open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Nighthawk - lvl 4
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Manu Hermanus
FaDoyToy
Posted - 2009.09.29 17:00:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Akita T

People, seriously, active-tanked Nighthawk can be nice... but it's pretty much pointless to active-fit it WITHOUT an afterburner to just drag along the area, and it's nasty to load in Fury ammo due to the sig radius penalty.
If you're going to be slow and huge, you might as well fit a passive tank, at least it's dirt cheap that way, and you're not really missing anything from the active fit.



still smaller then a raven and tanks more, meh. oh and I have some gisti b-types from when they were 8mil a pop.

although I can't seem to get a nighthawk over 800 dps (with heavies). all level 5, +5% heavy damage, and missile rof implants, rack of t2 with scourge fury, 4 cn bcus, and a tech 2 bay loading accelerator. sure a 5th bcu will get it up 812, bit woop, or getting officer bcus, but hell 4 estamels and get up to 845.

and I was thinking pwnage rather then afterburner,

Tau Cabalander
Posted - 2009.09.29 17:16:00 - [32]
 

So what's the advantage of a Nighthawk in level 4?

When I do a level 4 in my Drake or Raven its the same:

* warp in
* stop the ship
* shoot stuff (I like to wait until it is in tractor range before destroying it)
* salvage (all wrecks in one area, so my salvage alt doesn't have to move far)
* move to the next gate

What would be different with a Nighthawk?

This is not a criticism or anything, I really want to know if I should add it to my training plan. I've read that Nighthawks are more "fun", but haven't read a reason why.

Roos Stormshadow
Posted - 2009.09.29 18:58:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Tau Cabalander
So what's the advantage of a Nighthawk in level 4?

When I do a level 4 in my Drake or Raven its the same:

* warp in
* stop the ship
* shoot stuff (I like to wait until it is in tractor range before destroying it)
* salvage (all wrecks in one area, so my salvage alt doesn't have to move far)
* move to the next gate

What would be different with a Nighthawk?

This is not a criticism or anything, I really want to know if I should add it to my training plan. I've read that Nighthawks are more "fun", but haven't read a reason why.


I'd also like to know. My Raven does level 4 much faster than my drake. I guess NH will be faster still?

Pen Dulum
Posted - 2009.09.29 19:14:00 - [34]
 

The NH can get a insane tank going without haveing to spend billions on a faction XL SB and deal awsome dps.

Ardion
Posted - 2009.09.29 21:03:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Tau Cabalander
So what's the advantage of a Nighthawk in level 4?


It looks far better than raven, especially if someone hate the way raven hull looks likeWink

Kzintee
Caldari
Posted - 2009.09.29 23:42:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Pen Dulum
The NH can get a insane tank going without haveing to spend billions on a faction XL SB and deal awsome dps.


600DPS is not awesome. And just to clarify, when has tanking lvl4s been a problem? When was faction XLSB required?

Dracthera
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.09.30 02:13:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Tau Cabalander
So what's the advantage of a Nighthawk in level 4?

When I do a level 4 in my Drake or Raven its the same:

* warp in
* stop the ship
* shoot stuff (I like to wait until it is in tractor range before destroying it)
* salvage (all wrecks in one area, so my salvage alt doesn't have to move far)
* move to the next gate

What would be different with a Nighthawk?

This is not a criticism or anything, I really want to know if I should add it to my training plan. I've read that Nighthawks are more "fun", but haven't read a reason why.


Some advantages of the NH:

1. Over a Drake:
- Significantly more DPS
- More shielding with fewer shield modules

2. Over a Raven:
- Slightly more DPS
- More shielding (the tougher mission can challenge a Raven)
- Faster travel speed (an advantage for missions with far away gates)

Kzintee
Caldari
Posted - 2009.09.30 02:40:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Dracthera

Some advantages of the NH:

1. Over a Drake:
- Significantly more DPS
- More shielding with fewer shield modules

2. Over a Raven:
- Slightly more DPS
- More shielding (the tougher mission can challenge a Raven)
- Faster travel speed (an advantage for missions with far away gates)



Apples and oranges.
CNR vs NH is a better comparison. Same pricetag but now CNR does better damage and has comparable tank. By comparable tank I mean "not the ridiculous tank NH has which is way more than required for ANY lvl4 mission". CNR can do AE bonus and EA5 just fine, which is by far the most tanking required for PvE.

demonfurbie
Minmatar
Drunken Wookies
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2009.09.30 03:10:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: demonfurbie on 30/09/2009 03:11:29
ive missioned in a raven,rattlesnake, cnr, drake and a nighthawk

and over all both a nh and a cnr are very nice but it depends on were you mission

if you mission for amarr id say a cnr
if you mission for gal/cal id go nh
if you mission for min id find a diff agent or a cnr

the kin dmg bonus really plays a role on where ya mission with this ship if you are shooting scorge missiles at a bloor raider they will just laugh at you

now on that same token if you shoot the same missile at a serp youll do full dmg on dessy and up with good skills

if price is a factor i would go with a std raven

edit: spelling and the fact t2 ammo on a night hawk is nice with its bonus

Manu Hermanus
FaDoyToy
Posted - 2009.09.30 03:33:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Kzintee
Originally by: Dracthera

Some advantages of the NH:

1. Over a Drake:
- Significantly more DPS
- More shielding with fewer shield modules

2. Over a Raven:
- Slightly more DPS
- More shielding (the tougher mission can challenge a Raven)
- Faster travel speed (an advantage for missions with far away gates)



Apples and oranges.
CNR vs NH is a better comparison. Same pricetag but now CNR does better damage and has comparable tank. By comparable tank I mean "not the ridiculous tank NH has which is way more than required for ANY lvl4 mission". CNR can do AE bonus and EA5 just fine, which is by far the most tanking required for PvE.


more like internet spaceship to internet spaceship. and cnrs are a good bit more then NHs now.

so basically cnr>nighthawk>raven>drake for pve level 4 missions.

Kzintee
Caldari
Posted - 2009.09.30 03:33:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: demonfurbie
Edited by: demonfurbie on 30/09/2009 03:11:29
ive missioned in a raven,rattlesnake, cnr, drake and a nighthawk

and over all both a nh and a cnr are very nice but it depends on were you mission

if you mission for amarr id say a cnr
if you mission for gal/cal id go nh
if you mission for min id find a diff agent or a cnr

the kin dmg bonus really plays a role on where ya mission with this ship if you are shooting scorge missiles at a bloor raider they will just laugh at you

now on that same token if you shoot the same missile at a serp youll do full dmg on dessy and up with good skills

if price is a factor i would go with a std raven

edit: spelling and the fact t2 ammo on a night hawk is nice with its bonus


When I piloted CNR I would 1-volley BC and below. Who cares about doing full damage on dessies/cruisers if they're gonna die to your volley. Also, that's what drones are for. Cruises do full damage on BSes which make up a good percentage of mission NPCs.

The PvE mission profile makeup is also a factor. Flying for Caldari, I typically get more or less equal distribution between gurista, blood/sansha, drones and mercs which means half the time you need damage other than kinetic, losing your nice bonus.

Dracthera
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.09.30 14:29:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Kzintee

Apples and oranges.
CNR vs NH is a better comparison. Same pricetag but now CNR does better damage and has comparable tank. By comparable tank I mean "not the ridiculous tank NH has which is way more than required for ANY lvl4 mission". CNR can do AE bonus and EA5 just fine, which is by far the most tanking required for PvE.


Yes, I realize the CNR vs. NH is a better comparison, but since you deleted the post I quoted it's easy to miss the fact that I'm answering a NH vs. Raven vs. Drake question (which is why I quoted it in the first place...).

Albert O'Balsam
Posted - 2009.09.30 15:50:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Kzintee
Originally by: Dracthera

Some advantages of the NH:

1. Over a Drake:
- Significantly more DPS
- More shielding with fewer shield modules

2. Over a Raven:
- Slightly more DPS
- More shielding (the tougher mission can challenge a Raven)
- Faster travel speed (an advantage for missions with far away gates)



Apples and oranges.
CNR vs NH is a better comparison. Same pricetag but now CNR does better damage and has comparable tank. By comparable tank I mean "not the ridiculous tank NH has which is way more than required for ANY lvl4 mission". CNR can do AE bonus and EA5 just fine, which is by far the most tanking required for PvE.


hmmm... From what I can see a CNR costs 650mill isk and a NH costs 250m. Add to that the medium modules needed to fit out the nighthawk are cheaper than the comparable BS sized modules for the CNR then the pricetag is anything but the same.

Also For missions I have to recommend an active fit. Nothing wrong with the tank of a passive fit but the increased sig radius means you WILL get hit much harder.

Noemi Nagano
Posted - 2009.09.30 16:06:00 - [44]
 

I think the NH is a nice ship, best used though full passive as main tank in l5s. The Tengu is worth a try too for those who like to use a Heavy Missile Ship - Tengu does a bit more damage in my experience, has a great tank too and can be very fast. :)

What some ppl here seem to forget - Heavy Missile DPS is not the same like Cruise Missile DPS - since they apply much better on moving targets, or smaller targets. Its very easy to even kill orbitting or approaching Elite Frigates with a Tengu just using Heavies and a Painter and decent skills. Thats also the reason why the Tengu is better than the counterparts with Guns - they cant hit scrambler Frigs in orbit, so they will need Drones to kill them and cant be fit for maximum damage. But thats quite OT now :D

Kzintee
Caldari
Posted - 2009.09.30 17:48:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Albert O'Balsam

hmmm... From what I can see a CNR costs 650mill isk and a NH costs 250m. Add to that the medium modules needed to fit out the nighthawk are cheaper than the comparable BS sized modules for the CNR then the pricetag is anything but the same.

Also For missions I have to recommend an active fit. Nothing wrong with the tank of a passive fit but the increased sig radius means you WILL get hit much harder.


Ok, my apologies. Last time I have flown a CNR it did cost 300mil. Should have kept it and sold it now. Damn you CCP for banning chinese farmers!

Module cost: Your module cost is trivial compared to the hull.

Tank: I used to fly a CNR with 4 BCSes and 560 sig radius (passive shield recharge with active hards), and I managed.
"You WILL get hit much harder" sounds bad until you attempt to quantify it. If your tank holds at 30% shields in any mission then you have enough tank for any mission. If your tank holds at 90% shields in EA5 or AE bonus room, you've just gimped your DPS or spent a crapload of ISK on overtanking yourself to a point of ridiculousness. Any slots you use for overtanking are slots you are taking away from DPS/utility.

Kzintee
Caldari
Posted - 2009.09.30 17:55:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Noemi Nagano
Thats also the reason why the Tengu is better than the counterparts with Guns - they cant hit scrambler Frigs in orbit, so they will need Drones to kill them and cant be fit for maximum damage. But thats quite OT now :D


What? What is the logical connection between "they will need drones" and "can't be fit for maximum damage"?

Noemi Nagano
Posted - 2009.10.01 08:51:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Kzintee
Originally by: Noemi Nagano
Thats also the reason why the Tengu is better than the counterparts with Guns - they cant hit scrambler Frigs in orbit, so they will need Drones to kill them and cant be fit for maximum damage. But thats quite OT now :D


What? What is the logical connection between "they will need drones" and "can't be fit for maximum damage"?


You do know how the Strategic Cruisers subsystems work? There are different offensive subsystems, 1 of them is fitted for maximum damage on the main weapon system, but having no drone bay, 1 of them IS having a drone bay, but has much less damage on the main weapon system. Even with drones there is no chance the ships DPS will be close to the maximum damage subsystem configuration.

Exactly this is a clear advantage for the Tengu - its main weapon system (Heavy Missiles) is perfectly able to kill orbitting NPC-Frigs, at least with half decent missile skills. This is even true for Frigates with higher Kinetic resistance.

FS JitaTrader
Posted - 2009.10.01 15:49:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: FS JitaTrader on 01/10/2009 15:49:50
Originally by: Kzintee
Originally by: Pen Dulum
The NH can get a insane tank going without haveing to spend billions on a faction XL SB and deal awsome dps.


600DPS is not awesome. And just to clarify, when has tanking lvl4s been a problem? When was faction XLSB required?


715 dps.

More if i went lvl 5 with spec.

Kzintee
Caldari
Posted - 2009.10.01 17:44:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: FS JitaTrader

715 dps.

More if i went lvl 5 with spec.


Yes, even more tank. Question: when exactly is that tank relevant in lvl4 missions? You're not flying a Domi, you don't need all pocket aggro.

Salpad
Caldari
Carebears with Attitude
Posted - 2009.10.01 17:58:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Salpad on 01/10/2009 17:59:00
Originally by: XXSketchxx
Pretty nice all around fit. Those invulns aren't cheap but I expect you know that. A 4th BCS wouldn't hurt. Nor a faction afterburner.


How much better are 2 CN Invulns, compared to 2 T2 Invulns? I mean, has somebody done the math?

I looked at CN Invulns last week, and while they have sweet numbers, they are very, very expensive.

Edit: According to my calculation, 2 x CN vs 2 x T2, the CN setup reduces incoming DPS by 20%, not taking stacking penalties into account. Does that sound right?

Kzintee
Caldari
Posted - 2009.10.01 22:37:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Salpad

How much better are 2 CN Invulns, compared to 2 T2 Invulns? I mean, has somebody done the math?

I looked at CN Invulns last week, and while they have sweet numbers, they are very, very expensive.

Edit: According to my calculation, 2 x CN vs 2 x T2, the CN setup reduces incoming DPS by 20%, not taking stacking penalties into account. Does that sound right?



t2 Invuln is 30% resist, 44 CPU, 10 sec duration
CN Invuln is 37.5% resist, 27CPU, 12 sec duration.

Basically a 45% fitting reduction, 20% better resists and 20% less cap use.


Pages: 1 [2]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only