Difference between revisions of "Boost Nighthawk (CSM)"

Revision as of 19:48, 11 October 2010

Stats

Raised by: Jade Constantine
Date submitted: 22/05/2008
Re Raised by: Jade Constantine
Date submitted: 13/06/2008
Issue ID: 0102-01-0047

Summary

The Nighthawk currently compares unfavorably with other command Battle Cruisers and is unable to fit a fairly standard combat load-out without fitting rigs and maximized skills. Direct comparison with its peers shows the Nighthawk outclassed across the board. Lengthy threads in features and ideas discussion have addressed this issue.

Nighthawk - (367 dps w/o drones, 353 defence, 41,866 total hps, 1125 m/s)

Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Reactor Control Unit II
Reactor Control Unit II
Reactor Control Unit II

10MN MicroWarpdrive II
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I
Large Shield Booster II
Invulnerability Field II
'Anointed' I EM Ward Reinforcement

Heavy Missile Launcher II
Heavy Missile Launcher II
Heavy Missile Launcher II
Heavy Missile Launcher II
Heavy Missile Launcher II
Heavy Missile Launcher II
Warfare Link

Absolution – (531 dps w/o drones, 322 defence, 39,815 total hps, 1233 m/s)

Medium Armor Repairer II
Medium Armor Repairer II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
N-Type Thermic Membrane I
Reactor Control Unit II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II

10MN MicroWarpdrive II
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I
Stasis Webifier II

Heavy Pulse Laser II
Heavy Pulse Laser II
Heavy Pulse Laser II
Heavy Pulse Laser II
Heavy Pulse Laser II
Heavy Pulse Laser II
Warfare Link

Sleipnir – (574 dps w/o drones, 349 defence, 31,349 total hps, 1765 m/s)

Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II

Ballistic Deflection Field II
Invulnerability Field II
Large Shield Booster II
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I
10MN MicroWarpdrive II

425mm AutoCannon II
425mm AutoCannon II
425mm AutoCannon II
425mm AutoCannon II
425mm AutoCannon II
425mm AutoCannon II
425mm AutoCannon II
Warfare Link

Astarte - (567 dps w/o drones, 337 defence, 33,661 total hps, 1205 m/s)

Medium Armor Repairer II
Medium Armor Repairer II
Reactor Control Unit II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Reactive Membrane II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II

10MN MicroWarpdrive II
Stasis Webifier II
Warp Disruptor II
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I

Heavy Neutron Blaster II
Heavy Neutron Blaster II
Heavy Neutron Blaster II
Heavy Neutron Blaster II
Heavy Neutron Blaster II
Heavy Neutron Blaster II
Heavy Neutron Blaster II

Every one of these setups is using the lower tier, highest quality t2 weapons available for each ship, with comparable tanks for each. Now, look at the fitting mods required for each –

Astarte – 1 RCU
Sleipnir – None
Absolution – 1 RCU
Nighthawk – 3 RCUs

Note - the Nighthawk comes in a very pitiful last for dps, while all the other ships have very comparable tanks. The Nighthawk leads only in total hps, with the Absolution coming in a very close second.

• Drones are NOT factored into DPS*
  

• • Also note that only the Nighthawk and the Absolution required using a named mod to allow these setups. The Sleipnir can fit full t2, full tank, gang mod, and a full rack of its highest PG close-range weapons with no fitting mods and no named items. It is also ironic that both the Astarte and the Sleip lead in DPS (particularly if factoring in drones) with only one fitting mod for the Astarte and NO fitting mod for the Sleip.**
    

Quoting Ulstan -

Hurricane 1350 --> Sleipnir 1460
Myrmidon 1175 --> Astarte 1450
Harbinger 1500 --> Absolution 1575
Drake 850 --> Nighthawk 710 (<---WTF?)

Addition information/thread digest:

Granted, the Nighthawk is aesthetically based on the Ferox, but the Drake is its true counterpart. Most people will answer this by saying that the Drake also has one more launcher hardpoint. True, but the Nightawk has one empty high with all its launcher hardpoints filled. It has one turret hardpoint or a spot for a Gang mod or a nos, so it effectively has the same number of highs to fill as a Drake. However, the Nighthawk remains to be the only Command Ship to actually LOSE grid from its t1 counterpart.

The following is a basic Nighthawk setup that I came up with in order further illustrate the Nighthawk’s tremendous shortage of grid –

Basic Nighthawk setup that the Nighthawk can't even come close to fitting. (164.5pg short) -

Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
[empty low slot]
[empty low slot]

10MN MicroWarpdrive II
Large Shield Booster II
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I
Invulnerability Field II
Photon Scattering Field II

Heavy Missile Launcher II
Heavy Missile Launcher II
Heavy Missile Launcher II
Heavy Missile Launcher II
Heavy Missile Launcher II
Heavy Missile Launcher II
[empty high slot]

Assuming all skills at 5 this setup requires precisely 1052 powergrid, while the Nighthawk only has 887.5. That’s a difference of 164.5. WAY off. This Nighthawk setup requires an RCU II and a PDU II to fit, while other Command Ship can fit equivalent setups with NO FITTING MODS.

See the problem?

Adding a gang link to the above setup requires a total of 1252pg. This means the Nighthawk is 364.5pg short of being able to fit a basic setup + a gang mod. 364.5 is nearly HALF of the Nighthawk's base grid with bonuses. The Sleip can fit a great basic setup + a gang mod with no fitting mods and still have grid left. The Astarte and the Abso require only one fitting mod. The Nighthawk needs three or four fitting mods to make up this difference.

Adding 170 base powergrid to the Nighthawk for 880pg would allow the following -
Base 880 = 1100 w/ skills (x1.25)
x 1.15 for an RCU II = 1265pg

1265pg is just enough to fit a gang mod, and it requires one RCU II. A much greater boost would be needed to allow the Nighthawk to fit the above with a gang mod while using only one PDU II, and, in my opinion, would be too great a boost.

So my official stand is that the Nighthawk needs approximately 170 more powergrid at least.

Lastly, I will address the reasons that were given as to why this issue not passed initially –

Inanna Zuni > I've already written about how I view this CSM should consider ship issues (linked from my forum sig, in fact) and in general I don't want to get caught up in this "ship a needs love, ship b needs nerf" because most of the time it is personal judgement and preferences

This would be a fairly reasonable explanation if it weren’t for a few reasons –

• The CSM has already shown a willingness to get involved in ship balance issues.
• The Nighthawk has had this problem since it was put on the server (i.e. years).
• This is not a judgment or preference issue. Myself and others have provided plenty of facts, numbers, and evidence of a rather obvious problem.

Why on Earth this obvious problem for which solid evidence and numbers has been provided would be passed over while other ship balance issues have been passed… I have no idea.

Inanna Zuni > Saying that, however, I accept that their *might* be a cause for review in this particular case

Hopefully this above quote shows a willingness to pass this resolution this time around, as I think most anyone can read the thread (or this short digest of it), crunch some very basic numbers, and realize that the Nighthawk very obviously needs a powergrid boost.

Serenity Steele > Almost every ship class has a lame-duck ship in 1/4 races of EvE. Is the NightHawk any different to the lame duck for field command ships?

This seriously floored me. I can’t think of this statement being anything other than an excuse to not bother with researching an issue that doesn’t concern or interest you. The above statement can be extended into countless logical fallacies. Let’s take one –

Almost every online game has bugs and balance issues. Is EVE any different from those games?

I have spent months trying to address this problem. To see someone dismiss it because other ships have issues, and that the Nighthawk should just go on having them, is genuinely disappointing. How about Minmatar capitals continue being lame ducks? Why was that passed? How about 1400 howies continue to be a joke?

Leandro Salazar > just wanted to say that while playing with EFT I also noticed a small pg issue with the NH, it has a lot of other strong points and is fairly popular despite that, so only a fairly small boost would be acceptable imho, too much would make it overpowered

What other strong points does it have? The only single one that I can think of is that it can be fit with a slightly above average passive tank for running missions. In no other way does the Nighthawk have an advantage. In fact, it’s nearly useless Missile Precision bonus is another issue that needs to be addressed, making it a very low DPS Field Command, with a tank equal to all the others, and inferior to the XL booster Sleip. The Nighthawk is slow, is not agile, and it has a huge sig radius. I’m not sure what other advantages to which you could possibly be referring. Yes, it has the same range advantage of all missile ships, but that is inherent to most missile boats.

The Nighthawk’s pg issue is by no means ‘small’. The opening comparison in this document shows that the Nighthawk is left with nearly 1/3 of the Sleipnir’s PG (and less CPU) after a basic setup. I wouldn’t call that a ‘small’ issue by any means.

Darius JOHNSON > I've always said, and given the amount of support this topic has gotten I'm sticking to it.. That the council shouldn't be involved in discuss the minutiae of every individual shiptype
Darius JOHNSON > High level issues or concerns that are so pressing that they receive overwhelming popular support
Darius JOHNSON > I don't see how this fits that criteria. End.

Other ship minutiae issues have been passed, why is this one being dismissed by you? Because it lacks popularity? Other issues have been passed with fewer votes going for it. Also, the thread continues to gather support. I still do not understand why this long-standing issue for which so much evidence has been presented has been overlooked. The numbers and facts are there. Other low level issues and ship balance problems have been passed by you all, many of which are issues with far fewer concrete facts and numbers to illustrate the problem.

Serenity Steele > It just occurred to me that the request to CCP should just check the usage/ownership/production of the NH in comparison to other field command ships and see if it's drastically out of line.
Serenity Steele > Could the simplest first answer to get before discussing further.
Serenity Steele > "CCP please check that the NH is in use in comparitive numbers and if not , look at balancing the powergrid"
Serenity Steele > [end]
Hardin > I agree with serenity. I certainly know people who swear by the Nighthawk - while the basic stats indicate there is an issue in comparison to the other ships it would be good to see if this is borne out in the game

It’s been admitted by CCP that Caldari are by far the most populous race of ships to be flown (a likely and obvious explanation being the popularity of PVE and missions). As most people have trained down that route it would make perfect sense that the Nighthawk will likely be a more commonly flown/owned ship due to the sheer number of people flying Caldari ships for running missions/PVE. Such numbers are not indicative of there not being a problem with the Nighthawk’s grid. That anyone could dismiss the numbers and evidence presented here by such irrelevant stats is surprising… and disappointing.

Bane Glorious > i think most of the PG trouble on the nighthawk comes from trying to fit a MWD on it
Bane Glorious > if memory serves
Bane Glorious > not sure if CCP is going to budge on supplementing the grid if they're set in their ways about MWDs

This is a fact that has been disputed in both Nighthawk threads. I’ll provide one, simple example that further illustrates the problem –

Nighthawk -
t2 Heavy Missile Launcher x6
t2 BCUs x3
T2 MWD

This fit requires 417.5 CPU / 735 PG

- Remaining CPU – 276.25
- Remaining PG – 152.5

Nighthawk -
t2 Heavy Missile Launcher x6
t2 BCUs x3

This fit requires 367.5 CPU / 570 PG

- Remaining CPU - 326.25
- Remaining PG - 317.5

Sleipnir -
t2 425s x7
t2 Gyros x 3
t2 MWD

This fit requires 271.25 CPU / 1138.2 PG

- Remaining CPU – 322.5
- Remaining PG – 686.8

So using my opening comparison of the Nighthawk and Sleipnir, and adding only a t2 MWD, one can see that while both ships are anti-support, both ships shield tank, and both ships generally fit their lower grid weapons (autos and heavy missiles) that the Nighthawk is left with magnitudes less grid than the Sleip.

In the second example the Nighthawk does not even have an MWD and they are nearly tied for CPU, and the Sleip with an MWD still has more than twice the grid of the Nighthawk without an MWD. Hello? Problem?

Relevant Forum Threads

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=777872

Votes

• Ankhesentapemkah - Yes
• Bane Glorious - Not Present
• Darius Johnson - Not Present
• Dierdra Vaal - Yes
• Hardin - Not Present
• Inanna Zuni - Yes
• Jade Constantine - Yes
• LaVista Vista - Yes
• Serenity Steele - Yes
• Omber Zombie - Yes
• Tusko Hopkins - Yes
• Leandro Salzar - Yes
• Thoroughbreed - No! (Nighthawk is one of the best T2 BC)