EVE Search - "Nerfing the drake will make the nighthawk more attractive"

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

"Nerfing the drake will make the nighthawk more attractive"

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
CaptainFalcon07 Abyssal Heavy Industries Narwhals Ate My Duck 2	Posted - 2012.01.20 11:54:00 - [1] - Quote I have never heard of such a stupid statement . Especially since the drake now has greater dps to ALL damage types due to its new rof bonus. Not to mention the range bonus makes it viable for hams, which the nighthawk can't do. The nighthawk is still lacking, the ship itself needs to be looked at, not the drake.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 4464	Posted - 2012.01.20 11:59:00 - [2] - Quote GÇªwhich is why they're not nerfing the Drake GÇö they're focusing it on a particular purpose, leaving the NH open to serve a completely different purpose, rather than, as it does now, doing the exact same thing only not much better. The Drake needs to be look at for a number of reasons, and buffing it is a neat way of doing so GÇö opening up a possible niche for the NH is just a potential bonus. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs.
CaptainFalcon07 Abyssal Heavy Industries Narwhals Ate My Duck 2	Posted - 2012.01.20 12:14:00 - [3] - Quote The nighthawk is still only a tiny bit better than the drake, when using kinetic. It's dps otherwise is inferior. It has one less midslot and it's powergrid is a bit small. It can tank a bit better and slightly better at hitting frigs for the extra skill and cost
Bluestream3 the Goose Flock 7	Posted - 2012.01.20 14:14:00 - [4] - Quote CaptainFalcon07 wrote: The nighthawk is still only a tiny bit better than the drake, when using kinetic. It's dps otherwise is inferior. It has one less midslot and it's powergrid is a bit small. It can tank a bit better and slightly better at hitting frigs for the extra skill and cost Well, that's the problem, and buffing it now would just make it overpowered, like the Drake already is (considering its cost). The problem is not that the Nighthawk is bad, the problem is the Drake is too good.
Vertisce Soritenshi Varion Galactic Tragedy. 955	Posted - 2012.01.20 14:15:00 - [5] - Quote The Nighthawk already is more attractive...I have been flying it over the Drake for years. Granted it normally costs 3-4 times as much but it is worth it. It has way more DPS...and a MUCH better tank. You just don't know how to fit one properly. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!!
Cathy Drall Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 170	Posted - 2012.01.20 14:24:00 - [6] - Quote Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: It has way more DPS... Let's not exaggerate. A little more DPS and still a horrible low PG.
stoicfaux 662	Posted - 2012.01.20 14:41:00 - [7] - Quote Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: The Nighthawk already is more attractive...I have been flying it over the Drake for years. Granted it normally costs 3-4 times as much but it is worth it. It has way more DPS...and a MUCH better tank. You just don't know how to fit one properly. Enjoy the DPS advantage while it lasts. Currently: * NH: (6 launchers * 1.25 kin bonus) / .75 rof bonus = 10 effective launchers * NH: (6 launchers) / .75 rof bonus = 7.5 effective launchers with non-Kinetic ammo * Drake: (7 launchers * 1.25 kin bonus) = 8.75 effective launchers * Drake: (7 launchers) = 7 effective launchers with non-Kinetic ammo Proposed Drake RoF change: * Drake 7 launchers / .75 rof bonus = 9.33 effective launchers regardless of ammo type Before: NH has 14% more raw DPS with kinetic, and 7% more DPS with non-kinetic. After: NH has 7% more raw DPS when comparing kinetic missiles. NH is down by 6% raw DPS for non-kinetic ammo. You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
Fon Revedhort Monks of War DarkSide. 108	Posted - 2012.01.20 14:46:00 - [8] - Quote There are 3+ components in this problem: - drake is indeed way too good regardless of whether NH is or is not lacking - in current CS's balance NH lacks mostly grid - CS's are lacking in general and are in dire need of boost - so NH needs to be boosted kinda twice - armour vs. shield tanking needs to be addressed ASAP otherwise Sleip and new NH will become MUCH better than abso and astarte at virtually everything (damage projection, tanking, tackling, kiting) 2008, CCP Zulu(park): "command ships are fine as is" 2011, CCP Greyscale: "is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?" Nice progress, guys.
Michael Banki Eve Defence Force Fatal Ascension 0	Posted - 2012.01.20 15:41:00 - [9] - Quote Proposed changes will be a buff, from a 25% bonus to KINETIC damage to 25% bonus to ROF, wich makes is a 33% bonus to DPS in ALL damage types. And bonus to range, hmm, HAM drake. Anyway, it would be even better for ratting, who cares about 25% less EHP.
Jerick Ludhowe The Green Cross Controlled Chaos 40	Posted - 2012.01.20 15:49:00 - [10] - Quote except that the nighthawk has 2 fewer slots(1 mid, 1 rig) and costs like 8 times as much for pve performance that is only marginally better than a drake. Nighthawk and all field commands except the Sleipnir need the addition of 1 more slot...
Famble Three's a Crowd 262	Posted - 2012.01.20 16:11:00 - [11] - Quote Michael Banki wrote: Proposed changes will be a buff, from a 25% bonus to KINETIC damage to 25% bonus to ROF, wich makes is a 33% bonus to DPS in ALL damage types. And bonus to range, hmm, HAM drake. Anyway, it would be even better for ratting, who cares about 25% less EHP. This, seriously. I just bought my first Drake last night since all the fuss made me curious, maybe I'll use it in WH's I dunno. But I digress, this thing has way more tank than it needs! This is not a nerf, Drake fans should be delighted. If anyone ever looks at you and says, "Hold my beer, watch this,"-á you're probably going to want to pay attention.
Carniflex StarHunt Broken Toys 8	Posted - 2012.01.20 16:27:00 - [12] - Quote I actually like the proposed Drake change. It will be mini CNR with heavies and even better ship than it is currently. Granted, I prefer "gank" in general. Dead things dont need to be tanked. I will be a bit harder for a 3 mil SP character to do Lev 4 missions in one but it shall be still a possibility. Just somewhat smaller margin for errors. As far as Drake vs Nighthawk goes - I might actually switch using Drakes over Nighthawks for PvE. Only reason to use Nighthawk for me is a bit higher dps they can do atm. With high enough SP the tanking is not an issue in the regular PvE. In PvP it will be a bit easier to bomb drake blob into oblivion if they group tight togehter and I still expect to see them in the future at least when shooting structures is on the agenda and the distance one has to travel is more than 4 jumps.
Gogela Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance 294	Posted - 2012.01.20 16:58:00 - [13] - Quote CaptainFalcon07 wrote: I have never heard of such a stupid statement . Especially since the drake now has greater dps to ALL damage types due to its new rof bonus. Not to mention the range bonus makes it viable for hams, which the nighthawk can't do. The nighthawk is still lacking, the ship itself needs to be looked at, not the drake. This. Fixing the Nighthawk is a relatively simple matter though. It just needs greater native shield resists (maybe a bit more speed too?). It should be able to out-tank a Drake by a healthy margin. Otherwise, it's just an expensive Drake w/ a warfare link. All GëíGêçGëí Ships \| GëíGêçGëí - sñÜpüÅpü«sÑçsªÖpü¬péópéñpâåpâá \| <-- Links to ShowInfo in-game FX7 - No Tax... No Rules... No Problem
Skydell Space Mermaids 112	Posted - 2012.01.20 17:25:00 - [14] - Quote Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: The Nighthawk already is more attractive...I have been flying it over the Drake for years. Granted it normally costs 3-4 times as much but it is worth it. It has way more DPS...and a MUCH better tank. You just don't know how to fit one properly. That's the joke on us all. Everyone knows how to fit a Drake, Nerf it. Everyone knew how to nano a Dramiel, nerf it. Everyone figured out a method of getting in a Super Carrier, nerf it. Pick 500 nerfs, it's the same pattern. Some will adapt and figure out what the new one trick will be for the Drake Pony, most won't. Not because they are idjuts but because the one trick won't be what they wanted. Players keep looking for tank, CCP keep puking out dps. I could also argue and have, you can beat the best Drake fit out there If you know how to fit. Nerf it anyway, CCP. Kill it's tank, make another glass cannon. We need more of those.
Gogela Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance 294	Posted - 2012.01.20 17:39:00 - [15] - Quote Skydell wrote: Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: The Nighthawk already is more attractive...I have been flying it over the Drake for years. Granted it normally costs 3-4 times as much but it is worth it. It has way more DPS...and a MUCH better tank. You just don't know how to fit one properly. That's the joke on us all. Everyone knows how to fit a Drake, Nerf it. Everyone knew how to nano a Dramiel, nerf it. Everyone figured out a method of getting in a Super Carrier, nerf it. Pick 500 nerfs, it's the same pattern. Some will adapt and figure out what the new one trick will be for the Drake Pony, most won't. Not because they are idjuts but because the one trick won't be what they wanted. Players keep looking for tank, CCP keep puking out dps. I could also argue and have, you can beat the best Drake fit out there If you know how to fit. Nerf it anyway, CCP. Kill it's tank, make another glass cannon. We need more of those. I don't think that's a fair comparison. Dramiels were very fast and had very low mass. They were on the edge specs-wise. A monkey could fit a Supercarrier and it would still be the same... that was the problem there. The Drake has a lot of versatility and does a lot of things well, but it's not #1 at anything really. A good Hurricane pilot could cut a drake apart if he knew how the drake was fit. Passive tank drake isn't always best drake. It depends on what you are doing. If you really want to kill a Drake 1v1 get a grav jammer. 9/10 times the typical drake pilot hasn't fit grav boosters. I have a lot of fits for drakes... particularly solo low sec pirating. Depending on what you are doing different things make sense... and when I gate camp in them I'll tell you right now my tank is a lot weaker than it might otherwise be. Actually a lot of times I'm on the fence about whether I want to fit a third warp disruptor or a MWD or afterburner... shield mods in these roams aren't even on the table. People sometimes bug out just because they assume I have a passive tank, not realizing they could easily take me. The Drake isn't really over powered offensively, it just has the capacity for a decent tank. meh... that's just my humble opinion. I've not been in blobbing gangs in a long time so maybe there's a problem when you are dealing with a fleet of passive Drakes but solo the Drake is a fine ship but not the real ultimate power. All GëíGêçGëí Ships \| GëíGêçGëí - sñÜpüÅpü«sÑçsªÖpü¬péópéñpâåpâá \| <-- Links to ShowInfo in-game FX7 - No Tax... No Rules... No Problem
Soulpirate State War Academy Caldari State 83	Posted - 2012.01.20 18:24:00 - [16] - Quote Michael Banki wrote: Proposed changes will be a buff, from a 25% bonus to KINETIC damage to 25% bonus to ROF, wich makes is a 33% bonus to DPS in ALL damage types. And bonus to range, hmm, HAM drake. Anyway, it would be even better for ratting, who cares about 25% less EHP. I keep seeing this math fail. DPS != Raw damage DPS only becomes valid the longer engagements last. If it takes 2 vollies now to destroy a target vs 3 post nerf, that extra volley voids the RoF boost. The calculations on RoF vs +Kinetic are not as black and white as some people seem to think. However, as much as I hate nerfing one thing to make another look better, (kinda like having a fat friend so you look thinner), I think this new Drake will maybe be a bit more fun to fly.
Soulpirate State War Academy Caldari State 83	Posted - 2012.01.20 18:26:00 - [17] - Quote I forgot. The Nighthawk definately needs a boost. One more rig slot jumps to mind for sure.
nate555 GODHC INTERSTELLAR FLEET 39	Posted - 2012.01.20 18:30:00 - [18] - Quote Just buy a raven
Jerick Ludhowe The Green Cross Controlled Chaos 40	Posted - 2012.01.20 18:31:00 - [19] - Quote Soulpirate wrote: I forgot. The Nighthawk definately needs a boost. One more rig slot jumps to mind for sure. why t3 have 3 rigs slots and t2 have 2 is beyond me.... I highly doubt we will see any changes to the total number of rigs per t2 ships however the addition of another mid slot and a bit more pg would make the Nighthawk very attractive. I'd also like to see the kinetic dmg bonus swapped for a raw dmg bonus to heavy and heavy assault missiles.
Soulpirate State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2012.01.20 19:48:00 - [20] - Quote Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Soulpirate wrote: I forgot. The Nighthawk definately needs a boost. One more rig slot jumps to mind for sure. why t3 have 3 rigs slots and t2 have 2 is beyond me.... T1 BC's have 3 rigs. T2 BC's have 2 rigs. You would think it would be the other way around.
Zyress Deaths Head Brigade Gryphon League 23	Posted - 2012.01.20 20:11:00 - [21] - Quote True a Drake does what a Nighthwak does nearly as well and cheaper, but nerfing the Drake won't improve that much as the Tengu also does what the Nighthawk does only with less skill points and a little more expensively. Skillpoints being the only thing you can't control how much you have of that trumps the expense, so I'd use a Tengu before I'd use a Nighthawk.
non judgement Without Fear Flying Burning Ships Alliance 743	Posted - 2012.01.20 20:26:00 - [22] - Quote It's a bit pointless talking about rig slots. CCP aren't going to change the number of rig slots on any one ship. It's far more likely that they'll change anything/everything else on a ship before they change rig slots.
Xolve Intaki Armaments Important Internet Spaceship League 707	Posted - 2012.01.20 20:39:00 - [23] - Quote Soulpirate wrote: The Nighthawk definately needs a boost. One more rig slot jumps to mind for sure. No tech 2 ships have 3 rig slots, why should the Nighthawk be any different? This is also largely due in part to the fact that Tech 2 ships tend to sport more role related bonuses then their Tech 1 counterparts.. in case of the Nighthawk, it has 5. 5% ROF, 5% Shield Resistances, 5% Kinetic Damage, 5% Explosion Velocity per level, and of course, the Command Link Usage bonus. So why would you add another rig slot again? So it could effectively have a 6th bonus? Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator.
Xolve Intaki Armaments Important Internet Spaceship League 707	Posted - 2012.01.20 20:45:00 - [24] - Quote Zyress wrote: True a Drake does what a Nighthwak does nearly as well and cheaper, but nerfing the Drake won't improve that much as the Tengu also does what the Nighthawk does only with less skill points and a little more expensively. Skillpoints being the only thing you can't control how much you have of that trumps the expense, so I'd use a Tengu before I'd use a Nighthawk. Actually maxing all 5 Rank 1 Subsystem Skills is roughly the same as 1 Rank 6 Skill at Level 5; give or take a day or two. Then you simply have to consider the price and viability of the Tech 3 in question. I'd use a Tengu over most things, since buying 1 Ship with a few extra subsystems can effectively perform the roles of multiple different ships, and in that regard almost cheaper. I would rather have one ship thats extremely customizable, then multiple ships to try and cover all the bases that the aforementioned ship can do. Owning a Tengu, can effectively be the same as having a Mission Battleship, a Incursion Ship, a Falcon, a Drake, a Cerebus, a Buzzard, and a Claymore or Nighthawk. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator.
Soulpirate State War Academy Caldari State 85	Posted - 2012.01.20 20:56:00 - [25] - Quote Xolve wrote: Soulpirate wrote: The Nighthawk definately needs a boost. One more rig slot jumps to mind for sure. No tech 2 ships have 3 rig slots, why should the Nighthawk be any different? This is also largely due in part to the fact that Tech 2 ships tend to sport more role related bonuses then their Tech 1 counterparts.. in case of the Nighthawk, it has 5. 5% ROF, 5% Shield Resistances, 5% Kinetic Damage, 5% Explosion Velocity per level, and of course, the Command Link Usage bonus. So why would you add another rig slot again? So it could effectively have a 6th bonus? Where did I say just the Nighthawk should get a third rig? Soulpirate wrote: T1 BC's have 3 rigs. T2 BC's have 2 rigs. You would think it would be the other way around.
Xolve Intaki Armaments Important Internet Spaceship League 707	Posted - 2012.01.20 21:03:00 - [26] - Quote Soulpirate wrote: The Nighthawk definately needs a boost. One more rig slot jumps to mind for sure. Uhhhh.... Right There. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator.
Marcus Harikari Aegis Requiem. 15	Posted - 2012.01.21 04:03:00 - [27] - Quote The drake should not be directly competing with something that costs 7 times as much. That's like somebody deciding between buying a ford focus or a ferrari.
stoicfaux 667	Posted - 2012.01.21 04:36:00 - [28] - Quote Marcus Harikari wrote: The drake should not be directly competing with something that costs 7 times as much. That's like somebody deciding between buying a ford focus or a ferrari. Both the Ferrari and the Focus are a joke. I'll assume you've never seen the Ford Fiesta in action? Skip ahead to the 8:00 minute mark. You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
Buff Jesus 14	Posted - 2012.01.21 05:19:00 - [29] - Quote Xolve wrote: Soulpirate wrote: The Nighthawk definately needs a boost. One more rig slot jumps to mind for sure. No tech 2 ships have 3 rig slots, why should the Nighthawk be any different? This is also largely due in part to the fact that Tech 2 ships tend to sport more role related bonuses then their Tech 1 counterparts.. in case of the Nighthawk, it has 5. 5% ROF, 5% Shield Resistances, 5% Kinetic Damage, 5% Explosion Velocity per level, and of course, the Command Link Usage bonus. So why would you add another rig slot again? So it could effectively have a 6th bonus? Not to mention the assault ship style racial resists.
Jerick Ludhowe The Green Cross Controlled Chaos 41	Posted - 2012.01.21 15:43:00 - [30] - Quote Buff Jesus wrote: Xolve wrote: Soulpirate wrote: The Nighthawk definately needs a boost. One more rig slot jumps to mind for sure. No tech 2 ships have 3 rig slots, why should the Nighthawk be any different? This is also largely due in part to the fact that Tech 2 ships tend to sport more role related bonuses then their Tech 1 counterparts.. in case of the Nighthawk, it has 5. 5% ROF, 5% Shield Resistances, 5% Kinetic Damage, 5% Explosion Velocity per level, and of course, the Command Link Usage bonus. So why would you add another rig slot again? So it could effectively have a 6th bonus? Not to mention the assault ship style racial resists. Field commands do not have the same level of resistances that AFS, HACS, and Fleet Commands have. Instead they have a slightly nerfed version of the racial resists... Fitting Gang links as suggested here through a "5th bonus" to field commands is a great way to gimp the hell out of your already gimpy ship. Gang mods belong off grid or on grid with very specific ships (damnation). I'm not a proponent of adding another rig however the notion that the Nighthawk and many of the other Field commands are "fine" is 100% flawed. Take a gander at the training times involved in these ships and I think you will easily see why they are clearly underpowered as a whole. The fact the nighthawk has 2 fewer slots than a drake is just an insulting slap in the face for anyone who has invested heavily in the leadership skills and the x8 command ship skill.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.