These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post
Author
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#61 - 2013-04-08 19:28:06 UTC
Edd Nicholls wrote:
I think these changes make Gallente have a pretty bad line-up. The Dominix is now clearly inferior to the proposed Armageddon. I never had issues with range or tracking of drones and it will lack drone control range to make much use of the range bonus to sentry drones. The Mega I guess will fill the hole left by the hype as a shield gank ship but I still think there is room for a buffer fit armour ship which the new look mega will not perform as well in. The hype is now pretty much good for nothing in my eyes. It will almost certainly underperform dual ASB Rohks and Mealstroms and offer pretty much no utility in its mids now to compensate. If you are going to persist with making it an active armour ship then at the minimum it needs more PG.



This is not the thread you are looking for Roll
Wu Fey
Devil's Evil Spirits
#62 - 2013-04-08 19:36:57 UTC
Right now the caldari ECM ships are nearly always fit in a way that is contrary to caldari fleet doctrine (armor tanked). This, I imagine, makes balancing very difficult. ECM has been nerfed due to its ability to completely shut down enemy ships, but the ECM platforms have not received any increase in viability or utility. They still tend to be paper-thin, and oft-called primary. Due to the reduction in ECM strength, fitting a half-shield-tank / half-ECM fit is even less viable.

But what do we do? Do we give caldari ECM ships more low slots? What about an armor bonus? These methods only make the ECM ships stray further from the caldari design philosophy. Adding more mids is also problematic, due to the possibility of someone simply filling them all with tanking modules.

Although many may consider it ridiculous, I think the concept of ECM as a high-slot is actually quite sound. In many ways ECM fills a similar function to neuts, which are also high-slots.

I realize that this would require you to take a look at nearly every ship in the game, since ECM would become a new contender for high-slot utility, but I think this opens up some pretty interesting options.

Un-bonused ECM is not very strong, and I doubt having one ECM module on a BC or Cruiser is going to be substantially more powerful than a medium neut. After all, people don't generally fit a single ECM module on armor tanked ships with 4 or more mids. However, it would have greater range than a neut, making it much more appropriate for long range fits. It would also open up some utility to ships that don't have the PG for a medium neut, but have some CPU left over. Often times a small neut is just not that attractive, and only serves as a heat sink. In general high slot utility for combat ships is fairly lacking in variety, and this may help with that.

Where this might become a problem is on frigates, but the large CPU cost of ECM modules probably makes this a non-issue.

With ECM as a high slot module, caldari ECM ships could be balanced very similarly to their Amarr counterparts. The Scorpion could feature a robust shield tank and an ECM strength bonus, making it a viable close range ECM platform, in a similar vein to the new geddon. It would assuredly have to receive some balance changes, specifically to slot layout, but it would be functioning within the intended design, making balancing much more feasible.

The cruiser range of ECM ships will naturally need to rely on speed or utility due to their high targeting priority in any engagement, but they will be able to fit at least some tank. This is similar to the way the curse / pilgrim already function.

In addition, if appropriate, drone bonuses could be granted to some of the above ships. This solution works really well for neut dedicated platforms and, I imagine, it would work well here too for the same reasons.


Lubomir Penev
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#63 - 2013-04-08 19:42:30 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

+10% bonus to Cruise Missile Torpedo Velocity


What the fuck does that even means?
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#64 - 2013-04-08 19:45:28 UTC
Lubomir Penev wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:

+10% bonus to Cruise Missile Torpedo Velocity


What the fuck does that even means?


It means you need to fly a Typhoon.
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
#65 - 2013-04-08 19:52:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Unseen Spectre
This may be a stupid qustion, but would it make any sense to switch the percentages to the raven's bonuses?
+10% bonus to Cruise and Torpedo Launcher rate of fire (instead of 5%)
+5% bonus to Cruise Missile and Torpedo Velocity (instead of 10%)

But maybe this becomes too powerful...
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#66 - 2013-04-08 19:59:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Heribeck Weathers
Raven - I have wanted a 7th mid forever, but giving up ehp for a small speed boost is silly, like many others have said it already was short on the ehp side (could use an XLshield extender) give it its ehp back and fix torps so they can reach out to 22km with decent skills, that way the range bonus on the raven will make it able to hit mid range out of point range with titles like stealth bombers.

Scorp - drop a high for a low and give it + 1 missle and turret hard point.
Funky Lazers
Funk Freakers
#67 - 2013-04-08 20:08:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Funky Lazers
Steve Spooner wrote:
What about the CNR?

Indeed the Raven has absolutely no place in PVP because it's slower than a snorlax rolling uphills, the damage application is ass and in the face of the Typhoon it's bleh. So it's basically a purely dedicated PVE ship, which I'm fine with because carebears.


If Raven is a crap for PvP it doesn't mean it will rock in PvE.
I'm an old carebear and I have NO idea how this ship fits PvE.
Those bonuses are just a crap for any situation.

Gief me Shield Boost bonus instead of range one or make that range bonus useful while using Torps.

Whatever.

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#68 - 2013-04-08 20:13:28 UTC
Lubomir Penev wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:

+10% bonus to Cruise Missile Torpedo Velocity


What the fuck does that even means?


Ah, this must be the upcoming fix to cruise missiles - they'll launch torpedos of their own as they approach their target. With this bonus, presumably the torps will match the speed of their cruise launcher for glorious return of Cavalry Raven!
Pinky Denmark
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#69 - 2013-04-08 20:35:30 UTC
I really like how the Raven has received a much needed boost, however some things amaze me to see untouched:

Rokh:

When you have the longest reaching gunnery platform in the game it simply does not matter much with an optimal bonus. Furthermore the lack of any damage bonus makes this ship ridiculous compared with the Naga.

I get why the resist bonus is going to be changed on armor battleships as it will then have about the same resist as a T1 EANM. The armor ships also have much better buffer capabilities with bigger plates than you can get extenders. T1 invuls are 25% and as such I can't see the need to downgrade the Rokh's resist bonus. With only 6 medslots and the need for tracking computers/web to do anything close range range I can hardly see how the Rokh can be overpowered. Perhaps with dual ASB but thats not the ships fault.... And shooting antimatter at 45 or 65km doesn't really matter anyway - But you're making a lot of ammo completely useless and Rokh only performs well in large numbers or niche operations.

Scorpion:

Then you have a fantastic oportunity to make the scorpion interesting without changing it much. ECM has been nerfed hard recently and the scorpion is pretty much useless in any conventional roles - Why not allow the Scorpion 5 or 6 launchers/turrets? It's not like 6 turrets can do a lot of harm as you wil have to mix around with damage mods, tracking enhancers and/or ecm amplifiers? It might give the scorpion a bit of motivation however so it's not entirely bad...


I'd be happy with a proper damage bonus on the Rokh and/or nerfing attack battlecruisers to only carry 7 turrets. Don't nerf the Rokh resist bonus and enable the scorpion to carry 6 launchers or 6 turrets.
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#70 - 2013-04-08 20:56:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Van Mathias
+1 vote on keeping Rokh resists the same, not all of us use rails on them, and blaster range is anemic as is, and every point of resist on that helps mitigate that. Indeed, I would like to see a Navy Faction Rokh with more resists on it. The last thing we need is to make battleships more fragile in comparison to other ship classes.

The issue here is not that resists are too good, the issue is that buffer bonuses in conjunction with resist bonuses are too good. This is much like the same way that the old nano setups were too good, you once could buff both agility and mass, and this led to ridiculous results. I would suggest making tank extenders give a marginal penalty to resists as part of their effect, as a substitute/compliment for their signal radius/mass penalty.

Edit: As for resists + remote repping, you could always make a repped ship receive a similar resist penalty for the duration of the rep + a few seconds. That would make the decision to rep more tactical, and nerf piling on 20 remote reps on the same ship a bit.
Jureth22
Perkone
Caldari State
#71 - 2013-04-08 21:00:32 UTC
so where are the changes?
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#72 - 2013-04-08 21:07:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Van Mathias
Look at the original post man.

Also, I would recommending raising the cost of all battleships, the current levels of tank are ok, but their power at max skills is a bit out of line with their base costs.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#73 - 2013-04-08 21:17:22 UTC
When are you going to remove ECM?
BigCynoBoom
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2013-04-08 21:51:30 UTC
Dafuq

Where am I going to put my missiles on my rohk ?
Onslaughtor
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#75 - 2013-04-08 21:56:41 UTC
As someone who flies a scorpion on a regular basis (Both Armor and Shields) I feel that it is a bit to weak for its price point. With the buffs your giving to the Armageddon I feel that the Scorp is being left in the cold.

If I were to balance it I would give it more ehp all around shield, armor, hull, and move a high slot to a low.. I would also give it a 2.5% bonus per lvl more to jammer strength and optimal range.

So my modified stats would look something like this

Caldari Battleship Skill Bonuses:
17.5% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength
27.5% bonus to ECM Target Jammer optimal and falloff range
25% bonus to ECM Burst range

Slot layout: 5(-1)H, 8M, 5(+1)L; 4 turrets , 4 launchers
Fittings: 9000 PWG, 750 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 6900(+259) / 5800(+300) / 6300(+831)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / recharge per second) : 5500(+187.5) / 1087s / 5.06
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 94 / .116 / 103600000 / 16.66s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 / 75
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 90km / 110 / 7
Sensor strength: 25(+1) Gravimetric
Signature radius: 480


I feel that these changes would be good for the Scorp and would allow it some of he much need breathing room it needs for its tank and its job.
Tilo Rhywald
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#76 - 2013-04-08 22:04:06 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:


Rokh:

Caldari Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+10% to large Hybrid Turret optimal range
+4% Shield resistances per level (-1% per level)

Slot layout: 8H, 6M, 5L; 8 turrets , 0 launchers


Why 0 launchers instead of the former 4 all of the sudden, or is that a mistake? Not that Neut/Torp-setups were very common except for the random wft-moment or that I even like them, but why remove the hardpoints to negate this option?

The more I think about it the more I dislike the resistance nerf on the Rokh. I've seen many changes in the game, but this is the one that finally really pisses me off, even though it seems so small at first glance. No battleship needs a tank nerf, especially after the proliferation of Attack Battlecruisers that made battleships obsolete in far too many scenarios. If you want to hit fleet PvP please do it in a fashion that doesn't hit small-scale PvP even harder.

Cheers
Tilo R.
G'monk
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#77 - 2013-04-08 22:50:53 UTC
Funky Lazers wrote:
Steve Spooner wrote:
What about the CNR?

Indeed the Raven has absolutely no place in PVP because it's slower than a snorlax rolling uphills, the damage application is ass and in the face of the Typhoon it's bleh. So it's basically a purely dedicated PVE ship, which I'm fine with because carebears.


If Raven is a crap for PvP it doesn't mean it will rock in PvE.
I'm an old carebear and I have NO idea how this ship fits PvE.
Those bonuses are just a crap for any situation.

Gief me Shield Boost bonus instead of range one or make that range bonus useful while using Torps.


The ships are very good for PVE, and though I cant say I know many pvp'rs I know that personally I have little desire to do it. Not everything in hte game is pvp, Just like incursion ship s are not really best for lvl4 pve's neither are the pve fits great for pvp. In Fleet action doesnt mean they cant do a ton of damage, just takes a little time that is all.
Gaara's sniper
MLG1337420BlazeIt360TitanNoScopeCorporationSWAG
Goonswarm Federation
#78 - 2013-04-08 22:51:34 UTC
very disappointed with the changes to raven.Unless CCP Rise have some kind of trick up his sleeve regarding torpedoes and cruise missiles , raven remains absolutely worthless.

And again we get a nerf to some awesome ships, just because they are being used in fleet compositions. When will caldari get some love ?
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#79 - 2013-04-08 22:52:30 UTC
Quote:
Slot layout: 8H, 6M, 5L; 8 turrets , 0 launchers


This is just a typo, the Rokh will keep its launchers. Sorry about that!

@ccp_rise

Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#80 - 2013-04-08 22:54:31 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
Slot layout: 8H, 6M, 5L; 8 turrets , 0 launchers


This is just a typo, the Rokh will keep its launchers. Sorry about that!


The scorp shows 110 scan resolution, if this is it's scan res, it has increased from the previous 75mm, so please show that.

Also, i really hope that it wasn't a mistake...because the scorp should definitely have that kind of scanres...

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us