| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Silence Duegood
   |
Posted - 2008.06.14 17:48:00 -
[151]
 Originally by: Dianeces
C-c-c-c-c-combo breaker.
Also, this thread is massively :shobon:.
Wow. What a valuable post. Very much on topic and filled with facts and a sound argument.
|
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 17:49:00 -
[152]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 14/06/2008 17:49:58
Quote:
For example taking what i've already said:
+ 50pg
+ 1 missile hardpoint
Change precision bonus to.... suggestions? I was thinking explosion velocity since reducing signature of missile only helps if the target is smaller and they still have to be going slower than explosion velocity (basically webbed for frigate sized ships).
You need to justify these numbers, you can't just go around spouting numbers that look like they've been picked out of a hat.
140 PG required - see here.
An extra launcher slot is NOT required and, assuming a simultaneous PG fix, would overpower the Nighthawk.
Missile precision bonus, ooh, yes please!
Quote:
I know Slepnirs CPU isn't "horribly gimped", but then the NH's PG isn't "horribly gimped" either in my eyes. Could it use a little tweak? Yes. Could the ship be tweaked in other ways? Yes. Throwing PG at the "problem" doesn't appeal to me, just feels like a hack job.
The Sleipnir is absolutely fine. It's a model for the other CS. The Nighthawk's PG is unquestionably horribly gimped. Again, you need to justify your opinions. Like this, for example:
Originally by: me
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.
I agree that the NH has problems other the PG - poor slot layout and the useless precision bonus. But the lack of PG is just so obvious, and so easy to fix.
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 17:53:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Silence Duegood
Wow. What a valuable post. Very much on topic and filled with facts and a sound argument.
You're just upset I combo breakered you. It's okay, we understand.
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 17:59:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Dianeces
Originally by: Silence Duegood
Wow. What a valuable post. Very much on topic and filled with facts and a sound argument.
You're just upset I combo breakered you. It's okay, we understand.
I'm actually quite glad that you went to the trouble to camp the thread to do something so important and substantive, for two reasons -
A. It's excellent proof of how much you've brought to the thread.
B. I suspected Mila was your alt. Now it's obvious.
Thanks.
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 18:02:00 -
[155]
Edited by: Dianeces on 14/06/2008 18:03:01
Originally by: Silence Duegood
B. I suspected Mila was your alt. Now it's obvious.
Thanks.
Laffo.
|
Haargoth Agamar
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 18:11:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Dianeces
Edited by: Dianeces on 14/06/2008 18:03:01
Originally by: Silence Duegood
B. I suspected Mila was your alt. Now it's obvious.
Thanks.
Laffo.
Its true, don't even try to deny it
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 18:14:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Haargoth Agamar
Originally by: Dianeces
Edited by: Dianeces on 14/06/2008 18:03:01
Originally by: Silence Duegood
B. I suspected Mila was your alt. Now it's obvious.
Thanks.
Laffo.
Its true, don't even try to deny it
Hai5 alt buddy. o/\o
|
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 19:30:00 -
[158]
i havent flown the nighthawk, but fitting a high number of fitting mods for a cookie cutter fit is weird is a bit weird
----
You don't have to like it - I don't blame you for not liking it. |
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 00:01:00 -
[159]
Edited by: Silence Duegood on 15/06/2008 00:03:05
Originally by: Gypsio III
Edited by: Gypsio III on 14/06/2008 17:49:58
Quote:
For example taking what i've already said:
+ 50pg
+ 1 missile hardpoint
Change precision bonus to.... suggestions? I was thinking explosion velocity since reducing signature of missile only helps if the target is smaller and they still have to be going slower than explosion velocity (basically webbed for frigate sized ships).
You need to justify these numbers, you can't just go around spouting numbers that look like they've been picked out of a hat.
140 PG required - see here.
An extra launcher slot is NOT required and, assuming a simultaneous PG fix, would overpower the Nighthawk.
Missile precision bonus, ooh, yes please!
Quote:
I know Slepnirs CPU isn't "horribly gimped", but then the NH's PG isn't "horribly gimped" either in my eyes. Could it use a little tweak? Yes. Could the ship be tweaked in other ways? Yes. Throwing PG at the "problem" doesn't appeal to me, just feels like a hack job.
The Sleipnir is absolutely fine. It's a model for the other CS. The Nighthawk's PG is unquestionably horribly gimped. Again, you need to justify your opinions. Like this, for example:
Originally by: me
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.
I agree that the NH has problems other the PG - poor slot layout and the useless precision bonus. But the lack of PG is just so obvious, and so easy to fix.
I think Mila/Dianeces has made it pretty clear that he's not here to logically respond to threads. He has yet to answer my challenge (claiming I've hurt his feelings as an excuse), has yet to respond to your very valid points, and seems to only be interested in bouncing between his alts to make childish posts or to avoid presenting an actual argument (as his above posts clearly exemplify).
I think it's fair to say that he's not here to 'discuss'. However, I think newcomers to this thread can see through his antics (since there's not much else to see).
