Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The Bill
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 12:10:00 -
[1]
I've just done a comparison between the Drake and the Nighthawk and now I would dearly love to find out what was the point of me spending some two and a half months training for these?
With that extra medium slot and launcher (and rig slot) the Drake seems to be almost on a par but for a fraction of the skills and cost.
This is surely absurd.
Field command ships have the same number of gang mod slots as the Battlecruisers with only a slight advantage to their effectiveness.
While I agree that the nighthawk has extra resistances, with that extra medium slot this is largely negated. The additional bonus to RoF isn't much of a compensation either - a 25% increase in rate of fire on 6 launchers = 7.5 launchers, whereas the drake has 7 from the start.
So please tell me why I've spent months of training and millions of isk on the skills and ships to have whatever slender advantage they offered negated by a ship that costs maybe a fifth of the price and can be trained in about a month - maybe less with the new skill advantages of new characters?
How is this recognising that my character has invested heavily in the skills required to fly such a ship?
The argument that "now HACs and Command ships will get cheaper" just doesn't wash - the reason that this will happen is that simply - no one will see the point in flying them.
Additionally the argument that "if you can't beat them, buy a drake too" won't wash - there has to be something that players can aspire to and this seems to have been utterly swept away.
Does this remind anyone else of the time when SWG made it so every consle owning child could be a jedi in a week? (I know, I exagerate) Eve certainly picked up a lot of new players when that happened, I just hope that they put a sensible balance on things before all those players that have invested so much time and effort leave.
There are a lot of nice things in Kali, it's just they are nearly all for the player that is in a Capital ship, or only a few months old. |
Chronus26
Gallente Dark Blood Contracts
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 12:15:00 -
[2]
I agree that the balance between Battlecruisers and Coomand ships seriously needs work.
I think that the new Tier 2s are just that little 'too good to be true' at the moment, yes maybe they are reasonably balanced towards each other, but how about to the rest of the ship classes?
I think the Nighthawk and maybe some of the others will need to be completly 'redone' using the stats of the new Tier 2s as a base, if not sorting out the mess of overpowering that is the Tier 2 BC class. -----
|
Paigan
Amarr Katsu Corporation Pure.
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 12:22:00 -
[3]
I consider Command Ships for anything else than a tanked gang module platform (like f.ex. to abuse it as a damage dealer) to be not worth it anyway.
Invest the same skilltime and money they cost into a BS (or 2 BS for the price of 1 CS) and it will be clearly better. CSs are still BCs. With a heavy-nos-prone BC-Cap and a comparable low sensor strength, no heavy nos on their own, etc.
If you want to fight, use a BS. If you have a gang of 20+ people screaming for a gang support ship, use a CS. -- This game is still in beta stage |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 12:30:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Akita T on 01/12/2006 12:34:08 Ok, let's see.
DRAKE: You get 7 launchers and a max 25% bonus to kin damage, on top of a 4 low, 6 med slots
NIGHTHAWK: You "only" get 6 launchers with same max 25% kin damage but also 25% RoF bonus (in other words 33.33% extra damage, or in other words the damage output of 8 launchers, not 7.5 as you claim) and 5/5 slots PLUS 62.5/70 k/t resists instead of 40/20 base (that's a LOT of extra resistances)
The "lack" of a midslot is more than compensated by the extra resists (really, they matter a lot, especially since they're NOT stacking-nerfable), you ALSO have the damage output of one extra launcher (at maxed out skills), and besides, you have more grid/cpu to fit them all (on top of the fact you only have to fit 6 not 7), AND you get an "extra" lowslot.
If you can't recognise "just how good" the Nighthawk is compared to the Drake, it's not the ship's fault, it's yours. ____
P.S. NEWSFLASH: In EVE, a minimal (1%-5%) increase in "fighting capability" is usually worth double to 10-fold the money of the "lesser" alternative. You could even say the Nighthawk is a ****ED CHEAP and very attractive alternative to a Drake, even with "only" 2 rig slots instead of three. _____ -sig-
This is my only char. These are my skills
Always question everything, including yourself |
Waut
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 12:32:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Waut on 01/12/2006 12:33:31 Considering the insane amount you need to fly a Command ship/HAC, en equal HP boost would have been fair. For the rest, it's fine
In Soviet EVE, roids pop YOU
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 12:35:00 -
[6]
TBFH, the percentage boosts were just fine. True, BCs got a huge boost, but CBCs got slightly above average boosts too (compared to normal, T1 ships... don't get me started on what other T2 ships got), so it's more than fair in this aspect too. _____ -sig-
This is my only char. These are my skills
Always question everything, including yourself |
Goodtime Girl
Amarr Anger Management
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 12:54:00 -
[7]
Quote: TBFH, the percentage boosts were just fine. True, BCs got a huge boost, but CBCs got slightly above average boosts too (compared to normal, T1 ships... don't get me started on what other T2 ships got), so it's more than fair in this aspect too.
This must be a Tuxford alt ...
How can it be fine that T1 ships now have more HP than their T2 counterpart.
|
Drogo Targaryen
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 13:25:00 -
[8]
um akita I hate to point this out mate but your maths is out.
Both ships have the same damage mods so we can discount that. That leaves us with a straight comparison between the rof bonus on 6 launchers and the additional launcher on the drake.
So thats 25% bonus on 6 launchers gives us = 7.5 launchers
So thats .5 of 7 which gives us a 7.14% damage differance in favour of the nighthawk.
If you stick an invulnerablity field 2 (tech 2 mods are the only thing worth tech 2ing now) in the spare slot you can get you close to the resistance levels you get on the nighthawk. If you then take into the account the extra shield and recharge rate you get with the drake I think this almost balances out. So the tank is slightly in favour of the nighthawk.
OK so we have established the nighthawk is the better ship. BUT is it worth the extra isk? Is it worth the extra 2 months training time? When you think that the drake is fully insurable I would say not.
|
Akiman
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 13:34:00 -
[9]
THATS A JOKE! ABSURD! im speechless...i knew it all along but they didnt do anything...hmmm...whatever... it gets boring everyday...they give u a cadillac next day you find yourself in a truck! AH SWEEETTT!!!1111112234567890!!!1111
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 13:40:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Drogo Targaryen So thats 25% bonus on 6 launchers gives us = 7.5 launchers
A 25% DAMAGE bonus gives you 7.5 launchers. A 25% ROF bonus gives you 8 launchers.
6 launchers, 1 sec ROF. You fire 6/1 -> 6 missiles per second
Now, a ROF bonus is DECREASING the ROF by 25%. 1 sec becomes 0.75 secs. 6 launchers, 0.75 sec ROF. You fire 6/0.75 -> 8 missiles per second
Grade school math, it's not that difficult.
|
|
Lillith Argent
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 13:48:00 -
[11]
You mean people are only just now beginning to realise that one of the major points of Revelations was to significantly narrow the gap between T1 & T2?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 14:22:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Goodtime Girl
Quote: TBFH, the percentage boosts were just fine. True, BCs got a huge boost, but CBCs got slightly above average boosts too (compared to normal, T1 ships... don't get me started on what other T2 ships got), so it's more than fair in this aspect too.
This must be a Tuxford alt ... How can it be fine that T1 ships now have more HP than their T2 counterpart.
So, let me get this straigth... a FLAT, NON-STACKING-NERFABLE resist increase 62.5% vs thermal and 37.5% vs Kinetic ain't good enough compared to the T1 counterpart ? So what if the T1 version has roughly the same amount of HPs, if from the start on the T2 you get +166% "effective" HPs vs thermal and +60% "effective" HP vs kinetic ?
Originally by: Drogo Targaryen um akita I hate to point this out mate but your maths is out. Both ships have the same damage mods so we can discount that. That leaves us with a straight comparison between the rof bonus on 6 launchers and the additional launcher on the drake. So thats 25% bonus on 6 launchers gives us = 7.5 launchers So thats .5 of 7 which gives us a 7.14% damage differance in favour of the nighthawk.
If you stick an invulnerablity field 2 (tech 2 mods are the only thing worth tech 2ing now) in the spare slot you can get you close to the resistance levels you get on the nighthawk. If you then take into the account the extra shield and recharge rate you get with the drake I think this almost balances out. So the tank is slightly in favour of the nighthawk.
I hate to break it to you, but 25% RoF bonus means *0.75 delay between shots, or in other words 1/0.75 = 4/3 = 33.33% more "ordinance" pumped out of your launchers in the same timespan. So no, you DO NOT get the equivalent of 7.5 launchers, but of 8 lauchers, with maxed out skill. Or in other words, +14.28% extra damage on the NH compared to the Drake.
The other issue is with resists. You DO realise that resists amplifiers ARE stacking nerfed, DO you ? In other words, no matter what amount of "extra resists" you think you can stick in that extra Drake midslot, the NH (based on a FEROX, mind you, I'm hardly waiting to see T2 Drakes coming out soon) still comes out on top resisntance-wise. And again, you forget that EXTRA lowslot the NH has, that can fit either extra tank or damage mods. _____ -sig-
This is my only char. These are my skills
Always question everything, including yourself |
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 14:54:00 -
[13]
Buff command ships please, im training for them... --- Eve Wiki | Eve Tribune | Eve Pirate |
Calprimus
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 14:58:00 -
[14]
A Tech2 Drake would be something scary......
An advanced NH.......carebear mission runner wet dream.
November 2007, Tux?
|
Bradstone
BRADNETT Pride - Honor - Duty
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 15:05:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Bradstone on 01/12/2006 15:12:38
Nighthawk can kick a drakes behind with the nighthawks resists and rof. Please don't nerf it cos i said that!!
- NH has the extra low slot
- My NH has a ROF of 4.3 seconds... don't think a drake can match that
Command ships are still well worth the training i think, if anything they look good.
|
Cupdeez
Vengeance of the Fallen Imperium Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 19:10:00 -
[16]
you guys think all wrong....
The Battlecruiser was made for players that can't get into 300 isky hac/command ship and still give a good fight... It will cause the prices of the hac/command ships prices to drop somewhat.
Most cases a BC can takes a hac 1v1 but on the other hand my command ship will wtf pwn your BC 85% of the time.
And yes just like any market for just that little advantage your going to pay for it look at CPU's on the market for the mid class cpu is say 200 and for the chip that is 400 mhz faster top of the line the CPU price is 1,100... Some people have to have and other settle for a cheaper but still a a solid solution.
Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip |
Nicocat
Caldari New Age Solutions
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 19:49:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Buff command ships please, im training for them...
Second. Although the Sleip is already a ******* beast. Shot up my 'Phoon ;.; ---------------------------- Buying Sabres. EVEmail or convo me in game! |
Stud Longcock
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 20:22:00 -
[18]
can I have ur Nighthawk???
|
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari Worms Corp
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 20:32:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Goodtime Girl
Quote: TBFH, the percentage boosts were just fine. True, BCs got a huge boost, but CBCs got slightly above average boosts too (compared to normal, T1 ships... don't get me started on what other T2 ships got), so it's more than fair in this aspect too.
This must be a Tuxford alt ...
How can it be fine that T1 ships now have more HP than their T2 counterpart.
T2 should not allways be better in every stat then T1.
|
Blitzkrieg
The Older Gamers Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 20:37:00 -
[20]
Nighthawk sucks, please don't buy it!!!!
|
|
Vincent Almasy
Gallente The Underground
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 20:57:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Vincent Almasy on 01/12/2006 20:58:55 ....you talk about a big upset when i see none, it's almost the game, look at turrets, the t2 is only better then the best t1 by atmost 10% and that is iff you max out the special skill just for the t2 turret. t2 ammo with high cost and lost of penalties so i just use t1 ammo as t2 ammo is becoming harder to use well
As for the t2 ships, they get better resists then standards and mostly more slots, tell me the difference in RMR from the two compared to now in Rev?
|
Captin ShadowHawk
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 21:02:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Blitzkrieg Nighthawk sucks, please don't buy it!!!!
I agree the only thing the nighthawk is good for is reprocessing |
Toppar Wear
Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 21:03:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
Originally by: Goodtime Girl
Quote: TBFH, the percentage boosts were just fine. True, BCs got a huge boost, but CBCs got slightly above average boosts too (compared to normal, T1 ships... don't get me started on what other T2 ships got), so it's more than fair in this aspect too.
This must be a Tuxford alt ...
How can it be fine that T1 ships now have more HP than their T2 counterpart.
T2 should not allways be better in every stat then T1.
