EVE Search - Nighthawk Needs Help

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Nighthawk Needs Help

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.18 15:22:00 - [1] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Merin Ryskin Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 18/02/2008 10:11:33 Originally by: bldyannoyed Drop the bloody gang link for a start. None of them find it easy to fit a gang link without breaking the rest of their setup. And this is the problem. The Nighthawk is a command ship. Any setup without a gang mod is a complete waste, and you should just fly a Raven or Cerberus instead. If the Nighthawk can not fit a gang mod without killing the rest of the setup, the ship is broken. It needs at least +400 grid, and probably some CPU as well. None of the other field commands can fit the gang mod without sacrifice, why should the nighthawk? None of the others sacrifice so much as the nighthawk. It doesn't need a PG increase though, HAMs need a PG decrease
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.18 15:33:00 - [2] Drop the cap booster and LSB and it becomes reasonable.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.18 16:24:00 - [3] Originally by: Gypsio III Edited by: Gypsio III on 18/02/2008 15:50:54 Quote: Drop the cap booster and LSB and it becomes reasonable. Hardly. A RCU II and PDS II are required just to fit 6x HAM II, gang mod and MWD II. If we upgrade to a second RCU II, then we can just about squeeze on a named LSE and hardeners, leaving us with a ship that's probably inferior to a PVP Drake. Of course, implants and rigs and named MWDs etc can help further, but the original point here was to compare the fitting to those of other, similarly-fit CS. I mean after the PG reduction on HAMs. I think we have established that HAMs use too much PG right now. The issue is that you should not also be able to cram an injector and LSB on as well[equivalent to an injector and dual MAR tank on an armor tanked ship]
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.21 22:48:00 - [4] Originally by: Gypsio III Quote: No gang mod I'm afraid, but you can't fit many gang mods on 650 dps command ships from any race either. No, as I showed above, the other CS can fit a gang mod on comparable active-tanked non-nanofits with just one fitting mod. Apart from the Sleip, which didn't require any! A comparable NH fit requires 4 fitting mods - 3 RCU IIs and PDS II. This is silly. A 300 PG boost to the NH will bring it into line, making it require just a single RCU II. The answer is to not fit sub-optimal active tanked setups but fit optimal passive tanked setups.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.22 00:26:00 - [5] MSB = MAR...
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.22 19:04:00 - [6] Originally by: Gypsio III MSB? Oh great, so it's ok for the Sleipnir to be able to fit an XLSB but the NH should fit a MSB? Or are you suggesting a dual-MSB tank? There aren't really the slots for that. Pumpkin - you've misunderstood. The comparison is between NH and the other Field CS. The problem is that the other CS can fit MWDs, gang mods, decent active tanks and a full rack of highest-tier T2 weapons without too much fitting hassle - just a RCU II is required. Now try to do that on the NH. The NH is a command ship, thus it should fit a gang mod. It also requires a MWD, that's just game mechanics. You claimed that the other ships could fit a decent active tank, and are clearly defining that as a tank consisting of a single MAR. Well, that is about equal to a tank consisting of a single MSB. So if you can get the single MSB on you are at about the same tank level.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.22 19:08:00 - [7] Originally by: Pumpkin Bread Warfare links and battlecruisers This is because people lack the skills to do so, but have taken a slight detour to get into a more effective ship than the cruiser on the way to battleships. Which should not be a problem with command ships, since they are highly specialized and anyone could have trained into battleships in the same time if they wanted the a ship that did dps and tanked well but didn't care about the gang links.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.24 00:27:00 - [8] Originally by: Pumpkin Bread Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Pumpkin Bread Warfare links and battlecruisers This is because people lack the skills to do so, but have taken a slight detour to get into a more effective ship than the cruiser on the way to battleships. Which should not be a problem with command ships, since they are highly specialized and anyone could have trained into battleships in the same time if they wanted the a ship that did dps and tanked well but didn't care about the gang links. I am aware of this, but I did not feel the need to mention it. Anyone with the skill to use warfare links, will probably skill to use the fleet cs, not the field. Wether you field the field or fleet really depends on what you want to use the ship for. If you are in a smaller gang where you need to engage, the DPS and other strengths of the field commands can outweigh the utility of extra gang mods.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.26 21:15:00 - [9] Originally by: Buyerr nooooo problem is that you BELIEVE that you should have a ship that gives the gang bonusses AND have awesome solo abilities. like any other ship decide what you want and go for that. although i would say the drake type ships have a VERY lousy dps and tank compared to the other races... (yes yes they can have a awesome tank, but so can all the other races -ND at the same time tank at max) I don't know what you are on. Drakes can both do very good dps at long ranges while fielding huge tanks and still tackling. The drake is a amazing ship.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.01 16:57:00 - [10] Originally by: Alexander Knott Dude, I'm not sure, but I think you got owned. Another thing to consider is that you need to compare these ships against tech one battlecruisers. The Drake can field a competetive hp buffer tank, tackle and does slightly less DPS for a fraction of the price. That seems less than optimal. This same situation may also apply to other tier two battlecruisers, I have no idea. No, it really can't. A nighthawk is going to be doing 14% more primary weapon dps, and its hit points are going to be 40-50% higher.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.07 16:19:00 - [11] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: Silence Duegood Or maybe you could provide some proof that the Drake needs a nerf. Last I checked it's a one-trick pony with no real role except as a bait ship, which, since everyone knows that, it's not very effective anymore since tanking isn't a 'role'. Laughably wrong. The Drake is an excellent ship, if you actually fit it properly (here's a hint: it doesn't involve shield power relays). And comparing the Drake to the Nighthawk is kind of silly... the Nighthawk needs more grid because it can't fit a proper setup without multiple RCUs, not because of the Drake's fitting. Don't compare the Nighthawk to other ships on pure grid totals, that ignores the other factors involved. Instead, just try to fit the following: 1x gang mod, 6x heavy missile II MWD, either 2x LSE II or LSB II/cap injector That's the lowest-grid weapons, and the minimum tank that is appropriate for a command ship. Now count how many grid mods you have to fit to get all of that on there. And then just for a little extra humor, try to fit HAMs... then note the amusing fact that thanks to the extra grid mods required, you actually do less dps with HAMs than with heavy missiles! Hey Guys, this is me agreeing with Merin Ryskin... Granted, i think HAMs should have their PG reduced to under heavy missiles and don't really think that that long range setup should have such a tank, but its pretty much the same thing.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.21 09:12:00 - [12] Are you seriously arguing about MWD's? Whether or not they have direct combat applications[and they do] does not mean that they are not required for current day combat. The ability to get back to gates, to move to advantageous positions before enemies engage and to move through bubbles before and after enemies have arrived is invaluable more than nearly any amount of tank, ewar, gang mods, and DPS that you can bring to a gang. A shield resist mod does no good if you are 30km from the gate and cant jump in because you have to move 200m/s through the t2 large bubble. Similarly does your DPS not matter if you have to move 10km out of a bubble before warping to the engagement gate and cannot because you have no mwd. Furthermore, in a gang, even large numbers of tacklers will not be able to tackle all ships in a bubble before some can burn out and warp. If you have an MWD you may live. If you don't you WILL die.
Goumindong	Posted - 2008.03.22 08:42:00 - [13] That is only because you haven't read enough of what ive written Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.25 11:00:00 - [14] They won't comment because even if they think that the ship needs changes, its priority level might not be on the list of things to get done for some time, and if they think it doesn't need changes they put themselves on the record for something unpopular as well as locking them into a decision that they cant easily change. E.G. I know that developers read my thread on webs, but if they say "no there is no problem" then if there is a problem later they can't fix it without people shoving this back into their face. If they say "we like this idea" then people are going to wonder when its implemented, etc etc. All in all, its a lose/lose to comment on threads like this, so really don't expect developers to come in and confirm anything. Vote Goumindong for CSM

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.