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 00:06:00 -
[160]
Ah well its first item on the agenda for tomorrow. Fingers crossed we get it through.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Dianeces
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 00:08:00 -
[161]
Edited by: Dianeces on 15/06/2008 00:09:50
Originally by: Silence Duegood
I think Mila/Dianeces has made it pretty clear that he's not here to logically respond to threads. He has yet to answer my challenge (claiming I've hurt his feelings as an excuse), has yet to respond to your very valid points, and seems to only be interested in bouncing between his alts to make childish posts or to avoid presenting an actual argument (as his above posts clearly exemplify).
I think it's fair to say that he's not here to 'discuss'. However, I think newcomers to this thread can see through his antics (since there's not much else to see).
I think I've made it abundantly clear I have no problems ****posting on my main. But you won't believe me, you're happy with your little delusion that you Sherlocked my sekrit alt or whatever.
Edit: I'd go with the whole "cute pubbie, isk sent" thing, but you're not cute. You're just stupid and delusional.
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 14:05:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Ah well its first item on the agenda for tomorrow. Fingers crossed we get it through.
Fantastic. Thanks for the help, Jade. Please keep us posted on how it goes today.
|
oilio
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 15:32:00 -
[163]
I really hope they fix this.
Nighthawk is very underpowered compared to the other field command ships.
|
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 16:44:00 -
[164]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Ah well its first item on the agenda for tomorrow. Fingers crossed we get it through.
Ah thanks Jade. Even if the Devs turn round and say "Hehe, no, the Nighthawk's anaemic PG and useless precision bonus are specifically designed for its role as a slow but safe AFK L4 mission-runner - it is not intended as a PVP ship", then at least we'd know where we stand... 
|
Jacqueri Calroszian
Lords Of Kaos
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 17:05:00 -
[165]
Excellent thread, excellent point, I support it completely. Maybe I'm biased because I'm a Caldari pilot, but I haven't given this topic much thought before, and from what I'm seeing here, it looks like this is an issue that needs to be addressed ASAP.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 00:46:00 -
[166]
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! |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 00:49:00 -
[167]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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.
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.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 00:52:00 -
[168]
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! |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 01:29:00 -
[169]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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 had to sleep - 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.
Sorry, that came across nastier than intended. I was commenting, as much as anything, on the fact that the chatlogs for the last meeting also aren't posted anywhere other than said third-party board. I'm also a bit annoyed at Serenity about my updates re new threads not having been added to the sticky, but I've talked with him about it, and it's not actually a big deal. I get generally annoyed when people on a volunteer committee take on a huge swath or responsibility and then don't follow through, especially since it seems that there's always one who does that. If it's temporary, hey, life happens, but I asked because it looked like there's been a bit of a full-scale retreat going on as regards the document postings you guys started with. It's hardly the end of the world, but it's something I'd prefer not to see happen.
Also, I've read the log now, and it seems like this one was just a long meeting because of a lot of issues, not because of any new drama. I must say, I'm thankful - one week of a derailed CSM is enough for me.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 02:20:00 -
[170]
Edited by: Kailiani on 16/06/2008 02:25:30
Quote:
Serenity Steele > Almost every ship class has a lame-duck ship in 1/4 races of EvE. Is the NightHawk any different to the lame duck for field command ships?
FAIL
Quote:
Serenity Steele > It just occured to me that the request to CCP should just check the usage/ownership/production of the NH in comparison to other field command ships and see if it's drastically out of line.
Nighthawk is used for PVE WAY more commonly then other command ships, but it fails at any decent PVP setup so this would not work, and you probably(should..) know this.
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!!
Quote:
Inanna Zuni > We should make clear here that this is not a *for all time* rejection ... we need more info and it can be brought back to us in Two months
All the info you need is in this topic.
Quote:
Inanna Zuni > clearly we recognise there might be issues
Quote:
Bane Glorious > yep, pretty much dead on
Yea but who cares! We don't fly it!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 02:26:00 -
[171]
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! |
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 02:38:00 -
[172]
Ah well thanks for trying Jade.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 04:38:00 -
[173]
Kailani, you'll also notice that a lot of the rejections were based on the principle that they didn't want the CSM to get into the minutia of ship-balancing. That's an entirely reasonable viewpoint, and it's hardly a statement that they don't care about the Nighthawk because they don't fly it. I can understand annoyance, but don't get too ad hominem just because they disagreed on this topic.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 05:13:00 -
[174]
Edited by: Kailiani on 16/06/2008 05:13:59
I apologize, I let some RL issue influence that post.
Though on the subject of small concerns, the large autocannon issue was voted and passed, with it having less forum support.
