| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ulstan
   |
Posted - 2008.05.28 17:43:00 -
[1]
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.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 17:47:00 -
[2]
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.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 18:16:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Ulstan on 09/06/2008 18:17:59
Unfortunately for the trolls, my argument that the Nigthawk shouldn't lose grid compared to the Drake trumps all their inane excuses.
Are there any other ships that lose grid like that going from t1 to t2?
What is a drake fitting that a Nighthawk is supposed to ditch?
This chart says all that needs to be said:
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?)
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 15:15:00 -
[4]
Lot of ingorants in this thread trying to defend a gimped ship by claiming that we don't need parity or that it will increase diversity.
The fact remains that the Nighthawk needs significantly more fitting modules for an equivalent fit than do any other command ships. That is obviously bad.
Moreover, my argument that the Nigthawk shouldn't lose grid compared to the Drake has yet to be addressed.
Are there any other ships that lose grid like that going from t1 to t2?
What is a drake fitting that a Nighthawk is supposed to ditch? If anything, the Nighthawk is basically a TII drake + gang mod.
This chart says all that needs to be said:
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 (<---Huge DECREASE WTF?)
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 15:18:00 -
[5]
Also, YES missiles themselves have all kinds of problems, particularly sniping with missiles or trying to hit nanos with missiles or heavy precision missiles.
And yes the cerb is far less good than the vagabond or ishtar or sacrilege. But, this thread is about how bad the nighthawks power grid is: it's a relatively simple and specific fix that I hope to see implemented.
|
Ulstan
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 22:05:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Ulstan on 17/06/2008 22:08:30
Ah well, thanks for trying Jade. I knew voting for Hardin was wise. Serenity Steele's utter apathy to the problem and complete unwillingness to educate himself on the issues is absolutely staggering, however. 'Wilfull Ignorance' isn't a quality one wishes to see associated with CSM's. Of course, what's worse is the suggestion that CCP should check for the total population of Nighthawks to see if there's an issue - this goes beyond ignorance to an outright lack of intelligence. In fact, the flaws in suggesting we balance for PvP based on PvE is so resoundingly self evident that I have to conclude that Serenity Steele knows this, and is simply using it as a smokescreen to cover up some other agenda.
 Quote:
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.
I believe this inconsistency can be fairly easily explained: they fly minmatar ships, they don't fly caldari ships. Hence, very specific and clearcut fix to an obvious flaw in a caldari ship is shot down, while vague 'please make us more betterer' requests for minmatar ships are given an enthusiastic thumbs up.
|
| |
|