| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Soporo
Caldari The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 02:17:00 -
[1]
A comparison of the Field Command ships, all races:
Nighthawk/Cald CPU 555 Powergrid 710 <- wth? Sleipner/Mims CPU 475 Powergrid 1460 Astarte/Gallente CPU 440 Powergrid 1550 Absolution/Amarr CPU 400 Powergrid 1575
Now compare the t2 Battlecruisers:
Drake/Caldari CPU 525 Powergrid 850 <- ... Myrm/Gall CPU 400 Powergrid 1175 Hurricane/Mim CPU 400 Powergrid 1350 Harby/Amarr CPU 375 Powergrid 1500
As you can see, barring the NH, every single other field command has a noticeable improvement in grid (and cpu) over it's BC counterpart.
The NH's grid is so anemic that even the lowly Moa, a T1 Cruiser! (780 grid) trumps it.
Can anyone provide a reasonable explanation for keeping this ships grid so incomparably low for so long?
|

Soporo
Caldari The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 17:38:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Naomi Knight
Originally by: Xanos Blackpaw it fits
pvp support NH:
5 HML T2 1 seige harm link 2 large shield extenders T2 1 EM shield hardener T2 2 Invu fields T2 2 PDU T2 1 DCU T2 2 BCU T2 2 shield extender rigs.
1 +5% PG rig and max skills.
mwd? need for implant? why other races command ships dont need it? low dps? still medicore tank?
why would anybody use this instead of another command ship?
^^ Or a Drake. A plus 5% implant required for that fit, is that a joke? Do you have any idea how much those cost? Not to mention that sadly, in 0.0 you NEED to have a lolAB or MWD or you just Fail and get podded with your ridiculously expensive implant in some bubble.
It's the only field command that has (much) less grid than it's BC counterparts. Less grid than some Cruisers, even. 
|

Soporo
Caldari The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.01.02 23:03:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Euriti Edited by: Euriti on 02/01/2009 21:39:33 You are all tap dancing around the subject and it's pretty pathetic watching so I'll give an objective analysis based on a reasonable PvP fitting and the grid requirements of said fitting.
First, we need to set a few goals that we must achieve when fitting this ship. Following goals are reasonable and follow what other CS can achieve:
GOALS:
- Fitting a full rack of Tech 2 weapons equal to the size of the ship
These are reasonable fitting requirements in terms of modules The fitting should NOT require multiple T2 RCU, several RCUs, 5% grid modules or extreme skills.
TEST FITTING: Now, lets try to put together a fitting that just fill in these requirements using the Nighthawk hull.
[Nighthawk, NH] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot]
10MN MicroWarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II [empty med slot] [empty med slot]
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing
[empty rig slot] [empty rig slot]
This fitting takes up 1181 out of 887,5 power grid with max skills. Therefore it lacks 300 powergrid to fill out basic requirements for a CS. Fitting an RCU I bring this 1181 out of 976,25 power grid and fitting an RCU II brings this to 1181 out of 1020,63 power grid. It still lacks 160 power grid with a tech 2 reactor control unit. Raising the powergrid to 875 before skills would give it 1093,75 power grid with engineering 5. With an RCU I this will increase to 1203,125 powergrid, enough to cover the requirements and additional 1 pg modules.
A SHORT SUMMARY:
Increasing the powergrid from 710 to 875 would make it possible to fill in the required fitting goals mentioned in the start of the thread. In situations where gang modules are not being fitted you are able to fit HAM IIs.
/Thread.
|

Soporo
Caldari The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 10:14:00 -
[4]
Quote: That would be like fitting a Nighthawk with Assault II launchers (which it does get some bonus for).
Yeah, in another thread about this same subject (where I was being mercilessly trolled by Dev alts) that was the best fit they could come up with. 200m isk frig killer, oh joy.
|

Soporo
Caldari The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.02.01 15:20:00 -
[5]
Still fubar. |

Soporo
Caldari The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 07:24:00 -
[6]
Nighthawk PvP:
2 CDFE rigs
DCU II 4 BCU II
LSE II Mag Scattering Amp II 2 Inv II Y-T8 Microwarp
6 HML II/Navy Scourge
Hmm 99k EHP and 400 dps, with a tight fit.
Oh, wait. The Drake does almost as good at 1/6th the price and I still can't fit a command mod and a reasonable pvp fit. Drats.
|

Soporo
Caldari The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 18:44:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Julius Romanus I know the Nighthawk is tight on grid, but you can still fit a gang mod, a LSE, and enough bcu's to match an abso's scorch DPS with heavies. It takes an ACR/PDU(3% pg implant as well). But really whats so bad about it.
You don't pvp in 0.0 do you? You require a speed mod. |

Soporo
Caldari The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.02.20 13:56:00 -
[8]
Eh, I see your point but I would definately say no to a 200 mil isk frig killer. As has been said many times, all it truly needs is 200 more grid and move a low to a midslot.
They've fixed other ships before, it's tiume they got around to this one.
|

Soporo
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.06.13 23:17:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Wingardium Leviosa
Originally by: Euriti Edited by: Euriti on 02/01/2009 21:39:33 You are all tap dancing around the subject and it's pretty pathetic watching so I'll give an objective analysis based on a reasonable PvP fitting and the grid requirements of said fitting.
First, we need to set a few goals that we must achieve when fitting this ship. Following goals are reasonable and follow what other CS can achieve:
GOALS:
- Fitting a full rack of Tech 2 weapons equal to the size of the ship
These are reasonable fitting requirements in terms of modules The fitting should NOT require T2 RCU, several RCUs, 5% grid modules or extreme skills.
TEST FITTING: Now, lets try to put together a fitting that just fill in these requirements using the Nighthawk hull.
[Nighthawk, NH] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot]
10MN MicroWarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II [empty med slot] [empty med slot]
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing
[empty rig slot] [empty rig slot]
This fitting takes up 1181 out of 887,5 power grid with max skills. Therefore it lacks 300 powergrid to fill out basic requirements for a CS. Fitting an RCU I bring this 1181 out of 976,25 power grid and fitting an RCU II brings this to 1181 out of 1020,63 power grid. It still lacks 160 power grid with a tech 2 reactor control unit. Raising the powergrid to 875 before skills would give it 1093,75 power grid with engineering 5. With an RCU I this will increase to 1203,125 powergrid, enough to cover the requirements and additional 1 pg modules.
A SHORT SUMMARY:
Increasing the powergrid from 710 to 875 would make it possible to fill in the required fitting goals mentioned in the start of the thread. In situations where gang modules are not being fitted you are able to fit HAM IIs.
just posting to quote this again
Quoting the quote for truth and justice. |

Soporo
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 23:53:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Sidus Isaacs
Originally by: Bentula
Originally by: De Guantanamo Edited by: De Guantanamo on 20/02/2009 18:29:14 Having never flown this ship in pvp, I can't comment with experience. But just a little dabbling in EFT yielded this fit:
[PVP] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Reactor Control Unit II Damage Control II
Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Photon Scattering Field II Warp Disruptor II 10MN MicroWarpdrive I
Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing Heavy Missile Launcher II,Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II,Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II,Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II,Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II,Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II,Scourge Heavy Missile
Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I
Obviously no cap injector and lacks heavy DPS, but based on the ships bonuses, one would think that its role is to A)provide moderate gang bonus and B)take down tacklers/smaller ships (explosion velocity bonus). Concurrently, going based on this role, one is not "supposed" to fit HAMs because then the ship would not be able to fill this role (HAMs dont get bonuses from TNP and GMP IIRC).
So, while this ship is obviously not as pwn as say the absolution, would this setup not allow the NH to fulfill the two roles I specified above and be a viable pvp fit?
One potential argument I see against this is that the Drake can probably do these jobs just as well for a fraction of the cost and with insurance. But putting that aside, is this a viable setup for pvp in the NH?
If it has to be a setup like that why not just use:
[Drake] 2xBallistic Control System II Co-Processor II Damage Control II
10MN MicroWarpdrive I Photon Scattering Field II Heat Dissipation Field II Ballistic Deflection Field II Invulnerability Field II Warp Disruptor II
7xHeavy Missile Launcher II, Guristas Scourge Heavy Missile Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing
3xCore Defence Field Extender I
It has same effective hp, higher volley damage(which i prefer in gang pvp) and not to mention its far cheaper and wont be called primary as much.
P.S.: Dont get me wrong, i wouldnt fly either setup cause they both suck, but atleast the drake version sucks at a cheaper pricetag.
Aye. This is why NH need change :S
|

Soporo
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 06:32:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Soporo on 04/08/2009 06:34:35
Quote: The Nighthawk setup that I thought would be good for Gang Warfare is as follows:
Nighthawk - Gang Setup
Lows: 1x Power Diagnostic System II 3x Ballistic Control System II 1x Damage Control II
Mids: 1x Y-T8 MWD 1x Warp Disruptor II 1x Invulnerability Field II 1x Small Capacitor Booster II - 200s
Highs: 6x Heavy Missile Launcher II - Scourge Fury Heavy Missiles 1x Siege Warfare Link of choice/to suit gang
Rigs: Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Bay Loading Accelerator I
Drones: 5x Hobgoblin II
Implant: 3% Power Grid
Only 4 mids you are showing and a patheitc tank, your idea of a tank is an Invulnerability Field?. This is your idea of a valid pvp setup?
|

Soporo
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 02:07:00 -
[12]
*looks at latest patch notes*
Nope, no lub for the LateAfternoonHawk yet (The color blows now too, btw).
|

Soporo
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 02:23:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Soporo on 19/08/2009 02:24:32 Ok master, out of the box thinking, pvp'er. Give us some fits then. Or are you trying to tell me to pvp in it and ignore the fact that it's a Command ship and just fit it like I would a 250 million isk Drake?
|
| |
|