These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#1221 - 2013-05-22 11:45:59 UTC
Deerin wrote:
Summary of the last 60 pages:

Stuff, including:

CNR:
Posters believe that losing the damage is not worth the gained application bonus and caused it to lose its roles.

Edit: Posters seem to unanimously agree that CNR needs more CPU.


More or less legit, except for some discrepancies about the CNR relating to FPhoon and torpedo use. I believe that those of us who knew that the CNR was going to be overpowered with the new cruises are content with the changes, while those who either don't see this or don't use cruises are disappointed with the changes.

That said, I am still of the firm belief that battleships need a buff to ehp across the board, though - they're still (more so now with increased costs) cost inefficient compared to buffed cruisers and battlecruisers.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1222 - 2013-05-22 12:28:20 UTC
Hagika wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

lemme guess, you put torps on it....

But I'm sorry, no, it's not crap, it' works fine and I prefer it to the Floon because of it's mid slots and much more useful bonuses (not even 50 km for the Floon and you're counting salvos again, which sucks).

Time and the odyssey market will tell, but you're just overreacting.


I love how when we talk about cruise you guys are all "But it'll be awesome with Torps!". And then when we talk about Cruise you guys are like "But it'll be awesome with Cruise!". The truth is that it's awesome with neither. The ship is completely obsolete by other faction and T1 battleships, regardless of whether you want to fit torps or cruise.

The ship needs rethink.

-Liang


Seriously, i'd have thought you were better than that, before now I had a great deal of respect for your knowledge of the game.

I'm an individual Liang and you know that, yet you so little confidence in what your saying you have to lump me with others and pretend that words aren't even mine somehow apply to me? When, exactly, did i say anything concerning torps being awesome for the new CNR?

Bloody incredible.


Want to know what is bloody incredible? The fact that not only Liang but others have posted the math and shown the inferior numbers of the CNR and you still are the only hold out on thinking the ship is fine.

You act like my brother in this way. He will argue against someone and disagree with them just for arguments sake, knowing full well he is in the wrong after being showed evidence that he was wrong.
At this point, its like you are just doing it just because you can.

The T1 Raven and SNI pretty much match the CNR only the SNI actually gets a more powerful tank. Why use the CNR which was the torpedo doom ship and would have been the cruise ship of doom as well when you can get the same performance out of the 200 mil Raven, well aside from the marginally more powerful tank.

Yet why bother with any of that when you can use a T1 Phoon and pretty much match the DPS output of the CNR and be superior to the raven or you can drop some isk and buy the Floon and have a ship that makes all other obsolete including the Minnie T2 BS..


Edit-
The CNR only gets 500 more hull while the Floon gets faster speed and a battlecruise sig radius....Gee, wonder whos tanking better as well.....


im not arguing for argument's sake, im arguing because in my estimation (and viewing the ship as a whole, including the buff to it's mainly used weapon) it is Fine. It's better than the current CNR, it's an improvement to the raven while not being so overpowered as to dethrone a TECH 2 Battleship. in other words, the CNR finally fits where it is supposed to in the line up of Battleships: Raven -> Navy Raven-> Golem.

and no, im not the only one who thinks that, I'm simply the only one still interested in combating rank ignorance and spoiled brat "wahh my torps, wahh, my dps" entitlement.

if the Floon is OP, talk about the Floon. The CNR as presented here (and this weekend on Sisi) performed exacatly as I expected and wanted.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1223 - 2013-05-22 12:28:45 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

Seriously, i'd have thought you were better than that, before now I had a great deal of respect for your knowledge of the game.

I'm an individual Liang and you know that, yet you so little confidence in what your saying you have to lump me with others and pretend that words aren't even mine somehow apply to me? When, exactly, did i say anything concerning torps being awesome for the new CNR?

Bloody incredible.


Is this you freely admitting that the torp CNR is a pile of **** and the explo radius bonus does not in fact make up for the nerfed damage?

-Liang


I admit "screw torps".
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1224 - 2013-05-22 12:35:31 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

I agree that the new CNR is smaller and faster than the old one, unfortunately that's not really a niche we I can do a lot with.


fixed

Quote:
It's still outright inferior to the Typhoon and Typhoon Fleet in those areas - on top of being inferior in EHP, damage, damage application, rate of fire, drone damage, utility high slots, and more. Yeah - tell me more about how you won't be able to do these sites with the smaller, faster, and more damaging typhoon family. Roll

Honestly, the only reason you're saying the CNR is better than the one you've been flying for five years is because cruise is better than it's been for five years. But cruise isn't just better for the CNR - it's better for everything. The new CNR simply does not have a role.

