| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gypsio III
Bambooule
   |
Posted - 2008.04.15 11:36:00 -
[31]
It doesn't need an extra launcher. Nighthawk DPS is fine - if you actually fit damage mods in the lowslots, and not bloody SPRs.
The PG problem really is that bad, btw - 200 PG extra is not excessive, although 150 is probably a more realistic request. |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 11:38:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: Kale Kold
The Nighthawk has kinda lost its teeth now with a nerf to its shield recharge rate and now the resist nerf. Its not really worth flying such an expensive ship which is only slightly better than other races tech1 BCs.
Can it get some love please?
You think it's worth flying any of the other CS? I think not. |
Gamesguy
Amarr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 11:41:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Kevrlet
Edited by: Kevrlet on 14/04/2008 18:01:31
Originally by: Gemineia
At command ship 5 explosion velocity would be:
Heavy precision: 3,000
Heavy/Heavy fury: 2,250
So it would...almost be able to hit a crappy nano-HAC? Not that your idea doesn't have merit, it's just nobody goes that slow while nano'd unless they just plain suck or are cheap as hell.
Speaking from experience, at least 2/3 of nano-hacs do not exceed 4km/s, which means they do 3k-3.5km/s while orbitting.
With explosion velocity of 3km/s, you will be hitting them to close to full damage. |
Admiral Madbull
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 11:46:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Gypsio III
It doesn't need an extra launcher. Nighthawk DPS is fine - if you actually fit damage mods in the lowslots, and not bloody SPRs.
The PG problem really is that bad, btw - 200 PG extra is not excessive, although 150 is probably a more realistic request.
Field Commandships at max skills viable fits and 2 damage mods on lows (all t2 fitted):
Nighthawk: 406 dps ** 474 dps with 7th launcher **
absolution: 620 dps
Sleipner: 650 dps
Astarte: 678 dps
I am comparing with 2 damage mods, couse a nighthawk with 3 gimps the tank to much. Also i didnt add in any drones on dps.
So i would say that it actually do need a 7th launcher, and saying that its fine as its now doesnt make sence comparing with the other field commanders.
Madbull
. |
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 11:53:00 -
[35]
Quote:
Field Commandships at max skills viable fits and 2 damage mods on lows (all t2 fitted):
Nighthawk: 406 dps ** 474 dps with 7th launcher **
absolution: 620 dps
Sleipner: 650 dps
Astarte: 678 dps
I am comparing with 2 damage mods, couse a nighthawk with 3 gimps the tank to much. Also i didnt add in any drones on dps.
This comparison is stupid. You can't compare DPS figures assuming the same numbers of damage mods, between armour and shield tankers. Also, you're comparing long-range weaponry on the NH (HMs) against short-range weapons on the others. Fit the NH with HAMs and a third damage mod (no, your lowslots are NOT for SPRs!), and then compare those numbers against sensible fits on the other CS.
The PVP NH's problem is that it can't fit much of a tank, and it needs too many fitting mods for any sensible fit. Switching a lowslot to a midslot and a hefty PG boost fixes these. |
Guygeboe
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 11:55:00 -
[36]
<n00bness>what would 150pg be usefull for for the nighthawk?</n00bness>
A bigger cap injector? |
The Hanz
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 11:58:00 -
[37]
Nothing wrong with the Nighthawk in my opinion.
1.) Not every ship needs a passive tank....try an active tank for once. I use 3 PDS and 2 BCU's in the low for most level 4 missions and my tank gets the LuLz when the puny rats scratch it... (for missions of course....go pvp in something else and stop the crying)
2.) Get T2 heavy launchers or your argument holds no water (hey I could have said gtfo instead.)
3.) ?????
4.) PROFIT!
If I'm working at it I can pull down over 30mill an hour doing highsec lvl4 mission in
this ship you all claim sucks. |
Admiral Madbull
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 12:00:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Admiral Madbull on 15/04/2008 12:03:37
Originally by: Gypsio III
Quote:
Field Commandships at max skills viable fits and 2 damage mods on lows (all t2 fitted):
Nighthawk: 406 dps ** 474 dps with 7th launcher **
absolution: 620 dps
Sleipner: 650 dps
Astarte: 678 dps
I am comparing with 2 damage mods, couse a nighthawk with 3 gimps the tank to much. Also i didnt add in any drones on dps.
This comparison is stupid. You can't compare DPS figures assuming the same numbers of damage mods, between armour and shield tankers. Also, you're comparing long-range weaponry on the NH (HMs) against short-range weapons on the others. Fit the NH with HAMs and a third damage mod (no, your lowslots are NOT for SPRs!), and then compare those numbers against sensible fits on the other CS.
The PVP NH's problem is that it can't fit much of a tank, and it needs too many fitting mods for any sensible fit. Switching a lowslot to a midslot and a hefty PG boost fixes these.
I find making a comparison is much better then just saying "its fine"
And im not stupid, ofcourse you cant compare different tanks and setups or even styles the ship uses, or how the player uses it, either its close range, sniper or nano.
But since every ship on eve has its on nitch and its own role, and people flying them adapt to them or die, i think the comparison is very much viable.
ps: using HAMs puts it at 483 dps, not much better
Madbull |
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 12:01:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 15/04/2008 12:01:34
Quote:
<n00bness>what would 150pg be usefull for for the nighthawk?</n00bness>
A bigger cap injector?
Imagine a basic active NH:
6x HM II, empty slot
MWD II, medium electro cap booster, LSB II, Photon II, Inv II
DC II, 3x BCS II, lowslot ECCM or something
With max skills, the NH is currently 166.5 PG short of fitting that - and you're leaving a highslot empty. |
Picadilly
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 12:27:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Picadilly on 15/04/2008 12:31:53
Originally by: Admiral Madbull
Field Commandships at max skills viable fits and 2 damage mods on lows (all t2 fitted):
Nighthawk: 406 dps ** 474 dps with 7th launcher **
absolution: 620 dps
Sleipner: 650 dps
Astarte: 678 dps
.
Fit rails to an astarte to achieve similar range and then compare the dps. Dps has to be proportional to range. If missiles could hit as hard as blasters with antimatter noone would bother with blasters.
edit: spelling
|
The Hanz
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 12:35:00 -
[41]
Edited by: The Hanz on 15/04/2008 12:36:26
Originally by: Picadilly
Edited by: Picadilly on 15/04/2008 12:31:53
Originally by: Admiral Madbull
Field Commandships at max skills viable fits and 2 damage mods on lows (all t2 fitted):
Nighthawk: 406 dps ** 474 dps with 7th launcher **
absolution: 620 dps
Sleipner: 650 dps
Astarte: 678 dps
.
Fit rails to an astarte to achieve similar range and then compare the dps. Dps has to be proportional to range. If missiles could hit as hard as blasters with antimatter noone would bother with blasters.
edit: spelling
This is true, and last I checked I couldn't load ammo into my blasters that does explosive and EM damage.
|
Admiral Madbull
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 12:41:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Admiral Madbull on 15/04/2008 12:43:09
Originally by: Picadilly
Edited by: Picadilly on 15/04/2008 12:31:53
Originally by: Admiral Madbull
Field Commandships at max skills viable fits and 2 damage mods on lows (all t2 fitted):
Nighthawk: 406 dps ** 474 dps with 7th launcher **
absolution: 620 dps
Sleipner: 650 dps
Astarte: 678 dps
.
Fit rails to an astarte to achieve similar range and then compare the dps. Dps has to be proportional to range. If missiles could hit as hard as blasters with antimatter noone would bother with blasters.
edit: spelling
As i said i know the comparisons arent just, but the BIG difference is that the Astarte can select either low dps range, or High dps short range, the nighthawk cant.
Also the Astarte can select alot of different fits that the nighthawk cant.
But the numbers where more to make a dps comparison, as i said i know you cant compare all situations.
Im sure that noone in eve would even think of a nighthawk if you asked for a hight dps commandship
|
Bad Borris
Dragons Of Redemption
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 13:10:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Admiral Madbull
Edited by: Admiral Madbull on 15/04/2008 11:35:43
Originally by: Bad Borris
Originally by: Admiral Madbull
Originally by: Trade Me
Edited by: Trade Me on 15/04/2008 11:00:45
-1 low slots
+1 med slot
+200pg
That'll fix it.
Thats crazy, replacing the lowslot would crap its passive tank, making this ship totally crap.
.
Going from being a good passive tank today, to a worseless ship for BOTH missions and PvP is just a really bad idea!
Actually, it would give it the same slot layout as the drake which is clearly a terrible passive tank . That said, ccp will not want to just make it a better drake. And dream on at the 200 extra pg. Sure the nighthawk is short on grid but not by 200pg.
You can hardly compare with the drake, actually the drake would have better tank since it has 3 rigs , and that 1 more rig it gets makes the alot of difference for the tank.
Also about not wanting to make it a better drake, well the nighthawk was here long before the drake, so actually they made the drake a mini nighthawk, with lots less skills needed to fly but with almost as good a tank.
.
Sure u can compare the drake with the nighthawk.. Why not? They are both caldari missile boats and one would think that they ought to be balanced with a view to creating variety between them. Tbh I actually agree with you that moving a low to a mid would be a bad idea but for different reasons. I think the nighthawk needs a different slot layout just to add a bit of variety. That said I think the drake slot layout is way more versatile than is the nighthawk and is one of the major reasons why the nighthawk has no role that the drake can't do for a whole lot less isk.
Oh and if you think the nighthawk would have a worse tank with the slot layout of the drake I would like some of what you are smoking. The nighthawks t2 resists and higher effective hitpoints would give it an epic tank similar to a tanked up vulture which is one of the best sub-capital tanks in the game. Imagine a vulture doing ham nighthawk damage 
|
Picadilly
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 13:13:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Admiral Madbull
As i said i know the comparisons arent just, but the BIG difference is that the Astarte can select either low dps range, or High dps short range, the nighthawk cant.
Also the Astarte can select alot of different fits that the nighthawk cant.
But the numbers where more to make a dps comparison, as i said i know you cant compare all situations.
Im sure that noone in eve would even think of a nighthawk if you asked for a hight dps commandship
I guess the rail astarte is a fairly theoretical setup for pvp, but even in that case it still has a tracking factor which in a certain angular velocity range would result in lots of misses where missiles would still hit.
I think same thing goes with the raven and there are still ravens used for pvp. Training up some sort of guns and maybe other races ships could provide more versatility.
|
Roxanna Kell
FinFleet
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 13:23:00 -
[45]
Drake 35 mills, nighthawk, cheapest is 166mil ther eabout.
So you can buy around 5 Drakes for 1 nighthawk,
Dps is slightly slightly more. Drake has more mids so it tanks ebtter, were bother can still fit 3 BCUt2, Frankly Something is wrong with the NH.
Propsed changes:
5% bonus to heavy missile Kinetic damage to 5% Bonus the Heavy missile damage.
At least this way you wont be stuck with kenetic like you do on the cerberus.
Raven doesnt get screwed with 1 damage type, why should the nighthawk be when its damage is not the higehst amongst other Combat CS.
Also, Increased drone bay could make it more of a pvp ship.
Quote:
There is no Dishonor in winning fools, so do it any way you can.
|
Eardianm
Darkness Inc.
Arcane Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 14:48:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Trade Me
Edited by: Trade Me on 15/04/2008 11:00:45
-1 low slots
+1 med slot
+200pg
That'll fix it.
This plus that explosion velocity bonus change. That 2.5-3k mark for CS 5 would be awesome, although maybe a touch too much.
--------------
|
Mar vel
Caldari
A.I.M.
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 04:49:00 -
[47]
lol@ccp.
Another nerf-bat failure. SSDD.
Good job - everyone sucks against everyone, and all things come with nerf packaging.
/next |
Noisrevbus
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.04.18 14:05:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Noisrevbus on 18/04/2008 14:14:52
I think Gypsio mentioned a few things that didn't get the intention they deserved (in the load of tank, damage and grid comments) despite being very interesting, and giving the ship a more unique role.
The NH could become a very nice anti-speed platform, especially considering how it's breed of related ships perform 'almost good enough' in such a role. NH being the mother of all HML/AML platforms slow enough to be considering using precision missiles, would make a very interesting choice for a specialized precision platform.
The precision bonus (not to be confused in the choice of words, with precision missiles) have little to no bearing at all due to the 'bugged' (i can only assume it's unintended that heavies and cruise should bear the same stats) explosion velocity on HPM, and even outside of that it's a largely misdirected bonus with the availability of choosing AML for this type of ships. An explosion velocity bonus however would be both interesting and give the ship a defined role that it is king of.
Then im not sure how to read into the TRI guy's comment there, where you have a specialized missile type on a specialized ship being paired against the weaker ships within the typical tanking form in the example, with a weapon type directly related to the target size. I mean, in theory that is what such a missile would be conceptually intended to do. Not to mention that those ships have quite an oversized buffert tank you need to get through as well. Then of course, numbers could always be discussed, but overall what Gypsio brought up is by far the most interesting suggestions.
1. Improving Precision Heavy slightly.
2. Giving the NH an expl. vel. bonus instead of precision.
3. Possibly giving it some more PG.
That would produce a quite reliable anti-nano platform of a priceclass and with a specializing well worth investing rig bonuses into, combined with the chance to alternatively super-specialize with smaller weapons against smaller ships, while retaining a good tank and options towards gang-boosting.
In short, well spoken Gypsio and a valid series of questions raised by the TRI guy as well (whose name i sadly forgot while typing this up), that open up for good balance discussion.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |