EVE Search - Can the Nighthawk get some love please devs?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Can the Nighthawk get some love please devs?

» 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)
Kale Kold Caldari Vicious Little Killers	Posted - 2008.04.14 15:12:00 - [1] 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?
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.04.14 15:13:00 - [2] Perhaps you should suggest what said love should be (in the proper forum)? ---------------- Tarminic - 34 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.81 (Updated 4/8)
Kale Kold Caldari Vicious Little Killers	Posted - 2008.04.14 15:16:00 - [3] Surely you know what love means?
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.04.14 15:16:00 - [4] Wrong forum, but I agree, the NH needs a bit of love. And the only bit of love it needs is some extra powergrid (to the tune of about 890-930 base PG instead of the measly 710 it has now). 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
Maulith Vicious Little Killers	Posted - 2008.04.14 15:19:00 - [5] the shield recharge needs changing back to what it used to be. NH are **** poor now, not worth flying.
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.04.14 15:19:00 - [6] Originally by: Kale Kold Surely you know what love means? It would be better if you stated what you think the Nighthawk should be doing and how it underperforms in that role. Otherwise the devs might have no idea what your problem with it is. ---------------- Tarminic - 34 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.81 (Updated 4/8)
Kale Kold Caldari Vicious Little Killers	Posted - 2008.04.14 15:21:00 - [7] Better Shield Recharge! Better Damage!
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.04.14 15:24:00 - [8] Now we're getting somewhere! Now all you need to do is support those arguments by comparing it with the other command ships of its type and demonstrating that it needs more tanking ability and damage and you've got yourself a post that the devs will pay attention to! ---------------- Tarminic - 34 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.81 (Updated 4/8)
Manic Smile Altruism. Malice.	Posted - 2008.04.14 15:30:00 - [9] Originally by: Tarminic Now we're getting somewhere! Now all you need to do is support those arguments by comparing it with the other command ships of its type and demonstrating that it needs more tanking ability and damage and you've got yourself a post that the devs will pay attention to! Helping the person construct a logical argument is great Tarminic but please don't blatantly lie to him...it'll only hurt his feelings in the long run.
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.04.14 15:32:00 - [10] Originally by: Manic Smile Originally by: Tarminic Now we're getting somewhere! Now all you need to do is support those arguments by comparing it with the other command ships of its type and demonstrating that it needs more tanking ability and damage and you've got yourself a post that the devs will pay attention to! Helping the person construct a logical argument is great Tarminic but please don't blatantly lie to him...it'll only hurt his feelings in the long run. By using "will" in the context of my previous posts, I am actually suggesting that his post is now suitable to be listened to by the devs, not that they will undeniably listen to it.
Kale Kold Caldari Vicious Little Killers	Posted - 2008.04.14 15:34:00 - [11] I've said what i wanted to say, you all get it and the devs do too! /feeding troll
Manic Smile Altruism. Malice.	Posted - 2008.04.14 15:36:00 - [12] Edited by: Manic Smile on 14/04/2008 15:36:07 all bs aside do you seriously think you're the first person to think or post about this the devs know...unless they're hiding under a rock somewhere in Iceland people were complaining before the changes even made live but really good luck with your thread making a difference where the prior 5 or so didn't
The macdaddy Amarr Hedion University	Posted - 2008.04.14 15:36:00 - [13] tarminic be careful........ if the fifth horseman hears of your lies he will come and own you
Smantha Dering Caldari Sam's Space Guys	Posted - 2008.04.14 15:39:00 - [14] I loves my nighthawk. I would love for it to get boosted sure but I likes it the way it is anyhow.
Iomar Uisdean Gallente	Posted - 2008.04.14 16:07:00 - [15] I am not convinced the Nighthawk is all that badly of. Yes, I fly a Nighthawk on occassion, usually level 4 missions. It gets it done for me. Now, I realize that the shield recharge rate got bumped down a bit. I wasn't flying a NH at the time that happened so I can't judge firsthand just how dramatic the change was. Still, the NH can sport a really good passive tank. And there's other options. Perhaps a bit of extra grid wouldn't hurt, I freely admit that fitting the NH required quite a bit more of my creativity then I am used to. I'd love the option to just toss a pile of T2 modules at it and be done. The scant grid makes that difficult.
Gemineia Rakeriku Otaku Invasion	Posted - 2008.04.14 17:47:00 - [16] For pvp - Yes. For NPC'ing - No. For pvp it's already the lowest in terms of DPS (i.e. highest damage T2 weapons with T1 ammo using 3x T2 damage mods and full drone bay of T2 drones). Range wise, the Sleipnir beats it in deep falloff, but otherwise the NH has the best range for all (good for NPC, not much of an advantage for point blank face melting). Tank wise, it's the best. UNTIL you start to fit pvp mods like mwd/disruptor/injector, then it goes down hill quickly. Everyone pvping at subcapital level with shortrange weapons should be fitting an MWD. Now the question is how do you make it better for pvp without overpowering the NPC'ing aspect? I'd suggest dropping the precision bonus and replacing it with an explosion velocity bonus of maybe 20% per level (yes, 20%). Shouldn't over power it as a NPC boat, but that explosion velocity will make it a serious nano-killer. At command ship 5 explosion velocity would be: Heavy precision: 3,000 Heavy/Heavy fury: 2,250 Assault/Javelin: 2,250 Rage: 750 Again, vs NPC's this would serve no purpose, thus not overpowering it (although NH's wouldn't be able to pop frigs as easily - so drones like everyone else would need to be used). In pvp it'd be a decent inty/nano killer, but still not as good as an astarte (for example) at face melting.
Kevrlet Gallente The Knighthawks Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.04.14 18:01:00 - [17] 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. We need this. Badly.
Adonis 4174	Posted - 2008.04.14 18:22:00 - [18] Originally by: Maulith the shield recharge needs changing back to what it used to be. NH are **** poor now, not worth flying. Has it been changed again since rigs? My understanding was that shield recharges on certain ships were reduced when rigs were introduced so as to prevent two shield recharge rate rigs from making them ultimate.
Dex Nederland Caldari Lai Dai Infinity Systems	Posted - 2008.04.14 18:38:00 - [19] Edited by: Dex Nederland on 14/04/2008 18:38:46 Could we see it get the same Command Module bonus as the Vulture? Originally by: Nighthawk Role Bonus: 99% reduction in Warfare Link module CPU need Originally by: Vulture Role Bonus: 99% reduction in Warfare Link module CPU need. Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously. At the moment it takes one of its mid-slots for the NH to run 2 Command Modules while the Vulture can run 3 Command Modules and has 1 more mid slot than the NH. So effectively the Vulture has 2 more mid slots than the NH when they are both used as command ships running multiple modules. Yes you can fly the Vulture as a Missile boat, but its bonuses are for Hybrid weapons. The NH is a command ship, it would be nice if it could run more command modules than a Drake or Ferox. Not an LDIS press release.
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2008.04.14 19:17:00 - [20] 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? It's still a fantastic ship for missioning and never was much good at PvP. Some more PG will make it more useful in gangs and the damage output is a bit weak but the tank is still awesome. -- (Sarcastic mission running veteran, 4+ years) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
Lord Haur Amarr	Posted - 2008.04.14 19:20:00 - [21] Edited by: Lord Haur on 14/04/2008 19:20:15 Originally by: Dex Nederland Stuff about Warfare Link modules Originally by: Nighthawk Name: Nighthawk Hull: Ferox Role: Field Command Ship Quote: Field command ships are geared more towards out-and-out combat than their fleet command counterparts The Nighthawk is the Field command ship, so the single link is all it gets.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.04.14 19:26:00 - [22] Originally by: Dex Nederland Edited by: Dex Nederland on 14/04/2008 18:38:46 Could we see it get the same Command Module bonus as the Vulture? Originally by: Nighthawk Role Bonus: 99% reduction in Warfare Link module CPU need Originally by: Vulture Role Bonus: 99% reduction in Warfare Link module CPU need. Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously. At the moment it takes one of its mid-slots for the NH to run 2 Command Modules while the Vulture can run 3 Command Modules and has 1 more mid slot than the NH. So effectively the Vulture has 2 more mid slots than the NH when they are both used as command ships running multiple modules. Yes you can fly the Vulture as a Missile boat, but its bonuses are for Hybrid weapons. The NH is a command ship, it would be nice if it could run more command modules than a Drake or Ferox. Huh? NH is a Field Command Ship. Vulture is a Fleet Command Ship. The Vulture is supposed to run several Command Modules. The NH is not supposed to (even if it can). This is true for every Command Ship line. Add to that even a single Command Module tends to gimp Field Commands badly enough to not really be wortwhile. If you want the gang links the Fleet Command is really the better way to go. Frankly the Field Commands are not good solo ships and are not terribly good PvP ships. To be sure they are excellent ships overall but in another thread recently it was discussed that the price/performance ratio for a Command Ship is crap. I can buy and fit three Armageddons for about the price of buying and fitting one Absolution. If that discrepancy is not enough when you factor in how insurance pays out the Armageddon is vastly better on a bang-for-your-buck scale. As PvE ships the Field Commands work very nicely and by that measure the Nighthawk is fine. If you really want to PvP with it consider that maybe a Command Module is worthwhile on that ship with a Passive Tank. Do not view it as a solo face melter ala the Astarte but rather as a gang ship to provide unique bonuses, some survivability and while not dramatic at least decent DPS to throw in as well. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
Gemineia Rakeriku Otaku Invasion	Posted - 2008.04.15 10:01:00 - [23] 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. There's a level of "falloff" in relation to missiles. Obviously 3kms explosion radius isn't enough to do massive damage, but there's several things to consider: 1. "OMFG NH gets 20%, so I want 20% bonus to my command ship!!!!111" <- I wanted to avoid this. The bonus could go higher, but I didn't want to overpower the bonus. I figured somewhere closer to 50% per level would be about right, but the issue here is how badly it would rip up frigs/inties/dictors that MWD around, but don't reach silly nano speeds (like 10kms+). 2. Nanoships don't tank so well. This NH might not be hitting hard, but it'll be hitting every volley (unlike turrets). Yes, there's a HP buffer to breakthough though. Only real downside is a NH is far too slow to tackle a nanoship, so we end up right back at square one in terms of a nanoship can simply run away. One issue would be if/when a nanonerf hits this bonus would become useless.
Gypsio III Bambooule	Posted - 2008.04.15 10:32:00 - [24] Edited by: Gypsio III on 15/04/2008 10:33:15 Quote: It's still a fantastic ship for missioning and never was much good at PvP. Some more PG will make it more useful in gangs and the damage output is a bit weak but the tank is still awesome. In PVP, the Nighthawk's tank is nothing special. You simply can't get a good active tank into 3 midslots, after fitting MWD and cap booster, not when you don't have the PG to fit an XLSB, unlike the Sleipnir (actually you don't have the PG to fit a LSB either!). The buffer tank is similarly unremarkable - it's only slightly better than a Drake's buffer tank. But really the thing that cripples this ship is PG - it's hopelessly inadequate, virtually prevents a gang mod being used and a boost of at least 140 PG or so is required just for a bog-standard active PVP fit with MWD. A change to shield recharge would only help mission runners, and the NH is fine in PVE. The precision bonus is terrible in PVP and should be replaced, possibly by an explosion velocity bonus. Ideally, I'd like to see a lowslot switched to a midslot as well - that would beef up the active tank a bit, while limiting the stupid SPR-powered useless-brick passive-regen tank. But PG is the crippling issue that needs fixing first.
Trade Me	Posted - 2008.04.15 11:01:00 - [25] Edited by: Trade Me on 15/04/2008 11:00:45 -1 low slots +1 med slot +200pg That'll fix it.
Admiral Madbull	Posted - 2008.04.15 11:13:00 - [26] I agree with OP I know that most wont agree, but i think the nighthawk needs 7 launcher turrets and +90 PG. That way it can get abit more dps, since it is today the commandship with the worse dps of all. The setup i found to work the best for the nighthawk today has 435 dps (scourge and max skills), with another launcher atleast it would have 72 more dps, and 507 dps with faction stuff is hardly overpowered. Madbull .
Admiral Madbull	Posted - 2008.04.15 11:19:00 - [27] 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!
Gypsio III Bambooule	Posted - 2008.04.15 11:23:00 - [28] 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. Yeah, that would be great. But while we're at it, switch the precision bonus to explosion velocity, making a NH with AML IIs and precision lights an interesting option. Precision heavy missiles could do with a fix at the same time. They're useless - slow, short ranged and with an awful explosion velocity. Currently, the base explosion velocity progression from Light to Heavy to Cruise goes 3000 m/s, 1000 m/s, 1000 m/s. Boosting the Heavies' explosion velocity to 2000 m/s is perfectly reasonable.
cytomatrix Caldari Carebear Killers Inc. DeStInY.	Posted - 2008.04.15 11:23:00 - [29] Edited by: cytomatrix on 15/04/2008 11:23:32 Originally by: Admiral Madbull I agree with OP I know that most wont agree, but i think the nighthawk needs 7 launcher turrets and +90 PG. That way it can get abit more dps, since it is today the commandship with the worse dps of all. The setup i found to work the best for the nighthawk today has 435 dps (scourge and max skills), with another launcher atleast it would have 72 more dps, and 507 dps with faction stuff is hardly overpowered. Madbull . +1 Missile slot +200pg ______________________________________________________________
Admiral Madbull	Posted - 2008.04.15 11:30:00 - [30] 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. .
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]

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.