EVE Search - [Issue] The Nighthawk needs a powergrid increase

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Issue] The Nighthawk needs a powergrid increase

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Silence Duegood	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:31:00 - [1] Edited by: Silence Duegood on 22/05/2008 17:41:17 Below are several cut and pastes from this thread - The definitive Nighthawk thread Myself and a few others have spent dozens of hours trying to shed some light on this issue. It genuinely needs to be addressed. The Devs have ignored it thus far, while this issue has been glaring problem since the Nighthawk's creation. Below are some or the more important highlights from the thread. PS. I suggest many of you take the time to read the above linked thread to become familiar with some of the nuances and counterarguments that have been mentioned.
Silence Duegood	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:32:00 - [2] Edited by: Silence Duegood on 22/05/2008 17:34:18 Nighthawk - (367 dps w/o drones, 353 defence, 41,866 total hps, 1125 m/s) Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I Large Shield Booster II Invulnerability Field II 'Anointed' I EM Ward Reinforcement Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II Warfare Link Absolution û (531 dps w/o drones, 322 defence, 39,815 total hps, 1233 m/s) Medium Armor Repairer II Medium Armor Repairer II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II N-Type Thermic Membrane I Reactor Control Unit II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I Stasis Webifier II Heavy Pulse Laser II Heavy Pulse Laser II Heavy Pulse Laser II Heavy Pulse Laser II Heavy Pulse Laser II Heavy Pulse Laser II Warfare Link Sleipnir û (574 dps w/o drones, 349 defence, 31,349 total hps, 1765 m/s) Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Ballistic Deflection Field II Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Booster II Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I 10MN MicroWarpdrive II 425mm AutoCannon II 425mm AutoCannon II 425mm AutoCannon II 425mm AutoCannon II 425mm AutoCannon II 425mm AutoCannon II 425mm AutoCannon II Warfare Link Astarte - (567 dps w/o drones, 337 defence, 33,661 total hps, 1205 m/s) Medium Armor Repairer II Medium Armor Repairer II Reactor Control Unit II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Reactive Membrane II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Stasis Webifier II Warp Disruptor II Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II Every one of these setups is using the lower tier, highest quality t2 weapons available for each ship, with comparable tanks for each. Now, look at the fitting mods required for each û Astarte û 1 RCU Sleipnir û None Absolution û 1 RCU Nighthawk û 3 RCUs Note - the Nighthawk comes in a very pitiful last for dps, while all the other ships have very comparable tanks. The Nighthawk leads only in total hps, with the Absolution coming in a very close second. *Drones are NOT factored into DPS* Also note that only the Nighthawk and the Absolution required using a named mod to allow these setups. The Sleipnir can fit full t2, full tank, gang mod, and a full rack of its highest PG close-range weapons with no fitting mods and no named items. It is also ironic that both the Astarte and the Sleip lead in DPS (particularly if factoring in drones) with only one fitting mod for the Astarte and NO fitting mod for the Sleip.
Silence Duegood	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:33:00 - [3] Edited by: Silence Duegood on 22/05/2008 17:39:43 Quoting Ulstan - Hurricane 1350 --> Sleipnir 1460 Myrmidon 1175 --> Astarte 1450 Harbinger 1500 --> Absolution 1575 Drake 850 --> Nighthawk 710 (<---WTF?)
Silence Duegood	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:33:00 - [4] Edited by: Silence Duegood on 22/05/2008 17:39:57 Quoting 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.
Silence Duegood	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:34:00 - [5] Edited by: Silence Duegood on 22/05/2008 17:39:19 Basic Nighthawk setup that the Nighthawk can't even come close to fitting. (164.5pg short) - Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II [empty low slot] [empty low slot] 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Large Shield Booster II Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I Invulnerability Field II Photon Scattering Field II Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II [empty high slot] Assuming all skills at 5 this setup requires precisely 1052 powergrid, while the Nighthawk only has 887.5. ThatÆs a difference of 164.5. WAY off. *This Nighthawk setup requires an RCU II and a PDU II to fit, while other Command Ship can fit equivalent setups with NO FITTING MODS*. See the problem? Adding a gang link to the above setup requires a total of 1252pg. This means the Nighthawk is 364.5pg short of being able to fit a basic setup + a gang mod. 364.5 is nearly HALF of the Nighthawk's base grid with bonuses. The Sleip can fit a great basic setup + a gang mod with no fitting mods and still have grid left. The Astarte and the Abso require only one fitting mod. The Nighthawk needs three or four fitting mods to make up this difference. HELLO?! GLARING PROBLEM HERE! Adding 170 base powergrid to the Nighthawk for 880pg would allow the following - Base 880 = 1100 w/ skills (x1.25) x 1.15 for an RCU II = 1265pg 1265pg is just enough to fit a gang mod, and it requires one RCU II. A much greater boost would be needed to allow the Nighthawk to fit the above with a gang mod while using only one PDU II, and, in my opinion, would be too great a boost. So my official stand is that the Nighthawk needs approximately 170 more powergrid at least.
Yorda Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:37:00 - [6] You use pulses, neutrons, and AC's on the other ships and then use heavy missiles on the nighthawk. Perhaps you should compare the ranges of those four setups as well. I think you'd find it about even if you used HAMs. Originally by: nlewis jammers are the meatshield [Bob] wish their pets were
Silence Duegood	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:39:00 - [7] Edited by: Silence Duegood on 22/05/2008 17:47:35 Originally by: Yorda You use pulses, neutrons, and AC's on the other ships and then use heavy missiles on the nighthawk. Perhaps you should compare the ranges of those four setups as well. I think you'd find it about even if you used HAMs. Then why aren't all missile ships unbalanced compared to their turret counterparts? Because the issue you state (without thinking or having read the thread) stands to be the case with ALL missile ships versus turret ships (PG is inverted on long/short range missiles when compared to long/short range turrets, thus my above comparison - as this is not a DPS discussion, it is a powergrid discussion). I think if you peruse the linked thread you'll understand the problem.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:55:00 - [8] Originally by: Yorda You use pulses, neutrons, and AC's on the other ships and then use heavy missiles on the nighthawk. Perhaps you should compare the ranges of those four setups as well. I think you'd find it about even if you used HAMs. I just ran it up in EFT. HAMs up the DPS to 459(assuming T1 ammo, like he did with all the others), and let you put on a T2 hardener, but they require you to drop to a named shield booster if you want to keep to 3 RCU's, dropping your tank from 343 DPS at peak to 315. You can drop a RCU for 2 ACR rigs and add a BCU, giving you a plenty competitive 516 DPS, but then you have to go back to the named hardener. You also have to compare to the rigged versions of the other ships at that point - the Sleip goes 2607 m/s with polycarbs, for example. I'm not willing to outright state that the Nighthawk is a bad ship or anything, but this isn't a meritless thread. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Gypsio III Bambooule	Posted - 2008.05.22 18:09:00 - [9] Edited by: Gypsio III on 23/05/2008 07:56:12 Quote: You use pulses, neutrons, and AC's on the other ships and then use heavy missiles on the nighthawk. Perhaps you should compare the ranges of those four setups as well. I think you'd find it about even if you used HAMs. Although you are, of course, quite correct to point out the range issue, unfortunately the higher PG requirements of HAMs means that the NH has even more horrible trouble fitting them. Eg: 6x HAM II, empty slot YT8 MWD, med electro CB, LSB II, photon II, Inv II Suitcase II, 2x BCS II, 2x RCU II Should we want a gang mod as well (which is kind of the point of a Command Ship, even a Field CS like the NH), then we need a third RCU II. I'm fully aware that in order to fit all that stuff sacrifices should be made, but the NH has to make far more sacrifices than the other field CS. I would say that, for the gang-mod HAM fit above, 1 or 2 fitting mods is acceptable - but that 3 is just too much. My personal opinion, after a looooong time modelling fits, is that the Nighthawk needs at least 140 PG extra minimum. Linky to modelled fits with 140 PG extra. But it also has other problems: the precision bonus is, frankly, useless - switching that to missile explosion velocity would be in keeping with its antisupport role (this might indirectly help the PG issue by making AML II and precision lights an interesting fitting option). And although the SPR-fueled PVE passive tank is unnecessarily good, the PVP tank - whether active or buffer - is really rather poor, since you only have 3 remaining midslots to fit an active tank and no PG to fit XLSB like the Sleip. Possibilities for fixing that are either to give the PG required to fit an XLSB, or to switch a lowslot to midslot. But the main PG issue and the useless precision bonus should be the main priority. Let's be clear though, we are NOT asking for more DPS or an extra launcher. The DPS is fine.
Silence Duegood	Posted - 2008.05.22 18:43:00 - [10] Originally by: Gypsio III Edited by: Gypsio III on 22/05/2008 18:16:11 Quote: You use pulses, neutrons, and AC's on the other ships and then use heavy missiles on the nighthawk. Perhaps you should compare the ranges of those four setups as well. I think you'd find it about even if you used HAMs. Although you are, of course, quite correct to point out the range issue, unfortunately the higher PG requirements of HAMs means that the NH horrible trouble fitting them. Eg: 6x HAM II, empty slot YT8 MWD, med electro CB, LSB II, photon II, Inv II Suitcase II, 2x BCS II, 2x RCU II Should we want a gang mod as well, then we need a third RCU II. I'm fully aware that in order to fit all that stuff sacrifices should be made, but the NH has to make far more sacrifices than the other field CS. I would say that, for the gang-mod HAM fit above, 1 or 2 fitting mods is acceptable - but that 3 is just too much. My personal opinion, after a looooong time modelling fits, is that the Nighthawk needs at least 140 PG extra minimum. Linky to modelled fits with 140 PG extra. But it also has other problems: the precision bonus is, frankly, useless - switching that to missile explosion velocity would be in keeping with its antisupport role (this might indirectly help the PG issue by making AML II and precision lights an interesting fitting option). And although the SPR-fueled PVE passive tank is unnecessarily good, the PVP tank - whether active or buffer - is rather unremarkable, since you only have 3 remaining midslots to fit an active tank and no PG to fit XLSB like the Sleip. Let's be clear though, we are NOT asking for more DPS or an extra launcher. The DPS is fine. I knew you'd find this thread soon! /agreed on all counts

Jalmari Huitsikko Karjala Inc.	Posted - 2008.05.22 20:10:00 - [11] Edited by: Jalmari Huitsikko on 22/05/2008 20:11:37 Nighthawk and cerberus both lack powergrid for being really useful for anything. Not to mention weird slot layout (many low slots and shield bonuses? heh) on nighthawk which makes it pretty impossible to be fit in pvp... Also using close range missiles is difficult on any other ship class bigger than frigate...
Kinkie Yuuki	Posted - 2008.05.23 01:53:00 - [12] This thing cannot fit essentials like MWD or Cap booster without several PG mods. It's got less powergrid then the Drake. A Navy Caracal has more powergrid. The ONLY thing this can do is put 2x Large extenders and 4 shield relays, and whoopie do you have a slow ship that cannot tackle, has low DPS, and is expensive. Dare try anyone putting a MWD/Cap booster on this.
Silence Duegood	Posted - 2008.05.24 05:53:00 - [13] Bumperiffic
Efdi Brannigan's Law	Posted - 2008.05.24 07:27:00 - [14] Do you even actually PvP? All of those setups are fairly terrible, especially considering the fact that you're active tanking and don't have DCUs. _______________________________ Yes, I am an alt. No, I can't post with my main; he's forum banned. Yes, I will be happy to smack you with my main when I'm unbanned.
Rakshasa Taisab Sane Industries Inc. Ursa Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2008.05.24 08:52:00 - [15] My Nighthawk is sitting in empire rotting... --- Author of rTorrent, the BitTorrent client for real men and mice.
Gypsio III Bambooule	Posted - 2008.05.24 09:41:00 - [16] Quote: Do you even actually PvP? All of those setups are fairly terrible, especially considering the fact that you're active tanking and don't have DCUs. Sigh. Most of those setups do have DC. The ones that don't, don't because the lowslots are full of bloody RCUs. As for tanking, well, as I'm sure you're aware, the PVP Nighthawk simply doesn't tank very well. The buffer tank is only about 10% better than that of a comparably-fit Drake's buffer tank, while the active tank even can't tank a Drake's DPS. Hence my ideas for the PG to fit a XLSB, or a lowslot moved to a midslot. But I'd be very interested to hear your Nighthawk fits, with and without gang mod.
Silence Duegood	Posted - 2008.05.25 00:54:00 - [17] Originally by: Efdi Do you even actually PvP? All of those setups are fairly terrible, especially considering the fact that you're active tanking and don't have DCUs. 'Hi, my namre is Efdi, and I haven't read the thread.' All I do is PVP. The setups listed were obviously a comparison. If you have some better idea as to how to list comparisons then feel free to post them here or in the 14 page thread.
Silence Duegood	Posted - 2008.05.27 14:56:00 - [18] Bump
Eleana Tomelac Through the Looking Glass	Posted - 2008.05.27 16:32:00 - [19] It needs a bit of powergrid, considering some heavy missile fits goes wrong... -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Assault Frigates MK II
Elsinaril CHON Aphelion.	Posted - 2008.05.28 09:39:00 - [20]

Silence Duegood	Posted - 2008.05.28 17:07:00 - [21] To the top with you!
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates	Posted - 2008.05.28 17:13:00 - [22] Edited by: James Lyrus on 28/05/2008 17:16:42 Originally by: Yorda You use pulses, neutrons, and AC's on the other ships and then use heavy missiles on the nighthawk. Perhaps you should compare the ranges of those four setups as well. I think you'd find it about even if you used HAMs. I'd happily use HAMs on my Nighthawk, were it not for the fact that HAMs use MORE powergrid than heavy launchers. As mentioned in the original thread, I'd like to use my Nighthawk for PvPing, but with needing multiple reactor controls for even a basic PvP setup, I'll be sticking with a Drake. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking?
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.05.28 17:43:00 - [23] Edited by: Ulstan on 28/05/2008 17:44:30 The Nighthawk not only needs far more fitting mods than any other command ship in its class to achieve the same fits, leading to weaker setups overall, it is, I think, the ONLY ship to lose vast quantities of powergrid compared to it's T1 version. The Nighthawk is a TII drake with presumably better support for a command module. This argues for an increase in grid compared to the drake, as it has the same 7 launchers but is more expected to have a command module instead of the empty hi slot. All other command ships get a boost in PG from their TI to TII versions. The Nighthawk, by comparison, suffers a huge DECREASE. This is just mind boggling to me.
Kuroshiro	Posted - 2008.05.28 17:45:00 - [24] The Nighthawk is just a sad, sad ship to fit. Additionally, all missile precision bonuses are ineffectual in current EVE PvP and should either be replaced with either a dual precision/nav prediction bonuses or a different bonus altogether.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.05.28 17:47:00 - [25] My little chart that basically says it all: Powergrid of Tech 1 BC's compared to Tech II versions: Hurricane 1350 --> Sleipnir 1460 Myrmidon 1175 --> Astarte 1450 Harbinger 1500 --> Absolution 1575 Drake 850 --> Nighthawk 710 (<---WTF?) As you can see, all except the Nighthawk see an increase in powergrid. However the Nigthawk loses a LOT of power grid, and has the exact same 7 launchers that the Drake does.
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.28 17:48:00 - [26] Good arguments all round and a pretty solid case for balancing. I'll support this. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.28 17:51:00 - [27] Originally by: Silence Duegood To the top with you! One quick point of order though. Please lets not get into bumping tactics for the Assembly threads. If you want to publicize the issue please tell your friends and contacts in game, put the issue in your siggy and bio, make good arguments (as you have) and encourage other people to express an opinion. But if we get into a weird bump match like on the recruitment forums we'll risk losing a lot of signal here. Fair enough? CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Loreliee	Posted - 2008.05.28 17:55:00 - [28] i know some people will say that it is the Drake that has too much power grid. That this is not the case can be seen in the relative weakness of the current PG Nighthawk to the other Command Ships. Remember, the Nighthawk has less than half the grid of the other command ships. The disparity between missile ship PG and turret ship PG is never that great with any other class, and the drop in PG from the exact same 7 missile launcher layout of the drake is good hard proof that the Nighthawks PG is unreasonably low. Mind you, I feel like the high PG requirements of HAM's making them impossible to use on most Caldari ships is a topic worth discussing in and of itself, but I regard this issue as pretty cut and dried: The Nighthawk should have more grid. You lose grid going from a 7 missile launcher Drake to a 7 missile launcher Nighthawk, and that just seems bizarre in the extreme.
Kenji Kikuta	Posted - 2008.05.28 18:43:00 - [29] /signed
Gypsio III Bambooule	Posted - 2008.05.28 20:18:00 - [30] Quote: You lose grid going from a 7 missile launcher Drake to a 7 missile launcher Nighthawk, and that just seems bizarre in the extreme. Nighthawk has six launchers. But it's also supposed to be able to fit a gang mod, which requires around twice the PG of a HML II. So the PG is cripplingly low. And the precision bonus is still useless.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.