These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Perihelion Olenard
#601 - 2013-05-14 20:32:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
Roime wrote:
Is there a specific reason why NPC corp members are allowed to post on the forums?

Read only access, and posting rights to the new player area would suffice.


What the.. no dislike button.

Just because a person is playing a new character doesn't mean that person hasn't been playing for much longer.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#602 - 2013-05-14 20:36:50 UTC
Johnson Oramara wrote:
For their price tags they are just horrible. And some are even more horrible than their t1 counterparts.
I wasn't commenting on anything; just passing along what CCP's thoughts were on the matter.

But to sort of reply to the CNR raging debate here: maybe CCP didn't want a CNR with 7x and a ROF bonus, because the damage would have been too high in light of the cruise missile buff; not in relation to Golems or TFIs, but in general. I haven't run the math--nor do I wish to engage in a math debate--so I am just tinfoil hatting what CCP may be thinking.

So the CNR is a worse Golem? Use a Golem. If the CNR has matching range and better damage application (plus an additional slot), as I understand it, over a T1 Raven, then isn't it an upgrade, or am I still missing something? Pardon me if I am--I live in a wormhole and we don't use BSs much. ;)

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

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

Jason Sirober
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#603 - 2013-05-14 20:37:21 UTC
Navy Geddon

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)


Let's look at the Buffs... PG, Armor, Structure, Cap, Drone bay, Targeting range, Sensor strength.
and now the Nerfs... Sig radius

Oh, did I miss something?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#604 - 2013-05-14 20:38:18 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Jason Sirober wrote:

Well it's sig radius is smaller than the Navy Domi and the Navy Scorpion so I really don't know what your gripe is with that one...


It might have something to do with this: Signature radius: 440 (+70)

And this:

CCP Rise wrote:

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.


That's a pretty substantial nerf.

-Liang

Ed: I also don't expect to get anywhere on the subject of sig radius with Rise. I've argued with him at length about the effect of sig radius and he was pretty intransigent on the subject that low sig radius means almost literally nothing.

Considering the signature resolution of large turrets is 400 and this change brings the Armageddon from being under that limit to above it, that's a pretty big change.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Jason Sirober
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#605 - 2013-05-14 20:41:27 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Jason Sirober wrote:

Well it's sig radius is smaller than the Navy Domi and the Navy Scorpion so I really don't know what your gripe is with that one...


It might have something to do with this: Signature radius: 440 (+70)

And this:

CCP Rise wrote:

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.


That's a pretty substantial nerf.

-Liang

Ed: I also don't expect to get anywhere on the subject of sig radius with Rise. I've argued with him at length about the effect of sig radius and he was pretty intransigent on the subject that low sig radius means almost literally nothing.

Considering the signature resolution of large turrets is 400 and this change brings the Armageddon from being under that limit to above it, that's a pretty big change.


However it's a fair change I'd say
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#606 - 2013-05-14 20:41:28 UTC
Jason Sirober wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

I've mentioned it in this thread. I'll be pushing for a review of this stat because I don't see why the Navgeddon needs to be so fat.




I hope you'll be pushing a review of that stat for the Navy Domi and Navy Scorpion too?


The SNI thoroughly deserves to be that fat.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#607 - 2013-05-14 20:44:10 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Johnson Oramara wrote:
For their price tags they are just horrible. And some are even more horrible than their t1 counterparts.
I wasn't commenting on anything; just passing along what CCP's thoughts were on the matter.

But to sort of reply to the CNR raging debate here: maybe CCP didn't want a CNR with 7x and a ROF bonus, because the damage would have been too high in light of the cruise missile buff; not in relation to Golems or TFIs, but in general. I haven't run the math--nor do I wish to engage in a math debate--so I am just tinfoil hatting what CCP may be thinking.


Hahah don't be silly what could possibly be wrong with doing 1100 DPS at 200Km?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#608 - 2013-05-14 20:48:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Malcanis wrote:
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Johnson Oramara wrote:
For their price tags they are just horrible. And some are even more horrible than their t1 counterparts.
I wasn't commenting on anything; just passing along what CCP's thoughts were on the matter.