-Liang


#1 you cannot seperate the Ship from it's primary weapon any more than you can sperate a Nightmare from Tachyons (apologies to you Pulsemare wackos).

#2, no, a typhoon hull can't do some of the things a CNR can do because you need a serious shiled tank to do it

#3. as has been pointed out, you're looking in the wrong direction, the Phoons might need looking at, the CNR is imo (and apprently in CCPs opinion so far) perfectly ok.


A few comments:
- Context matters, and this is why your "fix" is just ********. See, the problem with the CNR is that it's simultaneously outperformed in literally every possible way by the TFI, and occasionally by the Typhoon. If you're willing to put the time and effort into painters, the SNI frequently out performs it as well (though obviously not in the speed/sig area).
- Yes, I agree you can't separate the weapon from the ship. However, that's not what I was talking about - and you should know this. You should know that I was referring to the fact that cruise is on many ships, and those ships obsolete the CNR when fit with cruise. And with torps, but we all knew that.
- Your logic about the CNR being fine in CCP's eyes doesn't hold a lot of water, because obviously the Phoons are fine in CCP's eyes too.

I do love the shifting goalposts though. It's fantastic to see you go from "No the CNR is amazing and ur just a scrub" to "Ok, so maybe [ insert every ship ever ] is OP".

-Liang

Ed: I am curious what those things that the CNR is good at because it requires a serious shield tank to do. :)


What a disingenuous child you've become. So pointing out that you people are saying the CNR needs to be different because another ship is OP is somehow shifting goal posts.

You're not worth talking to and i won't reply further, i really, honestly, expected more maturity out of you, a pretty much senior member of our little community.

I like the CNR as is (on sisi), I think you people are grossly over-reacting and I think to change it as you want would make it overpowered (i'd of course use it, but I'd hate the fact that it's out of line with what a Navy BS should be). I think the Floon (and im not the one who keeps mentinooing it, btw) is OP (and I intend to abuse it till CCP figures this out). What I want is simply what's best for the game, and overpowered FOTM ships standing outside of what a Navy Ship shold be (a midpoint from regular T1 BS to T2 BSs) ain't it.
Bereza Mia
Trade Federation of EVE
#1225 - 2013-05-22 13:26:12 UTC
SMT008 wrote:
Bereza Mia wrote:
After 60+ pages still can't understand why Typhoon FI have so enormously huge bonus.
Why 7.5%? Even with 5% it will outperform any other T1/navy (and maybe even any T2) turret or missile BS.


Because you have no secondary bonus.

There is no falloff bonuses, no range/explosion radius/explosion velocity/optimal/missile velocity/tracking bonus.

Just 2 bonuses that you can't use at the same time (not reliably at least).

This is why it got 2 7.5% bonuses.

Except the fact that it can't be AC fitted, the Fleet Typhoon is alright Blink


"No secondary bonus" – this isn't an argument at all.
For example, you can take off all two CNR current bonuses and give only that one - +7.5% damage. And CNR will be OP with only one bonus (but lol, it still have less dps than Typhoon FI).
Samas Sarum
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1226 - 2013-05-22 13:33:39 UTC
Bereza Mia wrote:
SMT008 wrote:
Bereza Mia wrote:
After 60+ pages still can't understand why Typhoon FI have so enormously huge bonus.
Why 7.5%? Even with 5% it will outperform any other T1/navy (and maybe even any T2) turret or missile BS.


Because you have no secondary bonus.

There is no falloff bonuses, no range/explosion radius/explosion velocity/optimal/missile velocity/tracking bonus.

Just 2 bonuses that you can't use at the same time (not reliably at least).

This is why it got 2 7.5% bonuses.

Except the fact that it can't be AC fitted, the Fleet Typhoon is alright Blink


"No secondary bonus" – this isn't an argument at all.
For example, you can take off all two CNR current bonuses and give only that one - +7.5% damage. And CNR will be OP with only one bonus (but lol, it still have less dps than Typhoon FI).


Same argument could be made for the N-Geddon, it has no secondary bonus as one of its bonus is simply to make it's weapons usable with a RoF bonus.
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#1227 - 2013-05-22 13:53:13 UTC
I really want to see some fits where FPhoon completely obsolotes other ships. It is a hard to fit ship.

People claiming Fphoon having higher DPS than competition should try to make a meaningful fit to it. More than 2 BCS on lows nerfs its armor tank. If you are shield tanking it and filling lows you'll get CPU and damage application issues.

Caldari ship however have med slots to mount a shield tank and lows to increase their dps even further. When you complete your fit you realize the drones difference is covered by the two additional BCU's in lows.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1228 - 2013-05-22 14:42:36 UTC
Deerin wrote:
I really want to see some fits where FPhoon completely obsolotes other ships. It is a hard to fit ship.

People claiming Fphoon having higher DPS than competition should try to make a meaningful fit to it. More than 2 BCS on lows nerfs its armor tank. If you are shield tanking it and filling lows you'll get CPU and damage application issues.

Caldari ship however have med slots to mount a shield tank and lows to increase their dps even further. When you complete your fit you realize the drones difference is covered by the two additional BCU's in lows.



Unfitted it obsoletes a Fleet tempest fully fitted :P

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
fuxinos
Perkone
Caldari State
#1229 - 2013-05-22 14:43:16 UTC
Deerin wrote:
I really want to see some fits where FPhoon completely obsolotes other ships. It is a hard to fit ship.

People claiming Fphoon having higher DPS than competition should try to make a meaningful fit to it. More than 2 BCS on lows nerfs its armor tank. If you are shield tanking it and filling lows you'll get CPU and damage application issues.

Caldari ship however have med slots to mount a shield tank and lows to increase their dps even further. When you complete your fit you realize the drones difference is covered by the two additional BCU's in lows.

Its not thaaaat thight to fit a Fleet Issue Phoon, you know?
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#1230 - 2013-05-22 14:55:56 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

What a disingenuous child you've become. So pointing out that you people are saying the CNR needs to be different because another ship is OP is somehow shifting goal posts.

You're not worth talking to and i won't reply further, i really, honestly, expected more maturity out of you, a pretty much senior member of our little community.

I like the CNR as is (on sisi), I think you people are grossly over-reacting and I think to change it as you want would make it overpowered (i'd of course use it, but I'd hate the fact that it's out of line with what a Navy BS should be). I think the Floon (and im not the one who keeps mentinooing it, btw) is OP (and I intend to abuse it till CCP figures this out). What I want is simply what's best for the game, and overpowered FOTM ships standing outside of what a Navy Ship shold be (a midpoint from regular T1 BS to T2 BSs) ain't it.


No Jenn. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm being a disingenuous child or any of the other ad-homs you've thrown my way. What I've consistently pointed out is that the CNR is losing its role (high DPS missile ship) and that it needs to be different. I personally prefer DPS, but the currently proposed CNR is totally obsoleted by the Fleet Typhoon and almost always obsoleted by several other ships.

So at this point, defending the CNR means we need to accept one of the following:
- The CNR change needs a rethink
- We need to roll back the entire set of BS/Faction BS buffs (because they're all OP)
- The proposed CNR is just ******* worthless.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#1231 - 2013-05-22 14:57:34 UTC
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Deerin wrote:
Summary of the last 60 pages:

Stuff, including:

CNR:
Posters believe that losing the damage is not worth the gained application bonus and caused it to lose its roles.

Edit: Posters seem to unanimously agree that CNR needs more CPU.


More or less legit, except for some discrepancies about the CNR relating to FPhoon and torpedo use. I believe that those of us who knew that the CNR was going to be overpowered with the new cruises are content with the changes, while those who either don't see this or don't use cruises are disappointed with the changes.

That said, I am still of the firm belief that battleships need a buff to ehp across the board, though - they're still (more so now with increased costs) cost inefficient compared to buffed cruisers and battlecruisers.


There were ways to prevent the ship from becoming OP with Cruise without making it damn near worthless.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Jason Sirober
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1232 - 2013-05-22 15:03:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Jason Sirober
As I already posted on the T1 Battleship page, I thought of looking at the Navy Mega updates.

(All Level V)
It struck me that it is getting a nett nerf in CAP due to the new ROF Bonus. Using T2 Neutons with Void it now costs 5 Cap/sec more whilst we only got 1.4 Cap/sec Buff. This equates to a nett loss of 3.6 Cap/Sec for a measly 6.25% DPS increase and a 20% drop in Alpha. It now uses 36% more cap for the re-tarded increase in DPS?

How is this balanced exactly?
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#1233 - 2013-05-22 15:19:54 UTC
fuxinos wrote:
Deerin wrote:
I really want to see some fits where FPhoon completely obsolotes other ships. It is a hard to fit ship.

People claiming Fphoon having higher DPS than competition should try to make a meaningful fit to it. More than 2 BCS on lows nerfs its armor tank. If you are shield tanking it and filling lows you'll get CPU and damage application issues.

Caldari ship however have med slots to mount a shield tank and lows to increase their dps even further. When you complete your fit you realize the drones difference is covered by the two additional BCU's in lows.

Its not thaaaat thight to fit a Fleet Issue Phoon, you know?


Armor is no problem. Shield is cpu intensive
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1234 - 2013-05-22 16:37:51 UTC
SMT008 wrote:

Because you have no secondary bonus.

There is no falloff bonuses, no range/explosion radius/explosion velocity/optimal/missile velocity/tracking bonus.

Just 2 bonuses that you can't use at the same time (not reliably at least).

This is why it got 2 7.5% bonuses.

Except the fact that it can't be AC fitted, the Fleet Typhoon is alright Blink
When you look at the CNR it has two bonuses:

Caldari Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+10% bonus to Cruise Missile Torpedo Velocity
+5% bonus to Torpedo and Cruise Missile explosion radius

From a PvE point of view.

The first one Velocity is very important for Torpedos as it supplies range, but for Cruise Missiles range isn't generally an issue. So as a bonus to a CNR it isn't really worth a whole lot. The second bonus is very situational as the standard PVE fit CNR will most likely have two Rigor 2s, one Flare 2, and two target painters. Battleships and Battlecruisers already are taking full damage, while Destroyers are single shot if you should so choose. Frigate are generally the primary target of your Drones, so you are left with the Explosion Radius Bonus helping you take down some Cruisers with one less volley.

I am not complaining, as it will help... but I doubt there more than a few experienced CNR pilots that wouldn't trade both of the proposed bonuses for a single 7.5% damage bonus.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1235 - 2013-05-22 17:44:12 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
SMT008 wrote:

Because you have no secondary bonus.

There is no falloff bonuses, no range/explosion radius/explosion velocity/optimal/missile velocity/tracking bonus.

Just 2 bonuses that you can't use at the same time (not reliably at least).

This is why it got 2 7.5% bonuses.

Except the fact that it can't be AC fitted, the Fleet Typhoon is alright Blink
When you look at the CNR it has two bonuses:

Caldari Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+10% bonus to Cruise Missile Torpedo Velocity
+5% bonus to Torpedo and Cruise Missile explosion radius

From a PvE point of view.

The first one Velocity is very important for Torpedos as it supplies range, but for Cruise Missiles range isn't generally an issue. So as a bonus to a CNR it isn't really worth a whole lot. The second bonus is very situational as the standard PVE fit CNR will most likely have two Rigor 2s, one Flare 2, and two target painters. Battleships and Battlecruisers already are taking full damage, while Destroyers are single shot if you should so choose. Frigate are generally the primary target of your Drones, so you are left with the Explosion Radius Bonus helping you take down some Cruisers with one less volley.

I am not complaining, as it will help... but I doubt there more than a few experienced CNR pilots that wouldn't trade both of the proposed bonuses for a single 7.5% damage bonus.








Velocity isn't just for range (if it was a "flight time" bonus then it would suck and be totally useless). Faster missiles mean less "salvo counting" and fewer wasted salvos and that directly translates into isk (controlling "overhead" ie ammunition cost). And the faster the missile, the faster DPS starts being applied (by lowering the gap between "click button" and "boom", which is of course instant for guns).

I wouldn't trade The New CNR's bonuses for a damage bonus, TPs don't work when you are neuted to zero cap (or jammed, oo heavily damped ) in high end PVE such as level 5 missions and top end DED complexes, a "Built in" damage application bonus can literally save a missile slinging PVE ship in those circumstances, circumstances that are by no means rare outside of high sec.
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1236 - 2013-05-22 18:15:26 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:



Velocity isn't just for range (if it was a "flight time" bonus then it would suck and be totally useless). Faster missiles mean less "salvo counting" and fewer wasted salvos and that directly translates into isk (controlling "overhead" ie ammunition cost). And the faster the missile, the faster DPS starts being applied (by lowering the gap between "click button" and "boom", which is of course instant for guns).

I wouldn't trade The New CNR's bonuses for a damage bonus, TPs don't work when you are neuted to zero cap (or jammed, oo heavily damped ) in high end PVE such as level 5 missions and top end DED complexes, a "Built in" damage application bonus can literally save a missile slinging PVE ship in those circumstances, circumstances that are by no means rare outside of high sec.

Wouldn't a 37.5% damage increase to all targets be worth more than a 37.5% damage increase to targets Cruiser and smaller? Perhaps I figured that wrong. I thought that is why CCP didn't go that way... too over powered.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#1237 - 2013-05-22 18:23:25 UTC
Jenn, your position makes literally no ******* sense. You claim that you're frequently neuted so hard that your painters don't work, but the truth of the matter is that you aren't running those sites solo - and we know this because none of the faction battleships mentioned can possibly do that. If you're neuted so hard you can't target paint, you're also neuted so hard you can't tank.

Additionally in high end PVE, that resist bonus, extra EHP, and extra extra mid slot on the Scorp Navy is going to outweigh the additional benefits of the CNR. And if you're so concerned about sig and speed, both the Typhoon and Typhoon Fleet are just sitting there waiting to do everything the CNR can do - but better. Again, the new CNR does not have a role even in this made up world that you're constructing.

Also, you may remember that I don't do high sec. When I do PVE it tends to be wormholes, Level 5s, wormholes, pirate missions, FW missions, FW plexes, etc. And in all of those I'd rather have the Golem than the CNR (though FW missions and FW plexes are both better done in a Caracal or Arbitrator due to cost concerns). Wormholes, Level 5s, and pirate missions in particular all play towards marauder strengths - as it turns out those utility highs are kinda nice for spider tanking setups.

But hey, keep telling me about how the new CNR isn't dramatically nerfed by the lack of utility highs. Keep telling me its a superior PVE ship now. Keep telling me its a superior PVP ship now. Because all that's happening here is that you are showing how much you just don't know.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#1238 - 2013-05-22 18:48:18 UTC
Deerin wrote:
I really want to see some fits where FPhoon completely obsolotes other ships. It is a hard to fit ship.

People claiming Fphoon having higher DPS than competition should try to make a meaningful fit to it. More than 2 BCS on lows nerfs its armor tank. If you are shield tanking it and filling lows you'll get CPU and damage application issues.

Caldari ship however have med slots to mount a shield tank and lows to increase their dps even further. When you complete your fit you realize the drones difference is covered by the two additional BCU's in lows.


Rock it old school:

High:
650mm II x 4
Torpedo Launcher II x 4
Mid:
100MN Prototype MWD
Medium Electrochemical Cap Booster
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor x 2
Web Scrambler II
Low:
1600mm plate II x 3
1600mm RT Plate
EANM II x 2
DC II
Rigs:
Trimark x 3

Drones to taste.

Mid 900's DPS without a single damage mod with the OLD 5% bonuses. The new FPhoon will easily break 1k DPS. Over 200k EHP before slaves or boosts. Hilariously goes 1059m/s with four plates and three trimarks. Overheats to > 1500m/s.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1239 - 2013-05-22 18:52:05 UTC
does anyone else fell the scorp navy issue having 8 mids and resist bonus/plenty of HP is a little too much?
-maybe switch a mid to a high

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1240 - 2013-05-22 19:35:00 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:



Velocity isn't just for range (if it was a "flight time" bonus then it would suck and be totally useless). Faster missiles mean less "salvo counting" and fewer wasted salvos and that directly translates into isk (controlling "overhead" ie ammunition cost). And the faster the missile, the faster DPS starts being applied (by lowering the gap between "click button" and "boom", which is of course instant for guns).

I wouldn't trade The New CNR's bonuses for a damage bonus, TPs don't work when you are neuted to zero cap (or jammed, oo heavily damped ) in high end PVE such as level 5 missions and top end DED complexes, a "Built in" damage application bonus can literally save a missile slinging PVE ship in those circumstances, circumstances that are by no means rare outside of high sec.

Wouldn't a 37.5% damage increase to all targets be worth more than a 37.5% damage increase to targets Cruiser and smaller? Perhaps I figured that wrong. I thought that is why CCP didn't go that way... too over powered.


Not really. in the cases I talk about, damage application could be the difference between getting out of a site (in pve outside null sec) and getting caught by real players who come in to system suddenly to hunt you down. Even without the threat of other players, there are times when you're tank might start to break and helping your dones kill those last two scram frigs so you can GTFO is the difference between docking up to repair hull and flying to jita or the nearest jita like hub to get a new ship lol.

More raw damage is nice, but it's not everything (as everyone who ever flies an EVE missile boat learns very early on lol), especially with missiles. I like how the new CNR splats npc ewar cruisers (that tend to concentrate on my machariel when i dual box) without me having to mess around with multiple TPs.

A matter of taste perhaps. But it works very well for me.