Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You do know that Tracking Enhancers are getting nerf soon, and later the Mach (and cynabal) are getting nerfed right?

Ok, you seem to be completely dead set on saying the new CNR is better than the old one. This is completely false. Let's run down the situations that you might reasonably use a CNR. Consider:

PVP Torp CNR
7x Torp II, Neut
100mn MWD, LSE, Invuln, Scram, Web, Painter
4 BCU, DC II
3 CDFE
Drones to taste

Assuming this all fits (I haven't checked yet), it becomes something more like this:
8x Torp II
100mn MWD, LSE, 2 Invuln, Scram, Web, Painter
4 BCU, DC II
3 CDFE
Drones to taste

I'd expect it to come out with very slightly more EHP due to the extra mid slot and significantly worse DPS. I'd actually be tempted to fit a second painter over the invuln in hopes that I could push the applied DPS up a bit. However, pretty much nothing I do is going to make up for the now missing utility high slot.

Here's another fit where the CNR is just straight up worse than it used to be:

RR CNR
7 Cruise, RR
Hardeners, Painters, Webs, Cap Rechargers
4 BCU, DC II
3 CDFE

It would become something like this:
7 Cruise, RR
Hardeners, Painters, Webs, Cap Rechargers
4 BCU, DC II
3 CDFE

Again, it'd probably have similar EHP due to the extra mid slot, but would now have significantly less DPS (even applied). As it turns out, pretty much nothing it can do is going to make up for the missing utility high.

Here's another fit where the CNR is just straight up worse than it used to be:
PVE CCNR
7 Cruise, Tractor
...

Of course, now it becomes:
8 Cruise
...

Because the CNR already gets pretty good damage application, the effective DPS is about the same with the new fit. The 7th mid opens up the possibility of more painters, but at that rate you should probably just go fly a Golem - it'll be significantly better. However, now the CNR has - again - lost the utility high and must go manually fetch cans.

Basically: Fitting torps is universally worse than before. Fitting Cruise is maybe the same, but usually worse due to the loss of a utility high slot. I'd say that CCP Rise has modified the CNR such that it is implicitly tied to Cruise - but has left a mostly useless missile velocity bonus in place (it has uses with relation to PVE volley counting primarily). Just make the Cruise relationship explicit and take the missile velocity bonus away in favor of a ROF bonus and utility high slot.

-Liang

Oh my, all the ignorance in this thread.

The CNR will be more effective than a Golem, and that for one simple reason:

All Navy Ships will receive 50 extra calibration in Odyssey.

This means that the CNR can fit rigs just like a normal T1 ship could, and you could, for example, go with the following rigs:

Large Bay Loading Accelerator II (+15% RoF, which will be calculated on front of the stacking penalty)
Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I
Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I

The two flares will give the CNR a total bonus of 32,35% to it's missile's explosion velocity ... which is actually better then the "mere" 25% bonus of the Golem. True, the Golem has stronger TPs, but the CNR has it's nice explosion radius bonus, and nothing stops the CNR from fititng some TPs too. This results in actually BETTER damage application compared to a Golem, unless the Golem decides to fit at least one Flare or Rigor, in which case it will hit slightly better than the CNR. While costing more ISK.

Sure, the Golem will probably still be at an advantage in torpedo setups, but I suspect that their popularity will fade oncy the Cruise Missile changes hit.

As for PvP, listen to Grath and Malcanis, please.

The question is.. did CCP propose the massive buff to Cruise Missiles already knowing they were going to adjust the CNR or were they separate designs?

PS. I would prefer the ROF bonus personally.

Seems like mostly solid changes to me and brings back some of the more powerful setups... for a price.

Only concern I'd have is that the navy mega seems to have a little bit too low base armor HP.

Even with a target painter the Raven out-performs the Typhoon against sub-battleships. Unless we're imagining a scenario where the Typhoon pilot brings one and the Raven pilot doesn't...?


I've looked at the normal mega. Fleet fit it gets way less EHP, 75m3 drone bay means you can run warriors and EC-600s or three sentries instead of a full flight of sentries and EC-600s, it's slower, and worst of all, it's currently immensely difficult to fit. It may be the same ship writ large and thus not "sexy", but it's undeniably a lot stronger.

And the navy variant will probably cost 200-250m more, not 300-400m more.

I

I posted about in the mission forum to get some input there. You'll be interested in this post https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3025982#post3025982

ok then reduce to 7 launcher hard points and add a rof bonus.

I think the Navy Domi not getting the tracking bonus is stupid. You all made a good choice making the normal Domi a full drone boat, why not follow with the Navy version? Does not make any sense to me.

The Galente changes are weak all around in my opinion.

Check. Torp-fitting a CNR is an excercise in frustration and faction CPUs.