These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships - Minmatar

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sunuva Gunn
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#521 - 2013-04-14 11:42:34 UTC
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:

I like your idea for the Typhoon though except for the drone part. Give it a target painter bonus, and then remove the high slot and swap it for another mid slot. Then Tempest can become the new ultra versatile phoon, and Typhoon becomes a different beast altogether.


o_O



O_o



o_o



...................


Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
Then Tempest can become the new ultra versatile phoon,


Buh.... err.... WTF?

How about this? -=MAKE THE TYPHOON THE ULTRA VERSATILE TYPHOON=-.

It would be less work and make more sense.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#522 - 2013-04-14 13:17:16 UTC
Tempest:

Retaining it's super low BC signature radius, the new 7/6/6 Tempest trades the utility of the 2nd neutrialiser - on a ship known to be light on capacitor- for improved performance as a shield tanker, as well as increased flexibility, unpredictability and damage projection with armour as well as an additional drone.

From target painters, dual prop/dual webs, tracking computers or ecm, the unprecedented 6/6 mid/low slot layout exemplifies more than ever, the ad-hoc minimatar philosophy and despite the lower than average hit points, operational speed, utility and damage projection profiles whilst shield or armour fitted allows the Tempest to compete in ways no other battleship really does.

Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret rate of fire
+5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret damage

Slot layout: 7H, 6M, 6L; 6 turrets , 4 launchers
Fittings: 16000 PWG(+500), 570 CPU (+20)
Defence (shields / armor / hull) : 6500 / 7000 / 6500 (reduce shield regen speed by 20%)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second) : 5400(+87.5) / 1154s / 4.68
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 / .12 / 101000000(-2300000) / 16.81s(-.37s)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 100 / 125
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 67.5km(+5k) / 100 / 7
Sensor strength: 20 Ladar Sensor Strength(+1)
Signature radius: 340(0)

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#523 - 2013-04-14 13:33:30 UTC
Another option would always be to give tempest antoher 600 PG and give it a 7th turret slot. After all an ATTACK battleship with 2 of its bonuses focuse don damage.. deserves to be deadly :P I woudl not evne care if its badnwidth was reduced to 25 m to compensate.

But the previous post ide is not bad as well.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#524 - 2013-04-14 13:36:02 UTC
Weezdion Garsk wrote:
As i seen some more people suggested this change for typhoon and I think it's a good way to go to change explosion velocity bonus to some target painter bonus (optimal, amount?!), so it is more usefull for whole fleet.



A fleet that used a lot of torps wil already have target painters. the explosion velocity is more powerful because do nto stack and does not eat a slot.

It woudl be insane to waste a battleship slot for a target painter on most pvp scenarios.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#525 - 2013-04-14 14:00:20 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Another option would always be to give tempest antoher 600 PG and give it a 7th turret slot. After all an ATTACK battleship with 2 of its bonuses focuse don damage.. deserves to be deadly :P I woudl not evne care if its badnwidth was reduced to 25 m to compensate.

But the previous post ide is not bad as well.


The Tempest already has a full rack of weapons. Players using the last two slots for things other than missiles is not the fault of the developers. MInmatar have always been a split weapon race.

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Pesadel0
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#526 - 2013-04-14 14:38:55 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Another option would always be to give tempest antoher 600 PG and give it a 7th turret slot. After all an ATTACK battleship with 2 of its bonuses focuse don damage.. deserves to be deadly :P I woudl not evne care if its badnwidth was reduced to 25 m to compensate.

But the previous post ide is not bad as well.


The Tempest already has a full rack of weapons. Players using the last two slots for things other than missiles is not the fault of the developers. MInmatar have always been a split weapon race.


yeah agreed tempest dhould be 4 turrets 4 missile turrets.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#527 - 2013-04-14 14:54:43 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Tempest:

Retaining it's super low BC signature radius, the new 7/6/6 Tempest trades the utility of the 2nd neutrialiser - on a ship known to be light on capacitor- for improved performance as a shield tanker, as well as increased flexibility, unpredictability and damage projection with armour as well as an additional drone.

From target painters, dual prop/dual webs, tracking computers or ecm, the unprecedented 6/6 mid/low slot layout exemplifies more than ever, the ad-hoc minimatar philosophy and despite the lower than average hit points, operational speed, utility and damage projection profiles whilst shield or armour fitted allows the Tempest to compete in ways no other battleship really does.

Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret rate of fire
+5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret damage

Slot layout: 7H, 6M, 6L; 6 turrets , 4 launchers
Fittings: 16000 PWG(+500), 570 CPU (+20)
Defence (shields / armor / hull) : 6500 / 7000 / 6500 (reduce shield regen speed by 20%)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second) : 5400(+87.5) / 1154s / 4.68
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 / .12 / 101000000(-2300000) / 16.81s(-.37s)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 100 / 125
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 67.5km(+5k) / 100 / 7
Sensor strength: 20 Ladar Sensor Strength(+1)
Signature radius: 340(0)


I could get behind this. I still would like a 125/125 dronebay. P
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#528 - 2013-04-14 16:09:10 UTC
Pesadel0 wrote:
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Another option would always be to give tempest antoher 600 PG and give it a 7th turret slot. After all an ATTACK battleship with 2 of its bonuses focuse don damage.. deserves to be deadly :P I woudl not evne care if its badnwidth was reduced to 25 m to compensate.

But the previous post ide is not bad as well.


The Tempest already has a full rack of weapons. Players using the last two slots for things other than missiles is not the fault of the developers. MInmatar have always been a split weapon race.


yeah agreed tempest dhould be 4 turrets 4 missile turrets.

That would be a Typhoon.

6 mid slots = ****** shield tank.
Just saying.

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#529 - 2013-04-14 16:29:06 UTC
A 5 mid slot shield tank is terrible, 6 mid slot shield tank is viable. Given that you'll have 6 lows to play with, (which could be used for nanos/overdrives/TE's/etc etc) it gives it something different over the other 6 mid slot shield tanker...

I'd certainly argue the extra mid slot +drones adds more than that extra high slot, especially outside of 1v1 land.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Anabella Rella
Gradient
Electus Matari
#530 - 2013-04-14 18:19:35 UTC
I support Pattern's Tempest proposal. I hope CCP Rise and the balance team take a serious look at it.

When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around.
Luke Hammarskjold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#531 - 2013-04-14 18:58:25 UTC
The more times i read the post, the more I think the minmatar don't really need any rebalancing...
Job Valador
Professional Amateurs
#532 - 2013-04-14 19:18:16 UTC
Im sorry but I believe the Typhoon should remain a split weapon 125 bandwidth ship. I loved how it was a jack of all trades and I could fit it for any PvP or PvE situations. What you have proposed now just seems underwhelming and too much like a cookie cutter type ship. Even though the turret slots are still there you would be stupid now to fit turrets as you would do **** for damage with them.

"The stone exhibited a profound lack of movement."
Sunuva Gunn
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#533 - 2013-04-14 22:13:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Sunuva Gunn
Luke Hammarskjold wrote:
The more times i read the post, the more I think the minmatar don't really need any rebalancing...


Re-balancing would be nice. A rof mod here, a damage mod there...

What we've been offered is more along the lines of 'butchering' . Changing ships completely.

I'd rather they just stay 'as-is' than be carelessly modded into Caldari ships.


Job Valador wrote:
Im sorry but I believe the Typhoon should remain a split weapon 125 bandwidth ship. I loved how it was a jack of all trades and I could fit it for any PvP or PvE situations. What you have proposed now just seems underwhelming and too much like a cookie cutter type ship. Even though the turret slots are still there you would be stupid now to fit turrets as you would do **** for damage with them.


Yarp!

After all, what's the point of being in a sand-box if all the empires have the same toys?
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#534 - 2013-04-14 23:48:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Prometheus Exenthal
Pattern Clarc wrote:
A 5 mid slot shield tank is terrible, 6 mid slot shield tank is viable. Given that you'll have 6 lows to play with, (which could be used for nanos/overdrives/TE's/etc etc) it gives it something different over the other 6 mid slot shield tanker...

I'd certainly argue the extra mid slot +drones adds more than that extra high slot, especially outside of 1v1 land.


Neither is 6 when you have no inherit resists, or shield-biased hp, and rely on mobility to make up for that ****** excuse for a tank
You're looking at mid-90k hp if ALL mids/rigs are dedicated shield tanking (except propulsion & tackle). Active tanked, it's not really better than the 5mid setup because you don't have the cpu. If you WANT the cpu, you're now losing your desired dps, speed or tracking. It's a no win situation either way you look at it. At the end of the day, you're better off in a Maelstrom.

An armor tank is still superior with 6 lows, but would now be ridiculous with an EXTRA ewar slot in the mids.
The Scorpion only has 8 slots and it needs to do EVERYTHING with them.

If people were up in arms about 5 mid shield tanking frigates (hookbill/hawk), then they'd better burn down Jita for an unprecedented 6mid armor-biased battleship.

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#535 - 2013-04-14 23:50:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Rebecha Pucontis
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Tempest:

Retaining it's super low BC signature radius, the new 7/6/6 Tempest trades the utility of the 2nd neutrialiser - on a ship known to be light on capacitor- for improved performance as a shield tanker, as well as increased flexibility, unpredictability and damage projection with armour as well as an additional drone.

From target painters, dual prop/dual webs, tracking computers or ecm, the unprecedented 6/6 mid/low slot layout exemplifies more than ever, the ad-hoc minimatar philosophy and despite the lower than average hit points, operational speed, utility and damage projection profiles whilst shield or armour fitted allows the Tempest to compete in ways no other battleship really does.

Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret rate of fire
+5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret damage

Slot layout: 7H, 6M, 6L; 6 turrets , 4 launchers
Fittings: 16000 PWG(+500), 570 CPU (+20)
Defence (shields / armor / hull) : 6500 / 7000 / 6500 (reduce shield regen speed by 20%)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second) : 5400(+87.5) / 1154s / 4.68
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 / .12 / 101000000(-2300000) / 16.81s(-.37s)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 100 / 125
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 67.5km(+5k) / 100 / 7
Sensor strength: 20 Ladar Sensor Strength(+1)
Signature radius: 340(0)


The Tempest doesn't really need another mid, I mean what would that do for armour tanking? And being that this is a low sig attack ship it is primarily going to be armour tanked. Shield tanking it defeats the whole purpose of having a low sig ship. If I was going to change anything about the layout then I would give it another low slot, but I wouldn't even do that.

Other things are that the armour is higher than shield in this fit, and the EHP is generally quite low compared to what CCP Rise is suggesting.

It would be much more unique to leave the two high utilities and buff it in some other way in my opinion. The current slot layout is one of the things the Tempest currently does right. I think maybe CCP need to look at an increased damage bonus and perhaps a tracking or falloff bonus.
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#536 - 2013-04-14 23:52:33 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
At the end of the day, you're better off in a Maelstrom.

An armor tank is still superior with 6 lows, but would now be ridiculous with an EXTRA ewar slot in the mids.
The Scorpion only has 8 slots and it needs to do EVERYTHING with them.


Got to say, I find myself actually agreeing completely with Prometheus on this one.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#537 - 2013-04-15 04:46:13 UTC
There is a few points to be made in support of a 7-6-6 Tempest. It bears some consideration. There have been some pretty decent suggestions to improve the Tempest and I also hope someone from CCP realizes the ship needs some help.

As I said earlier - there is no real reason to fit an Artillery Tempest over a Artillery Maelstrom. If you go artillery and shield you end up with a tank 20k EHP less then the Mael and end up with 11.5k alpha compared to the Mael's 12k. You can get a little more range with two Tracking Enhancers vs. The Maelstrom's one. You can also shoot and scoot quite a bit faster. A sixth mid would allow that 20k EHP gap to close perhaps enough to think about running a shield artillery Pest.

An Armor artillery Pest is much more interesting though. You could fill the mids with your mix of sensor boosters and tracking computers after the MWD. The lows and rigs would look like:

Low:
1600mm Plate II
EANM II x 2
DC II
Gyro II x 2
Rigs:
LACR
Trimark x 2

You only do 10k alpha compared to 12k for the Mael, but lock a hell of a lot faster and have much more control over range and tracking. That is a very distinct and unique benefit.

An Armor AC Pest would also be very interesting. I typically run a MWD, Heavy Cap Booster, Tracking Computer, Web, and Point. What would I do with another mid? Second Web. Second Tracking Computer. Maybe a scramble and long point combination. MWD + MJD combination. Maybe a large cap battery or target lock breaker.... ShockedShocked ... nah. They still suck. Lol

With regards to some of the protests to a 7-6-6 Tempest:

Among other things we can discuss the fitting grid this Pest would need. It would no longer have eight high slots so I doubt it would need a 500 PG increase. I'd happily trade that in for a CPU increase instead. E-war is also annoying and I won't even try to argue that individuals won't go crazy with it on those mids. This isn't frigate combat though. It is very unlikely you will get a 1v1 in a BS. The more numbers involved the less useful that ewar is going to be.

And even if it's small group and the ewar is effective, so what? This ship struggles to get 110k EHP or break 1k DPS. Other races' BS easily hit those numbers and beyond. The Tempest needs some kind of equalizer and being a wild card is it.

Last point - people will bemoan the dual neuts. They were very effective in shutting down bad guys - especially in small ships. I would suggest that one heavy neut backed by dual webs and a tracking computer will still be horribly effective against small ships. And in the words of Forest Gump - that's all I have to say about that.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#538 - 2013-04-15 06:57:39 UTC
If the 7/6/6 slot layout needs more CPU then fine, lets give it more CPU! But your talking from both sides of your mouth re: mid slots - on the one hand 6 mids terrible for shield tanking, on the other OP for armour tanking ooookaaay.... Look, we're trying to give the Tempest something different, in a game where we will have several 5 midslot armour tanking battleships, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the tempest getting 6 if only to be better at one thing then the rest, and especially given it's other disadvantages.

And no, you can't have low sig, highish speed and agility, high sensor strength and combat ship HP, it just distorts the whole rationale behind the changes and doesn't really do much to improve the jack of all trades, master of none situation.


Another suggestion was this:

The Djego
Would probably like something like this:

Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+10% bonus to Large Projectile Turret rate of fire
+5% bonus to Large Projectile falloff

Slot layout: 7H, 6M, 6L; 5 turrets , 4 launchers
Fittings: 15000 PWG(-500), 570 CPU (+20)
Defence (shields / armor / hull) : 6500 / 7000 / 6500 (reduce shield regen speed by 20%)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second) : 5800(+487.5) / 1154s / 4.68
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 132 / .12 / 101000000(-2300000) / 16.81s(-.37s)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(-25) / 100(+25)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 67.5km(+5k) / 110(+10) / 7
Sensor strength: 20 Ladar Sensor Strength(+1)
Signature radius: 340(0)

25% more falloff to compensate for the TE nerf, extra med to buff up the utility/tank, same dps(10% damage bonus would give it to much alpha), a bit more cap, a bit more pg and cpu after requiring 1 turret less, 10% more top speed, 10% better lock speed and a slight dronebandwidth nerf to not overlap with the phoon.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Randy Wray
Heinous Peinus
#539 - 2013-04-15 07:27:40 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Another option would always be to give tempest antoher 600 PG and give it a 7th turret slot. After all an ATTACK battleship with 2 of its bonuses focuse don damage.. deserves to be deadly :P I woudl not evne care if its badnwidth was reduced to 25 m to compensate.

But the previous post ide is not bad as well.


The Tempest already has a full rack of weapons. Players using the last two slots for things other than missiles is not the fault of the developers. MInmatar have always been a split weapon race.

I'd say it is CCP's fault for not making torps a viable enough damage scource to put it over neuts in how it contributes to the fit.

Solo Pvper in all areas of space including wormhole space. Check out my youtube channel @ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd6M3xV43Af-3E1ds0tTyew/feed for mostly small scale pvp in lowsec/nullsec

twitch.tv/randywray
Analog Chaos
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#540 - 2013-04-15 09:17:26 UTC
Compared to the new Gallente(viagra in space) and Amarr battleship hulls, it looks like 'matari got dumped on.

The Mael's mobility at 94 m/s should get some attention when it will now be blown away by 'Pocs and Raven's at 113 m/s(and all of the Gallente hulls)

Something always and still overlooked was it's cargobay which made ASB's far less viable compared to Ravens, even more so now considering it is getting an extra mid.

Overall I think the changes will net more BS usage(unless you fly Minmatar battleships and/or love a challenge).