But to sort of reply to the CNR raging debate here: maybe CCP didn't want a CNR with 7x and a ROF bonus, because the damage would have been too high in light of the cruise missile buff; not in relation to Golems or TFIs, but in general. I haven't run the math--nor do I wish to engage in a math debate--so I am just tinfoil hatting what CCP may be thinking.


Hahah don't be silly what could possibly be wrong with doing 1100 DPS at 200Km?


I dunno... looking at the Fleet Phoon and Typhoon: probably nothing. Blink

-Liang

Ed: Also, I like how you've gone from "The new CNR is better than the old CNR" to "But dealing damage at 200km is OP!".

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#609 - 2013-05-14 21:00:09 UTC
Jason Sirober wrote:
However it's a fair change I'd say

Well what else changed?
The bonuses are the same but the lasers will use 10% less cap now.
Base armor HP was increased by ~15%, base structure HP by ~7%, base shield by ~4%, overall increase of ~9% HP
Base PG increased by 175, CPU by 3
And a ridiculously large drone bay, 200m^3 larger than what it was before
So yeah, maybe a signature radius increase was warranted.
But a 19% increase in signature radius? Is that really necessary?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Trolly McForumalt
Doomheim
#610 - 2013-05-14 21:02:42 UTC
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. =)


How about torpedoes? And not for the next expansion/update - for this one. No reason to look at cruise missiles but leave torps as they are.
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#611 - 2013-05-14 21:03:56 UTC
Here is CCP Rise from Gallente battleship thread commenting Hyperion with effective 9 turrets with 37.5% repair bonus.
"If anything, I'm worried this is too strong, but it should be an extremely fun ship to use. Hope you guys approve."

Here is CCP Rise commenting on the SNI which has effective of 8 launchers and 20% resist bonus.
"In light of the coming cruise missile change, we are a bit concerned with the power level for the Scorp, so we’ll be keeping a close eye on this one, as we still feel it could wind up being too strong depending on how the meta settles out."

And finally comments about the CNR with 8 effective launchers which is same as even t1 Raven and damage application bonus which Typhoon has too and can be added with rigs & tp's.
"We are giving the CNR an 8th launcher to make up for the loss of the rate of fire bonus, and replacing rate of fire with a bonus to explosion radius. Along with the incoming buff to cruise missiles, this ship is going to be an animal."

Yup, by that logic every missile battleship will be an animal.

Dear CCP, if single 25% damage bonus would be plain op to add then maybe your cruise missile buff is a little over the top?
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#612 - 2013-05-14 21:14:02 UTC
Johnson Oramara wrote:
Here is CCP Rise from Gallente battleship thread commenting Hyperion with effective 9 turrets with 37.5% repair bonus.
"If anything, I'm worried this is too strong, but it should be an extremely fun ship to use. Hope you guys approve."

Here is CCP Rise commenting on the SNI which has effective of 8 launchers and 20% resist bonus.
"In light of the coming cruise missile change, we are a bit concerned with the power level for the Scorp, so we’ll be keeping a close eye on this one, as we still feel it could wind up being too strong depending on how the meta settles out."

And finally comments about the CNR with 8 effective launchers which is same as even t1 Raven and damage application bonus which Typhoon has too and can be added with rigs & tp's.
"We are giving the CNR an 8th launcher to make up for the loss of the rate of fire bonus, and replacing rate of fire with a bonus to explosion radius. Along with the incoming buff to cruise missiles, this ship is going to be an animal."

Yup, by that logic every missile battleship will be an animal.

Dear CCP, if single 25% damage bonus would be plain op to add then maybe your cruise missile buff is a little over the top?


tis the question i wonder if we will get an answer :P the odds aren't great i suspect

'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

Jason Sirober
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#613 - 2013-05-14 21:16:22 UTC
Bottom line is bring CCP Fozzie back to balance our ships... At least he commented in the threads too
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#614 - 2013-05-14 21:19:35 UTC
Trolly McForumalt 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. =)


How about torpedoes? And not for the next expansion/update - for this one. No reason to look at cruise missiles but leave torps as they are.
There's a great reason: Torps are doing well in their intended role.

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

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

Trolly McForumalt
Doomheim
#615 - 2013-05-14 21:26:01 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Trolly McForumalt 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. =)


How about torpedoes? And not for the next expansion/update - for this one. No reason to look at cruise missiles but leave torps as they are.
There's a great reason: Torps are doing well in their intended role.


Eh... after the cruise buff I don't really think they're looking so hot (comparatively). Unless torps intended role are only for SBs and POS bashing.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#616 - 2013-05-14 21:32:08 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:


Ed: Also, I like how you've gone from "The new CNR is better than the old CNR" to "But dealing damage at 200km is OP!".


Perhaps, like in the Tracking Enhancer thread in relation to the Talos, we'll just agree to disagree quitely without lookling like the retards.

To me, the CNR has more cap, more slots, more calibration, WAY more speed (its phoon levels of fast) more agility, and its damage application will be better versus things like sig tanking cruisers.

To you the loss of the utility high slot cripples it for PVP, for me, not so much, I can deal without it and look at the larger picture of the ship and still be happy.

For you the lost of 3km on the Talos was basically game over, for me, doesn't matter in the slightest.



So far the only thing we seem to agree on is that the Geddon sig bloom was a bit on the "WTF" side of the deal, but I'm pretty sure its just because we have different philosophies where ships and fittings are concerned. Mine is more fleet oriented, yours is more solo PVP oriented.


Also you said something about the Rattlesnake, I'll be the first to spoil it, we have a RS fleet comp, just no actual war to field it in or opponent who would fight us with it if we did. You'll find that once you start fielding faction BS comps the hardest thing to do is find somebody that doesn't go "holy ****" and run away when they see 64 faction/pirate BS.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Tank Talbot
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#617 - 2013-05-14 21:35:52 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Jason Sirober wrote:
However it's a fair change I'd say

Well what else changed?
The bonuses are the same but the lasers will use 10% less cap now.
Base armor HP was increased by ~15%, base structure HP by ~7%, base shield by ~4%, overall increase of ~9% HP
Base PG increased by 175, CPU by 3
And a ridiculously large drone bay, 200m^3 larger than what it was before
So yeah, maybe a signature radius increase was warranted.
But a 19% increase in signature radius? Is that really necessary?


I had actually wondered if the signature radius was designed to keep the ship in a niche for solo through small gang play and out of blob doctrines? In a way a more aggressive alternative to the Hyperion (in a similar niche with the armor rep bonus.) Every feature from the gun bonuses to the drone bay versatility supports that idea from my point of view. As such, I don't want to complain about the ship too much as it does a fine job filling a role I support.

Lol
Fade Azura
Weaponized Autists Cartel
#618 - 2013-05-14 21:37:16 UTC
The Navy Domi has been saved! Gallente rejoice! thank you CCP ... the changes look solid and the throwbacks were done to the appropriate ships. overall good job keep up the progress.
MinutemanKirk
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#619 - 2013-05-14 21:37:46 UTC  |  Edited by: MinutemanKirk
mynnna wrote:

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.


So in talking about this, a blaster boat, the best "upgrade" is in it's drone bay? If that's the case the new navy geddon needs a new line of argument. Same with being "slower", as it's an ARMOR ship, speed is really not my first concern when wanting "upgrades". Is the neut useful? Of course, but especially in small gangs (5-10) and small fleets (10-40) having that one neut is less useful than having an extra 150 DPS, or having another mid for EWAR and cap issues (as hordes of Guards won't be following me).

As for the price you are way off. As of writing this, sell prices in Jita are 138mil for a mega and 504 mil for the Navy version (a 366 mil difference found here: http://eve-central.com/) . If I understand correctly, mineral costs to build them are going up. Not only that, I've heard rumors that LP prices might change because of the new Navy BC's. If that happens and they cost more LP than currently, you can easily expect that to grow to 400 mil.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#620 - 2013-05-14 21:52:12 UTC
Trolly McForumalt wrote:
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Trolly McForumalt wrote:
How about torpedoes? And not for the next expansion/update - for this one. No reason to look at cruise missiles but leave torps as they are.
There's a great reason: Torps are doing well in their intended role.


Eh... after the cruise buff I don't really think they're looking so hot (comparatively). Unless torps intended role are only for SBs and POS bashing.
Cruises are getting buffed because they lag far behind Torp performance on TQ currently. If they turn around and buff Torps (to match? I dunno), then you're just replicating the same problems found on live currently with a bunch of power creep tossed in. No thanks.

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

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