| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jim Raynor
Caldari
Shinra
   |
Posted - 2008.07.17 06:38:00 -
[241]
 Originally by: Silence Duegood
Jim Raynor, Bobby Chilli, and others -
You guys have shown support for this thread, so give it a thumbs up! Apparently, some of the CSMs think a thread needs lots of thumbs up in order to be worthy of notice.
I did, you can't thumbs up twice. I fully support fixing the Nighthawk.
------
I'll make a sig later. |
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 08:14:00 -
[242]
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 16:23:00 -
[243]
Originally by: Rn Bonnet
I never said the nighthawk was good :p. I just said those setups don't give a fair comparison. Basically your setups significantly understated the night hawk.
A. Keep in mind that HAMs do not receive a bonus on the Nighthawk. The Nighthawk is designed to be an anti-support ship.
B. As I've stated multiple times in this thread, my posted setups are as close to being realistic, while remaining both true to each ship's role, and analogous to one another. Such a restriction means that for the sake of an accurate comparison the setups must lean a little out of the norm. I've already explained this fact.
Originally by: Rn Bonnet
Also they arn't just "setup to solo". Gang mods on field command ships isn't a must, even if it is nice. Leaving highslots unfit is a common practice than can increase any ships effectiveness (see torp raven).
I understand your point. However, the torp Raven does not receive a bonus to that last empty slot, so it's not a proper comparison. Throwing away the gang mod bonus on a Command Ship is a waste, in my humble opinion. As such, I balanced my opening setups to make full use of the ship, its bonuses, and to remain as true to each ship's inherent advantages as possible.
Regardless, that's not to say your setups or comparisons aren't illuminating. I simply believe that if proper comparisons are to be done then the ship needs to be setup according to its strengths and bonuses.
|
Rn Bonnet
Free Collective
The OSS
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 17:03:00 -
[244]
Quote:
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to assault missile, heavy assault missile and heavy missile launcher rate of fire and 5% bonus to all shield resistances per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to heavy missile Kinetic damage and 5% bonus to heavy missile precision per level
Role Bonus: 99% reduction in Warfare Link module CPU need
It does receive bonuses to heavy assaults :p. Interestingly enough while the last two bonuses do not appear to apply to heavy assault missiles in the database it actually looks like they do. EFT certainly agrees with me. I have not confirmed this in game however. That could use some fixing while where at it.
Also the Warfare Link bonus is no different than any BC gets or Carrier gets. How many carriers and do you see with ganglinks?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 17:14:00 -
[245]
This isn't a question of whether field CS should be fitting gang mods. The question is are they capable of doing so, with sensible fitting choices. The Nighthawk is not. Hence the required ~140-150 PG boost.
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 17:39:00 -
[246]
Edited by: Silence Duegood on 17/07/2008 17:46:30
Originally by: Rn Bonnet
Quote:
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to assault missile, heavy assault missile and heavy missile launcher rate of fire and 5% bonus to all shield resistances per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to heavy missile Kinetic damage and 5% bonus to heavy missile precision per level
Role Bonus: 99% reduction in Warfare Link module CPU need
It does receive bonuses to heavy assaults :p. Interestingly enough while the last two bonuses do not appear to apply to heavy assault missiles in the database it actually looks like they do. EFT certainly agrees with me. I have not confirmed this in game however. That could use some fixing while where at it.
Also the Warfare Link bonus is no different than any BC gets or Carrier gets. How many carriers and do you see with ganglinks?
A. Reread the bolded portions of your quote. As you pointed out, the description does not reflect a bonus, and from my understanding the bolded syntax is how the bonuses operate in-game. Not to mention, the Missile Precision portion of the bonuses is essentially useless. However, that is for another thread another day. Have to fight one battle at a time!
B. Carriers rarely use gang links for two reasons -
1. Command Ships in gang should be using them.
2. They have better things to use in those highs (and the grid/cpu to fit them).
However, Gypsio stated above a better explanation of the problem. Any ship that can fit a module, and is designed to do so, should be judged according to its design philosophy. It would be akin to saying that Exhumers make fine substitutes for Logistics ships when fit properly. Sure, they may, but look at the purpose behind a ship's bonuses in order to put it to its proper use.
|
Rn Bonnet
Free Collective
The OSS
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 17:45:00 -
[247]
Edited by: Rn Bonnet on 17/07/2008 17:46:35
Quote:
from my understanding the bolded syntax is how the bonuses operate in-game
Looking at the database as far as I can tell the bonus applies to both, the description is wrong.
Quote:
1. Command Ships in gang should be using them.
2. They have better things to use in those highs (and the grid/cpu to fit them).
Why should field command ships use them? Certainly fleet should with the bonus to effectiveness, but why should field? Field command ships also have better things to do with those highs "and the grid/cpu to fit them".
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 17:52:00 -
[248]
Originally by: Rn Bonnet
Edited by: Rn Bonnet on 17/07/2008 17:46:35
Quote:
from my understanding the bolded syntax is how the bonuses operate in-game
Looking at the database as far as I can tell the bonus applies to both, the description is wrong.
That would be news to me, and is good news concerning the damage. But the missile precision bonus is still utterly worthless.
Originally by: Rn Bonnet
Quote:
1. Command Ships in gang should be using them.
2. They have better things to use in those highs (and the grid/cpu to fit them).
Why should field command ships use them? Certainly fleet should with the bonus to effectiveness, but why should field? Field command ships also have better things to do with those highs "and the grid/cpu to fit them".
The Nighthawk does not have the grid to fit anything meaningful in that last high slot. Hell, the Nighthawk doesn't even have the grid to fit a basic Heavy Missile Launcher setup. To quote my opening post -
Originally by: Silence Duegood
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. ThatĘs 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?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 18:00:00 -
[249]
Quote:
Why should field command ships use them?
This is wrong question to ask. The correct question to ask is "Are the Field CS able to fit gang mods?". The answer, of course, is that three of them can do so without too much trouble, but the Nighthawk cannot.
In any case, there's little point flying a field CS without a gang mod - you'd normally be better off in a BS. The nano-Sleip is the exception, but nobody's asking for the Sleipnir to be nerfed. 
|
Thorradin
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 00:58:00 -
[250]
Originally by: PirceHat
Fail setups are fail, consider these more realistic ones:
593 dps w/o drones, 154 dps tanked, 86356 ehp, 1038 m/s
[Nighthawk, Pvp]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Reactor Control Unit II
Damage Control II
10MN MicroWarpdrive I
Warp Disruptor II
Large Shield Extender II
Invulnerability Field II
Photon Scattering Field II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile x7
Core Defence Field Extender I
Core Defence Field Extender I
Lets not forget if you don't use kinetic, the DPS are cut by 25%, since there's apparently some mystery about other missile designs that escape the Caldari State's researchers.
|
|
|
Sverchekovich
Body Count Inc.
The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 03:25:00 -
[251]
|
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 06:05:00 -
[252]
To the people who have been asking, unless they changed it in the last couple of months and it wasn't in the patch notes, only one of the Nighthawk's missile bonuses fails to apply to HAMs: the precision bonus. This was tested with actual damage, RoF, etc. against actual ships.
So,
RoF bonus applies to HAMs
Kinetic bonus applies to HAMs
Precision bonus does NOT apply to HAMs
-Wrayeth
n00b Extraordinaire
"Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
PirceHat
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 09:08:00 -
[253]
In that case can we amend this to include "fix the damn description".
|
van Uber
Swedish Aerospace Inc
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 09:50:00 -
[254]
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 23:20:00 -
[255]
Originally by: PirceHat
In that case can we amend this to include "fix the damn description".
Amen. Maybe it can be amended to the issue.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.20 20:10:00 -
[256]
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!
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.07.20 21:45:00 -
[257]
<3 Jade. 
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.07.20 22:46:00 -
[258]
Edited by: Silence Duegood on 20/07/2008 22:47:15
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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.
Many thanks to you. Jade. Your willingness to be tenacious regarding this issue is very, very much appreciated. I've put a lot of work into this thread. The first time it was shot down I was honestly shocked (and appalled). To see the CSM make a 180 is great news.
However, I would like to point something out that worries me. The text of the meeting essentially shows several CSMs saying that they finally messed with the ship in EFT and now understand the issue. Why in the freaking Hell did those same CSMs not bother to take 2 minutes out to familiarize themselves with the Nighthawk in EFT last time?!? It's amazing to see CSMs vote no on an issue that very well might not have gotten another chance, only to find out that they simply didn't do a little homework the first time around. Granted, I'm very thankful for their willingness to do so this time. However, it's discouraging to see some CSMs so unwilling to do a little work after myself and others busted our humps for months on this thread.
Hopefully they've learned their lesson. I personally pay very close attention to these issues, and will be voting for those in the CSM that are willing to do a bit of homework to avoid ignorantly voting on issues that others consider important.
I wonder if Dianeces/Mila Prestoc/and his other alts will come check this very important thread this time around. 
Again, many thanks to you, Jade. I'm glad I voted for you, and will be doing so again.
|
Joudas
Caldari
Tritanium Workers Union
|
Posted - 2008.07.21 00:18:00 -
[259]
I wonder if Dianeces/Mila Prestoc/and his other alts will come check this very important thread this time around.
Im Da *** in Da Op
|
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.07.21 03:54:00 -
[260]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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.
Excellent. While I'd still like to see a low moved to a mid (and fittings compensated to match, just like I'd want with many Caldari ships *cough* raven *cough*), this is most definitely a step in the right direction.
-Wrayeth
n00b Extraordinaire
"Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |