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?
|
|
Mar vel
Caldari H.Y.D.R.A. GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 11:02:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Chronus26 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.
COmmand ships have inherent bonuses to resitances that are not even remotely close to the new BC's. The Drake fits Hvy Assualt Lanchers - which have a max range of about 10km. Hardly a good comparison.
IN terms of the BC's being equalized - not really.
The Drake requires training a new missle skill; no other race requires that - which means that they have an advantage in that they are capable of using T2 weapons - where as I'm not even sure the T2 Heavy Assault Missle launcher is available yet - and even if it is, since the skills were not seeded prior to Kali, eveyone will have to train them - and specialization will take 20+ days for all 5 levels just to get to the specialization.
Due to the Drake's range limitations (10km or thereabouts) it's almost a requirement to fit a 10mn MWD - else you'll sit there why people shoot you and you fire missles into space. That means you've crippled your cap, at a minimum, and when you engage you turn your ship into a big Barn Door - great for shooting at.
Not exactly equivalent.
And - for those who are interested, I fitted up a Drake today - and basically got owned by a Myrmidon.
The Net/Net of that experience: The same I-win button applies:
ECM / NOS / DRONES 4TW.
|
Statics
A.W.M Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 19:38:00 -
[32]
Could the T2 BPO holders cry anymore? So you trained for a Command Ship and aren't happy anymore, boo hoo. Everyone in Eve just got slapped in the face with the new 800k SP noobs. Get over it. Just because a ship costs 250mil doesn't mean it's worth 250mil. ----------
|
Vincent Almasy
Gallente The Underground
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 19:49:00 -
[33]
Personally I hired more then three rev newbies into a corporation and it doesn't take me three weeks to have then able to do anything. As for Command ships, that's the great different between a cruiser and a HAC or as a frig and a Assult other then the resists and a little better stats, I'm using this point even in RMR. Get over yourselves, you worked and got the t2 for that last percents better, this is the same for getting t2 guns over t1 named guns
|
goodby4u
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 20:10:00 -
[34]
Originally by: The Bill 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.
Resistances extra bonuses cap racharge and size powergrid and cpu boosts(dont know if the pg and cpu on a nighthawk is better then a drake)and ummm looking black and cool..
|
Estan Drake
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 22:28:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Estan Drake on 04/12/2006 22:30:52
Originally by: Mar vel[:arrow: COmmand ships have inherent bonuses to resitances that are not even remotely close to the new BC's. The Drake fits Hvy Assualt Lanchers - which have a max range of about 10km. Hardly a good comparison. IN terms of the BC's being equalized - not really.
The Drake requires training a new missle skill; no other race requires that - which means that they have an advantage in that they are capable of using T2 weapons - where as I'm not even sure the T2 Heavy Assault Missle launcher is available yet - and even if it is, since the skills were not seeded prior to Kali, eveyone will have to train them - and specialization will take 20+ days for all 5 levels just to get to the specialization.
Due to the Drake's range limitations (10km or thereabouts) it's almost a requirement to fit a 10mn MWD - else you'll sit there why people shoot you and you fire missles into space. That means you've crippled your cap, at a minimum, and when you engage you turn your ship into a big Barn Door - great for shooting at.
Not exactly equivalent.
And - for those who are interested, I fitted up a Drake today - and basically got owned by a Myrmidon.
The Net/Net of that experience: The same I-win button applies:
ECM / NOS / DRONES 4TW.
That is probably the lamest arguement I have read to date. You arn't *required* to fit a Heavy Assault missile on anything. It also gets its bonus for normal assault and Heavy launchers too. So if you use the H.Assault missiles and find them lacking, that is your own fault, try one of the others. (by the way, their max range is just over 15km if you put your training into other missile skills than the already stated useless Heavy assault missile specialization skill.)
And you neglected to mention that unlike all the other races, You don't need to train the smaller Guns to level 5 in order to get a tech 2 of any type of missile. TO get T2 large turrets you have to train for T2 small and medium too, so don't even go there with the training times.
As for MWD use, you could always use an afterburner and some inertial stabilizers to help with your speed.. or just use the MWD. The Drake's Sig is already large enough for cruise missiles to hit it for full damage, or torpedos if oyu are painted even by a T1 painter. you might possibly outrun most of the explosion if your velocity is high enough compared to their explosion velocity. And any sort of speed at all will make large turrets tracking on you miss a lot. *edit* missiles don't need tracking either, so you are probably the best off fitting a MWD on the drake compared to all of the other Tech one Battlecruisers.
|
Captain Raynor
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 23:36:00 -
[36]
4.5 seconds is a Nighthawk with Command Ships 5, a 5% rof implant, and max skills in other areas.. (heavy launcher)
Quote:
Daniel Jackson > a harbinger cant be a raven cause its not caldari Daniel Jackson > and its not a missle ship Jim Raynor > thank you for that expert analysis DJ
|
JenDen
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 00:24:00 -
[37]
Dont see anyone mentioing NH bonuses of missile target navigation prediction and missile precision, which make him uber frigate killer.
|
MuffinsRevenger
EmpiresMod
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 00:52:00 -
[38]
A nighthawk with a good fitting takes on lvl4 missions without anny form of problems
I just got in mine, and today iv'e been able to breeze through vengence (and even killing the named rat with just 700k lp in missiles...) and silience the informant without dropping below 95% shields at anny point
You simply can't do that with a drake, even with the same fittings :) naturaly, it's kind of a investment to get the modules needed for a setup like that, but it's far from impossible and also just that, a investment
For general PvP, sure, the drake will be better due to lower price, but in the end the nighhawk is still stupidly superior and worth the training |
Dra0cht
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 01:51:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Statics
Could the T2 BPO holders cry anymore? So you trained for a Command Ship and aren't happy anymore, boo hoo. Everyone in Eve just got slapped in the face with the new 800k SP noobs. Get over it. Just because a ship costs 250mil doesn't mean it's worth 250mil.
this man speakest the truth! The T2 monopoly has been dealt a severe blow, rightly so, and long overdue. If you are just an ordinary joe who trained up for T2 ships, and got severly ripped off by the T2 BPO price gougers, then it really is not good for you, I accept that.
However, the changes were, and will remain, absolutely necessary. Adapt, move on, learn how to use all those uber skills you trained up for over-hyped and over-priced T2 kit, rejoice at the amount of (relatively) even competition you are now experiencing, and remember, there aint no going back
|
Estan Drake
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 02:00:00 -
[40]
Oh yeah slapped in the face... thats why prices are... rising for nighthawks?
|
|
Sorela
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 04:55:00 -
[41]
Anyone who didn't see this coming is blind. Every freaking T2 item in the game is only a small 10~15% improvement over the equivalent T1 item. It only makes sense that eventually the T2 ships were going to get chopped down to their proper place.
You guys talk about how long it takes to get the skills for these things and yet you ignore that that is EXACTLY why they needed to close the gap from T1. The entire premise of EVE is that long term training gives you lots of small bonuses here and there. This huge exception in the area of ships is just too damaging for the new player experience.
It was either stuff like this or they'd significantly lower the skill req's to get these ships. You can bet money that people would of caused even more of an uproar if the pre-reqs went down though.
|
keepiru
Supernova Security Systems
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 05:19:00 -
[42]
Edited by: keepiru on 05/12/2006 05:20:00
Originally by: Sorela Anyone who didn't see this coming is blind. Every freaking T2 item in the game is only a small 10~15% improvement over the equivalent T1 item. It only makes sense that eventually the T2 ships were going to get chopped down to their proper place.
You guys talk about how long it takes to get the skills for these things and yet you ignore that that is EXACTLY why they needed to close the gap from T1. The entire premise of EVE is that long term training gives you lots of small bonuses here and there. This huge exception in the area of ships is just too damaging for the new player experience.
It was either stuff like this or they'd significantly lower the skill req's to get these ships. You can bet money that people would of caused even more of an uproar if the pre-reqs went down though.
Nailed it on the head tbh.
One of the few wide-scale balance changes in Revelations I agree with. ----------------
Where are the scan probe BPOs? |
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer EVE Animal Control
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 06:10:00 -
[43]
Originally by: The Bill 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.
Their for giving bonuses you douche. The field is for a simple upgrade to the BC + some gang mod capabilites. The fleet command is the real shining example,and what you should be shooting for. ---------------------------------------- Friends Forever
|
Mnengli Noiliffe
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 07:52:00 -
[44]
Strange.. the title says about all FCS, and the topic sems to be about Caldari ones only. Anyways I have considered Gallente BC and CS, and I think there is a kind of balance present. However the Myrmidon can be compared to Fleet CS, not a Field one.
Let's see, Myrm got armor rep bonus, more armor, small drone bay and a bonus for drone damage/HP. Eos got the same rep bonus, less armor but more resistances, huge drone bay with no drone bonus, which is somewhat compensated by hybrid damage bonus.
Well I don't know but it looks balanced to me, although I wouldn't say it does worth almost triple cost and training time.. but anyways I like Astarte from the look of its stats so no training is lost :)
|
Siobhan Ni
Gallente Infinitus Odium
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 08:49:00 -
[45]
Tech 2 variants of the new tier 3 BCs would be very nice and would balance out the time and skill points players have invested in command ships. But I do agree that the new BCs are a tad over-powered.
|
Yossar
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 09:29:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Sorela Anyone who didn't see this coming is blind. Every freaking T2 item in the game is only a small 10~15% improvement over the equivalent T1 item. It only makes sense that eventually the T2 ships were going to get chopped down to their proper place.
You guys talk about how long it takes to get the skills for these things and yet you ignore that that is EXACTLY why they needed to close the gap from T1. The entire premise of EVE is that long term training gives you lots of small bonuses here and there. This huge exception in the area of ships is just too damaging for the new player experience.
It was either stuff like this or they'd significantly lower the skill req's to get these ships. You can bet money that people would of caused even more of an uproar if the pre-reqs went down though.
As long as the price goes down accordingly, I wouldn't mind that so much. Unfortunately it doesn't look like there's been much more than a correction for a pre-Kali spike.
|
Jaybird
Gallente Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 10:36:00 -
[47]
T2 Ships are expensive to fit and very skill intensive for a reason. To use them properly, you need more than just what on the skill requirment list to use them to there full potential. I fail to see all the chaos about this. T2 will continue to outshine when in the right hands. The problem isn't baseline numbers, its peopl rusihng into them who: a. Can't afford to fly them to their potential or b. Don't hae the skills to properly utilize them. Granted revelations new BC's have narrowed the gap between it, but better resists, power fitting ability, and better bonus will always add up to being superior in the right hands. If you can't fly it right, stick with a drake or something cheaper, get what you want out of it, and once you get skilled try out a Nighthawk or whatever and tell me theirs no difference.
Send Hate Mails Here... |
Pan Crastus
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 11:00:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Natasha Kerensky The REAL question is: Can the Drake solo lvl4 missions?
L4 missions vary so much in difficulty level that this question is rather pointless. It should have no problems at all with the easier ones.
With the tougher ones (e.g. Worlds Collide), even BS with above average setups will struggle.
|
ITTigerClawIK
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 11:17:00 -
[49]
Well noone is touching anything with the Harbinger.... we love our mini geddon thanks.
see ya never get complaints about meny amarrian ships these days lol "An open mind is like a fortress with its gates un barred and ungarded"
http://users.net4u.hr/~maza/gr/sigs/TigerClaw |
Efour
Amarr Matari Shipworks
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 11:44:00 -
[50]
THe minigeddon with the same price tag as its big brother :O
|
|
Exogene
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 11:49:00 -
[51]
And no one has thought about the fact that Command ships are based on Tier 1 Battlecruisers? Doesn't Tier 2 mean new technology? Wakey wakey... I totally disagree with the op...
|
Corbin Devereux
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 12:38:00 -
[52]
Isn't it kind of flawed logic to compare a T2 BC to a T1 command ship in the first place? If you compare it like that sure there won't be as much of a gap. When T2 command ships come out i'm sure they'll be plenty good.
|
Phrixus Zephyr
Yesodic Nomads Corp Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 12:55:00 -
[53]
From what a friend tells me his drake tanks Lvl 4 Angel Extravaganza faily easily. I'd say that makes it a little overpowered tbfh.
I'd expect the Commandship to do it, not a T1 BC.
