These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] The Nighthawk Needs a 6th Midslot

Author
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
#1 - 2013-09-03 22:55:03 UTC
With the recent changes to command ships, much love was spread around. The nighthawk was brought up to par with its compatriots in the damage-dealing arena, but its tank is still little better than a drake's when fit for small gang combat (read: fit with a prop mod and warp disruptor/scrambler) thanks to only having 5 mids. As such, I propose the following: add a 6th midslot by removing a low. This will make the nighthawk more generally viable in PvP instead of limiting it to just fleet roles where tackle isn't required.
Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
#2 - 2013-09-04 11:01:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Brewlar Kuvakei
Wrayeth wrote:
With the recent changes to command ships, much love was spread around. The nighthawk was brought up to par with its compatriots in the damage-dealing arena, but its tank is still little better than a drake's when fit for small gang combat (read: fit with a prop mod and warp disruptor/scrambler) thanks to only having 5 mids. As such, I propose the following: add a 6th midslot by removing a low. This will make the nighthawk more generally viable in PvP instead of limiting it to just fleet roles where tackle isn't required.


As a Nighthawk pilot that solo's 7/10 and 8/10's I agree. I need an extra. slot so I can fit a AB to reduce my gate transit time while I lol semi afk through this PLEX. There is zero chance you'll get an extra mid slot, I'm dealing Tengu/CNR damage while sig tanking like a boss and applying DPS to frigs with my Precesion heavies unlike the CNR and to some extent the Tengu which must orbit out of range to survive.

Why are you trying to fly a PVE or PVP support hull as heavy DPS & tackle?
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
#3 - 2013-09-04 11:07:49 UTC
Would you say that the Sleipnir is a "support hull"? What about the Astarte or Absolution? Are those also support only? Personally, my kill record with the Sleipnir and Absolution (I've never flown an Astarte) would say otherwise, but your mileage may vary.

The simple fact is that the Nighthawk is lacking in something the other command ships are fully capable of: the ability to tackle in PvP without making itself a loot piƱata.
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#4 - 2013-09-06 10:07:30 UTC
I agree.

However...no offense, but your post is kind of bad. You claim the Nighthawk needs another mid, but you don't elaborate on why. A lot of us posted a lot of good information in the command ships thread about exactly why the Nighthawk needs another mid--why don't you pull some of that into your post?

Here, I'll start.

Compare the Nighthawk to the other shield tanking missile CS, the Claymore. Let's look at a couple sample solo/very small gang (1-5 people, total) fits for the Nighthawk and Claymore. Looking at the hull bonuses, the Nighthawk's designed for a buffer fit, while the Claymore would excel with a booster or ASB. We'll play to those strengths.

Even if we don't use a web (which, IMO, you really kind of need for a HAM PvP setup in order to deal full damage), we still need a MWD and scram, which leaves 3 midslots for tank on the NH and 4 on the Claymore.

Sample Nighthawk fit. Basic and simple, probably the starting point for NH PvP fits:

[Nighthawk, PvP]
Damage Control II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II

Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II
Large Shield Extender II

Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

Warrior II x5

You've got 164.5 CPU and 461 PG left over for those two high slots, which is more than enough for two medium neuts, a couple links, or a large shield transmitter + large capacitor transmitter for spider tanking.

Including drones, this does 733dps with CN scourge, 555 dps with CN non-scourge, 846 with scourge rage, 637 with non-scourge rage.
Tank is 93,417 EHP, with average damage reduction of 5.534x (useful to know for spider tanking).
Speed is 1097m/s, signature is 340m (no MWD) or 1996m (with MWD).
Cap is an impressive 6m31s even with MWD running.

However, there's not much room for customization with this fit--you can't add much more gank, and you can't add much more tank without dropping your tackle.

Seems decent. Now let's look at a basic Claymore XLASB fit:
[Claymore, PvP XLASB]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Co-Processor II
Damage Control II

Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400
Shield Boost Amplifier II

Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-Explosive Screen Reinforcer I

Warrior II x5
Hammerhead II x5

Fitting's a lot tighter--only ~3 CPU and 208.5 PG left over for those two high slots. That's enough for a medium neut and not much else, with either implants or dropping something to metas.

How does this perform compared to the Nighthawk?
627dps with CN, 709 with rage (no missile type limitation like the Nighthawk)
Tank, after 9 charges of the XLASB, is 156042 EHP, with average damage reduction of 5.657
Speed is 1351m/s, sig is 263m without MWD, 1545 with
Cap is still good at 5m 6s with MWD on.

So you're left with a ship that's got significantly more tank, not much less DPS, smaller sig, significantly faster, and easier for logi to rep...and there's plenty of room to move things around to customize. Drop the DC for a BCS to get a lot closer to NH damage levels while staying well above NH tank. Main problem is that you can't make use of your utility highs without implants.
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#5 - 2013-09-06 10:07:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Chris Winter
Well, what if you don't like ASBs and just want straight buffer? The Nighthawk's better, since the Claymore has the boosting bonus, right?

Wrong:
[Claymore, PvP Buffer]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Damage Control II

Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II

Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

Warrior II x5
Hammerhead II x5

60.75 CPU, 462 PG left over for the two highs. That's enough for two medium neuts, or a link and a neut (with implant), or whatever you want. If you're willing to sacrifice some damage, stick a coproc in the lows and you can put everything in the highs that the Nighthawk can.

104429 EHP.
1351 m/s.
318/1867m sig.

Yes, the active tanking bonused Claymore can fit a better buffer than the buffer tanking bonused Nighthawk. If that's not enough evidence that the Nighthawk is terrible compared to the Claymore...I don't know what is. The Claymore's faster, tankier, smaller sig, capable of a much stiffer tank when ASB fitted, and does not that much less damage.

The Nighthawk will continue to be rare in PvP. PvE it's fantastic...but it's a command ship, not a BC-hulled marauder.