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)
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.02.25 20:11:00 - [1] The nighthawk doesn't need another launcher slot, what it needs is about 300 more PG to bring it inline with the other command ships. And gang modules need a rather general overhaul in terms of fitting.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.02.26 23:06:00 - [2] Power grid comparisons: Drake: 850 Claymore: 1390 Astarte: 1450 Absolution: 1575 Nightwhawk: 710 That is so absurdly low I can only hypothesize that it's a bug.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.03.03 18:44:00 - [3] Edited by: Ulstan on 03/03/2008 18:44:16 After several pages of EFT fits demonstrating the Nighthawk doesn't have enough grid, it's important to repost these staggering numbers. Power grid comparisons: Drake: 850 Claymore: 1390 Astarte: 1450 Absolution: 1575 Nighthawk: 710 That is so absurdly low compared to other command ships and to its T1 equivalent that I cannot believe it is anything other than a bug.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.03.04 16:40:00 - [4] Edited by: Ulstan on 04/03/2008 16:46:03 Edited by: Ulstan on 04/03/2008 16:41:57 Quote: It has to do with the fitting requirements of the modules you are meant to fit. Neutron blasters for example take 212 grid, 250mm rails even more. Clearly it's not sinking in. Power grid comparisons: >>>>>Drake: 850<<<<<< Claymore: 1390 Astarte: 1450 Absolution: 1575 Nighthawk: 710 That is so absurdly low compared to other command ships >>>>>>and to its T1 equivalent<<<<<<< that I cannot believe it is anything other than a bug. Please feel free to list other T2 ships that lose so much powergrid from their T1 variants. Also draw up a list of other caldari missile boats that have less than one half the powergrid of other ships of their class. Does the raven have half as much PG as other battleships? Does the caracal have half as much PG as other cruisers? Does the Kestrel have half as much PG as other frigates? Does the Drake have half as much PG as other battlecruisers? We all know that missile boats have less PG than gunboats, that's not the issue here. The issue is the ridiculous magnitude of the difference in the case of the nighthawk, how that difference is far out of proportion with the differences between every other missile boat and gunboats of their class, how the nighthawk has significantly less grid than its T1 counterpart, and thus doesn't have the grid for fits as good as the other command ships can field.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.03.04 20:28:00 - [5] Edited by: Ulstan on 04/03/2008 20:31:58 Quote: Compare fully fitted ships considering range, firepower, hit quality, mobility, versatility, cap sustainability and all other things that will come to your mind. It's been done and the Nighthawk has been demonstrated to be lacking multiple times. Read the thread. However, this is a far more concise way of illustrating the vastly deficient power grid of the nighthawk. Power grid comparisons: >>Drake: 850<< Claymore: 1390 Astarte: 1450 Absolution: 1575 Nighthawk: 710 >>Maller: 900<< That is so absurdly low compared to other command ships >>and to its T1 equivalent<< that I cannot believe it is anything other than a bug. There's no excuse for such giant discrepencies, and they do not occur in all other missile vs gunboat matchups.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.03.04 20:58:00 - [6] Edited by: Ulstan on 04/03/2008 21:00:14 Even better power grid comparison: Hurricane 1350 --> Sleipnir 1460 Myrmidon 1175 --> Astarte 1450 Harbinger 1500 --> Absolution 1575 Drake 850 --> Nighthawk 710 (<---WTF?)
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.03.05 20:30:00 - [7] Obviously I need to keep posting my chart, since people apparently can't be bothered to read the thread and discover that the Nighthawk needs 2-3 more fitting mods than the other field commands, leading to weaker setups overall. Power grid comparison: Hurricane 1350 --> Sleipnir 1460 Myrmidon 1175 --> Astarte 1450 Harbinger 1500 --> Absolution 1575 Drake 850 --> Nighthawk 710 (<---WTF?)
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.03.11 00:14:00 - [8] Merin, I know that looking at setups is better, but it seems no one in this thread can be bothered to look them over. At least my chart is nice and eye grabbing :) My post was: Obviously I need to keep posting my chart, since people apparently can't be bothered to read the thread and discover that the Nighthawk needs 2-3 more fitting mods than the other field commands, leading to weaker setups overall. Power grid comparison: Hurricane 1350 --> Sleipnir 1460 Myrmidon 1175 --> Astarte 1450 Harbinger 1500 --> Absolution 1575 Drake 850 --> Nighthawk 710 (<---WTF?)
Ulstan Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.03.20 19:07:00 - [9] Obviously I need to keep posting my chart, since people apparently can't be bothered to read the thread and discover that the Nighthawk needs 2-3 more fitting mods than the other field commands, leading to weaker setups overall. But perhaps the most glaring evidence of a problem with the nighthawks powergrid: Hurricane 1350 --> Sleipnir 1460 Myrmidon 1175 --> Astarte 1450 Harbinger 1500 --> Absolution 1575 Drake 850 --> Nighthawk 710 (<---WTF?) Are there other ships that lose so much PG going from T1 to T2? There are cruisers with more PG than the nigthawk.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.04.07 20:13:00 - [10] Edited by: Ulstan on 07/04/2008 20:15:41 Obviously I need to keep posting my chart, since people apparently can't be bothered to read the thread and peruse all of Silence DueGoods fittings to discover that the Nighthawk needs 2-3 more fitting mods than the other field commands, leading to weaker setups overall. But perhaps the most glaring evidence of a problem with the nighthawks powergrid: Hurricane 1350 --> Sleipnir 1460 Myrmidon 1175 --> Astarte 1450 Harbinger 1500 --> Absolution 1575 Drake 850 --> Nighthawk 710 (<---WTF?) Are there other ships that lose so much PG going from T1 to T2? There are cruisers with more PG than the nigthawk. It's insane. All the other CS gain PG from their T1 hull, and for good reason - they are essentially their T1 hull + a gang mod. Yes, it's true that HAM's take far too much powergrid and should be adjusted, but no matter what you're trying to fit on the NH, the fact it remains it has a ********ly low PG, less than that of it's T1 hull. The NH should have MORE pg than the drake, not less. Nighthawk needs about 200 PG more.
Ulstan Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.04.08 18:16:00 - [11] Quote: Count of fitting mods needed for æa Warfare-Link, Big Guns and a great TankÆ û Sleipnir û 0 Astarte û 1 Absolution û 1 Nighthawk û 3 Show me any other single ship in the game where Caldari is forced to use so many fitting mods compared to equivalent ships of other races for balance reasons. Thanks. Explain to me why the Nighthawk has less grid than a Drake, an Onyx, and several cruisers. Thanks. Quoting for those who can't seem to grasp the issue at hand: the Nighthawk has an absurdly lower powergrid, less than it's T1 hull and several CRUISERS, and as a consequence must fit far more fitting mods than any other CS. HAM's do take too much grid, but a Nighthawk still should have more grid than a drake.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.04.09 15:09:00 - [12] Edited by: Ulstan on 09/04/2008 15:10:45 The most glaring evidence of a problem with the nighthawks powergrid: Hurricane 1350 --> Sleipnir 1460 Myrmidon 1175 --> Astarte 1450 Harbinger 1500 --> Absolution 1575 Drake 850 --> Nighthawk 710 (<---WTF?!!! You LOSE GRID by going to Tech II) There is no excuse for the Nighthawk to LOSE GRID when compared to the Drake. None. At all. The Nighthawk should be the drake + a gang mod. Thus, it should have more grid than the Drake, just like all other CS gain a boost in PG compared to the T1 BC's.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.04.10 17:08:00 - [13] Quote: HAMs = short range weapons Short range weapons = LESS FITTING REQS RIGHT? uh no? there's your problem once again. That is a problem, yes, but not the primary problem addressed in this thread. The issue is that, no matter WHAT the fit, the Nighthawk falls dramatically short on grid, requiring 2-3 more fitting mods than all other CS for an equivalent fit. An extremely glaring piece of evidence that the nighthawks grid is lower than it should be is the fact that the Nighthawk loses a significant amount of grid compared to its T1 hull, the Drake. There is no good reason for this. None. What does a drake equip that a nighthawk is supposed to ditch? If anything, a nighthawk is basically a drake + command mod. The nighthawk should receive a boost in grid compared to the drake, just like all other CS get when compared to their T1 hulls. If the nighthawk had about 75-100 grid on the drake, it would put it in a situation where it could use the same fittings other CS do, without having to use 2-3 more fitting mods than they do to achieve those fittings.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.04.17 17:38:00 - [14] There are two problems 1) The excessively high PG cost of HAMs (which affects many caldari missile boats) 2) The absurdly, ridiculously low PG on the Nighthawk which means it needs 2-3 more fitting mods than other CS for equivalent fits, leading to weaker setups overall. I mean, seriously, it is so obvious that the nighthawks grid is far far too low: Hurricane 1350 --> Sleipnir 1460 Myrmidon 1175 --> Astarte 1450 Harbinger 1500 --> Absolution 1575 Drake 850 --> Nighthawk 710 (<---WTF?!!! You LOSE GRID by going to Tech II) There is no excuse for the Nighthawk to LOSE GRID when compared to the Drake. None. At all. The Nighthawk is essentially the drake + a gang mod. Thus, it should have more grid than the Drake, just like all other CS gain a boost in PG compared to the T1 BC's.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.04.18 14:44:00 - [15] I think a 140 PG increase is the bare minimum necessary - that would bring it up to the level of the Drake. A 200 PG increase would be more in line with all other command ships compared to their T1 hulls, and all other missile ships compared to gun boats of the equivalent class.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.04.22 18:13:00 - [16] Quote: I don't see the need for a NH boost, and their market price are proof of it. Market price is proof nothing in terms of PvP balance. A ship may be ****ty for pvp but it's not going to sell for less than it cost to build it now, is it?
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.04.24 15:06:00 - [17] Quote: Ok so a show of hands, who here is asking for basically a T2 Drake? Eh? What do you think the nighthawk is? It already is a T2 drake...with unaccountably LESS powergrid than the T1 drake. That obviously should be fixed, since the nighthawk must equip 2-3 more fitting mods than all other CS for similar fits, leading to weaker setups overall. No other CS has less grid than it's T1 hull, they all get a significant boost. So should the nighthawk.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.04.29 14:20:00 - [18] Quote: That's your problem, you are trying to fit an MWD and XL booster at the same time, as much as you want to do it you just can't with the current powergrid. First off, MWD on a 5 mid slot tank is suicide, I'd never do that. Even if they gave us more powergrid I wouldn't do that. Leave the MWD for 7 slot tanks. As shield tankers you have to give up something, its either web/point or MWD. You can't do all 3. The Sleipnir can...why not the other shield tanker? Quote: However...the dps. Please. You are comparing the NHs dps with LONG RANGE weapons vs the other fleet commands with SHORT RANGE weapons. Yeah but if we were to compare with a HAM using NH it would be even worse because they take even MORE powergrid the NH doesn't have. Anyway, HAM PG should definitely be reduced, but there is simply no question that the NH PG needs increasing: it's a T2 drake with a random and inexplicable loss in power grid. Does any other T2 ship in the entire game lose PG going from T1 to T2?
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.05.07 18:42:00 - [19] Quote: Till then it's pretty freaking obvious that the Nighthawk needs approximately 170 more PG. Amen to that.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.05.08 14:56:00 - [20] Originally by: Gypsio III The Sleipnir comparison is scary actually. What a wonderful ship the Sleip is! It ganks - 700+ DPS, or ~650 DPS with Barrage. It tanks - XLSB fits easily, giving 700+ DPS tank, or close to 1000 DPS with solidifier rigs! If you fit a single CPU upgrade, you can get a gang mod on as well! Or you can nano it, giving almost 3 km/s! What does the Nighthawk have in comparison? Well, if you want a gang mod and XLSB like the Sleip: A HAM fit requires 5 RCU IIs. Yes, a full rack of fitting mods! If you only want HMLs, you "only" need 4x RCU IIs and a Copro II!! What about AML IIs? Well, you still need 3 RCU IIs... Ok, let's use frigate weapons! Oh hang on, with a full rack of Rocket Launcher IIs, you still need a RCU II and a PDS II! There is something fundamentally wrong here, and it's not the Sleipnir. That is almost comically sad. The Sleipnir is indeed awesome, but the fact the NH sucks that badly in comparison is rather disheartening.

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.