Originally by: Victor Ramirez using it to get the layout of a new system and a quick belt-check is about as practical as using Google Earth to see if your car is still in front of your house.
|
Ishmael Hansen
No Quarter.
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 13:24:00 -
[54]
Originally by: JenDen Dont see anyone mentioing NH bonuses of missile target navigation prediction and missile precision, which make him uber frigate killer.
Because those bonus were borked, and one was change to a rof bonus
|
JenDen
Caldari LFS Corp
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 17:01:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Ishmael Hansen Because those bonus were borked, and one was change to a rof bonus
That's interesting, would appreciate if someone clearifies that. Patch nottice states: "The NighthawkÆs missile explosion velocity bonus has been replaced with a missile launcher rate of fire bonus" which is good, rof gives way more dps in general than explosion velocity. But I dont see anything about the former "5% bonus to heavy missile precision per level" which is reduction of signature penalty. Does this bonus still apply?
|
LUKEC
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 17:17:00 -
[56]
Originally by: JenDen
Originally by: Ishmael Hansen Because those bonus were borked, and one was change to a rof bonus
That's interesting, would appreciate if someone clearifies that. Patch nottice states: "The NighthawkÆs missile explosion velocity bonus has been replaced with a missile launcher rate of fire bonus" which is good, rof gives way more dps in general than explosion velocity. But I dont see anything about the former "5% bonus to heavy missile precision per level" which is reduction of signature penalty. Does this bonus still apply?
It did apply on monday. And it is 4tw bonus. -------- The BoB model is bad for business. Incidently the BoB model is more suited for a game such as WoW where as the ASCN model more suited for Eve.
McGreedy |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 17:34:00 -
[57]
Based on this thread I have decided that the nighthawk is a hell of a lot better than I had ever realized. I consider the drake to be insanely uber (I fly one so I'm not complaining), but now I see that the nighthawk is better in every single way. So I have to wonder why anyone who has actually done any math is complaining.
The NH out-damages & out-tanks the drake... that makes it a far better ship.
In Eve you generally pay 10 times more to get a 10% increase or even more than that... in this case you're only paying 3 times more to get a much much larger increase. The NH is well worth it and I will actually train for one now based on this thread :) I will post tanking numbers a little later so it can be shown just how much better the NH tanks.
**********************************************
Tank Rankings - Ships & Fittings Compared! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=386174 |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 17:45:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Akita T on 05/12/2006 17:49:29
Originally by: Shadarle Based on this thread I have decided that the nighthawk is a hell of a lot better than I had ever realized. I consider the drake to be insanely uber (I fly one so I'm not complaining), but now I see that the nighthawk is better in every single way. So I have to wonder why anyone who has actually done any math is complaining.
The NH out-damages & out-tanks the drake... that makes it a far better ship.
In Eve you generally pay 10 times more to get a 10% increase or even more than that... in this case you're only paying 3 times more to get a much much larger increase. The NH is well worth it and I will actually train for one now based on this thread :) I will post tanking numbers a little later so it can be shown just how much better the NH tanks.
You get the "Most Sane Newcomer-to-this-thread Award".
The only drawback is the need to skill up Command Ships, actually. Other than that, NH "wtfpwnzorz" in every possible aspect. Heck, in most cases, NH>Raven.
Compared to the Drake, you're not only getting the equivalent of one extra launcher, you're also getting -25% to sigradius penality for heavy missile explosions (bye bye frigates or "whoa look how much damage my rage heavy does now"). And the tanky part, well, in a full passive setup, I'd sayon average about 35-45% extra DPS tanked given same -vs-damage spread for passive setup (plus, you know, you can ACTUALLY FIT your stuff, unlike the Drake that's barely holding on). _____ -sig-
This is my only char. These are my skills
Always question everything, including yourself |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 18:20:00 -
[59]
Alrighty, here is the tanking comparison.
The nighthawk can tank 632.65 damage at peak recharge averaged against all 4 resists. EM=61.19% or 266.38 max EM tank Expl=84.48% or 665.95 max Expl tank Kin=85.45% or 710.34 max Kin tank Therm=88.36% or 887.93 max Therm tank
The Drake can tank 495.99 damage at peak recharge averaged against all 4 resists. EM=58.60% or 309.19 max EM tank Expl=83.44% or 772.96 max Expl tank Kin=75.16% or 515.31 max Kin tank Therm=66.88% or 386.48 max Therm tank
Thus 495.99 (drake) vs 632.65 (nighthawk) gives the nighthawk a 27.553% better tank. It does 14.x% more damage.
Multiplied that means the Nighthawk is approximate 46% better than the Drake in these two categories. I'd like to see how the OP can complain that a 46% boost isn't worth the training/cost. He better also compare the cost increase from a caracal to a cerb and the damage/tank difference as well. And also from a frig to an assault frig to show us how out of whack the Command Ships are and the nighthawk in particular is in his mind.
**********************************************
Tank Rankings - Ships & Fittings Compared! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=386174 |
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari Worms Corp
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 19:17:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Phrixus Zephyr From what a friend tells me his drake tanks Lvl 4 Angel Extravaganza faily easily. I'd say that makes it a little overpowered tbfh.
I'd expect the Commandship to do it, not a T1 BC.
the Ferox didnt do all that bad in L4 angels ganza. and whats the big deal if the drake can do it. it doesnt hurt you in any way if a tech 1 ship can perform close to that of tech 2. next thing people will complain the new BCs are better then HACs as well.
|
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 22:08:00 -
[61]
Being able to do it and being able to do it well are two TOTALLY different things. Assault ships can do level 3's and maybe even some level 4's.... doesn't mean they do them well. A raven would do a level 3 in a fraction of the time of an assault ship, as would a Cerb. I hope a ton of people do level 4's in drakes... they will be doing them a lot slower than people that use ships that are better armed.
**********************************************
Tank Rankings - Ships & Fittings Compared! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=386174 |
Karandor
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 22:19:00 -
[62]
Very true I can do levels 3s in my jaguar but my hurricane is MUCH MUCH faster.
|
Enkilil
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 22:44:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Enkilil on 05/12/2006 22:51:45
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
the Ferox didnt do all that bad in L4 angels ganza. and whats the big deal if the drake can do it. it doesnt hurt you in any way if a tech 1 ship can perform close to that of tech 2. next thing people will complain the new BCs are better then HACs as well.
But... they are... by quite a large margin... example, just off the top of my head: anyone w/ the skills to fly a Deimos would benefit more from a Myrmidon than they ever would from that nerfed up camoflauge P.O.S.
Why train 1 1/2 months for a HAC when (unless you fly Minmatar or a Cerberus) they are pretty much useless nerfed cruisers with a few resistances? please... anyone with half a brain would drop the 50 mil and get a BC with a few days of training and accomplish the same thing.
No one expects any ship to be a solo pwnmobile... but I would expect a ship to justify what I just spent xxx days training for. ghey.
|
The Hardman
Amarr Sausage Commandos
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 22:58:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Malthros Zenobia T2 takes longer to train for, and T2 mods are harder to fit.
Well, that is true of T2 modules. But what was the weakness of T2 ships?
|
Egil Kolsto
|
Posted - 2006.12.05 22:58:00 -
[65]
Quote : The nighthawk can tank 632.65 damage at peak recharge averaged against all 4 resists. EM=61.19% or 266.38 max EM tank Expl=84.48% or 665.95 max Expl tank Kin=85.45% or 710.34 max Kin tank Therm=88.36% or 887.93 max Therm tank
What modules did you slap onto that Nighthawk? Personally I come up with 90+ on all resists should I ever fly a ship that require such insane skills to get into.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 04:21:00 -
[66]
"Why train 1 1/2 months for a HAC when (unless you fly Minmatar or a Cerberus) they are pretty much useless nerfed cruisers with a few resistances?"
The Cerberus is fairly worthless now too. The Drake is better than the Cerb in just about every way...
"What modules did you slap onto that Nighthawk? Personally I come up with 90+ on all resists should I ever fly a ship that require such insane skills to get into."
Med: 3 Large Extender II, 2 Inv II Low: 3 SPR, 2 PDS
Sure, if you buy faction invulns you could get better resists... but this is the best setup using standard gear. A 200 mil ship is cheap... spending 200+ mil on one module is not... at least to me. I consider nighthawks to be extremely under-priced at 200 mil considering their tank + dps potential now.
Using specific hardeners will yield worse overall resists but better resists to those specific resists. If you wanna give me a specific setup to try I'll try it. I can handle any passive or active shield tank... just give me the exact specs of any faction item and ill input it and tell you how good it does.
**********************************************
Tank Rankings - Ships & Fittings Compared! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=386174 |
slothe
Caldari Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 04:34:00 -
[67]
nerf the drake?
Before complaining about any ship try flying Minmatar |
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 04:45:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Natasha Kerensky The REAL question is:
Can the Drake solo lvl4 missions?
A passive tanked missile Ferox can solo some level 4s, so...
Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 04:58:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Enkilil Edited by: Enkilil on 05/12/2006 22:51:45
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
the Ferox didnt do all that bad in L4 angels ganza. and whats the big deal if the drake can do it. it doesnt hurt you in any way if a tech 1 ship can perform close to that of tech 2. next thing people will complain the new BCs are better then HACs as well.
But... they are... by quite a large margin... example, just off the top of my head: anyone w/ the skills to fly a Deimos would benefit more from a Myrmidon than they ever would from that nerfed up camoflauge P.O.S.
Why train 1 1/2 months for a HAC when (unless you fly Minmatar or a Cerberus) they are pretty much useless nerfed cruisers with a few resistances? please... anyone with half a brain would drop the 50 mil and get a BC with a few days of training and accomplish the same thing.
No one expects any ship to be a solo pwnmobile... but I would expect a ship to justify what I just spent xxx days training for. ghey.
If HAC costs were back down around 50-60mil like they were when I started last year, you'd jump into one without thinking twice.
You don't accomplish the same things, because the two ships are not ment to be the same.
Personally I'd use a Cerb over a Drake if they both cost around the same (the cerb's cheaper to build I remind you), or even if the cerb was alittle more.
Course NH > both so meh.
HACs do justify the time you spent training for them, they are specialized ships. You specialize for an edge, not to be the embodiment of pwnage.
Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 04:59:00 -
[70]
NIGHTHAWK FULL PASSIVE ALL-OUT-TANK NOTE: All relevant skills assumed to be L5, 5% gnome implants also assumed to be plugged in.
Base resists: 25/70/71.875/77.5 Base shield: 4805 * 1.25 * 1.05 = 6306.5625 HP Base recharge: 1250 * 0.75 * 0.95 = 890.625 sec Peak recharge: 17.7 shield per second Now, this is a module-less, rig-less ship, this is from skills and implants only.
Obviously, EM resist needs most work, so we slap on a T2 passive EM for starters (-46.875% EM damage, EM resist up to 60.156%). 4 midslots remaining. You can argue as much as you want, but for passive tanks, SPRs are THE best lowslot alternative (especially if used in conjunction with passive hardners). A LSE2 is 2625 (*1.25*1.05=3445.3125 HP after skills and implant). 1st added one is a +54.6% increase, 2nd one is a +35.5% increase, 3rd one would only be about +26.1% increase so we won't slap that on just yet. We have 2 midslots remaining. Now, you could risk it and go with a T2 invul, but if you run out of cap, that one becomes next to useless (-15% damage, stacking nerfed a bit for EM). Personally, I'd just go with either a second EM passive resist here (stacking nerfed to -40.3125% EM damage, EM resist becoming 76.218%) and the 3rd extender if you have no idea of what to expect... or with two of the other 3 hardners, depending on your expected target damage types.
So, we have: 5x SPR Is, 3x LSE IIs, 2x Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II Resists: 76.218/70/71.875/77.5 Shield hitpoints: 6306.5625 + 3x3445.3125 = 16642.5 Recharge time: 890.625 * 0.8^5 = 291.84 seconds Peak recharge: 142.56/second Max DPS resisted : 599/475/507/634
Ok, so not impressed yet ? FOR A FULL PASSIVE TANK ?
SPR Is are available for next to nothing pretty much everywhere, invention is cheap for them, so expect to see some SPR IIs hiting the markets soon enough. I guess you won't spare much effort and get your hands (eventually) on two purger II rigs and plug'em in, you won't regret it. Let's redo this with 5xSPR IIs and 2xPurger IIs.
The only thing we change is the recharge times. Recharge time: 890.625 * 0.76^5 * 0.75^2 = 127.023 seconds Peak recharge: 327.54 shield/second Max DPS resisted : 1377/1092/1165/1456
Again, I am repeating, on a FULL PASSIVE setup. No officer stuff, just plain'ol'vanilla T2 stuff. Ok, the Purger2 rigs might be a bit expensive at first, and probably the SPR2s too, but they'll eventually settle. _____ -sig-
This is my only char. These are my skills
Always question everything, including yourself |
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 05:01:00 -
[71]
Originally by: The Hardman
Originally by: Malthros Zenobia T2 takes longer to train for, and T2 mods are harder to fit.
Well, that is true of T2 modules. But what was the weakness of T2 ships?
Limited availability, much more logistics required in their creation*, much more materials used in construction, longer build time, long training time before you can use them, overconfidence, poor gas mileage, large insurance gap due to high demand and low supply.
Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 05:03:00 -
[72]
To put it into perspective, if you EVER encounter 2 NOS-Domis, regardless of drones they might use, and no matter how much NOSing they might try to "suck" out of you, your shields will keep steady at around 45-55% with you AFK. _____ -sig-
This is my only char. These are my skills
Always question everything, including yourself |
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 05:07:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Akita T *snip*
If T2 SPRs aren't seeded in the lottery, you won't be able to invent them. Your math isnt anything new though, I posted similiar info in pottsey's thread about having a 218/shield peak on her (gallente) ship.
Use a Vulutre if you're going for ultimate passive tank though, it's even more powerful.
Also, with the passive tank setup you have listed, you cannot fit a rack of T2 heavy missile launchers. You need two PDU IIs and near-max fitting skills to get 3 T2 extenders and 6 launchers fitted. You'll get 3-4 on your uber tank setup, and while nobody will break your tank easily, you won't be breaking theirs either.
Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 05:11:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Akita T To put it into perspective, if you EVER encounter 2 NOS-Domis, regardless of drones they might use, and no matter how much NOSing they might try to "suck" out of you, your shields will keep steady at around 45-55% with you AFK.
right up until your hardeners deactivate because you have no cap.
Then you have a nice EM-hole, and they swap drones, and you die.
Lets not forget that *5* SPRs will completely destroy your cap regen, and keeping hardeners running forever with 5 sprs isn't possible. Even with max cap skill, 2 invulns will drain your cap with 2 SPRS fitted unless you have PDUs to help offset.
Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 05:20:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Akita T on 06/12/2006 05:25:55 Well, T2 rig BPOs won't get seeded either, they specifically said that in the (now deleted) Kali feedback subforum, and they also said "will be available exclusively through invention". So, it's kind of arguable wether or not the SPR IIs can actually be invented, but unless somebody actually tries with the proper components and still gets an error message, I can safely assume they are "ok to go".
NH has a PG of 710 MW, 887.5 MW with Engineering L5. You use 2 MW for the amplifiers. One LSE II needs 165 MW * 0.75 (L5 skill) * 0.95 (gnome implant) = 117.5625 MW * 3 = 352.6875 MW (about 532.8 MW left). Nothing else except the launchers uses PG. To fit 6 of them, you need a weapon that only uses 88.8 MW a piece. Sadly true, you need 90 MW for T1 and 94.5 MW for T2 heavies, leaving you (in the T2 version) with 34.2 MW of PG short.
Swapping a single SPR II with a PDU II will enable you to fit a full rack of T2 launchers. And you still have over 1000 DPS tanked vs all resists, completely NOS immune.
_____ -sig-
This is my only char. These are my skills
Always question everything, including yourself |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 05:22:00 -
[76]
Edited by: Akita T on 06/12/2006 05:23:08
Originally by: Malthros Zenobia right up until your hardeners deactivate because you have no cap. Then you have a nice EM-hole, and they swap drones, and you die. Lets not forget that *5* SPRs will completely destroy your cap regen, and keeping hardeners running forever with 5 sprs isn't possible. Even with max cap skill, 2 invulns will drain your cap with 2 SPRS fitted unless you have PDUs to help offset.
HELLO ? Have you even READ my post ? 5x SPR, 3x LSE IIs, 2x Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II
I was using PASSIVE EM hardners, there's not a single module in the entire setup that uses any capacitor whatsoever. And in case you haven't noticed, there is no "EM hole", actually EM is the STRONGEST resist of the setup _____ -sig-
This is my only char. These are my skills
Always question everything, including yourself |
Ishmael Hansen
No Quarter.
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 06:22:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
Originally by: Phrixus Zephyr From what a friend tells me his drake tanks Lvl 4 Angel Extravaganza faily easily. I'd say that makes it a little overpowered tbfh.
I'd expect the Commandship to do it, not a T1 BC.
the Ferox didnt do all that bad in L4 angels ganza. and whats the big deal if the drake can do it. it doesnt hurt you in any way if a tech 1 ship can perform close to that of tech 2. next thing people will complain the new BCs are better then HACs as well.
The old BC's are better then Hac's in capable hands.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 07:58:00 -
[78]
Anyone who thinks a Cerb is better than a drake is dreaming. The cerb is a worthless ship now imo... I've had one for quite a while and I have an Eagle. Both ships are worthless in PvE. The Raven outdid the Cerb pre-patch and the Drake outdoes the Raven + Cerb now (for level 3's that is).
**********************************************
Tank Rankings - Ships & Fittings Compared! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=386174 |
Pottsey
Gallente Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 19:32:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Pottsey on 06/12/2006 19:38:20 öUse a Vulutre if you're going for ultimate passive tank though, it's even more powerfulàà. You'll get 3-4 on your uber tank setup, and while nobody will break your tank easily, you won't be breaking theirs either.ö You just answer why we donÆt use a Vulture a tank that can do nothing else is useless. ThatÆs why I like my Eos great tank and great DPS. Same for the Nighthawk much better DPS over a Vulture.
Akita T is right the command ships do work. I have me setup a little different as I only fight serps that do kin + thermal also itÆs a fleet not field but thereÆs not much difference tanking wise. Here is my current PvE setup http://www.dissonance-corp.com/screenshots/passiveshieldtankeosmk8.JPG without rigs and its pretty much 100% passive apart from the mid slot archaeology module and high slot modules. Still got some tweaking to go yet, I reckon I can get a lot more of out it without rigs. ItÆs pretty good considering its immune to Nos/cap drain and not every single slot is used for tanking. If your doing PvP you could always swap the archaeology module for a passive EM hardener.
EDIT: With 95% resistance and 14k hitpoints half the time I donÆt even need the passive HP regen.
ôSo, it's kind of arguable wether or not the SPR IIs can actually be invented, but unless somebody actually tries with the proper components and still gets an error message, I can safely assume they are "ok to go".ö I donÆt know about now after the patch but you get an error message per patch. Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 00:23:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 06/12/2006 05:38:47 Edited by: Akita T on 06/12/2006 05:23:08
Originally by: Malthros Zenobia right up until your hardeners deactivate because you have no cap. Then you have a nice EM-hole, and they swap drones, and you die. Lets not forget that *5* SPRs will completely destroy your cap regen, and keeping hardeners running forever with 5 sprs isn't possible. Even with max cap skill, 2 invulns will drain your cap with 2 SPRS fitted unless you have PDUs to help offset.
HELLO ? Have you even READ my post ? 5x SPR, 3x LSE IIs, 2x Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II
I was using PASSIVE EM hardners, there's not a single module in the entire setup that uses any capacitor whatsoever.
Oh right, I haven't seen passive hardeners for so long I forgot their name.
Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 00:36:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Pottsey Edited by: Pottsey on 06/12/2006 19:38:20 öUse a Vulutre if you're going for ultimate passive tank though, it's even more powerfulàà. You'll get 3-4 on your uber tank setup, and while nobody will break your tank easily, you won't be breaking theirs either.ö You just answer why we donÆt use a Vulture a tank that can do nothing else is useless. ThatÆs why I like my Eos great tank and great DPS. Same for the Nighthawk much better DPS over a Vulture.
That's not really true. The setup listed above with the 3 extenders, full lows of SPRS...etc, does not fit with a full rack of t2 launchers. I dont believe a full rack of Malkuth heavies fit either (dont have 6 to check with).
If you can only fit 3-4 Heavy Missile launchers on the Nighthawk, your DPS are going to be in-line with a Vulture's, so unless you drop some SPRs for PDUs, which weakens the tank a fair bit, you won't have the full DPS edge with the NH over the Vulture. It's an uber setup, but due to the lack of launchers, the DPS will not be very noteworthy, and the DPS advantage of the NH over the Vulture diminshes.
Don't get me wrong, I love my NH, and my fitting skills are nearly maxxed, but if you're using a T2 setup, you're not fitting 3 extenders and 6 launchers without 2, possibly 3 PDUs (depends on fitting skills). Dropping down to named launchers to avoid an extra PDU is possible, but you're looking at at least a 2-10% DPS drop at the least. Considerably more if you use a 'lower grade' named type like Malkuth, and you're sitting on a lvl 4 or 5 heavy missile spec. As much as I love my NH, the idea of quite possibly cutting my DPS in half to have some uber tank, which in many cases isn't needed, is something I'm not really in favor of.
But the ability to have utterly insane passive tanking isn't new to me, I mentioned the ability to go over 300shield/sec peak a week or so ago. However getting that tanking means your DPS are not going to be very good, and when you're either not fitting a full rack of launchers, or fitting slow firing named launchers, compared to T2 rails on the Vulture, both having no damage mods, the DPS advantage of the NH becomes smaller, and the slightly better tank of the Vulture is indeed a factor in the two. The upsde is the NH won't need cap, the Vulture will, and with 5 SPRs, you're pretty screwed for firing your guns.
Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Pottsey
Gallente Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 07:17:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Pottsey on 07/12/2006 07:18:46 ôThat's not really true. The setup listed above with the 3 extenders, full lows of SPRS...etc, does not fit with a full rack of t2 launchers. I dont believe a full rack of Malkuth heavies fit either (dont have 6 to check with).ö 5 easy ways to fix that. Either use Cosmos extenders, or named extenders, or shield rechargers or use the 5% less powergrid implant that assuming you need to do any of that with the 25% less PG needed from skills. The 5th way is like you say use an extra PDS its not that bad you still get a great tank. What about advanced weapons upgrades as well?
ôThat's not really true. The setup listed above with the 3 extenders, full lows of SPRS...etc, does not fit with a full rack of t2 launchers. I dont believe a full rack of Malkuth heavies fit either (dont have 6 to check with).ö 5 easy ways to fix that. Either use Cosmos extenders, or named extenders, or shield rechargers or use the 5% less powergrid implant that assuming you need to do any of that with the 25% less PG needed from skills. The 5th way is like you say use an extra PDS its not that bad you still get a great tank. What about advanced weapons upgrades as well?
EDIT: Also Akita T was using 4x Shield Power Relay II which boost PG.
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 08:56:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Akita T on 07/12/2006 08:59:23
Originally by: Pottsey EDIT: Also Akita T was using 4x Shield Power Relay II which boost PG.
Dang, I *always* forget about that bonus when I do my calculations EDIT: whoops, they removed it. Hmmz, does this mean they actually intend allowing us invention ? _____ -sig-
This is my only char. These are my skills
Always question everything, including yourself |
Pottsey
Gallente Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 10:52:00 -
[84]
Its still on at http://www.eve-online.com/itemdatabase/shipequipment/shield/shieldpowerrelays/1422.asp. I wonder what they are planing?
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 11:33:00 -
[85]
Edited by: Akita T on 07/12/2006 11:37:27
The web-itemdatabase is still in a pre-Revelations state. EEEK, that's a 10% *PENALITY* to powergrid there on that link, wth ? It used to be 5% bonus !
No idea on the ETA on the updated version.
P.S. Personally, I sort of like it this way, I can use it in conjunction with ingame showinfo to look at what changed _____ -sig-
This is my only char. These are my skills
Always question everything, including yourself |
Pottsey
Gallente Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 12:54:00 -
[86]
ItÆs a bonus not penalty if you look at PDS and Aux reactor they also got a û symbol. As far as I can recall itÆs always been 10%. Passive shield tanking guide click here |
JenDen
Caldari LFS Corp
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 20:30:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Shadarle Anyone who thinks a Cerb is better than a drake is dreaming.
Would disagree with that. Tried tanking my friend's raven torpedoes on a drake - couldn't tank it for too long. And on the other hand I can still defeat his raven with my cerber >_>
|
Karrihn
Caldari Quintessential
|
Posted - 2006.12.08 14:30:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Natasha Kerensky The REAL question is:
Can the Drake solo lvl4 missions?
Absolutely. The Destruction of your ship is usually preceeded by the thought,"I think I will try somthing a little different this time...." |
Karrihn
Caldari Quintessential
|
Posted - 2006.12.08 14:32:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Malthros Zenobia
Originally by: Natasha Kerensky The REAL question is:
Can the Drake solo lvl4 missions?
A passive tanked missile Ferox can solo some level 4s, so...
It can solo all level 4's. The Destruction of your ship is usually preceeded by the thought,"I think I will try somthing a little different this time...." |
Mack Dorgeans
Camelot Innovations
|
Posted - 2006.12.08 15:34:00 -
[90]
The thing that gets me is how the T2 battlecruisers (command ships) have slightly lower hitpoints than their T1 counterparts, never mind the tier 2s.
That's just plain silly. T1 BCs are now much better choices unless you absolutely need the better resists on T2s.
|
|
Pottsey
Gallente Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2006.12.08 15:51:00 -
[91]
ôThat's just plain silly. T1 BCs are now much better choices unless you absolutely need the better resists on T2s.ö No way, T2 have much better tanks more then x3 better and they donÆt cost much more. My Eos is cheap and way better then my Brutix.
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
JenDen
Caldari LFS Corp
|
Posted - 2006.12.08 21:19:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Karrihn It can solo all level 4's.
I won't believe Drake can solo Enemies Abound 5/5 and Worlds Collide.
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.12.09 02:49:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Karrihn
Originally by: Malthros Zenobia
Originally by: Natasha Kerensky The REAL question is:
Can the Drake solo lvl4 missions?
A passive tanked missile Ferox can solo some level 4s, so...
It can solo all level 4's.
You can solo a lvl 4 vengance mission with a passive tanked missile ferox?
Impressive, considering that the final NPc can tank cruise missile ravens that do 2x the DPS of a missile ferox.
Unless you meant the Drake, which can most likely kill em all, but that Vengeance guy would be nasty and take a couple warpouts probably.
Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Feradwynn
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 19:52:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Shadarle Alrighty, here is the tanking comparison.
The nighthawk can tank 632.65 damage at peak recharge averaged against all 4 resists. EM=61.19% or 266.38 max EM tank Expl=84.48% or 665.95 max Expl tank Kin=85.45% or 710.34 max Kin tank Therm=88.36% or 887.93 max Therm tank
The Drake can tank 495.99 damage at peak recharge averaged against all 4 resists. EM=58.60% or 309.19 max EM tank Expl=83.44% or 772.96 max Expl tank Kin=75.16% or 515.31 max Kin tank Therm=66.88% or 386.48 max Therm tank
Thus 495.99 (drake) vs 632.65 (nighthawk) gives the nighthawk a 27.553% better tank. It does 14.x% more damage.
Multiplied that means the Nighthawk is approximate 46% better than the Drake in these two categories. I'd like to see how the OP can complain that a 46% boost isn't worth the training/cost. He better also compare the cost increase from a caracal to a cerb and the damage/tank difference as well. And also from a frig to an assault frig to show us how out of whack the Command Ships are and the nighthawk in particular is in his mind.
Not sure where you got your numbers from mate, but the Drake and the Nighthawk have the EXACT same base EMP and EXP resists. Add the same mods and they end up with the EXACT same values. I need to call BS on this as a result. Not sure what you did with the extra Drake midslot, but toss in another invuln II and recalculate. Not sure about the base recharge rate. The NH does have an extra low slot, but the Drake has a higher shield rating and therefore a higher base recharge before fitting the low slots. Adjusting the low slot fittings should help to get the Drake to a comperable recharge rate.
|
Vincent Almasy
Gallente The Underground
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 20:04:00 -
[95]
is this a topic to have the drake's 4% resistance boost removed, if so i'm for it to be fair or let the amarr get their 5% boost back as well and the matar their 5% boost back to active shielding.
|
Hotice
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 21:01:00 -
[96]
Edited by: Hotice on 11/12/2006 21:05:10 All command ships are based tier 1 battle cruisers. So, all we need is for ccp to release tier 2 command ships based tier 2 battle cruisers. Then the play field would be even.
However, even with the current command ships, they are still better than tier 2 battle cruisers even with less hp. This is due to their resistance and extra fire power. Any of the command ships can handle pretty much all the lvl 4 missions and do them well. you cannot say the same for all the tier 2 battle cruisers. I can fly all the HACs and Command ships. the difference between battle cruisers, HACs and Command ships is very big. It is not a waste of time to train for command ships!
Be able to handle a mission is one thing, do it quickly and safely is another. I have done lvl 4 Angel extravaganza in Retribution a few times. Each time it took me at least 2 hours and 4+ sets of T2 crystals. However, you wouldn't see me to come here and complain about training HACs and Command ships are waste of time since I could do a few lvl 4s in an AF.
|
Seraphim Io
Caldari Battlestars Imperium Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.12.12 06:22:00 -
[97]
um can the vulture get a boost please for us hybrid caldari pilots I really dont want to have to train into gallente for yet another ship type.......
Originally by: Koshmarnaya Akula
Nothing says "stealth" like oh look a stealth bomber warped in!
|
Akiman
|
Posted - 2006.12.12 09:24:00 -
[98]
anyone compared between astarte and drake dps? or tanking abilities?
|
Terrance O'Conner
|
Posted - 2006.12.15 12:33:00 -
[99]
Don't get this thread. Sure the tier2 BCs are nice, - especislly so the Drake. And yes, can do lvl4 missions in a drake, but takes about 2-3 times that of a NH, not to mention if things go bad your chances of survival are a lot better in a NH as this baby pawns webber/scrammer frigs in no time. To the damage part, well, the NH beats Drake anyday of the for the sole reason it doesn't need to rely so hard on passive setups, but can be fitted with large t2 SB and perma-tank without problems (20% better base cap-recharge), which in this way will free up 2 low-slots for damage mods, + probably still have better tanking capabilities than the drake. So stop whining, the NH is uber compared to drake. with same tank, dps will be about 25-30% better at least.
For PvE setup use this:
6 x hvy 1 x whatever
1 x hardener (specific) 1 x large booster 1 x boost amp 2 x cap-recharger
2 x bcu 3 x pds
All t2 stuff and good skills will allow you to crash through lvl:4s faster than most cruise-missile fitted ravens, and never come close to problems.
|
Terrance O'Conner
|
Posted - 2006.12.15 12:44:00 -
[100]
One more thing, - Nighthawk looks so more cool than the drake
|
|
Almarez
|
Posted - 2006.12.15 18:04:00 -
[101]
Someone may have said this I didn't read through everything. Remember the primary role of command ships, at least the ones that allow three gang mods, is to help the fleet. The ones that allow just one mod, well I guess they are slightly better than tier 2 BC's but I agree that it isn't worth the extra training, unless you think that BC lvl 5 will help with both ship classes.
Also, the second set of bonuses can definitely make a difference.
|
Sorja
E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.12.15 18:20:00 -
[102]
Have you ever seen a Sleipnir in action ?
What the OP is saying boils down to: 'since the Nighthawk sucks, the Drake has to suck harder'.
/me goes away still dreaming about a high damage Caldari ship, which the Drake was supposed to be and is not. ____________________ A gentleman is someone who can play the bagpipe, but who does not. |
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.12.15 21:06:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Sorja Have you ever seen a Sleipnir in action ?
What the OP is saying boils down to: 'since the Nighthawk sucks, the Drake has to suck harder'.
/me goes away still dreaming about a high damage Caldari ship, which the Drake was supposed to be and is not.
/me wonders when we're getting our teir 2 gank BCs since we've not got the tier 2 tank BCs.
Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Talos Darkhart
|
Posted - 2006.12.15 23:09:00 -
[104]
This was not a nerf to T2 it was a nerf to long term players after 9months of nooobs whinging and moaning they nerfed EvE into EvE lite were you can be uber in weeks with little to no effort or risk wellcome to the new dawn walcome to Kali the death of EVE.
|
Angus McLean
Gallente Divinity Trials
|
Posted - 2006.12.16 00:33:00 -
[105]
Doesnt anyone think its odd that Tier 2 BC's are about the same price (maybe 5m lower than) a Tier 1 Battleship? Stupid minerals cost...
|
Cuebick
Caldari The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2006.12.16 03:38:00 -
[106]
The amount of time that it takes to train up for Command Ships is worth it.. I wouldnt trade my Absolution for a Harbinger EVER. The Absolution is so much better.
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.12.16 06:09:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Talos Darkhart This was not a nerf to T2 it was a nerf to long term players after 9months of nooobs whinging and moaning they nerfed EvE into EvE lite were you can be uber in weeks with little to no effort or risk wellcome to the new dawn walcome to Kali the death of EVE.
Is that why a lot of older players seem to love that they can finally have a viable PVP ship, that isn't a battleship, and doesn't send them to the poor house, or take several months to train for?
Let new players use the new ships to NPC or whatever. I know I'm going to be a hell of alot more afraid of a DRake coming at me than a Ferox though.
Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
ViperVenom
Minmatar Fast Food Corp Novus Ordos Seclorum
|
Posted - 2006.12.16 08:32:00 -
[108]
Field command ship are power houses. they have great tank. And gank that a Drake would love to have.
I like a Hurricane. But a T2 fitted Sleipnir is a monster.
So yes a Drake is nasty but field command ships are just plan out nasty.
|
Revan Wolf
|
Posted - 2006.12.16 10:19:00 -
[109]
now i may be wrong about this but...for a drake
if you maxed out both heavy assult and heavy missle spec. and you have 2 rigs for ROF bonus and 2 ballistic controllers that adds up to a good 70% ROF give or take stacking penalties..
for heavy missle ROF that gives about 3.6 ROF..(give or take) and for heavy assult around 1.92ish ROF..(give or take)..
so i would guess that to make up for some of the downsides of the drake the dps with even minimal skill lvl's should be enough to give the NH a run for its money
|
Galban Hunter
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2006.12.16 11:20:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Cuebick The amount of time that it takes to train up for Command Ships is worth it.. I wouldnt trade my Absolution for a Harbinger EVER. The Absolution is so much better.
Singed -------------------------------------------- [2005.02.08 13:58:16] Your Mega Beam Laser II perfectly strikes Sansha's Beast, wrecking for 709.6 damage.
|
|
QwaarJet
Gallente Rage of Angels Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.12.16 11:23:00 -
[111]
I own an Astarte and Nighthawk. They are my favourite ships, ad i've used them at the highest level, in the alliance tournament.
They have never let me down, and I feel they are fine the way they are.
"Hobbes, she stepped into the Perimeter Of Wisdom.Run!" |
Hex'Caliber
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.12.16 12:26:00 -
[112]
I have to agree the difference between t1 ships and their t2 counterparts is too little to justify the cost and sp investment now. I am too tired to present examples, besides others are doing a sterling job. But I will say I have sold my hac's and replaced them with bc's and now have a healthier looking wallet, better tank's and equivalent or better damage and I only have bc 3 trained, which if I recall I trained 12 months ago during the first month of my current mains life . I did keep my Ishtar for low sec ratting and my Taranis but those are the only t2 ships I can see myself using now unless the current situation is addressed.
Personally, I have a beef with the approach to ship design and balance in eve anyway, imho it is farcical. Bleh I am off to bed, before this annoys me any further, perhaps I can finally start training trade or industry skills, as there seems little point in training for command ships or combat recon now, when their t1 cousins will do nearly as good a job for a fraction of the cost.
If the number of rig slots per t2 and t1 were switched so that t1 have fewer slots than t2, the sp and cost would be worthwhile. Imho that would make more sense for ships that are supposed to be advanced versions within their respective classes, but what do I know, it seems common sense has no place in eve ship design.
SISI testing ôDonÆt forget to start the log server before the client; the logs are needed for bug reports when something goes wrong.ö Regards HexCaliber
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |