EVE Search - Why the Nighthawk is sub-par ... thread number 4 billion this topic

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Why the Nighthawk is sub-par ... thread number 4 billion this topic

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page

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?
TimMc Gallente Brutal Deliverance OWN Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.02 02:21:00 - [2] Its awesome at mission running, the rest of them suck at it... any you want more? Heavy missile launchers do not take as much PG as the other races guns, but I do agree it should have a nicer CPU (or perhaps the others are too high).
Foulque	Posted - 2009.01.02 02:34:00 - [3] Comparing a T2 ship to it's actual T1 cousin might be a good idea. I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with the Nighthawk but you're numbers are completely pointless with the different slot layouts of the ships. ________
Formulka	Posted - 2009.01.02 02:42:00 - [4] its missile ship - heavy missiles take about half of the grid the railguns take, but more CPU -> half the grid, most CPU of all just compare: 250mm Railgun II - 236PG, 44CPU HMLII - 105PG, 55CPU
Karl Luckner	Posted - 2009.01.02 03:24:00 - [5] Fitting a single ganglink is close to impossible. That's the only problem I've got with the NH. Possible with a flimsy active tank, but I would never try to throw it into PvP with such a fit.
Mystic Pete	Posted - 2009.01.02 03:30:00 - [6] You cannot fit it's launchers + ganklink without fitting mods. The launchers use less grid is a lame argument when it cannot fit the most straight forward mods for it's role. As a missionrunning ship it soon stops being king if you fit a link. As you may be gathering here it's a commandship that cannot fit a link without some seriouls effort that compromises it's few advantages over the Drake. The Nighthawk needs more grid. Even just another 200 to cover the link. The Nighthawk needs more grid.
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2009.01.02 03:54:00 - [7] Edited by: Sidus Isaacs on 02/01/2009 04:00:19 Edited by: Sidus Isaacs on 02/01/2009 03:59:28 Originally by: TimMc Its awesome at mission running, the rest of them suck at it... any you want more? Heavy missile launchers do not take as much PG as the other races guns, but I do agree it should have a nicer CPU (or perhaps the others are too high). I give a **** about mission running for the NH to be frank. It could shine in PvP with better grid, and its in PvP where PvP ships should be benchmarked! With AWU 4 it can't even fit this: [Nighthawk, lol wut?] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] In comparison thi has lots of grid to spare: [Absolution, New Setup 1] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defence [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] Seems balanced? I do not think so. NH need a serious boost!
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2009.01.02 03:59:00 - [8] Edited by: Sidus Isaacs on 02/01/2009 03:59:22 Sorry, double post.
Spaztick Canadian Imperial Armaments Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2009.01.02 04:18:00 - [9] Give it enough grid/cpu to fit a link. Tada. ...but on a serious note, more people should have some type of spacer in their sigs to show it's not part of the post.
BiggestT Caldari Resurrection Skunk-Works	Posted - 2009.01.02 05:34:00 - [10] Originally by: Foulque Comparing a T2 ship to it's actual T1 cousin might be a good idea. I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with the Nighthawk but you're numbers are completely pointless with the different slot layouts of the ships. Lol, I wouldnt go there.. Ferox has even more grid than a drake (1075) The reason the drake and nighthawk are compared is because they use the same weapon and have hte same niche. This way people cant say "but the hml's take less grid than guns" when the drake (hml boat) has a higher grid than the nighthawk. So the point is.. Give it some more grid to reduce the need for an rcuII on any decent fit. EVE history t2 precisions

Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2009.01.02 07:07:00 - [11] because if the nighthawk had room to fit a tank, launchers, and a gang mod then carebars might start forming up in gangs, and maybe even corps, and when they get wardeced they would all quit. thus ccp won't let the nighthawk have adequate grid that is the best I can come up with
NoNah	Posted - 2009.01.02 07:40:00 - [12] Originally by: Soporo 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? Brutix(1150) -> Astarte(1450) = +1 Turret Harbinger(1500) -> Absolution(1575) = +/-0 Turrets Drake(850) -> Nighthawk(710) = -1 Launcher Cyclone(1200) -> Sleipnir(1460) = +2 Turrets The drake-Harbinger is the only combination that loses a harpdoint and the only one that loses fitting. That doesn't make sense? Drake also gets one more mid to fill, which is grid hungry. As for the idea that you MUST have a rack of your largest launchers/guns and a ganglink, please give me an astarte setup that does the same. Time for a +15% Hybrid damage role bonus mayhaps? Parrots, commence! Postcount: 572306
Haakelen Gallente Cassandra's Light Caeruleum Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.02 08:51:00 - [13] The vulture needs another turret, too.
Colonel Xaven Decadence. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.02 09:01:00 - [14] Anyone who does not like the Caldari command ships should go for any other race's cs. Simple. Nighthawk is fine, just fit it passive for PVE, power and cpu are enough... Vulture needs one more turret? For what? It's not an attack vessel and it's sniping / anti-support abilities are good (but sitting outside a pos giving the fleet those bonuses is the best way of using it anyways). Using it as support ship is just wrong like BlackOps set up as tank / damage dealer and flown in fleets. People should try to understand for what particular ships are designed for. Proud member of RZR - Decadence.
Haakelen Gallente Cassandra's Light Caeruleum Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.02 09:26:00 - [15] Originally by: Colonel Xaven People should try to understand for what particular ships are designed for. I was not aware that the Vulture was not designed to be used, thank you for clearing this up.
Colonel Xaven Decadence. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.02 09:31:00 - [16] Stop trolling. It is used as fleet command ship, thus it's only useful with ganglinks. Maybe you read the description again http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Vulture Proud member of RZR - Decadence.
PsychoBones Project Nemesis	Posted - 2009.01.02 09:36:00 - [17] Originally by: Colonel Xaven Nighthawk is fine, just fit it passive for PVE "The Nighthawk is fine, as long as you fit only this one setup, and only use it for PvE" Your logic is astounding.
Colonel Xaven Decadence. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.02 09:42:00 - [18] Originally by: PsychoBones Originally by: Colonel Xaven Nighthawk is fine, just fit it passive for PVE "The Nighthawk is fine, as long as you fit only this one setup, and only use it for PvE" Your logic is astounding. You quotet me wrong. It's just the displeasure of a few people to adapt (and quote correct) what doesn't make sense. Proud member of RZR - Decadence.
PsychoBones Project Nemesis	Posted - 2009.01.02 10:03:00 - [19] Originally by: Colonel Xaven Originally by: PsychoBones Originally by: Colonel Xaven Nighthawk is fine, just fit it passive for PVE "The Nighthawk is fine, as long as you fit only this one setup, and only use it for PvE" Your logic is astounding. You quotet me wrong. It's just the displeasure of a few people to adapt (and quote correct) what doesn't make sense. Did you not just say the Nighthawk is fine as long as long as you fit a passive tank and fit it for PvE? I fail to see where there's the possibility for confusion there. And no, you can't make a useful Nighthawk setup for PvP that's any better than a Drake.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.01.02 10:09:00 - [20] Nighthawks role :1 gang module support + battlecruiser role which is dps support oh and you cant fit it for that so it is clearly broken !!!its role is not mission running with passive tank!!!

Vrabac Zawa's Fan Club	Posted - 2009.01.02 10:09:00 - [21] Originally by: NoNah Brutix(1150) -> Astarte(1450) = +1 Turret Harbinger(1500) -> Absolution(1575) = +/-0 Turrets Drake(850) -> Nighthawk(710) = -1 Launcher Cyclone(1200) -> Sleipnir(1460) = +2 Turrets This is all so correct, insightful and exciting. Brutix has 7 turrets just like Astarte. Harbinger has 7 turrets, Abso has 6, but Abso is actually a t2 PROPHECY. Nighthawk isn't a t2 Drake. Cyclone -> Sleip part almost makes sense. All that aside, nighthawk is still kinda pointless. Adding it grid to remove the need for rcu and swaping low for a mid would make it competitive with other field commands in gank/tank area, since it could fit similar to haml Drake with dc, 3 bcus, mwd, web, scram, invus, lse and hams and actually be better than Drake. But how would that reflect on other fits I don't know so cant really say that doing it would solve all the issues.
Colonel Xaven Decadence. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.02 10:15:00 - [22] Originally by: PsychoBones And no, you can't make a useful Nighthawk setup for PvP that's any better than a Drake. Besides the fact that Drakes are useless too for PvP? Proud member of RZR - Decadence.
Xanos Blackpaw Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.01.02 10:21:00 - [23] 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. this is a pretty nice anti support NH. Playing minmatar is "like going down a flight of stairs in a office chair firing an Uzi".
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.01.02 10:24:00 - [24] 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. this is a pretty nice anti support NH. 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?
PsychoBones Project Nemesis	Posted - 2009.01.02 10:26:00 - [25] Originally by: Colonel Xaven Besides the fact that Drakes are useless too for PvP? I forgot how much fun it is to argue with the NC. Just because a Drake is useless for PvP in the hands of a proud NC carebear doesn't mean it's useless for PvP all around. [Drake, New Setup 1] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Warp Scrambler II X5 Prototype I Engine Enervator Large Shield Extender II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile [empty high slot] Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I Hobgoblin II x5
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.01.02 10:31:00 - [26] 3 rigs worth more than the whole bc with the fit ....
PsychoBones Project Nemesis	Posted - 2009.01.02 10:37:00 - [27] Edited by: PsychoBones on 02/01/2009 10:40:02 Originally by: Naomi Knight 3 rigs worth more than the whole bc with the fit .... No more expensive than the Purger rigs Drake pilots are so fond of. If you can afford them, why not? If you can't afford them, don't fit them. But just because somebody can't afford/ won't fit rigs on a BC doesn't mean the BC sucks. And it doesn't change the fact that the Nighthawk can't do that. A similar Nighthawk fit requires an RCU and does only 60 DPS more, while having 4000 less shields (with slightly higher resists), and only a scram, no web. For 4x the cost.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.01.02 10:42:00 - [28] Originally by: PsychoBones Edited by: PsychoBones on 02/01/2009 10:40:02 Originally by: Naomi Knight 3 rigs worth more than the whole bc with the fit .... No more expensive than the Purger rigs Drake pilots are so fond of. If you can afford them, why not? If you can't afford them, don't fit them. But just because somebody can't afford/ won't fit rigs on a BC doesn't mean the BC sucks. And it doesn't change the fact that the Nighthawk can't do that. A similar Nighthawk fit requires an RCU and does only 60 DPS more, while having 4000 less shields (with slightly higher resists), and only a scram, no web. For 4x the cost. 1 thing is to fit for pve and one thing it to pvp. While in pve items worth the high price because in the long run they will get back the isk you spent on them ,but in pvp possibly you will loose the ship.
Colonel Xaven Decadence. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.02 10:43:00 - [29] Sigh. Have you ever flown a Drake (with that fitting)? And I'm sorry that you don't get the difference between roles of battlecruisers and field command ships. Proud member of RZR - Decadence.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.01.02 11:02:00 - [30] Originally by: Colonel Xaven Sigh. Have you ever flown a Drake (with that fitting)? And I'm sorry that you don't get the difference between roles of battlecruisers and field command ships. I have. I've flown it for 18 months. It's the most powerful solo/small gang battlecruiser. Excluding ECM drones, only a trimarked, slaved Harbinger with no tracking or optimal concerns will defeat it in a 1v1 BC fight - and even then it'll be close. This is basic, basic PVP knowledge, and only a true nullsecbear wouldn't know this. The role of field command ships is to fit a gang mod. The Nighthawk does not have the PG to do this in a sensible pvp fit. QED.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.