| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dlardrageth
Eve University
Ivy League
   |
Posted - 2008.06.16 15:49:00 -
[181]
 Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
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.
This.
Makes one wonder if the CSM shouldn't start a topic themselves to relieve them from the duty of taking a closer look at specific ship types and their balancing. It's one thing to look at wider game mechanics and escalate issues there to CCP. It's a totally different thing to get deep into minutiae of game design like ship balancing... and one that will tie up a big amount of their resources if they have to cope with it.
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 18:25:00 -
[182]
Edited by: Silence Duegood on 16/06/2008 18:46:17
While I will concede that having the CSM committee looking at specific issues with specific ships might lead to too much minutiae, I am frankly astounded at some of the ignorant and apathetic comments made by some of the CSMs in reference to the very brief discussion regarding this very, very old issue.
Originally by: Serenity Steele
[2008.06.15 18:18:58 ] 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?
This comment seems to me to be the absolute definition of apathy. Serenity doesnĘt seem want to bother reading a thread where itĘs been conclusively shown that a ship has problems. So, instead of wanting to address the issue she simply falls back on, ęWell, other races have ships with issues, so letĘs just continue to let this ship have its problems also.Ę
Seriously, I was floored when I saw this statement. Having voted for Serenity I feel like a made a huge mistake in having done so. It seems like several of the CSMs canĘt be arsed to read a thread and do some homework in order to truly step up to the plate and fill the role that they were elected to occupy.
Originally by: Leandro
[ 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
More of the same. If Leandro had taken the time to read more than a few posts of the thread he would have seen some very solid (and very basic math) that explains almost precisely how much grid the Nighthawk needs in order to be on par with other Field Commands. However, instead of reading the thread he just makes some ambiguous comment about how it might need ęa fairly small boostĘ, since the Nighthawk has ęother strong pointsĘ. What other strong points? Are some of the CSMs really too lazy to do their homework and read threads? IsnĘt a free trip to Iceland and a sense of responsibility enough to get people to do their jobs?
Continued.
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 18:45:00 -
[183]
Edited by: Silence Duegood on 16/06/2008 18:48:59
Originally by: Serenity Steele
[ 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.
Again, IĘm astonished. Are those people voted into CSM positions truly careless or thoughtless enough to think that ship usage/ownership/or production will provide evidence of a balanced ship?! ItĘs already be shown by CCP that Caldari outnumber other players, and most carebears fly Caldari for missions. Those two facts there show that more people are going to be pushed down that path of training and usage regardless of ship effectiveness. Even so, the Nighthawk isnĘt a terrible ship for PVE, however, this issue has been discussed almost exclusively in terms of PVP. ItĘs obvious Serenity did not bother to read the thread, otherwise she would have known.
All in all, IĘm pretty freaking disappointed that the CSMs so briefly and superficially touched on an issue that some of us have spent so much time trying to address. IĘll simply hope that some of the CSMs that seem to care to brush up on issues will readdress this later, or that (miracle involved) CCP might actually fix the Nighthawk after having been gimped for years.
Regardless, my thanks goes out to those CSMs willing to study some of these issues, and who will continue to work toward solving this and other important problems.
|
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 19:09:00 -
[184]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 16/06/2008 19:10:24
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
This is symptomatic of the problem. Upon hearing "Nighthawk", it appears that Leandro has simply assumed that we were talking about PVE balance and fitting issues. I wouldn't blame him for the assumption - the Nighthawk is currently too gimped to be useful in PVP - but I would blame him for not realising that this is a PVP balance issue.
This entire thread has been discussed in terms of PVP balance, although the implications of suggested changes to PVE balance have certainly not been disregarded. To see such a comment as Leandro's is simply... baffling.
I think an explanation of Leandro's comments would be useful. Specifically: confirmation that it is understood that this is a PVP balance issue, not a PVE one, and an explanation of what he believes the Nighthawk's "other strong points" are in PVP, with the appreciation that tanking is not a role.
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.
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 23:02:00 -
[185]
*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.
--
Crane needs more grid
249km locking? |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 02:04:00 -
[186]
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! |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 02:49:00 -
[187]
This may be (more than a little) bit late, but /signed.
Having to run two RCU's to fit an active-tanked HAM nighthawk is, in a word, stupid.
-Wrayeth
n00b Extraordinaire
"Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 16:24:00 -
[188]
A few points of interest for passing readersą
1.This thread is concerned with PVP balance, specifically the powergrid of the Nighthawk, its ease of fitting, its balance relative to the other field CS and its ability to fulfil its intended role of gang support. PVE balance is discussed only in terms of the implication of suggested changes. Ships should be balanced in both PVE and PVP.
2.The field CS are intended to fit a gang mod. The other field CS can fit a gang mod using 0-1 fitting mods or rigs, depending on fit. A comparable Nighthawk fit requires three. This is not balanced.
3.The other field CS are significantly more flexible ū the Astarte and Abso can choose to fit tackle or ewar, while the Sleipnir is a fine nanoboat. The Nighhawk has no such options or flexibility ū it is a simple tank and gank ship
4.The Nighthawk has no range advantage over the other field CS in PVP. In PVP, missiles are a close-range weapon; in general they are not useful sniper weapons, because of flight time and explosion velocity issues. This is particularly pertinent when the NighthawkĘs useless precision bonus is borne in mind. EFT may say that HMs have a 70 km range ū but their effective range is the same as that of HAMs; it is limited to tackle range.
5.The NighthawkĘs precision bonus is utterly useless in PVP. In addition, the intended antisupport missiles of the Nighthawk ū Precision Heavies ū are broken, being worse than Precision Cruise in all PVP situations that occur.
6.A comparison with other missile ships is useful. Base PGs:
a.Caracal: 530, for 5 launchers
b.Cerberus: 635, for 5 launchers
c.Onyx: 835, for 5 launchers and a WTFG field thingie
d.Drake: 850, for 7 launchers
e.Nighthawk: 710, for 6 launchers and a gang mod
7.A comparison with the Sleipnir, as the other shield-tanking Field CS, is also useful. We have already established that the Nighthawk enjoys no useful range advantage over an AC Sleipnir, allowing us to broadly compare fits with AMLs, HMLs and HAMLs with fits with dual 180s, 220s and 425s, respectively. Nano fits are disregarded here since the Nighthawk is not a viable nanoship; all fits have MWD and cap booster:
Gang mod, top-tier weapons, named XLSB.
Sleipnir: 2 fitting mods required
Nighthawk: 5 fitting mods required
Gang mod, top-tier weapons, LSB II
Sleipnir: no fitting mods required
Nighthawk: 3 fitting mods required
No gang mod, top-tier weapons, named XLSB.
Sleipnir: no fitting mods required
Nighthawk: 4 fitting mods required
No gang mod, top-tier weapons, LSB II
Sleipnir: no fitting mods required
Nighthawk: 2 fitting mods required
|
Dramaticus
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 18:46:00 -
[189]
Edited by: Dramaticus on 17/06/2008 18:46:33
dunno whether its apathy or ignorance but this is a pretty good example of how horrid the csm is.
Please don't use RL pictuers of players in Sig without permission. - WeatherMan |
Ulstan
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 22:05:00 -
[190]
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.
|
|
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 23:57:00 -
[191]
Just checkin' in to see how this very important topic fared in the CSM meeting.
|
Kurt Gergard
Federal European Industry Science and Research
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 19:24:00 -
[192]
'Sigh' welcome to world of caldari. I guess caldari should run a 24/7 whine campaign like the amarr to get ANYTHING fixed. I realy liked the comparison with other ships and i am realy tired of reading "stfu caldari roxx in pve" or "omg you have pwn EW".
"No plan has ever survived the contact with the enemy" von Moltke |
Zhirae
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 19:49:00 -
[193]
Agree, Nighthawk needs more PG for proper logical fits.
|
Lord Eremet
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 12:03:00 -
[194]
Signed. The NH needs a fix, both to grid and the useless precision bonus.
|
Nessaji
Rosa Alba
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 12:18:00 -
[195]
140ish pg and something to replace the useless precision bonus is what nighthawk needs to be viable in pvp.
______________________________________
"Originally by: Tuxford
It was a dirty hack to be honest but we couldn't find anyway around it. I hope we never have to do it again."
|
Sir Ibex
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 20:07:00 -
[196]
Edited by: Sir Ibex on 26/06/2008 20:09:25
Although I strongly oppose too much "balancing" and equality in this game, and I love how each race's ships are very different from other races, I do agree that the Nighthawk should be at least slightly improved. If not both damage wise and power core wise, at least one of these improvements is needed for sure.
|
Alex Cash
Infinity Enterprises
Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 23:12:00 -
[197]
As someone who just started flying Nighthawks, I can say wholeheartedly agree that something needs to be done about this!
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 01:20:00 -
[198]
Signed. NH is short by about 200 grid. Anyone with a little common sense can see that it is massively lacking in fitting options compared to the other command ships.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 15:48:00 -
[199]
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! |
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 16:23:00 -
[200]
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?
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.
Unfortunately, what will probably happen is we'll be told that the Nighthawk is perfectly fine in PVE, and that the precision bonus is wonderful for hitting tackler frigs in L4 missions... 
|
|
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 16:25:00 -
[201]
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! |
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 16:43:00 -
[202]
Ok. At some stage in the next few days I'll make a megapost, describing the current PVP use of the precision bonus (hitting all those ABing Scimitars, destroyers and frigates), and then modelling the effects of a 50% bonus to explosion velocity on a Nighthawk's Precision Lights and Heavies against inties and nanocruisers.
I haven't run the numbers at all really, but I suspect that it wouldn't be overpowered, given the short ranges of Precisions and the Nighthawk's absence of a missile velocity bonus. The issue is somewhat complicated by the concurrent calls for a boost to Precision Heavies, though.
Personally, I feel that the whole system of explosion velocity and explosion radius on Precisions needs a thorough overhaul. I posted some ideas here but such a big change would require a lot of work to make sure it was balanced...
|
thetwilitehour
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 17:03:00 -
[203]
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 20:40:00 -
[204]
Edited by: Silence Duegood on 04/07/2008 20:46:47
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?
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.
Unfortunately, what will probably happen is we'll be told that the Nighthawk is perfectly fine in PVE, and that the precision bonus is wonderful for hitting tackler frigs in L4 missions...
To be honest, I think it's optimistic to hope that most of the CSMs will do anything for the Nighthawk, or anything that is outside their personal realm of interest. A few CSMs have illustrated an objective interest in addressing isssues. However, most of them have done nothing but address issues in which they have a personal investment.
This thread (and the original linked thread) are absolutely filled with nearly indisputable numbers and proof that the Nighthawk has a serious problem. I've challenged people to come forth with setups for the ship that would illustrate it being unbalanced with a grid increase of about 170 pg. To this day no one has yet to respond with anything other than an uninformed opinion, as I've seen no one present a counterargument against this proposal using actual facts.
That the CSMs could even read this thread (assuming they did, which is itself a stretch) and not feel compelled to address this issue is fairly solid proof that they are incompetent and/or self-interested. That the Devs have ignored this issue and the original thread for this long is utterly astounding. I think hoping that you can take a different tack and have this issue addressed by the CSM Committee through another thread (and more numbers and proof) is unrealistic, as they would have to care about the issue and be intelligent enough to understand the problem, both of which seem, in light of the current evidence, unlikely or impossible.
In the long run all this thread and its failure to be understood or considered by the CSMs has proven to me is that I voted for a few of the wrong people. I will not make that mistake a second time.
|
Bobbie Chilli
|
Posted - 2008.07.05 15:03:00 -
[205]
Just read the notes for the meeting where this got rejected.
Nighthawk so obviously needs a boost. Utterly no sound arguments as to why no support for it. Some bloke argued that since lots of ppl use it then it cant be that bad and some other guy said issue too small for the oh so glorious csm. They have to be the most plainly stupid arguments ever. Just dumb ass arguments made worse by the fact that the weak ac argument got through.
If the csm exists to put forward grand sweeping game changes then this game might just go to the dogs if these guys get any power.
This csm stuff is an utterly ridiculous farce and judging by the fact that u lot cannot even organise a vote without dreadful bickering all over the forums I am given to conclude that you probably couldnt organise a ****-up in a brewery let alone making reasoned decisions based on a sound knowledge of game balance.
I just hope ccp doesnt listen to any of you.
|
Jim Raynor
Caldari
Shinra
Shinra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 11:16:00 -
[206]
I read the log and seriously I don't understand what people are not understanding. I really hope that CCP takes a really hard look at the Nighthawk. It's all been laid out what is wrong with this ship, and there's tons to fix. The Drake is a better ship and easier to fit than the Nighthawk is, why is that?
Why is the Nighthawk so hard to fit? Should it really need Why is its DPS so poor? Why does it have stupid bonuses? Compared to the other Command Ships the Nighthawk is a joke, lowest DPS, slowest, hardest to fit, the Nighthawk is on par with the Drake, considering it costs many times a completely insurable Drake, you have to ask, why use a Nighthawk? To run missions? Fitting Gist modules on a Nighthawk and killing NPCs doesn't make it a good ship.
CCP please save the Nighthawk, you don't have to make it better than the Sleipnir, Absolution or even the Astarte but can you please at least put it in the same ballpark as these ships? I can fly Sleipnir and Astarte and I can tell you straight up these ships are way way easier to fit and way way better for PvP than the Nighthawk. The Sleipnir especially is an AMAZING ship. I can't speak for the Absolution but from what I've seen, it's a pretty nice DPS machine and worth using. |
isAzmodeus
Low Security Military Excurions
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 20:57:00 -
[207]
The nighthawk needs some more grid for PVP. While it is good for PVE, Commandships for clearly not a PVE oriented class. Supporting in the hopes that a future CSM will address the issue, or that a dev will stumble across the thread.
---------------------------------
The Seven- Blowing up someone near you. |
Gypsio III
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 00:28:00 -
[208]
Quote:
Why is the Nighthawk so hard to fit? Should it really need Why is its DPS so poor? Why does it have stupid bonuses? Compared to the other Command Ships the Nighthawk is a joke, lowest DPS, slowest, hardest to fit, the Nighthawk is on par with the Drake, considering it costs many times a completely insurable Drake, you have to ask, why use a Nighthawk? To run missions? Fitting Gist modules on a Nighthawk and killing NPCs doesn't make it a good ship.
Actually, there's nothing really wrong with the Nighthawk's DPS - but only if you are able to fit the classic Caldari triple BCS. But, as everyone now, the Nighthawk's PG is so stupidly inadequate that you end up fitting triple RCU instead...
|
ZhouXi
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 07:34:00 -
[209]
Anyone else annoyed that the csms are willing to address balance issues with mimnatar cap ships, even though they shot down the idea of looking at the nighthawk because they didn't want to get into the realm of ship balance issues? Yeah...
Can't say I'm a fan of the whole csm thing thus far.
|
Kalintos Tyl
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 07:39:00 -
[210]
all comands have this problem not needhawk only
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |