These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Buff Nighthawk Powergrid

Author
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#21 - 2011-11-27 20:57:33 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Andski wrote:
I have a better idea, don't fit ganglinks on nighthawks


Yeah who puts ganglinks on Commandships?


people who fly vultures, damnations and claymores maybe

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#22 - 2011-11-27 21:11:56 UTC
I can't help but wonder if they aren't holding off on the Nighthawk because they really need to rebalance the command ship class as a whole. However, I feel like its a reasonable thing for someone to directly answer his question and show that the Nighthawk is in fact underpowered and that it is primarily because of grid.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Slade Hoo
Retired Gunslingers
#23 - 2011-11-28 00:26:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Slade Hoo
because of Grid

Hey why does the nighthawk have a 7th Highslot when you can't plugin a ganglink "because of grid"?

Nighthawk has one midslot less and therefor an additional lowslot. That results in less tank and a lowslot than is almost always locked by PDU/RCU "Because of Grid" Sense?

Result +20% Grid for the Nighthawk!
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2011-11-28 06:20:32 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
I can't help but wonder if they aren't holding off on the Nighthawk because they really need to rebalance the command ship class as a whole. However, I feel like its a reasonable thing for someone to directly answer his question and show that the Nighthawk is in fact underpowered and that it is primarily because of grid.

-Liang


Being able to fit prop mod, medium cap booster and LSB without fitting mods would be nice. As it stands, you need a considerable amount of pimp to get a MSB NH up to the standards of today's EVE.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#25 - 2011-11-28 10:23:32 UTC
Mfume Apocal wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
I can't help but wonder if they aren't holding off on the Nighthawk because they really need to rebalance the command ship class as a whole. However, I feel like its a reasonable thing for someone to directly answer his question and show that the Nighthawk is in fact underpowered and that it is primarily because of grid.

-Liang


Being able to fit prop mod, medium cap booster and LSB without fitting mods would be nice. As it stands, you need a considerable amount of pimp to get a MSB NH up to the standards of today's EVE.

Yeap, that's what I for one consider as a NH grid issue fix. And that's exactly +17...20% extra PG needed. There's no way this change can be somehow exploited to make the ship OP in any application.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Biced
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2011-11-28 10:27:56 UTC
I have been saying this for years...

how do you take a t1 hull neruf its pg and make it a t2???

nighthawk has less pg than the ferox which is fine cause its a rail boat and guns do take more pg than missiles.
now it also has less pg than the drake. well the drake came in the game later on etc etc.
as it stands now the nighthawk has very low pg and you cant fit gang links on it or HAM.

I want a gank nighthawk with HAMs and buffer. its a field command ship ffs! needs enough grid for buffer+hams+link!
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#27 - 2011-11-28 10:38:26 UTC
Andski wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Andski wrote:
I have a better idea, don't fit ganglinks on nighthawks


Yeah who puts ganglinks on Commandships?


people who fly vultures, damnations and claymores maybe


Great, let's just get rid of the ganglink bonus and turn it into something useful then.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

m0cking bird
Doomheim
#28 - 2011-11-28 20:32:39 UTC
So! Some of you want CCP to change a ship so your shield boosting set-up is easier to set-up? I would like CCP to increase my Ruptures power grid so I can fit a 1600mm plate, mwd and 425mm auto-cannons. Cant atm and I think this ship is broken because of it.


-nerf winmatar so they don't win
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#29 - 2011-11-28 20:37:57 UTC
Raven Ether wrote:
Right now at 710 MW, while other command ships have 1200+


It can't even fit a gang link.

Shocked



Command T3's



On a side note, Id like to see more command ships on the field thx to ON GRID BOOSTS ONLY !!
(agree on pg issues thou)
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#30 - 2011-11-28 21:02:36 UTC
m0cking bird wrote:
So! Some of you want CCP to change a ship so your shield boosting set-up is easier to set-up? I would like CCP to increase my Ruptures power grid so I can fit a 1600mm plate, mwd and 425mm auto-cannons. Cant atm and I think this ship is broken because of it.

No one was asking for heavy cap b00ster iirc. And it is of the same relation to NH as 1600mm plate+425mm's are to Rupture.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#31 - 2011-11-28 21:51:12 UTC
Tanya Powers wrote:
On a side note, Id like to see more command ships on the field thx to ON GRID BOOSTS ONLY !!
(agree on pg issues thou)


This has almost literally nothing to do with the Nighthawk. It might be relevant if we were talking about the Vulture, but I don't have any real fitting issues with it so w/e.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Lili Lu
#32 - 2011-11-28 23:27:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Malcanis wrote:

After fitting a full rack of HML IIs and a ganglink, the NightHawk has 120.5 PG left
After fitting a full rack of HAM IIs and a ganglink, the Nighthawk has 7.1 PG left Roll

After fitting a full rack of HPL IIs and a ganglink, the Absolution has 521.35 PG remaining
After fitting a full rack of HBL IIs and a ganglink, the Absolution has 283.75 PG remaining

After fitting a full rack of 425mm AC IIs and a ganglink, the Sleipnir has 654.8 PG remaining
After fitting a full rack of 720mm Arty IIs and a ganglink, the Sleipnir has a deficit of 107.5PG - but it has the option of dropping to a lower tier waepon system, the 650mm Arty II, leaving it with 239 PG. The Nighthawk has no such option.

The problem with the Nighthawk is that just throwing grid at it to improve it for pvp is not so simple as the above observation with the Sleipnir shows, and could further imbalance it in pve. The Sleip is indeed lacking on grid when you slap 720s on it, but being as such a ship is pve it is just the usual bother to use some fitting mods or implants to get the ab and shield booster on. And for pvp it certainly does not need more grid. Conversely more grid on a NH for pvp but the NH does not need more grid for pve.

At present for another character I have I fit my nighthawk for level 4s with 2 LSE, Y-S8 ab, and 7 HML II, and all the other mods taking 1pg each bring me right in at 887/887.5. Its tank is a total snooze in pve. If I take that same fit and swap the purgers for extenders and 2 SPR for 2 PDS II, I can fit a Y- overcharged mwd inplace of the ab and permarun that mwd with 141k ehp before fleet bonuses and missile only dps of 470 (with 2 BCU) at 70km. Not bad really. Sure you are not getting the same raw dps as a sleip or abso, and you are a pure ranged damage dealer with no point, but you are getting range flexibility that those other two ships won't have.

Is one to give it more grid to fit and run a large or x-large shield booster for PVE? Aside from the fact that the level 5 capable pve tank has to be cap independant (and in this department it outshines other ships in class), I don't see what the ship gains from active tanking. Anyway, what would be the strength of such a tank with the resist bonus plus active tanking with an x-large shield booster?

As to the ganglink on these fits I think it is a misplaced argument. If you are in any kind of decent fleet you will have a Vulture or Tengu providing your shield links (similar boosters on other fleets, damnation or Legion). That last high is almos irrelevant. Liang says as much in deflecting the comment about on-grid boosting. I am a supporter of on-grid boosting but not for the reason of fitting a link on a NH or Abso etc, more for the reason of not having T3 boosters sitting at a pos or ss outperforming commands.

That we don't see NHs so often in fights is this probably more to do with the cheapness of the Drake, and the deficit of HMs in mixed fleets (people want to be applying that damage instantly to get the top damage dealer)? If HAM fits onNHs are what we are talking about with giving it +20% or more grid I would like to see that people have thought through the implications for other situations in the game that that grid would not harm.

I think Greyscale was saying these thinks in his quote. The problems with NHs in pvp may not so much be grid but much cheaper competition (the ubiquitous drake) and delayed damage (missile flight). I like his next quote, because he is displaying some concern with the strength of passive shield tanking in general. It appears that any major grid overhaul would likely coincide with some nerfing of passive shield in general.

tl:dr The NH is almost op for pve. If you strengthen grid for HAMs in pvp what effect could this have on pve? Fitting a link is sorta irrelevant.
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
#33 - 2011-11-28 23:57:19 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:

ship balancing should be based on PVE.


okay



Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words. Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions. Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character. And character is everything. - author unknown

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#34 - 2011-11-29 00:17:46 UTC
The point is, Tengu has a much better powergrid yet it's said to be equally (im)balanced for both PvP and PvE. The same will go for NH.

omg, a wonderful XL booster at PvE NH. So what? How is that imbalanced?

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Lili Lu
#35 - 2011-11-29 00:37:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
PVE may seem irrelevant if you only look at the game for pvp. CCP cares about pve, and it would not be as good a game as it is if they didn't care about pve. It's all well and good to play the tough guy who only cares about pvp, but it is not the sole basis upon which to construct a good game. For instance, pve can fund pvp Blink PVE can determine where value lies in races and regions. Potentially to imbalance that is not irrelevant.

The OP wanted a ganglink. What do you want extra grid for? HAMs? How much grid is appropriate and will avoid unintended consequences? Can you examine your wants in relation to the rest of the game? That's what I'm asking.
Jacob Stov
#36 - 2011-11-29 00:37:47 UTC
Oh great forum ate my post. What?

Well since longer ranged missiles are easier to fit as opposed to turrets I think it's ok if one could fit 6 HML II+ LSE + Ganglink + MWD with a single fitting mod.

I'm not even sure if I would fly such a Nighthawk over my Ferox. No direct bonus to links on both ships. Usually people first shoot my buddies in their shiny Sleipnirs.

Only plus would be the better damage output and the Kaalakiota paintjob.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#37 - 2011-11-29 00:43:16 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:

The OP wanted a ganglink. What do you want extra grid for? HAMs? How much grid is appropriate and will avoid unintended consequences? Can you examine your wants in relation to the rest of the game? That's what I'm asking.

6HMLs+MWD+med cap booster+large SB

that's all I ask for. And atm NH needs a techII RCU + PG implant to fit that (or some cosmos stuff).

So - as I said - add 17...20% grid and NH will be ok grid-wise.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Akila Rose
Doomheim
#38 - 2011-11-29 07:29:22 UTC
The bigger issue here is that CCP has always kept missile users at bay. There has been a myriad of small nerfs and tweaks to limit missile users more or less directed toward PVP. The two big ones I have noticed is:

1) Faction ships - look at them. Not a single one that is part caldari has a single missile damage (RoF included) bonus to it. The one that you would think would be a great candidate for a missile damage bonus would be the guristas ships, they are modeled after the caldari ships, but alas, have bonuses to drones, which need I remind you can be destroyed and thus severely weakening the ship during a fight.

2) The Naga - I know that it never hit TQ so was never 'officially' nerfed, but you can see the Devs thought process in its evolution to what the Naga will be once Crucible hits TQ. When it was first on Sisi, it had missiles and hybrids but no damage mods for missiles... Then they removed missiles altogether. We had a fairly large outcry on the forums to bring missiles back. However, look at the Naga now and see what its using.**

So, as you can see, CCP tries to keep missile users (mainly pvp users) down. Some say its because of lag or missiles are easy mode.. whatever. Its blatantly obvious its happening.


**I agree with the changes to the naga however. I would love to have the Naga a missile ship, but giving the application these ships are being designed for, hybrids just make sense.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#39 - 2011-11-29 08:05:20 UTC
Akila Rose wrote:

So, as you can see, CCP tries to keep missile users (mainly pvp users) down. Some say its because of lag or missiles are easy mode.. whatever. Its blatantly obvious its happening.


I'm sorry - I'm totally in favor of buffs to certain missile ships but this post seems to be made of tinfoil to me. There are plenty of viable missile PVP ships and the fact that they're introducing missile ships in the first place (even unbonused) would seem to argue against your point of view.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

xxxak
Perkone
Caldari State
#40 - 2011-11-29 20:21:55 UTC
+1

FIX THIS CCP

[u]The nerfs to supercaps will cause more super pilots to join the largest alliances who can properly "support" their deployment, further concentrating firepower/wealth in EVE. The end result will be fewer "fun" fights, and will hurt EVE in the long run.[/u]

Previous page123Next page