These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Nighthawk Ruined

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2014-01-13 09:49:04 UTC
I'm not aware of any Nighthawk nerf. If you see a change in the model as a nerf, then don't fly it. I'm more willing to fly a Nighthawk after the change, especially if their price is going down. But maybe you should actually check the stats of a ship before assuming that a lost launcher hardpoint is a nerf. The Naglfar lost 2 launcher hardpoints. If every Naglfar pilot reacted the way you do, they would probably ragequit EVE, completely unaware of the huge buff their favorite ship just got.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#42 - 2014-01-13 18:28:11 UTC
While I freely admit I have wanted a T2 Drake for a long time, someone got the Claymore and Nighthawk backwards. Why does Claymore have more mids and less lows than Nighthawk? Fail...

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#43 - 2014-01-13 18:48:19 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
While I freely admit I have wanted a T2 Drake for a long time, someone got the Claymore and Nighthawk backwards. Why does Claymore have more mids and less lows than Nighthawk? Fail...

I pointed this out like a dozen times while the ships were on sisi and never got so much as an acknowledgement from the devs. The slot layout means that the Claymore can completely ignore its tanking bonus and fit a stronger buffer tank than the Nighthawk, even though the Nighthawk's tanking bonus helps buffer. If the Claymore does the XLASB thing, it blows the Nighthawk's tank completely out of the water.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2014-01-13 19:01:35 UTC
The Nighthawk is more ideal for a passive regen tank, and low slots help that. But that's no excuse for giving it less mid slots than the Claymore. Similar story with the Megathron and the Armageddon.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#45 - 2014-01-13 21:48:12 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
The Nighthawk is more ideal for a passive regen tank, and low slots help that. But that's no excuse for giving it less mid slots than the Claymore. Similar story with the Megathron and the Armageddon.

Another mid slot instead of a low would help out with passive regen tank just as much.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#46 - 2014-01-14 15:26:39 UTC
Chris Winter wrote:
IIshira wrote:


The Nighthawk was a T2 Ferox before they turned it into a Drake...

Ferox uses guns, drake uses missiles.

Nighthawk uses missiles.

Ergo, Nighthawk is a T2 Drake. QED.

Also, why do people have a problem with the Drake model? It has a certain sleekness that the Ferox lacks...



from what I remember the ferox was more or less equally good with guns or missiles (lol medium hybrids!), and the drake didn't exist. therefor the nighthawk was a t2 ferox.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#47 - 2014-01-14 15:34:36 UTC
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
Chris Winter wrote:
IIshira wrote:


The Nighthawk was a T2 Ferox before they turned it into a Drake...

Ferox uses guns, drake uses missiles.

Nighthawk uses missiles.

Ergo, Nighthawk is a T2 Drake. QED.

Also, why do people have a problem with the Drake model? It has a certain sleekness that the Ferox lacks...



from what I remember the ferox was more or less equally good with guns or missiles (lol medium hybrids!), and the drake didn't exist. therefor the nighthawk was a t2 ferox.


This would explain why the Nighthawk was a T2 Ferox and not a Drake.

I'm just sad that they took the one thing that the Nighthawk was superior over the Tengu away... It's cool looking Ferox hull.
Kat Bandeis
Trinity Industries Corp.
#48 - 2014-01-14 22:53:51 UTC
IIshira wrote:
I'm just sad that they took the one thing that the Nighthawk was superior over the Tengu away... It's cool looking Ferox hull.


This.
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#49 - 2014-01-15 22:21:41 UTC
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:


from what I remember the ferox was more or less equally good with guns or missiles (lol medium hybrids!), and the drake didn't exist. therefor the nighthawk was a t2 ferox.

Not really. It had unbonused launcher slots, sure, but bonused hybrids.
All Purpose
State War Academy
Caldari State
#50 - 2014-01-15 23:37:48 UTC
To be honest , CCP fuc*ed up my favorite sleipnir too.

RIP Sleipnir (beautiful cyclone hull)
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#51 - 2014-01-16 00:44:10 UTC
Chris Winter wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:


from what I remember the ferox was more or less equally good with guns or missiles (lol medium hybrids!), and the drake didn't exist. therefor the nighthawk was a t2 ferox.

Not really. It had unbonused launcher slots, sure, but bonused hybrids.


Did it actually have a useful weapon bonus back then or do mean that optimal range bonus that is sooooo awesome? I don't think heavy missiles needed a range bonus back then either.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2014-01-16 01:25:21 UTC
I did once seek out a ferox fit. I looked everywhere, pulled up tons of fits, stuff on battleclinic or the forums, or elsewhere. Fits for all sorts of purposes. Not one of them was anything but a missile fit. I even did specific searches on railgun ferox fits. but came up with nothing. Back then when they had the hybrid bonus, people only used the launcher hardpoints, even though it was subpar to the drake in almost every way. The increased powergrid was the only thing going for it, and after you factored in the reduced slots, you still couldn't fit as much on it.

Take it for what it's worth.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Shpenat
Ironman Inc.
#53 - 2014-01-16 16:14:36 UTC
IIshira wrote:
Enya Dorne wrote:
IIshira wrote:

Merlin uses guns, Harpy uses guns, Hawk uses missiles and use the same model. I didn't see CCP make the hawk into a Kestrel with the AF rebalance. This is no different than the Ferox uses guns, Vulture uses guns and the Nighthawk uses missiles.


It would make sense if they did that, but you would get the old skin for the manticore as that was in Lai Dai colours..


Just as they made the Manticore look different from the T1 Kestrel perhaps that's what they should do to the Nighthawk.

I'm not saying it can't be based off the Drake. If CCP wanted to change the hull from something that already looked nice they should've put a bit more effort than splash red on a T1 Drake model...


With stealth bombers it was not matter of choice. They had to remodel those ships because they introduced new launcher models. And there was just not a way to fit battleship size launcher on the frigate hull and not look comic.

CCP also stated a desire to have T2 ships look differently from their T1 counterpart. It is not as easy though as many people are attached to their hulls and might not like the new design. See how many stir changing just 4 hulls made? Changing every T2 hull would make much more people to rage. It is no win scenario.

For example many people wanted Eos to be myrmidon hull. I myself hate that hull and would rather have Myrmidon changed to Brutix hull rather than Eos to Myrmidon.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2014-01-16 19:31:16 UTC
I liked the command ship hull change for variety's sake, but I can feel for people who don't like the look of a particular hull. I wish they would see the bigger picture, but we know they wont.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#55 - 2014-01-16 21:34:13 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I liked the command ship hull change for variety's sake, but I can feel for people who don't like the look of a particular hull. I wish they would see the bigger picture, but we know they wont.


Looking at the bigger picture I understand why they changed it from a T2 Ferox to a T2 Drake. This doesn't excuse them from being lazy throwing red marks on a Drake and calling it a Nighthawk. They could've took some time like they did with stealth bombers and made it look nice. I don't know many people that think the Drake looks nice so when you make an awesome ship like a Drake that's bleeding it's not going to be liked either.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2014-01-16 22:31:22 UTC
You also gotta realize how much work went into those stealth bomber redesigns. They are amazing, but they were also the better part of the expansion. A lot of the rest came from what was already done during previous expansions. Most of this stuff is a year or more in the making. The command ship hull redesigns were a temporary fix because they weren't ready to release the hull rebuilds (if they even have them drafted up yet). It was done as a small feature going along with the rebalancing, fitting because the attributes of battlecruisers were being rebalanced.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#57 - 2014-01-16 22:49:10 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
You also gotta realize how much work went into those stealth bomber redesigns. They are amazing, but they were also the better part of the expansion. A lot of the rest came from what was already done during previous expansions. Most of this stuff is a year or more in the making. The command ship hull redesigns were a temporary fix because they weren't ready to release the hull rebuilds (if they even have them drafted up yet). It was done as a small feature going along with the rebalancing, fitting because the attributes of battlecruisers were being rebalanced.


I'm not saying the SB redesigns didn't take some effort but the point was CCP made a nice looking ship look like garbage and that's why people are upset. Yes there was a reason behind this but don't change the model without actually making a decent new one first.
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#58 - 2014-01-17 17:22:45 UTC
Mikkir wrote:


If you hate the drake hull that much there isn't much you can do about that.


Zoom out a long way.

is all I can think of though.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#59 - 2014-01-17 17:38:29 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
The Nighthawk is more ideal for a passive regen tank, and low slots help that.


Passive regen tanking, especially on a nighthawk, is SO last decade. Seriously, who does this anymore?

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Kat Bandeis
Trinity Industries Corp.
#60 - 2014-01-17 18:36:38 UTC
Batelle wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
The Nighthawk is more ideal for a passive regen tank, and low slots help that.


Passive regen tanking, especially on a nighthawk, is SO last decade. Seriously, who does this anymore?


It's soooo much more awesome to burn cap when you don't have to. Oh, and fitting a module to replenish that burned cap is just the best way to go, eh?