They use more grid and cpu
|
CherniyVolk
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 21:14:00 -
[24]
I have been screaming about this in my other threads. More regarding HACs in specific. However, all the T2 line of ships require far more skills than what can be accomplished only marginally less with T1 ships.
It isn't just the HAC that's nerfed badly. The Assault Frigates, HACs, Command Ships... all the T2 ships really. Even some of the Recon ships are diminished.
Some arguments against my rants were that T2 ships got a HP bonus as well. But this is only a pathetic technicality, T2 ships (or HACs) only got a pathetic 12% HP boost. It's funny now, that the Vigilant has more shields, armor and structure than the Deimos. It's funny that the Brutix has more armor/structure than the Astarte or Eos.
I can only hope that this was a way to marginalize EVE's structure to make way for Tech Three items/ships etc. Because as it stands now, T2 ships took the biggest nerf in all of history. This is bigger, in my opinion than CCPs decisison to limit the number of drones deployed at one time; but they managed to compensate well with it I suppose.
But, the nerfing to T2 ships, all of them in Kali is a disturbing insult to those who trained and aspired for so long to finally fly one!
|
Popsikle
Caffeine Commodities Company Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 21:40:00 -
[25]
BC's can only have one active gang mod at a time. Fleet Command Ship's can have 3. I am assuming thats why Command ships are in game, and CCP wanted to add a combat platform for the pilots that were training a Gang platform.
As such, I dont think you are comparing the right things. I dont think Field Command Ship were supposed to really be a huge upgrade to a BC pilots, but they had to give some bonuses to it so they Fleet Command pilots had something to pew pew in when they werent safespotted giving out bonuses. __________________________________________ -= We Fly for our people =- -= I fly for Blood =- |
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 00:20:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Drogo Targaryen um akita I hate to point this out mate but your maths is out.
Both ships have the same damage mods so we can discount that. That leaves us with a straight comparison between the rof bonus on 6 launchers and the additional launcher on the drake.
So thats 25% bonus on 6 launchers gives us = 7.5 launchers
So thats .5 of 7 which gives us a 7.14% damage differance in favour of the nighthawk.
If you stick an invulnerablity field 2 (tech 2 mods are the only thing worth tech 2ing now) in the spare slot you can get you close to the resistance levels you get on the nighthawk. If you then take into the account the extra shield and recharge rate you get with the drake I think this almost balances out. So the tank is slightly in favour of the nighthawk.
OK so we have established the nighthawk is the better ship. BUT is it worth the extra isk? Is it worth the extra 2 months training time? When you think that the drake is fully insurable I would say not.
a 5% ROF bonus becomes a 25% rof bonus.
25 ROF = 1/3 more damage.
6 * 1/3 = 2
It's 8 launchers.
Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 00:25:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Bradstone Edited by: Bradstone on 01/12/2006 15:12:38
Nighthawk can kick a drakes behind with the nighthawks resists and rof. Please don't nerf it cos i said that!!
- NH has the extra low slot
- My NH has a ROF of 4.3 seconds... don't think a drake can match that
Command ships are still well worth the training i think, if anything they look good.
4.3sec with heavies? What's your setup. With 3 BU II my rof was around 4.5 or so.
Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 00:31:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
Originally by: Goodtime Girl
Quote: TBFH, the percentage boosts were just fine. True, BCs got a huge boost, but CBCs got slightly above average boosts too (compared to normal, T1 ships... don't get me started on what other T2 ships got), so it's more than fair in this aspect too.
This must be a Tuxford alt ...
How can it be fine that T1 ships now have more HP than their T2 counterpart.
T2 should not allways be better in every stat then T1.
T2 takes longer to train for, and T2 mods are harder to fit.
Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 00:32:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Popsikle BC's can only have one active gang mod at a time. Fleet Command Ship's can have 3. I am assuming thats why Command ships are in game, and CCP wanted to add a combat platform for the pilots that were training a Gang platform.
As such, I dont think you are comparing the right things. I dont think Field Command Ship were supposed to really be a huge upgrade to a BC pilots, but they had to give some bonuses to it so they Fleet Command pilots had something to pew pew in when they werent safespotted giving out bonuses.
If that were true then both ships would require the same skills to fly.
They don't.
Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Natasha Kerensky
The Company Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 09:58:00 -
[30]
The REAL question is:
Can the Drake solo lvl4 missions?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |