| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] [14]:: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Selnix
Gallente
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
   |
Posted - 2008.05.09 01:06:00 -
[391]
Given pretty much every T2 ship I've trained for on either of my accounts (Eris, Heretic, Arazu, Eagle, Curse, Falcon tho they fixed that) has been nerfed a month or two before or after I finish up the skills for it, Nighthawk is due for its nerf in the near future instead of the needed buff. Hear that CCP? You have about a month left in which to nerf the Nighthawk before I can ever fly it.
Seriously tho, +1 launcher, +250pg, -Precision bonus in favor of the Cerb's range bonus.
Also, plz give the Vulture its 6th turret and 200pg kthx.
|
DogSlime
Caldari
Wilde Cards
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 02:06:00 -
[392]
So, someone at CCP decides to move this thread, but still no posts from a Dev about this issue 
|
Scrutt5
Snuff inc
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 05:47:00 -
[393]
Bring on the Navy Issue Drake
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 07:02:00 -
[394]
 Originally by: Selnix
Also, plz give the Vulture its 6th turret and 200pg kthx.
The Vulture doesn't need this. It's fine where it is compared to the other command ships.
--
Crane needs more grid
249km locking? |
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 10:18:00 -
[395]
Originally by: James Lyrus
Originally by: Selnix
Also, plz give the Vulture its 6th turret and 200pg kthx.
The Vulture doesn't need this. It's fine where it is compared to the other command ships.
Yes. And the Nighthawk doesn't need an extra launcher, its DPS is fine - well it would be if you could fit BCS instead of multiple fitting mods.
Nighthawk needs, in order of importance:
a) More PG (~150 more)
b) Useless precision bonus changed - to explosion velocity would be in keeping with its role.
c) Lowslot switched to midslot, to restrict the PVE AFK-missioners' passive tank and to boost the PVP active tank to a worthwhile level. Or a massive PG boost to enable the fitting of an XLSB. A LSB as part of a 3-midslot tank just doesn't cut it - you can't even tank a Drake's DPS with that.
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 23:35:00 -
[396]
Edited by: James Lyrus on 09/05/2008 23:36:41
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: James Lyrus
Originally by: Selnix
Also, plz give the Vulture its 6th turret and 200pg kthx.
The Vulture doesn't need this. It's fine where it is compared to the other command ships.
Yes. And the Nighthawk doesn't need an extra launcher, its DPS is fine - well it would be if you could fit BCS instead of multiple fitting mods.
Agreed. It has a 25% RoF bonus, and a 5%/level of CS damage bonus. An extra launcher whilst nice, would be going to far IMO.
Nighthawk needs, in order of importance:
a) More PG (~150 more)
No arguments. Although I'd like to see HAMs reviewed at the same time, because they also really hurt to fit on Cerbs and Caracals.
Quote:
b) Useless precision bonus changed - to explosion velocity would be in keeping with its role.
Actually, I'm still hoping that that bonus can be rolled up into one - have both velocity _and_ precision. I mean, it's not like turret tracking boosts stop working if they turn on a microwarp drive.
And HAMs don't get precision bonuses anyway. (Which also I'd like to see, and from guided missile precision, but that's offtopic really)
Quote:
c) Lowslot switched to midslot, to restrict the PVE AFK-missioners' passive tank and to boost the PVP active tank to a worthwhile level. Or a massive PG boost to enable the fitting of an XLSB. A LSB as part of a 3-midslot tank just doesn't cut it - you can't even tank a Drake's DPS with that.
Not actually sure what affect that has on relative tankability and DPS of a PvE setup. Then again, Nighthawk can already tank a L4 mission without breaking a sweat, so gaining tank wouldn't actually make much difference there. (But would go a long way to helping it's PvPness)
--
Crane needs more grid
249km locking? |
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
|
Posted - 2008.05.10 09:26:00 -
[397]
Originally by: Scrutt5
Bring on the Navy Issue Drake
I would actually like to see Navy Issue:
Cormorant, Drake, Rokh, Scorpion, Blackbird.
--
Crane needs more grid
249km locking? |
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.05.11 22:12:00 -
[398]
Quote:
Not actually sure what affect that has on relative tankability and DPS of a PvE setup. Then again, Nighthawk can already tank a L4 mission without breaking a sweat, so gaining tank wouldn't actually make much difference there. (But would go a long way to helping it's PvPness)
I ran the maths on this a while back. Although comparisons were tricky because fits can vary so much, the general conclusion was that an SPR boosted the tank more than an extra LSE or hardener - at least when multiple SPRs were fitted (which is really kinda necessary to get a worthwhile passive tank). So switching lowslot to a midslot helps balance in PVE and PVP, I feel.
But PG is the main issue and should be fixed first, obviously.
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.05.21 17:21:00 -
[399]
So, apparently this thread was moved so the Devs would be sure to see it. However, no response yet.
Any chance we can get some confirmation that the Devs are aware of this problem and have read this thread?
|
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.05.21 17:34:00 -
[400]
This thread is a bit of a mess now. The ideas and modelled fits are lost in the middle somewhere. I've been considering starting a new thread with a TLDR summary of the issues with gimped PG, useless precision bonus, poor tank and the fundamental inability to fulfill its intended role, when fit for PVP. But I'm a bit busy atm. Maybe next week... 
|
Sunbird Huy
Yarrtards With Epeen
|
Posted - 2008.05.21 23:44:00 -
[401]
It's a command ship, uses links to help gang mates.
As much as I would love to see the NH getting more boosts, it's primarily COMMAND ship, still dishes out decent DPS, just use proper missiles.
|
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 08:13:00 -
[402]
Originally by: Sunbird Huy
It's a command ship, uses links to help gang mates.
As much as I would love to see the NH getting more boosts, it's primarily COMMAND ship, still dishes out decent DPS, just use proper missiles.
We would like to see your fit. Ensure that it has MWD.
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 15:00:00 -
[403]
Daily bump for the Devs.
|
Wesley Baird
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 15:34:00 -
[404]
Mention FW in here somewhere, and maybe we will get a response.
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:45:00 -
[405]
Have brought the issue up in the CSM forum here -
Nighthawk powergrid thread in CSM forum
Since the Devs don't seem to care enough to respond to this thread or address the issue perhaps the CSM board will bring this issue to light.
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 05:54:00 -
[406]
Daily bump for the Devs who don't care to respond.
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 17:33:00 -
[407]
Daily bump.
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 16:17:00 -
[408]
Bumpage. Devs. Read. Thanks.
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 16:58:00 -
[409]
Bump for the Devs who apparently think responding to 1 page threads makes more sense than responding to a 14 page thread that is months old.
|
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 08:45:00 -
[410]
Another set of patch notes, and still no fix for the Nighthawk...
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 21:26:00 -
[411]
Hey Devs, don't you think a problem that has existed for years being talked about in a thread lasting for months deserves a response?
Hello?
|
DogSlime
Wilde Cards
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 01:34:00 -
[412]
Wish they would respond.
A very thorough analysis has been performed, and yet total silence from Devs. Even if they think the Nighthawk should stay like it is right now, it would be nice to know that they have at least looked at the issue.
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 14:42:00 -
[413]
If you want to officially support this thread then -
Post in this thread and give us a thumbs up!
Till then I'll wait to see if the Devs can be considerate enough to respond to this thread in a forum designed for them to do so.
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 21:17:00 -
[414]
Let's see the Devs chew on this -
Nighthawk -
t2 Heavy Missile Launcher x6
t2 BCUs x3
- Requires 367.5 CPU / 570 PG
- Remaining CPU - 326.25
- Remaining PG - 317.5
Sleipnir -
t2 425s x7
t2 Gyros x 3
- Requires 221.25 CPU / 973.2 PG
- Remaining CPU - 372.5
- Remaining PG - 851.8
Both of these ships shield tank, both fit Command Modules (or use a last high slot). However -
Look at how totally and completely gimped the Nighthawk is when compared to the Sleipnir, despite it using the rest of its slots almost identically. The Sleip has a bit more CPU than the Nighthawk, and MORE THAN DOUBLE THE GRID.
I wonder if the Devs are truly too stupid to figure this problem out.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] [14]:: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |