've fixed the relevant portions of your post.... Quote: PUT RAILGUN ON IT ... Stop talking about a Nighthawk with missiles and try putting A T2 rail on it, then you'll shred. There, much better.....no SANER, but much better... ________________________________________________ This thread does not exist
Ortu Konsinni KIA Corp	Posted - 2006.10.04 19:56:00 - [39] Originally by: Varelse Wiggin Originally by: Tovarishch Originally by: Tasty Burger Nighthawk has seriously nuts tanking abilities. <snip> 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. Are you kidding, are you stupid, or have you really not read the Nighthawk's bonuses? It's a friggin' missile boat, period. We all agree the Ferox is not a missile boat, though most people use it as one. The Nighthawk, however, is a missile boat. It would suck even more as a railgun ship since it has no turret bonuses at all. Besides, it only has one turret hardpoint. Hello? --- High quality pics of ALL EVE ships!
Complacency's Bane	Posted - 2006.10.04 20:04:00 - [40] No, railgun on a nighthawk makes perfect sense. I know I build my megathron setups around the single launcher slot it gets. More to the point, the nighthawk needs to lose the missile explosion radius/velocity 'bonuses'. Battlecruiser should be 10% missile velocity, command ship should be 10% kinetic damage. Ship fixed, next.
Arshes Nei Dark-Rising Xelas Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.04 20:23:00 - [41] Originally by: Ortu Konsinni Originally by: Varelse Wiggin 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. Are you kidding, are you stupid, or have you really not read the Nighthawk's bonuses? It's a friggin' missile boat, period. We all agree the Ferox is not a missile boat, though most people use it as one. The Nighthawk, however, is a missile boat. It would suck even more as a railgun ship since it has no turret bonuses at all. Besides, it only has one turret hardpoint. Hello? I dont know whats more hilarious, the guy trying to be funny and failing horribly, or you not only completly failing to notice it but also being offensive about it ... thx you two made my day . To get back on topic, yes the nighthawk is complete and utter crap. There is no nice way to describe how utterly pointless a ship like this with the damageoutput of a t1 cruiser(badly fitted) is. Its tank is really nothing special, the other command ships can do similar tanks while actually being able to put a dent in something bigger than a frigate. To clarify, once we are at the point that we accept that kinetic damage is probably not the best choice of damage in pvp we are looking at a ship with 6 heavy launchers without any damage or rof boni ... Just to keep in mind, other commandships use weapons with inherently better dps and get 2 damage increasing boni. Its not even good at taking out frigates cause its missiles are simply to slow. If i want a frigate killer i take a huginn, that ship is like 100 times better at taking out frigates and thats about the only thing the nighthawk could be used for. P.S. I loved the cerberus, but the nighthawk is everything but a worthy successor of it, without a doubt the new tier 2 BC coming out will be superior compared to the nighthawk on everything but tanking.
Complacency's Bane	Posted - 2006.10.04 20:28:00 - [42] Originally by: Arshes Nei To clarify, once we are at the point that we accept that kinetic damage is probably not the best choice of damage in pvp we are looking at a ship with 6 heavy launchers without any damage or rof boni ... Just to keep in mind, other commandships use weapons with inherently better dps and get 2 damage increasing boni. Tell you what, you can get in a circle with the amarr pilots who think that EM is not the best damage type for PvP, and we'll import some minmatar pilots who arent happy that invuln IIs make explosive do less then no damage to shields. We can all sing kumbaya and make s'mores. Since everyone apparently only wants to do thermal damage, lets just let everyone do nothing but thermal damage - we can remove all those other pesky damage types from the game and everyone will be 'happy'. Kinetic damage bonus is fine.
Murukan Minmatar The Priory	Posted - 2006.10.04 20:37:00 - [43] Originally by: Complacency's Bane Originally by: Arshes Nei To clarify, once we are at the point that we accept that kinetic damage is probably not the best choice of damage in pvp we are looking at a ship with 6 heavy launchers without any damage or rof boni ... Just to keep in mind, other commandships use weapons with inherently better dps and get 2 damage increasing boni. Tell you what, you can get in a circle with the amarr pilots who think that EM is not the best damage type for PvP, and we'll import some minmatar pilots who arent happy that invuln IIs make explosive do less then no damage to shields. We can all sing kumbaya and make s'mores. Since everyone apparently only wants to do thermal damage, lets just let everyone do nothing but thermal damage - we can remove all those other pesky damage types from the game and everyone will be 'happy'. Kinetic damage bonus is fine. zomg this guy put 2 thermal hardeners on and it hurt my thermal damage and made me sad i can picture it already In rust we trust!!!
Varelse Wiggin Minmatar Sector 7	Posted - 2006.10.04 20:38:00 - [44] I WIN THE THREAD
Eve Hel	Posted - 2006.10.04 20:43:00 - [45] Originally by: Varelse Wiggin I WIN THE THREAD for best laugh yes grats m8 do some more in some of other tread,, especial in the tread about log off tactic in boubbles,, those dudes needs a laugh
Larkonis Trassler g guild	Posted - 2006.10.04 21:00:00 - [46] Originally by: Matrim Acoma 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: 25 EM, 70 Exp, 71.875 Kin, 77.5 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 Fixed ------------
Arshes Nei Dark-Rising Xelas Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.04 21:41:00 - [47] Originally by: Complacency's Bane Originally by: Arshes Nei To clarify, once we are at the point that we accept that kinetic damage is probably not the best choice of damage in pvp we are looking at a ship with 6 heavy launchers without any damage or rof boni ... Just to keep in mind, other commandships use weapons with inherently better dps and get 2 damage increasing boni. Tell you what, you can get in a circle with the amarr pilots who think that EM is not the best damage type for PvP, and we'll import some minmatar pilots who arent happy that invuln IIs make explosive do less then no damage to shields. We can all sing kumbaya and make s'mores. Since everyone apparently only wants to do thermal damage, lets just let everyone do nothing but thermal damage - we can remove all those other pesky damage types from the game and everyone will be 'happy'. Kinetic damage bonus is fine. No offense but what has em laser damage to do with kinetic missile damage boni? One is a ship bonus the other a inherent damagetype of a weaponsystem. Kinetic damage is ineffecitive against 50% of all t2 ships and its one of the most tanked resistances for mission runners(serps, guerista and angels do kinetic damage), but unlike amarr caldari are not forced to do kinetic damage, so they dont. That means you loose another bonus out of a ship which biggest problem is the lack of good boni. Maybe you noticed that i didnt have a problem with the kinetic bonus of the cerberus, simply cause it has another very nice damage bonus which pushes its damage up to acceptable lvls even if using non kinetic missiles. Pushed up does in this context mean it does more damage than the nighthawk btw. So to conclude a specific damage bonus as the only damage increasing boni of a BC sized ship with 6 weaponmounts is not fine. It wouldnt be fine on a astarte, absolution or a sleipnir either. Not only is this bonus restricting you to use kinetic missiles to make more damage, the other boni the ship gets are actually only increasing your damage against smaller/faster targets but only up to your 6 launcher + 25% kinetic damage bonus. So the optimal use of the nighthawk would be shooting at minmatar AFs or t1 frigates without mwd. Most other targets are either to fast or wouldnt allow you to use your damage increasing boni to full effect. If the ship is to big/slow your not using your prediction/precision bonus, if its another races AF another ammo type would be better so your not using your damage bonus. Please keep in mind that all of that wouldnt be a problem if the damage wasnt so pitiful to begin with. P.S. Its really ridiculous to bring amarr into a discussion about the pro and cons of caldari field command ships. The Absolution is godlike compared to the nighthawk, it doesnt have a single bonus that is useless or only used half the time.
Complacency's Bane Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.04 21:51:00 - [48] Originally by: Arshes Nei Originally by: Complacency's Bane Originally by: Arshes Nei To clarify, once we are at the point that we accept that kinetic damage is probably not the best choice of damage in pvp we are looking at a ship with 6 heavy launchers without any damage or rof boni ... Just to keep in mind, other commandships use weapons with inherently better dps and get 2 damage increasing boni. Tell you what, you can get in a circle with the amarr pilots who think that EM is not the best damage type for PvP, and we'll import some minmatar pilots who arent happy that invuln IIs make explosive do less then no damage to shields. We can all sing kumbaya and make s'mores. Since everyone apparently only wants to do thermal damage, lets just let everyone do nothing but thermal damage - we can remove all those other pesky damage types from the game and everyone will be 'happy'. Kinetic damage bonus is fine. No offense but what has em laser damage to do with kinetic missile damage boni? One is a ship bonus the other a inherent damagetype of a weaponsystem. Kinetic damage is ineffecitive against 50% of all t2 ships and its one of the most tanked resistances for mission runners(serps, guerista and angels do kinetic damage), but unlike amarr caldari are not forced to do kinetic damage, so they dont. I was remarking on how absurd it is that every race claims to have the worst PvP damage type. You didnt get it. I'm neither shocked nor awed by that. 100% of t2 assault-class ships have thermal or kinetic resists buffed - 50% of them have both. Should blaster users start crying for void that does em/explosive now? You get kinetic missiles, and you even get to change to different damage types with a minimal damage penalty. Whining about that is absurd, and you should be ashamed. The nighthawk needs to be: Battlecruiser: 10% missile velocity/5% resists Command Ship: 10% Kinetic damage Problem solved. If you still cant use it after that, its no longer the ship that sucks.
Arshes Nei Dark-Rising Xelas Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.04 22:48:00 - [49] Edited by: Arshes Nei on 04/10/2006 22:53:25 Originally by: Complacency's Bane Originally by: Arshes Nei No offense but what has em laser damage to do with kinetic missile damage boni? One is a ship bonus the other a inherent damagetype of a weaponsystem. Kinetic damage is ineffecitive against 50% of all t2 ships and its one of the most tanked resistances for mission runners(serps, guerista and angels do kinetic damage), but unlike amarr caldari are not forced to do kinetic damage, so they dont. I was remarking on how absurd it is that every race claims to have the worst PvP damage type. You didnt get it. I'm neither shocked nor awed by that. 100% of t2 assault-class ships have thermal or kinetic resists buffed - 50% of them have both. Should blaster users start crying for void that does em/explosive now? You get kinetic missiles, and you even get to change to different damage types with a minimal damage penalty. Whining about that is absurd, and you should be ashamed. The nighthawk needs to be: Battlecruiser: 10% missile velocity/5% resists Command Ship: 10% Kinetic damage Problem solved. If you still cant use it after that, its no longer the ship that sucks. Where did i say that caldari have the worst pvp damage type? I said kinetic is not the best pvp damage type, how did you manage to read that as "waaahaa mommy caldari have the worst pvp damage type"? If you see whining in such a lax statement i dont think a normal conversation with you is possible. I especially like how you go about me not "getting" what your trying to say while your completly warping the meaning of what i write without understanding what i mean. For example you bring up blasters again, blasters are fine. I dont have a problem with people having thermal/kinetic resists even though i specialize in hybrid weapons. Simply because im talking about bonuses of ships while you keep ranting about damagetypes. Kinetic damage is fine if it has a sufficent base, i merely tried to point out that the ship will have 0 damage boni if you dont use kinetic missiles. Thats like using artys on a absolution. The problem i have with the nighthawk is twofold, first let me explain to you that 25% is not minimal. Second the nighthawks damage even with this bonus is laughable. And please get into your head that im not whining, whining implies that im unsatisfied with the current situation, while im merely pointing out that a ship has imho crap boni. The problem with that ship is its damage, not the type of the damage. Even if it had a %5 bonus to all missiles damage it still would be crap compared to other field command ships. Give the ship 5% kinetic bonus and a 5% rof bonus aswell as 10% velocity and 5% resists and its a whole different ship, a worthy sucsessor of the cerberus and overall pretty neat. Its the combination of a 25% damage boost through increased rof and the increased velocity that make the difference.
Josiah Bartlet Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.05 00:46:00 - [50] Originally by: Varelse Wiggin 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. rofl have you looked at the bonuses the ship gets? Have you seen how much powergrid it has? Infact do you have a brain at all? --- SigPl/HQ&Log Coy/MNB(C)/KFOR
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.10.05 02:54:00 - [51] Originally by: Tasty Burger Nighthawk has seriously nuts tanking abilities. Vulture tanks better. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.10.05 02:56:00 - [52] Originally by: Twilight Moon You'll be getting Assault Missiles soon enough, like Torps for cruiser sized launchers. They'll give you the DPS increase. I hope they're more like rockets than torpedoes. Small blast, less damage, high ROF causing higher DPS. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.10.05 03:00:00 - [53] Originally by: Murukan 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 Yes, and this will totally nerf Minmatar since they don't sue missiles at all, thus helping fuel the trolls. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.10.05 03:11:00 - [54] Edited by: Malthros Zenobia on 05/10/2006 03:14:17 Originally by: Varelse Wiggin 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. You should try to save some face by admitting you've never looked at the stats for a Nighthawk. Also Megapulses rule on a Tempest, you've clearly never used the setup. You can take down an Ewar nosdomi without going into armor. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.10.05 03:11:00 - [55] As for how to fix this ship: Simple, Replace the Ferox hull with a Drake hull. Now, assuming tux has decided that single-damage bonuses are horrible ideas (remember when drone dmg was going to only be thermal?), and the Drake gets Raven style bonuses of 5% rof, 10% missile velocity, that ROF, along with the 7 launchers, will give a considerable DPS boost. Then, you have the command ship bonuses. Now CBCs still are suppose to have a killer tank, so if CCP wants them to have a 5% resists bonus, it can now be on the CBC skill. they can give it a second velocity bonus, or TNP or whatever. 5% ROF, 7 launchers, and 10% missile velocity should be fine. Giving the 5% resists on CBc along with something else would just keep it in line. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
xeom Veto.	Posted - 2006.10.05 04:04:00 - [56] Originally by: Malthros Zenobia Also Megapulses rule on a Tempest, you've clearly never used the setup. You can take down an Ewar nosdomi without going into armor. --- CCP how about the pith X & A mods? "Those nuclear missiles are for domestic heating." - Scagga
Ishmael Hansen	Posted - 2006.10.05 05:27:00 - [57] ROFL Want to buy Nighthawk with turret hardpoints. This subject has been beated up to hell and back, just admit it, NH is a flying piece of crap. I now fly sleipnir too, and wow, just WOW.
Murukan Minmatar The Priory	Posted - 2006.10.05 06:05:00 - [58] Originally by: Malthros Zenobia Edited by: Malthros Zenobia on 05/10/2006 03:14:17 Originally by: Varelse Wiggin 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. You should try to save some face by admitting you've never looked at the stats for a Nighthawk. Also Megapulses rule on a Tempest, you've clearly never used the setup. You can take down an Ewar nosdomi without going into armor. uhh yah they ruled when proj were way nerfed and no stacking penalty. Now they are just oversided cap suckers on a tempest which already doesn't have that big of a cap. Especially against a nos domi lol, sorry usually you have a clue but on this post you don't. In rust we trust!!!
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.05 06:09:00 - [59] This thread scares me. In fact, I should start a thread about Raven and the Tempest, where even a normal Raven beats the faction Fleet Tempest... Ive realized there isnt supposed to be balance for all situations in this game. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Vizard	Posted - 2006.10.05 07:54:00 - [60] Since the Nighthawk is such a piece of crap can I get one for cheap? I'll pay you what your stating it's worth WHICH will be less than the lowest cost Command ship or about 90mil. Sound good? What I can not believe is that everyone cries they want a missle based ferox, they get it and cry. Lets make the command ships waht they are COMMAND SHIPS, not COMBAT SHIPS!! Remove all weapon bonus and give leadership bonuses and logistic bonuses ONLY. If the commandships were designed right they would really be supper logistic ships that commanded the fleet and gave god bonuses that made then a must need in combat attacks. Hey who wouldn't want a commandship that gave 30-40% bonus (max trained) to all the ships in your fleet for Shield and Speed or Armor and Information Warfare at the SAMETIME! Command means LEADERSHIP not I-win button ship! The Nighthawk was CCP trying to shutup the Caldari cry babies that the BC was not a missile boat, guess what you can never shut up cry babies .

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.