These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#101 - 2013-05-13 18:11:36 UTC
Good post, good changes, and its fun to watch everybody cry because their navy BS didn't get made OP like they dreamed.

New NaPoc and NRaven will be amazing.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.

mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#102 - 2013-05-13 18:12:35 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Liang Nuren wrote:
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
Kasutra wrote:
Has anyone run the math yet on whether we're seeing more or less applied DPS from the new CNR when firing at some standard targets?


after some deriving i have managed to come up with the following:

6*1.25=7.5

8>7.5

:3



Your math is bad.

Old CCNR: 7 / .75 = 9.3333 eff launcher
New CCNR: 8 * 1.3 = 10.4 eff launcher

Old TCNR: 7 / .75 = 9.333 eff launcher
New TCNR: 8 eff launcher

-Liang


You DO know that precision skills and bonuses and such affect torps now, right? Going by this post and your last, it sure doesn't look like it.

e: Think I misunderstood what you were saying.

In any case, I'm at work and don't have the spreadsheet I was using, but I'm pretty sure that the new CNR will see a damage boost with torps against nearly anything but BS and caps. I'll check when I get home.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Arline Kley
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#103 - 2013-05-13 18:14:40 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:


AMARR Changes




*slow hand clap*

Congratulations CCP Rise, you've officially made your mark on the Amarrian national fleets not once, but twice. Both times I might add, making at least one ship in the line up broken and ruined. I wish to enlighten you to my opinion, and remind you that you have another thread to reply to, which I might add, feels like you have abandoned. I also know that this topic is to be filled with "constructive" criticism, which doesn't mean I'll be all accepting and forgiving; No, I'm going point out the flaws that you have once more generated, then pointing out how they could be countered and corrected so that the Amarrian's are not left without a decent fleet.

Firstly, the negative (ish) sides:

Navy Issue Armageddon

At least you've seen sense this time around and not, to put it politely, messed around with the Navy Issue of the Armageddon that you've done to the standard issue, which shockingly (not) shows absolutely zero relation apart from the enlarged drone bay. Maybe you should rectify that in the standard issue so that the it makes a better understanding of Navy Issue progression, rather than just a desperate reaction into realising your mistake and trying to rectify it in the vain hope that people will forgive you.

Now, I actually agree with the touched increases to the ship you have given it - it makes it a little easier to base values off if the numbers are flat rather than not. It's also a smallish increase to the EHP that the ship does rather need. I also see that you've kept in the 10% Cap bonus to the ship. Was this intentional or just an oversight given the obscene cap requirements the Amarrians have to endure as a racial body?

Navy Issue Apocalypse

Aaand it was going so well. Where do I begin?

It has been pointed out (and mathematically shown, since numbers apparently are your thing) that a ship with a 7.5% bonus to tracking will not be able to hit anything smaller than a perfectly transversal cruiser at level V. Now, I agree that a battleship should have difficulty hitting smaller vessels, however if someone has invested a lot of time and energy (like myself) into piloting one of the better mission running ships in the game, I want it be viable outside of that role as well - with that current change, it will not help outside of a PvE situation. I know I'm not the first to go into a PvP situation, but when I do and I'm in that ship, I would prefer it if I wasn't unable to hit the enemy because they were inside a Rifter - not to say I want to have instantly hitting ships regardless of size, but just somewhat of an actual ability.

I also see that you've struck this ship with the nerf bat in relation to the Armour/Shield values, but given it a small increase to the Hull. Again, yay to rounded numbers, but boo to a overall reduced tank for the silly "Combat Battleship" status. I also see that it (and the Armageddon) magically reacquire their much needed 8th Low slot, which shouldn't be called much in the way of a change since it already exists - Perhaps giving us a 5th med slot will equate the need to have extra Cap generation on that ship, since the other alterations are pretty unfair; Less cap with a shorter recharge times does not equal increased capacitor overall, and with the fairly minimal changes to the Laser Weapons still doesn't balance it out.


Now for the "constructive" side of things. I'm going to focus on the Apocalypse since that is the ship that you have decided to re-engineer into a role that doesn't suit it the most:

Amarr Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+7.5% to Large Energy Turret optimal range
+7.5% to Large Energy Turret falloff range

Slot layout: 8H, 5M(+1), 8L; 8 turrets , 0 launchers(-2)
Fittings: 22000 PWG(+475), 580 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull): 9000(-316) / 11000(-250) / 10000(+39)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 7500 / 1000s(-154s)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 110(+16) / .115(-.021) / 97100000(-2200000) / 15.48s(-3.24s)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 / 100
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 76km(+8.5k) / 120(+1.25) / 7
Sensor strength: 25 Radar Sensor Strength
Signature radius: 370(-30)


For the most part, I haven't "radically" altered it; it does have a little break to its shield/armour - a little more than the Armageddon in shields and less in Armour, and the same in hull - which is to give it's intended role a little more survivability than the standard issue. The speed I've dropped down to counter the increase in armour plate. I've also kept the cap at the same value whilst decreasing the recharge time by the new value - this will actually be a larger cap. The 5th Med I've added in so that the pilot can also have a modicum of cap regeneration, whilst still presenting an offensive ability as well. The tracking bonus is changed to a falloff bonus, as if it is meant to be a sniper, give it the range it deserves.

Now, you're probably going to say that "Oh noes, the NApoc is overpowered!!!!!1111!!!". To the players that think that, I say this: I want the Amarrian's to have a viable ship line. If we cannot be granted that in the standard line up, then I will fight tooth and nail once more to see that we keep it in the Naval line. I will not stand for the Amarrians (who are already hard enough to actually use decently) be sidelined once more.

Please let me know when you've read this CCP Rise (in this thread, +1 it, whatever) - I want to hear your opinions.

"For it was said they had become like those peculiar demons, which dwell in matter but in whom no light may be found." - Father Grigori, Ravens 3:57

wallenbergaren
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#104 - 2013-05-13 18:15:32 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Quote:
GALLENTE

MEGATHRON NAVY ISSUE
The Navy Thron will be Gallente’s ‘attack’ battleship, and therefore will adjust in many of the same ways that the tech 1 Megathron did, including the switch from damage bonus to rate of fire.

Gallente Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+5% Large Hybrid Turret rate of fire (replaces large hybrid turret damage)
+10% Large Hybrid Turret falloff

Slot layout: 8H, 4M, 8L; 7 turrets, 1 launchers(-1)
Fittings: 16275 PWG, 630 CPU(+25)
Defense (shields / armor / hull): 9000(-316) / 9500(-461) / 10500(-750)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 6000 (+375) / 1150s(-4.875s)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 130(+10) / .105 (-.005) / 98400000(-6800000) / 15.01s(-1.84s)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 175
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 72.5km / 95 / 7
Sensor strength: 25 Magnetometric Sensor Strength (-1.25)
Signature radius: 385(-15)


i bolded the part that needs to be fixed... tracking bonus for the tech I version is ok... but gal need a fleet ship and a mega navy issue can be that fleet ship... and the only way to make it so it to give it a fall off bonus... that will bring large neutrons with null into fleet bs range...

otherwise you are just making a pretty station game ship...


A falloff bonus would be

A-M-A-Z-I-N-G
DJWiggles
Eve Radio Corporation
#105 - 2013-05-13 18:16:27 UTC
Arline Kley wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:


AMARR Changes


Stuff ......


You know I love you and all BUT WALL OF TEXT shortened #Stuff

Live on Eve Radio Sundays 15:00 GMT with me & friends talking about Eve and stuff. Twitter, Facebook TotalEve

NinjaStyle
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#106 - 2013-05-13 18:16:44 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
The idea with the Tempest is that it fits really well into a lot of armor based compositions, acting more or less like an armor Maelstrom. It still has higher alpha than the Typhoon, with a lot more hp and similar utility. It goes a lot faster than the other combat battleships and has much smaller sig, so it definitely isn't eclipsed completely.

I can understand why some of you might want something with a bit more pop and I promise to talk with Fozzie and the rest of the department to make sure we're happy with this form before Odyssey goes out.


not NEEDING to have double dmg bonus to keep up might be a good place to start looking at what needs doing for minmatar!
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#107 - 2013-05-13 18:16:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonas Sukarala
its a shame that some of these ships are just tanky versions of the T1's instead of giving something different .. that and i can't imagine how expensive these will be... which is a shame really kind of limits what you can use in high sec wars.

Apoc...... whats the point of a slightly tankier version? how about 10% HP bonus make it a big augoror.
Switch geddon to attack

Mega ... make it a shield tanker 8-6-6 less drones

Tempest.... give it a tracking bonus and more turrets and maybe a 10% ROF

'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

minerdave
wiggle Tech.
#108 - 2013-05-13 18:17:21 UTC
Arline Kley wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:


AMARR Changes




*slow hand clap*

Congratulations CCP Rise, you've officially made your mark on the Amarrian national fleets not once, but twice. Both times I might add, making at least one ship in the line up broken and ruined. I wish to enlighten you to my opinion, and remind you that you have another thread to reply to, which I might add, feels like you have abandoned. I also know that this topic is to be filled with "constructive" criticism, which doesn't mean I'll be all accepting and forgiving; No, I'm going point out the flaws that you have once more generated, then pointing out how they could be countered and corrected so that the Amarrian's are not left without a decent fleet.

Firstly, the negative (ish) sides:

Navy Issue Armageddon

At least you've seen sense this time around and not, to put it politely, messed around with the Navy Issue of the Armageddon that you've done to the standard issue, which shockingly (not) shows absolutely zero relation apart from the enlarged drone bay. Maybe you should rectify that in the standard issue so that the it makes a better understanding of Navy Issue progression, rather than just a desperate reaction into realising your mistake and trying to rectify it in the vain hope that people will forgive you.

Now, I actually agree with the touched increases to the ship you have given it - it makes it a little easier to base values off if the numbers are flat rather than not. It's also a smallish increase to the EHP that the ship does rather need. I also see that you've kept in the 10% Cap bonus to the ship. Was this intentional or just an oversight given the obscene cap requirements the Amarrians have to endure as a racial body?

Navy Issue Apocalypse

Aaand it was going so well. Where do I begin?

It has been pointed out (and mathematically shown, since numbers apparently are your thing) that a ship with a 7.5% bonus to tracking will not be able to hit anything smaller than a perfectly transversal cruiser at level V. Now, I agree that a battleship should have difficulty hitting smaller vessels, however if someone has invested a lot of time and energy (like myself) into piloting one of the better mission running ships in the game, I want it be viable outside of that role as well - with that current change, it will not help outside of a PvE situation. I know I'm not the first to go into a PvP situation, but when I do and I'm in that ship, I would prefer it if I wasn't unable to hit the enemy because they were inside a Rifter - not to say I want to have instantly hitting ships regardless of size, but just somewhat of an actual ability.

I also see that you've struck this ship with the nerf bat in relation to the Armour/Shield values, but given it a small increase to the Hull. Again, yay to rounded numbers, but boo to a overall reduced tank for the silly "Combat Battleship" status. I also see that it (and the Armageddon) magically reacquire their much needed 8th Low slot, which shouldn't be called much in the way of a change since it already exists - Perhaps giving us a 5th med slot will equate the need to have extra Cap generation on that ship, since the other alterations are pretty unfair; Less cap with a shorter recharge times does not equal increased capacitor overall, and with the fairly minimal changes to the Laser Weapons still doesn't balance it out.


Now for the "constructive" side of things. I'm going to focus on the Apocalypse since that is the ship that you have decided to re-engineer into a role that doesn't suit it the most:

Amarr Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+7.5% to Large Energy Turret optimal range
+7.5% to Large Energy Turret falloff range

Slot layout: 8H, 5M(+1), 8L; 8 turrets , 0 launchers(-2)
Fittings: 22000 PWG(+475), 580 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull): 9000(-316) / 11000(-250) / 10000(+39)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 7500 / 1000s(-154s)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 110(+16) / .115(-.021) / 97100000(-2200000) / 15.48s(-3.24s)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 / 100
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 76km(+8.5k) / 120(+1.25) / 7
Sensor strength: 25 Radar Sensor Strength
Signature radius: 370(-30)


For the most part, I haven't "radically" altered it; it does have a little break to its shield/armour - a little more than the Armageddon in shields and less in Armour, and the same in hull - which is to give it's intended role a little more survivability than the standard issue. The speed I've dropped down to counter the increase in armour plate. I've also kept the cap at the same value whilst decreasing the recharge time by the new value - this will actually be a larger cap. The 5th Med I've added in so that the pilot can also have a modicum of cap regeneration, whilst still presenting an offensive ability as well. The tracking bonus is changed to a falloff bonus, as if it is meant to be a sniper, give it the range it deserves.

Now, you're probably going to say that "Oh noes, the NApoc is overpowered!!!!!1111!!!". To the players that think that, I say this: I want the Amarrian's to have a viable ship line. If we cannot be granted that in the standard line up, then I will fight tooth and nail once more to see that we keep it in the Naval line. I will not stand for the Amarrians (who are already hard enough to actually use decently) be sidelined once more.

Please let me know when you've read this CCP Rise (in this thread, +1 it, whatever) - I want to hear your opinions.



TL;DR Arline is angry.
wallenbergaren
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#109 - 2013-05-13 18:22:35 UTC
Dez Affinity wrote:
Firstly you don't understand how important the tracking bonus is.

Secondly you want to give the navy mega A FALLOFF bonus. It is a hybrid ship. Falloff bonus. Hybrid ship. It will get max 15km increase (without tes and tracking computers) from a 50 percent fall off bonus with 425mms. That is dog shi t. With 2 TCs its more like 25km. Awful. From a 50 percent bonus.


There already are hybrid ships with falloff bonuses, Deimos for example, and it's a very good bonus.

Also, nobody has rails in mind with a falloff bonus, it's blasters which are actually mostly a falloff weapon. Fact: the only good range bonused blaster ammo is Null because it is THE ONLY ammo with a falloff bonus. It outdamages all the other range bonused ammo at virtually all ranges. An optimal bonus on blasters is complete ****.
Animal Nitrate
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#110 - 2013-05-13 18:27:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Animal Nitrate
These changes are probably the worst I could have ever imagined, no joke.

Winners: Raven

Losers: Pretty much everything else.

Issues:

On first pass this is my perspective:

* Apoc Navy - sig reduction is nice...improved survivability vs. bombs. Minor nerf to armor. Overall underwhelming.

* Geddon Navy - I'd be totally happy (albeit slightly disappointed) with this if the buff to armor wasn't completely offset by the absurd sig radius increase. The sig should remain the same as it is currently.

* Raven Navy Issue: Win

* Scorpion Navy Issue: The Cruise changes on their own are ineffective, resulting in the Navy Scorp and Typhoon Fleet Issue being useless as cruise/torp boats. They're worse that the T1 Raven or T1 Typhoon in this regard.

* Megathron Navy Issue: Perhaps I missed something but this just looks like a T1 version. Oh, you nerfed armor >.<

* Dominix Navy Issue: Underwhelming bonuses, minor buff to armor, but again another unwarranted sig increase.

* Typhoon Fleet Issue: Probably the biggest loser. Suffers the same as the Scorp Navy insofar as use of missiles, worse than both T1 Raven/Phoon, and has lost a low slot which bins its use as an armor ship. If you want to gift players the flexibility of using this ship as a missile/projectile boat then it needs double bonuses per weapon type. As it is, this is completely useless.

Edit: I was so frothing at the mouth that I misread the bonus for TFI as RoF and not DMG. Still I'm not particularly happy.

Tempest Fleet Issue: Underwhelming, minor buff to shield/armor. *yawn*

Overall these are absolutely terrible changes, particularly the sig radius bloom. Back to the drawing board please.
Luscius Uta
#111 - 2013-05-13 18:28:11 UTC
Arline Kley wrote:


+7.5% to Large Energy Turret falloff range



Jesus, no.
Falloff bonuses on anything but projectiles are hardly useful. Better give 10% bonus to optimal, like Rokh has.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#112 - 2013-05-13 18:30:29 UTC
Dez Affinity wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Dez Affinity wrote:

You're just plain wrong.


sigh...

ok mr legion... how will you guys make a cat version of the navy mega?

in the end the rokh is still a better option for rails and blasters... and costs less

so really i cant see a fleet concept for the new mega...

as it stands i will continue using it for what its used now... station games... thats it.

the napoc is killer so is the scorp... plus that phoon just looks smexy...

but again gal are left out with out a fleet ship...

or are you again just going to reply with one line...


Firstly you don't understand how important the tracking bonus is.

Secondly you want to give the navy mega A FALLOFF bonus. It is a hybrid ship. Falloff bonus. Hybrid ship. It will get max 15km increase (without tes and tracking computers) from a 50 percent fall off bonus with 425mms. That is dog shi t. With 2 TCs its more like 25km. Awful. From a 50 percent bonus.



yay more then one sentence.... tracking is useful for tranversal in the chance to hit formula... but for fleet ships this can be negated due to special tackle ships that will either lower transversal like arazu/rapier... and ships that will increase the ship radius with tp... so for a fleet ship tracking is not a problem as this is covered with other ships...

yes fall off and rails is just silly ... but if you are going rails... like i said the rokh is still the better ship... but falloff and blasters are great... hence when i said neutrons and null...

what i am proposing would make a navy mega with null a tracking comp with optimal range script and a fall off rig shoot out to 15.75 optimal and 44km fall off...

that would bring it into fleet range...

i still think the rokh is a better rail ship hands down...

but i have said my peace on this subject... its the only thing i am not too happy about the updated navy ships... otherwise i am looking foward to sni and phoon fleet issue...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Antimatter Launcher
ELVE Industries
#113 - 2013-05-13 18:30:36 UTC
all gallente attack & combat battleships are allmost the same.

The Navy Megathron is very Boring

please take some Drones from it, and put the weaker 5% dmg bonus, and give it 8 Turrets and a 10% more MWD speedbonus or something funny.
Dez Affinity
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#114 - 2013-05-13 18:31:02 UTC
wallenbergaren wrote:
Dez Affinity wrote:
Firstly you don't understand how important the tracking bonus is.

Secondly you want to give the navy mega A FALLOFF bonus. It is a hybrid ship. Falloff bonus. Hybrid ship. It will get max 15km increase (without tes and tracking computers) from a 50 percent fall off bonus with 425mms. That is dog shi t. With 2 TCs its more like 25km. Awful. From a 50 percent bonus.


There already are hybrid ships with falloff bonuses, Deimos for example, and it's a very good bonus.

Also, nobody has rails in mind with a falloff bonus, it's blasters which are actually mostly a falloff weapon. Fact: the only good range bonused blaster ammo is Null because it is THE ONLY ammo with a falloff bonus. It outdamages all the other range bonused ammo at virtually all ranges. An optimal bonus on blasters is complete ****.


He was talking about fleet ships which is why I referenced the 425s.

Medium guns like on the vigilant or deimos, do not have to worry about tracking as much as large hybrids.

With Null L on Neutrons you would go from 13+18 to 13+27. AM goes from 4+13 to 4+19.

If you're wanting something kitey, you don't want a ship with 8 low slots and 4 mids. Try the Vindi or the Talos.
Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#115 - 2013-05-13 18:32:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Gaines
Colt Blackhawk wrote:
5 lows on scorp navy????
I have a scorp navy toon. WHAT THE HELL SHOULD I DO WITH A 5th LOW????
4th ballistic control system will give me maybe 40 or 50 dp. Almost useless^^


OMG HOW DARE I HAVE MORE SLOTS THAN I KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.

Beaver Retriever
Reality Sequence
#116 - 2013-05-13 18:35:31 UTC
Arline Kley wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:


AMARR Changes




*slow hand clap*

Congratulations CCP Rise, you've officially made your mark on the Amarrian national fleets not once, but twice. Both times I might add, making at least one ship in the line up broken and ruined. I wish to enlighten you to my opinion, and remind you that you have another thread to reply to, which I might add, feels like you have abandoned. I also know that this topic is to be filled with "constructive" criticism, which doesn't mean I'll be all accepting and forgiving; No, I'm going point out the flaws that you have once more generated, then pointing out how they could be countered and corrected so that the Amarrian's are not left without a decent fleet.

Firstly, the negative (ish) sides:

Navy Issue Armageddon

At least you've seen sense this time around and not, to put it politely, messed around with the Navy Issue of the Armageddon that you've done to the standard issue, which shockingly (not) shows absolutely zero relation apart from the enlarged drone bay. Maybe you should rectify that in the standard issue so that the it makes a better understanding of Navy Issue progression, rather than just a desperate reaction into realising your mistake and trying to rectify it in the vain hope that people will forgive you.

Now, I actually agree with the touched increases to the ship you have given it - it makes it a little easier to base values off if the numbers are flat rather than not. It's also a smallish increase to the EHP that the ship does rather need. I also see that you've kept in the 10% Cap bonus to the ship. Was this intentional or just an oversight given the obscene cap requirements the Amarrians have to endure as a racial body?

Navy Issue Apocalypse

Aaand it was going so well. Where do I begin?

It has been pointed out (and mathematically shown, since numbers apparently are your thing) that a ship with a 7.5% bonus to tracking will not be able to hit anything smaller than a perfectly transversal cruiser at level V. Now, I agree that a battleship should have difficulty hitting smaller vessels, however if someone has invested a lot of time and energy (like myself) into piloting one of the better mission running ships in the game, I want it be viable outside of that role as well - with that current change, it will not help outside of a PvE situation. I know I'm not the first to go into a PvP situation, but when I do and I'm in that ship, I would prefer it if I wasn't unable to hit the enemy because they were inside a Rifter - not to say I want to have instantly hitting ships regardless of size, but just somewhat of an actual ability.

I also see that you've struck this ship with the nerf bat in relation to the Armour/Shield values, but given it a small increase to the Hull. Again, yay to rounded numbers, but boo to a overall reduced tank for the silly "Combat Battleship" status. I also see that it (and the Armageddon) magically reacquire their much needed 8th Low slot, which shouldn't be called much in the way of a change since it already exists - Perhaps giving us a 5th med slot will equate the need to have extra Cap generation on that ship, since the other alterations are pretty unfair; Less cap with a shorter recharge times does not equal increased capacitor overall, and with the fairly minimal changes to the Laser Weapons still doesn't balance it out.


Now for the "constructive" side of things. I'm going to focus on the Apocalypse since that is the ship that you have decided to re-engineer into a role that doesn't suit it the most:

Amarr Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+7.5% to Large Energy Turret optimal range
+7.5% to Large Energy Turret falloff range

Slot layout: 8H, 5M(+1), 8L; 8 turrets , 0 launchers(-2)
Fittings: 22000 PWG(+475), 580 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull): 9000(-316) / 11000(-250) / 10000(+39)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 7500 / 1000s(-154s)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 110(+16) / .115(-.021) / 97100000(-2200000) / 15.48s(-3.24s)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 / 100
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 76km(+8.5k) / 120(+1.25) / 7
Sensor strength: 25 Radar Sensor Strength
Signature radius: 370(-30)


For the most part, I haven't "radically" altered it; it does have a little break to its shield/armour - a little more than the Armageddon in shields and less in Armour, and the same in hull - which is to give it's intended role a little more survivability than the standard issue. The speed I've dropped down to counter the increase in armour plate. I've also kept the cap at the same value whilst decreasing the recharge time by the new value - this will actually be a larger cap. The 5th Med I've added in so that the pilot can also have a modicum of cap regeneration, whilst still presenting an offensive ability as well. The tracking bonus is changed to a falloff bonus, as if it is meant to be a sniper, give it the range it deserves.

Now, you're probably going to say that "Oh noes, the NApoc is overpowered!!!!!1111!!!". To the players that think that, I say this: I want the Amarrian's to have a viable ship line. If we cannot be granted that in the standard line up, then I will fight tooth and nail once more to see that we keep it in the Naval line. I will not stand for the Amarrians (who are already hard enough to actually use decently) be sidelined once more.

Please let me know when you've read this CCP Rise (in this thread, +1 it, whatever) - I want to hear your opinions.

Literally everything in this post is completely off the mark.

Complaining that a battleship with a tracking bonus can't hit a Rifter? Okay? I guess you'd rather fly one of the battleships without the tracking bonus? What's your point?

I'm not even going to bother picking apart the rest, I see others have started.

tldr stop posting.
Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#117 - 2013-05-13 18:38:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Gaines
So like, seriously... dude... no 8th turret on the Navy Mega?


Really?

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.

Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
#118 - 2013-05-13 18:39:53 UTC
The Navy Geddeon is getting 375 bay!?! I think that is a typo. Please either fix this or raise the Megathron's bay to 375. k thanks.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#119 - 2013-05-13 18:44:52 UTC
wallenbergaren wrote:
Dez Affinity wrote:
Firstly you don't understand how important the tracking bonus is.

Secondly you want to give the navy mega A FALLOFF bonus. It is a hybrid ship. Falloff bonus. Hybrid ship. It will get max 15km increase (without tes and tracking computers) from a 50 percent fall off bonus with 425mms. That is dog shi t. With 2 TCs its more like 25km. Awful. From a 50 percent bonus.


There already are hybrid ships with falloff bonuses, Deimos for example, and it's a very good bonus.

Also, nobody has rails in mind with a falloff bonus, it's blasters which are actually mostly a falloff weapon. Fact: the only good range bonused blaster ammo is Null because it is THE ONLY ammo with a falloff bonus. It outdamages all the other range bonused ammo at virtually all ranges. An optimal bonus on blasters is complete ****.


this

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#120 - 2013-05-13 18:49:35 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Nah that would make a nice kronos bonus maybe marauders could become a HAC version of battleships... make them smaller and more mobile with MWD bonus and projection bonuses we could have an assault line from frigs to battleships.
Really, Marauders do well as durable, long-lasting PVE boats (due to their weak sensor strength), but that's not to say that there isn't room for another T2 battleship line focused more on assault. To this, I say add in another T2 Blops BS that's focused on attack and problem solved!

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<