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

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 [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.28 17:48:00 - [1] 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 - [2] 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!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.15 00:06:00 - [3] Ah well its first item on the agenda for tomorrow. Fingers crossed we get it through. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.16 00:46:00 - [4] Sorry chaps we failed. It was the first item on the agenda Tried my best to argue for it but ultimately it failed 2 votes for (Jade and Hardin) 6 votes against. I personally still feel this is an important issue and I'll try to work on it again later on in the CSM term. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.16 00:52:00 - [5] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 16/06/2008 00:53:03 Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto What happened to the www.eve-csm.com site? Why are we being forced to go to a third-party forum for the chatlogs? Also, I haven't read it yet, but congrats on your 4.5 hour meeting. You guys really know how to party. Serenity fell asleep at the keyboard - we did work pretty damn hard you know. I could have left you waiting till tomorrow but I'm still full of coffee so decided to let you know now. You aren't "forced" to go anywhere btw. If you don't want to read the chatlog on the star fraction site you don't have to - by all means wait till the formal release of the chatlog elsewhere. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.16 02:26:00 - [6] Originally by: Kailiani Why was there not a list of setups made, and compared quickly via images or whatever. Or a challenge for them to go pvp in this thing without a MWD or cap booster!! The issue documentation I raised had a lot of good information from this thread in it Kaillani. It had comparisons of setups and powergrid and the proposed fixes. Sad but I couldn't convince people this time. Will try again later in the session. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.17 02:04:00 - [7] Originally by: James Lyrus Edited by: James Lyrus on 16/06/2008 23:07:28 shrug. I can understand the 'don't want to get into balance' response from CSM. That actually seems fairly reasonable actaully - there's a lot of 'issues' here that are 'this is balanced, this isn't' kind of things. To pick up one, shoot down another though, it somewhat disappointing. Oh well. Time to go buy a few more Falcons. Maybe though, this is something in and of itself that should be an issue? E.g. Should we be 'wasting' CSM time with ship and module balance issues? Yeah I couldn't understand the reasoning there either. The Nighthawk Issue was well documented and argued and I felt I'd represented the best points in this thread in my docs. I felt it was a pretty clear case. That this failed and the far less well-argued battleship autocannon buff passed seemed a bit random. Especially since I fly all 4 races of command ship and do find the NH to be rubbish in pvp. And I fly all 4 races of battleship and find battleship autocannons to be pretty good actually. Ah well, we enter strange worlds when we enter the world of ship and module balancing. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.07.04 15:48:00 - [8] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 04/07/2008 15:48:35 Originally by: Dianeces Just checkin' in to see how this very important topic fared in the CSM meeting. It never got to Iceland because it was voted down in meeting five. http://www.jericho-fraction.net/smf/index.php?topic=10310.0 Nighthawk discussion begins about 18:15 in the chatlog. For the record Hardin and I were in favour of escalating this Issue and the rest of the CSM was against. I still think its an important issue btw and would like you guys to find a way to submit it again perhaps as part of a general view of pvp ship balance? I dunno. But time to get creative. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.07.04 16:25:00 - [9] Originally by: Gypsio III I'm not sure what else can be done. I think that the PG issue is as clear as day. Abundant modelled fits and comparisons were provided, but if the other CSM members disagree - or, from the transcripts, simply didn't care - then what can we do? Well since we've now met face to face its possible that the other CSM's might be a little more worried that Hardin and I might throw them into the river if they say Caldari is only for PVE next time ? Quote: A possible course of action may be to ask for the useless missile precision bonus to be changed to one of explosion velocity. If that is accepted, then the anaemic PG issue could be subtlely tagged on. I'd say go for it. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.07.08 16:40:00 - [10] Just like to point out one more time here that not only did this issue have advocates on the CSM, its had some passionate ones who got outvoted last time. Try it again and now the time crunch for discussions prior to Iceland is sorted we'll give it a proper go and as much attention as we need. I'm still very much convinced this is a serious problem. No way on earth the tech2 version of the ferox should have less grid than the tech1 version. Its crazy. Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.07.10 16:00:00 - [11] Originally by: Silence Duegood Edited by: Silence Duegood on 08/07/2008 18:38:20 Originally by: Jade Constantine Just like to point out one more time here that not only did this issue have advocates on the CSM, its had some passionate ones who got outvoted last time. Try it again and now the time crunch for discussions prior to Iceland is sorted we'll give it a proper go and as much attention as we need. I'm still very much convinced this is a serious problem. No way on earth the tech2 version of the ferox should have less grid than the tech1 version. Its crazy. Jade, I don't have a problem with how you've addressed this and other issues. My generalized CSM comments were not directed at you. In fact, my thanks goes out to you for being an advocate for the Nighthawk. Three major excuses were given by other CSMs as to why this measure wasn't passed - 1. 'Not enough support'. However, other measues have passed with less support. So, that's a lie. 2. 'CSM shouldn't micromanage 'small balance issues'. This is a cop-out. They are addressing other 'small balance issues', so why not this one? 3. 'Other races have crappy ships, so the Nighthawk shouldn't be fixed'. This was truly one of the most ignorant and idiotic comments I've read in a long while. You've asked that this issue be 'readdressed' somehow. WTF does that mean? In this thread there is nearly indisputable proof and evidence of a glaring problem, and you want someone to start a whole new thread on the issue?!!? My frustration and anger isn't directed at you, other than you want to can this thread and simply start a new one instead of taking this thread to the CSM again. If someone wants to start a new thread and cut and paste the numbers from here then that's fine by me. However, I'm not going to be involved in a plan to dress up a wolf as a sheep so that we can spoonfeed a bunch of idiots some basic math in hopes of getting them to realize that 2+2=4. The evidence is here. No one has yet presented proof to dispute it. If you want the issue addressed then use the evidence presented here. Okay I'm convinced that the CSM as a whole didn't give this issue a proper hearing last time around and I'm going to present it again this sunday. Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.07.10 17:27:00 - [12] Originally by: Silence Duegood Originally by: Jade Constantine Okay I'm convinced that the CSM as a whole didn't give this issue a proper hearing last time around and I'm going to present it again this sunday. Jade, my thanks goes out to you again for sticking with this thread. I've put a tremendous amount of effort into trying to bring this issue to light. To say it's been frustrating to see such a glaring and obvious problem almost entirely ignored is a slight understatement, particularly with such lame excuses from other CSMs regarding why they felt this shouldn't pass. If you need me to throw together some digest of this thread in order to simplify your presentation of it please let me know. I'm quite busy at the moment, but I will find some time to do so if it will help the cause. I need to write up the submission template by 18:00 hours tomorrow evening - If you can get me some notes (probably PM at the Star Fraction Forums best bet) I'll be sure to include them. Fingers crossed we can convince people this time. Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.07.15 16:58:00 - [13] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 15/07/2008 17:02:53 Shame we didn't get a CSM meeting last sunday due to people's holidays and what not but fingers crossed this coming sunday happens and we get this ISSUE sorted properly at last. I got all your additional notes Silence and added the majority of the data straight into the Issues document for the rest of the CSM to read up prior to the meeting. *Also as an aside for the nice "alts" who chose to spam me with accusations that I was only pushing the NH powergrid issue to buff the flavor of command ships I fly FYI Jade flies all four races of command ship with pretty much equal skill levels (all racial cruiser, battlecruiser inputs at 5). And all weapons systems at tech2 function with good specialization. Yes I do actually own a nighthawk and at the moment its parked in a ratting system rigged for PVE (which is all its actually good for). I also own an Absolution that I fleet pvp in, a Claymore that is uber for roving gangs, and an Astarte that I fly for ganks and bait and trap. Its certainly the case that the Nighthawk is very poor for PVP usage and doesn't hold a candle to the capabilities of the Sleipnir - but rather than joining the horrid cult of "nerf this / nerf that" aimed at other races lets just for once consider dealing with a problem ship not by nerfing the opposition but by correcting the specific issue and getting the NH the grid it needs for a pvp fit please. /point of order. Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.07.20 20:10:00 - [14] Re-voted in the CSM, this time it was approved by 8-1 and will be escalated to formal discussion with CCP on the balance issue. Text of the discussion can be viewed NH Discussion 16:41 + All the best. Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!

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.