Quote:
[ 2008.06.15 20:01:02 ] LaVista Vista > No. Same reason as for the nighthawk issue
[ 2008.06.15 20:01:05 ] Jade Constantine > I'm not convinced by the thread at the moment - deny escalation
[ 2008.06.15 20:01:07 ] Inanna Zuni > support review
[ 2008.06.15 20:01:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > support
[ 2008.06.15 20:01:25 ] Serenity Steele > Not support
[ 2008.06.15 20:01:35 ] Bane Glorious > well i support it
[ 2008.06.15 20:01:35 ] Hardin > Yes support
[ 2008.06.15 20:01:50 ] Darius JOHNSON > support
[ 2008.06.15 20:02:00 ] Bane Glorious > looks like 5:4
|
Kasheem Cetanes
coracao ardente
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 08:25:00 -
[175]
Edited by: Kasheem Cetanes on 16/06/2008 08:26:24
There is a bright side to this, of course. Because this Is a democracy after all, -.-, we can choose to not vote for them should they run again.
THIS SAID: The issue with buffing the grid for use in PvP is that it will make it an even better passive tank for PvE because you'll be able to fit the shield extenders with less of an issue. I mean, you don't want to make the NH TOO OP for PvE usage.
|
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 08:26:00 -
[176]
Quote:
Serenity Steele > Almost every ship class has a lame-duck ship in 1/4 races of EvE. Is the NightHawk any different to the lame duck for field command ships?
:facepalm:
The Nighthawk is the defining lame duck of Field Command Ships.
Quote:
Serenity Steele > It just occured to me that the request to CCP should just check the usage/ownership/production of the NH in comparison to other field command ships and see if it's drastically out of line.
:double facepalm. Oh, cripes, this is a terrible idea. All it tells you is that this it's useful in PVE. You could try the same thing with missiles vs. turrets and conclude that missiles needed to be nerfed into the ground because of all the Raven mission-runners. It's logically insane. 
Seriously, all people need to do to realise there's a problem is to look at the ship bonuses (hello useless precision bonus) and then spend 5 minutes with EFT trying to shoehorn a useful pvp fit on to it. It really is that simple.
Quote:
Kailani, you'll also notice that a lot of the rejections were based on the principle that they didn't want the CSM to get into the minutia of ship-balancing. That's an entirely reasonable viewpoint, and it's hardly a statement that they don't care about the Nighthawk because they don't fly it. I can understand annoyance, but don't get too ad hominem just because they disagreed on this topic.
I appreciate this, but what about Large Autocannons then? Ok, they're not ships, but the principle is hardly different...
|
Xplained
Welsh Wizards
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 09:08:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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.
GREAT!!
Somethings are best left alone, now if you could remove yourself from the chair, it would make my day a real happy one
Byddin Rhyddid Cymru |
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 09:52:00 -
[178]
Edited by: Kailiani on 16/06/2008 09:52:42
Originally by: Kasheem Cetanes
Edited by: Kasheem Cetanes on 16/06/2008 08:26:24
There is a bright side to this, of course. Because this Is a democracy after all, -.-, we can choose to not vote for them should they run again.
THIS SAID: The issue with buffing the grid for use in PvP is that it will make it an even better passive tank for PvE because you'll be able to fit the shield extenders with less of an issue. I mean, you don't want to make the NH TOO OP for PvE usage.
I just explained this, yes the Kin/Therm/Exp tank will be better for PvE passive setup. The better option for omni-tank is to remove the 3rd extender though.
I suggested the shield recharge time to be nerfed, simple no?
Also this ship would do great with a 6/4 med/low layout instead. 5/5 is the same as Sleipnir as generally caldari ships should have more med/less low slots then a minmatar shield tanker. It would actually nerf passive tanks since shield relays boost the tank more then anything, while helping the PvP setup though this is an entirely different problem.
|
MalVortex
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 10:32:00 -
[179]
I know this has been shotdown, but signed.
- Buff PG
- Drop a low (perferably 2) for a med (pref two) (caldari should have opposite med/low slot layout of ammarr. See absolution layout)
- Change precision bonus to explosion velocity bonus (precision is amazingly worthless)
*sigh* From reading the chatlogs, its like the S&M forum, personalized. Caldari is relegated to a lolpve role, minmatar has a perpetual fanbase, drones always need loving, Amarr is generally viewed neutrally... The cynic in me questions the point of the CSM if the members will vote in the same proportion as the installed forum base to begin with.
|
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 10:59:00 -
[180]
Quote:
[ 2008.06.15 18:22:00 ] Leandro Salazar > just wanted to say that while playing with EFT I also noticed a small pg issue with the NH, it has a lot of other strong points and is fairly popular despite that, so only a fairly small boost would be acceptable imho, too much would make it overpowered
Quote:
[ 2008.06.15 18:24:24 ] Serenity Steele > It just occured to me that the request to CCP should just check the usage/ownership/production of the NH in comparison to other field command ships and see if it's drastically out of line.
*Head explodes in anger at the ignorance*
The Nighthawk is only popular in PVE. It is not popular in PVP because it has insufficient PG to fulfill its gang antisupport role, and has a useless precision bonus.
I repeat, I am aghast that members of the CSM believe that the Nighthawk is popular in PVP and that an inventory count of it, relative to the other Field CS, would provide any useful information on its PG needs or PVP balance issues. Like Charles Babbage, I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such comments.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |