These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Andre Vauban
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#241 - 2013-05-14 00:29:40 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
MinutemanKirk wrote:
Any particular reason why you don't want to make the Dominix have 20 fitting slots like every other Navy BS? Would be kinda nice to have 8 low slots since it's a split weapon platform AND supposed to be armor tanked...


drones.

apparently drone utility negates a fitting slot for some reason.


The Navy Geddon has 125/375 and several other navy BS have 125 bandwidth. This argument really doesn't hold.

.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#242 - 2013-05-14 00:36:29 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
MinutemanKirk wrote:
Any particular reason why you don't want to make the Dominix have 20 fitting slots like every other Navy BS? Would be kinda nice to have 8 low slots since it's a split weapon platform AND supposed to be armor tanked...


drones.

apparently drone utility negates a fitting slot for some reason.



Because drones can imitate a target painter, web, jammer, dampener, reps, or dps, so ships that specialize in high drone payloads receive one less slot.
But the reality of this is that those ships that are bonused for drone damage will simply NEVER use utility drones when their primary source of damage comes from the drones. Removing a slot is a throwback to when all drone ships were split weapon ones. Now that the game has and is getting more dedicated drone boats, it's time to remove this antiquated restriction.

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

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

Tank Talbot
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#243 - 2013-05-14 00:36:56 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:


[APOCALYPSE NAVY ISSUE
The Apocalypse Navy Issue is a tricky one (just like its tech 1 counterpart). It will go into the attack role, like the tech 1 version, and in turn takes on many of the same changes, including the change of bonus from cap use to tracking. The combination of changes to large energy turrets, a high base cap (relative to other battleships) and increased cap recharge should make up for the former cap use bonus. That, combined with the new tracking bonus along with increased agility and speed will hopefully provide for a very powerful laser platform.

Amarr Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+7.5% to Large Energy Turret optimal range
+7.5% Large Energy Turret tracking speed (replaced large energy turret cap use)

Slot layout: 8H, 4M, 8L; 8 turrets , 0 launchers(-2)
Fittings: 22000 PWG(+475), 580 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull): 8000(-1316) / 10500(-750) / 10000(+39)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 7000(-500) / 1000s(-154s)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120(+26) / .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)

ARMAGEDDON NAVY ISSUE
The Armageddon Navy Issue will not follow the new tech 1 Armageddon design. Instead, it will continue to do what it has been doing as an efficient laser brawler. The Navy Geddon is getting plenty of use the way it is now, and we didn’t see a need to make an ‘improved’ version of the new tech 1 Geddon. As a ‘combat’ ship, it will get some increased hitpoints along with other tweaks to its base stats, but its overall performance shouldn’t change much.

Amarr Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+5% Large Energy Turret rate of fire
+10% Large Energy Turret cap use

Slot layout: 8H, 4M, 8L; 7 turrets , 0 launchers
Fittings: 17500 PWG(+175), 560 CPU(+3)
Defense (shields / armor / hull): 8500(+296.5) / 11500(+1539) / 10000(+684)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 6000(+687.5) / 1100s(+125s)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 105 / .13(+.002) / 105200000 / 18.96s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 375(+200)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km(+5k) / 110 / 7
Sensor strength: 26 Radar Sensor Strength (+4.75)
Signature radius: 440 (+70)


I am not daring to look a gift horse in the mouth. The naval Armageddon fills a much needed role somewhat vacated in the tier rebalance and does so impressively. I can't wait to fly it. I love the versatility provided by that drone bay and BW on top of what the guns will be able to do. This thing could be frightening. I am worried over the costs a bit and while I cringe a wee bit at the sig I can live with it .

Based on what is being said I am not sure I "get" the Apocalypse at this time in that I am having to look at it as something outside of what was considered its traditional role and the new role of projecting fire at longer ranges against smaller ships "reads sketchy" without seeing if improvements will be made to laser weapon's native tracking ratings in the weapon rebalance. Can it pin hole a HAC in this version or an INT or T3 effectively? It's bigger than just DPS applied. If so the described role looks more worthy of filling to make a BS worth buying in the face of some steep cheaper competition. I'd like to read some thoughts on that from those that have tested it.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#244 - 2013-05-14 00:45:02 UTC
Quote:
I'd like to read some thoughts on that from those that have tested it.


Likewise. Windows 8 has decided that I don't get to install/run/update/do anything with Sisi, and I am rather skeptical of the real world usefulness of the tracking bonuses in general.

So I'd like to hear feedback from someone using the ship on how it performs, and whether it's ability to apply dps stands up to the Abaddon's straight up damage bonus.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
MinutemanKirk
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#245 - 2013-05-14 00:52:51 UTC
Caljiav Ocanon wrote:
Maximus Andendare wrote:
No. You guys need to get over the "8" number for the turrets. As its been said quite a few times, less turrets = less ammo and more importantly, less cap. As long as the damage is working out the same, then by all means, CCP, cut the amount of turrets for cap-using weapons.



Give me a compelling reason to buy a Navy Megathron then. Because right now, there really isn't one.

As it stands, more buffer isn't worth ~300m ISK. The extra drone DPS is situational at best.


Agreed.
In this case, the "8 turrets" intention is not meant to get the same DPS as before, it's to get more DPS than it's T1 counterpart.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#246 - 2013-05-14 00:54:11 UTC
Would Navy Versions of the Hyperion, Maelstrom, Abaddon and Rokh be too much to ask for?

Navy Rokh
8/8/4
+200 CPU, 11k base shields
Same similar bonuses to the Naga and probably the slowest of the battleships.

Navy Hyperion
+8 Turrets (because)
8/5/7
7.5% damage bonus
7.5% rep bonus
Large done and armour hitpoints
75mb drones

Fleet Maelstrom
8/7/5
7.5% Damage Bonus
7.5% Fall off bonus
Attackship hp/speed stats


Navy Abaddon
7.5% Damage bonus
Resist bonus
8/4/8
Massive increase to cap pool, armor hp and fittings
75mb drones


No idea whether the navy shaders already exist for those hulls - and with 3 weeks left to go...

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#247 - 2013-05-14 00:56:28 UTC
CCP Rise, you're probably aware of this, but we can't really give feedback on ships if we don't know what's going to happen to weapon systems.

I'll go with this and make assumptions that weapon systems are going to get fixed the way I think they're going to get fixed :

Navy Apoc :

A great ship, but I would still give it more PWG and allow it to fit bigger beams more easely.

Navy Armageddon :

A great ship, nothing else to say.

Navy Raven :

Alright, 8 launchers is super cool, always have been, always will be.

The problem comes from Torps themselves tbh. I made a thread about large battleship missiles, there are things about torp changes there. Here's a short summary : Torp range buff, Torp volume nerf, slight Torp exploradius reduction on T2 rages.

Navy Scorpion :

I don't really know how this ship can be considered "too strong". Yes, it tanks. That's about it. To me, it doesn't feel like a special ship, it's just another big drake tbh.

Navy Megathron :

I think this ship needs to be changed. It really doesn't bring any different flavour than the regular T1 Megathron. Nothing changes except an additionnal highslot (woohoo, less than stellar upgrade tbh) and more armor.

See the thing you wanted to do with the old Megathron ? 7-5-6 slot layout ? I think you could do a 7-5-7 layout on the Navy Megathron. Even a 7-5-7 layout with a different secondary bonus like a falloff bonus or a special bonus that I didn't think of.

This Navy Megathron really needs a special thingy. Currently, it's just an upgraded Megathron. Not worth the money tbh.

Navy Dominix :

Ok, it's a ganking machine. I don't really know what to say, it's an okay ship.

Fleet Typhoon :

I like this one. Apparently CCP still doesnt want to understand that two weapon systems with one bonus for each is still worse than a single weapon system and 2 bonuses that apply to it, but at least they understood that two weapon systems mean 6 turrets AND 6 launchers, not 4/4 and a forced mix of the twos.

I'm alright with the current proposed Fleet Typhoon, but I still think it would add a special thing to make it 8-6-6.

That would make it different from the T1 Typhoon, that would allow it to be a shield ship while the Fleet Tempest stays the main armor ship. Notice how the Fleet Tempest already has a 8-5-7 slot layout ? Right, that's why I would like the Fleet Typhoon to switch to something different like 8-6-6.

Fleet Tempest :

Yeah, 7th turret wouldn't hurt. Seriously tho. Think about it, the current Fleet Tempest has the same number of turrets the regular Tempest has, same number than the fleet typhoon. It doesn't really have anything special about it. Just a better-armor-tanked Tempest. And not really all that better anyway.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#248 - 2013-05-14 00:57:50 UTC
I strongly suggest swapping the "roles" of the navy domi and navy mega. The navy domi has a far better slot layout to take advantage of the "attack" role, the nevy mega, not so much. I'd go ahead and swap the hp and mobility values.
Tek Handle
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#249 - 2013-05-14 01:04:14 UTC

Why would you trade off a Low Slot for another Med Slot on the Typhoon FI? Straight
Grunnax Aurelius
State War Academy
Caldari State
#250 - 2013-05-14 01:05:13 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Would Navy Versions of the Hyperion, Maelstrom, Abaddon and Rokh be too much to ask for?

Navy Rokh
8/8/4
+200 CPU, 11k base shields
Same similar bonuses to the Naga and probably the slowest of the battleships.

Navy Hyperion
+8 Turrets (because)
8/5/7
7.5% damage bonus
7.5% rep bonus
Large done and armour hitpoints
75mb drones

Fleet Maelstrom
8/7/5
7.5% Damage Bonus
7.5% Fall off bonus
Attackship hp/speed stats


Navy Abaddon
7.5% Damage bonus
Resist bonus
8/4/8
Massive increase to cap pool, armor hp and fittings
75mb drones


No idea whether the navy shaders already exist for those hulls - and with 3 weeks left to go...


Rokh Nvay Issue
Caldari Battleship Ship Bonuses:
5% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret damage
10% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret optimal range
8/8/4
+200 CPU, 11k base shields
125m3/125MBit Drones for sentries (maybe, could be a little too much)

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=342042&find=unread
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#251 - 2013-05-14 01:06:50 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:


the cnr having the same base dps as the raven isn't a good thing imo, ok I know it will be better applied in this version but forcing it to use 8 launchers instead of the 6 of the raven to get the same result is painful.


It's not the same result, though: it's qualitatively superior in damage application and alpha.

They'll both be equally good for shooting structures and capitals, I suppose. For anything else, the CNR will be a quantum step ahead.


I dunno man. Stop and think about it this way. The damage application on the CNR is already good enough that people weren't clamoring to use Cruise Golems despite the dramatically superior damage application. The new bonus is extremely underwhelming and an outright nerf to the CNR.

-Liang


Can you propose a scenario where the CNR will be worse on June 5th than it is right now?

I'm using torp CNR fitting with 1588 dps dual tp's for certain guristas missions like guristas extravaganza, this ship will just cut through battleships like butter 2-3 volleying them. It also is buffer tanked but nothing manages to survive long enough to really pose a threat.

With the new nerfed CNR the dps numbers would be 1418 and although i could then drop the other tp for free med slot it would get used by tanking slot to cover the nerfed ehp.

Oh and don't get me started how it will eat even more torpedoes for more cost and with torpedoes taking so much space as they do now....

Also having no utility highs just reduce the fitting options even more...
Tim Ryder
Flippin DaBird Corporation 2
#252 - 2013-05-14 01:10:40 UTC
Johnson Oramara wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:


the cnr having the same base dps as the raven isn't a good thing imo, ok I know it will be better applied in this version but forcing it to use 8 launchers instead of the 6 of the raven to get the same result is painful.


It's not the same result, though: it's qualitatively superior in damage application and alpha.

They'll both be equally good for shooting structures and capitals, I suppose. For anything else, the CNR will be a quantum step ahead.


I dunno man. Stop and think about it this way. The damage application on the CNR is already good enough that people weren't clamoring to use Cruise Golems despite the dramatically superior damage application. The new bonus is extremely underwhelming and an outright nerf to the CNR.

-Liang


Can you propose a scenario where the CNR will be worse on June 5th than it is right now?

I'm using torp CNR fitting with 1588 dps dual tp's for certain guristas missions like guristas extravaganza, this ship will just cut through battleships like butter 2-3 volleying them. It also is buffer tanked but nothing manages to survive long enough to really pose a threat.

With the new nerfed CNR the dps numbers would be 1418 and although i could then drop the other tp for free med slot it would get used by tanking slot to cover the nerfed ehp.

Oh and don't get me started how it will eat even more torpedoes for more cost and with torpedoes taking so much space as they do now....

Also having no utility highs just reduce the fitting options even more...



Yes, giving an additional 45 tf for a launcher that eats a lot more is... sad.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#253 - 2013-05-14 01:50:04 UTC
IrJosy wrote:
I don't use my navy domi with guns can you please change it to be like the regular domi with the drone optimal/tracking bonus?



THIS!
Octoven
Stellar Production
#254 - 2013-05-14 01:53:31 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
This list. I don't suppose we can get any sneak peeks at what's in store for rebalance in the near future? Not in any order, obviously, but just to see what's on the menu.


Of course, no promises in terms of order or anything - but the short list includes things like medium rails, hacs, eafs, beams, some other t2 classes like inties/maurders, and some other mods which i don't want to name atm incase they get pushed back awhile. =)


please tell me TD's with missiles are on there and command links /T3 nerf and command ships


I would like to point out that I am not completely in disagreement with TDs on missiles; however, I would prefer a new module to do it rather then using the standard gunny one. You could even name it 'Guidance Disruption' Big smile I would support that as long as it required a new mod though.

As for the other changes, I literally just got through selling my CNR because I thought the changes would kill it XP guess I must now re-acquire it P CCP Rise and CCP Fozzie, you both are doing great work with keeping the community informed of the changes and your team(s) are doing fantastic changes. I am very happy with the raven, geddon, and scorpion. I can't say much to the rest since I never fly them, but that navy apoc looks like a beast too Smile Look forward to seeing what you will do to Marauders and hopefully black ops
Grash Depran
Binary Capital Group
#255 - 2013-05-14 01:55:06 UTC


I don't really understand this either.. They give a CPU increase, and an extra launcher, but not enough CPU for a T2 launcher.

FWIW, I'm at AWU IV, and an 'Arbalest' CL takes up ~45.6.. so maybe they want us to go meta..
Tim Ryder
Flippin DaBird Corporation 2
#256 - 2013-05-14 01:58:39 UTC
Grash Depran wrote:


I don't really understand this either.. They give a CPU increase, and an extra launcher, but not enough CPU for a T2 launcher.

FWIW, I'm at AWU IV, and an 'Arbalest' CL takes up ~45.6.. so maybe they want us to go meta..


AWU gives powergrid, not CPU.

And you also forget that extra midslot we're getting negative CPU to use.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#257 - 2013-05-14 02:00:11 UTC
Also i demand you stop releasing new stuff until you fix links <.<

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

JAF Anders
Adenosine Inhibition
The Chicken Coop
#258 - 2013-05-14 02:02:07 UTC
Quote:
The Tempest, as always, wants to occupy a space between attack and combat, and therefore has unusually high speed and unusually low sig for its role.


Let no man say I didn't thoroughly inspect the content of this post!

The pursuit of excellence and stabbed plexing alts.
Klingon Admiral
Carcinisation
#259 - 2013-05-14 02:04:12 UTC
Haven't run any exact calculations yet, but it seems the CNR just brutally murdered the Golem.
Tim Ryder
Flippin DaBird Corporation 2
#260 - 2013-05-14 02:05:55 UTC
Klingon Admiral wrote:
Haven't run any exact calculations yet, but it seems the CNR just brutally murdered the Golem.


How do you figure that? The CNR got nerfed, effectively, probably because it'd've been too good with the new cruise missiles.