These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#621 - 2013-05-14 21:52:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
MinutemanKirk wrote:
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.

The prices are soaring right now for the navy battleships due to the announced changes. Prices soared for the tech one battleships as well, but has dropped again. The tech one megathron is lower than it was before.
MinutemanKirk
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#622 - 2013-05-14 21:57:37 UTC  |  Edited by: MinutemanKirk
Perihelion Olenard wrote:

The prices are soaring right now for the navy battleships due to the announced changes. Prices soared for the tech one battleships as well, but has dropped again. The tech one megathron is lower than it was before.


So prices are soaring because the demand is going up for a ship that has thus far been rated by the majority as "meh", "bad" or "lacking" in it's changes? Makes perfect sense... Roll

EDIt: Also as a point of note, if you look at the market history in game, the price has gone up since March 1st and has been at at the 480+ mark since April 3rd.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#623 - 2013-05-14 22:00:00 UTC
The Fleet Issue Typhoon is getting 9.6 turrets worth of damage, whilst the Fleet tempest gets 9.975 (Maelstrom 10) - that's before bonused cruise/torps and 125/200m3 drone bay. I'd cry nerf, but most of the ships are already at that level tbh.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Julius Foederatus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#624 - 2013-05-14 22:12:28 UTC
I actually like the navy mega changes, since we're essentially getting more dps from the RoF bonus and no lost dps from a smaller drone bay. It still has the utility high, and just the same number of low slots as before. My only gripe, and this goes for the regular mega as well, is that it needs more cap, not less. The current megas are not cap stable running void (and maybe faction am, I don't have EFT in front of me), so the RoF bonus is going to make them even less useful from a cap perspective, especially if you're using that utility high for a heavy neut (like you better ******* be doing).

On a side note, please tell me the 375m3 drone bay for the navy geddon is a typo. That would be utterly ridiculous if it was a real change.
Trolly McForumalt
Doomheim
#625 - 2013-05-14 22:18:24 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
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.


Buffs come in different flavors - torp damage is fine. But they could use a buff to explosion radius (reduce it for those who might think that buff always means increase) and a reduction on fitting requirements. This is only my impression - this might have already been the subject of internal discussion and testing (lol?) and it was determined that torps are fine. It'd be nice to hear either way considering this is the BS balance pass and a fair number of people have complained about torps in the past.
Trolly McForumalt
Doomheim
#626 - 2013-05-14 22:22:47 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
The Fleet Issue Typhoon is getting 9.6 turrets worth of damage, whilst the Fleet tempest gets 9.975 (Maelstrom 10) - that's before bonused cruise/torps and 125/200m3 drone bay. I'd cry nerf, but most of the ships are already at that level tbh.


As soon as I saw that ship that's what I thought. Fill the lows with damage mods and shield tank it (albeit a bit poorly) and see what kind of numbers I can pull out EFT warrioring. And I disagree that most of the ships are at that level.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#627 - 2013-05-14 22:28:40 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!".


I liked how you proved the new CNR is worse than the old CNR by saying it's not a Golem


We should get married!

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#628 - 2013-05-14 22:40:35 UTC
Hey guys

I've been watching the thread closely, and I really want to post something because I would hate to think you feel ignored. The problem is, I'm really not sure what to tell you! The discussion here seems extremely passionate, but for almost every ship and topic there are people arguing both sides. I think overall thats a good sign, and I feel good about the ships as a whole.

There are a few common concerns and I'm going to keep watching and then have a talk with the rest of the balance team in a day or two about some possible adjustments.

Thanks for the discussion - I really appreciate seeing all the different perspectives.

@ccp_rise
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#629 - 2013-05-14 22:48:43 UTC
I did not saw many posts from peopel capable of absic math defending the status quo between the fleet tempest and fleet typhoon....

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#630 - 2013-05-14 22:53:08 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:

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.


The funny thing about it is that we only notice when we disagree because things get so loud. We actually seem to agree on most things (not just relating to the changes - but ship fitting and doctrine as well). I also try very hard not to comment on things that I don't know a fair amount about - which means I never try to comment on large fleet doctrines. I do appreciate the Foxcat discussion and agree completely with you. Even with the TE and Talos nerfs, I was fully in favor of them. I was (am) a bit sad that it ruins the Talos for my particular use, but there's other stuff for me to play with coming down the pipe. Hell, I think that was the entire point of my post in that thread. ;-)

My objection to the CNR changes is that they're just bad changes though. Without the raw damage deriving from 7 launchers and a ROF bonus, there's really not a whole lot of room for the CNR to exist as a distinct ship. In PVE it's just a bad Golem, and in PVP the missing utility high is a pretty big deal. I honestly don't see why you wouldn't just fly Phoons with the way you described the CNR. It should be just as effective and a million times easier to get fights.

Anyway, I'd be much happier with 7 launchers and a ROF bonus. From there the explo radius is pretty snazzy looking for cruise and the missile velocity bonus is pretty awesome for torps. I'm fine with either. :)

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#631 - 2013-05-14 22:56:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Grath Telkin
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey guys

I've been watching the thread closely, and I really want to post something because I would hate to think you feel ignored. The problem is, I'm really not sure what to tell you! The discussion here seems extremely passionate, but for almost every ship and topic there are people arguing both sides. I think overall thats a good sign, and I feel good about the ships as a whole.

There are a few common concerns and I'm going to keep watching and then have a talk with the rest of the balance team in a day or two about some possible adjustments.

Thanks for the discussion - I really appreciate seeing all the different perspectives.


Concerns I'd address that seem to be common:

Fleet pest = meh
Fleet mega = meh
Fleet geddon = too much sig and too much drone bay (outclassing drone boats)
Fleet raven = needs some fitting to make fitting torps a possibility (currently its a pain in the nuts, normally long range systems are harder to fit, in this case you can get the cruise on (lr) but not the torps). EDIT: And make sure its bonuses affect Torps as well as cruise.

Other than that the rest of the complaints seem to largely be cosmetic **** thats down to individual pilot preference/misunderstanding game mechanics

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#632 - 2013-05-14 22:56:35 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
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!".


I liked how you proved the new CNR is worse than the old CNR by saying it's not a Golem


We should get married!


You weren't paying attention:
- It's worse at RR (no utility high for RR)
- It's worse at missioning (no utility high for a tractor, lacks damage application)
- It's worse at torp fitting (no damage bonus, less effective turrets)
- It's worse at PVP (no utility high for a neut, smartbomb, etc)

The list really goes on and on and on. Blink

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Grunnax Aurelius
State War Academy
Caldari State
#633 - 2013-05-14 22:58:12 UTC
The Raven Navy Issue is freaking boss now, better damage application, now I am going to say that it needs about 40tf of more CPU, and swap the Missile Velocity bonus with a Rate of Fire or Dmage Bonus to shut thse whining little children up, otherwise I like the changees as they are.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=342042&find=unread
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#634 - 2013-05-14 22:58:37 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:


My objection to the CNR changes is that they're just bad changes though. Without the raw damage deriving from 7 launchers and a ROF bonus, there's really not a whole lot of room for the CNR to exist as a distinct ship. In PVE it's just a bad Golem, and in PVP the missing utility high is a pretty big deal. I honestly don't see why you wouldn't just fly Phoons with the way you described the CNR. It should be just as effective and a million times easier to get fights.



For me since they're actually going back and retweaking the things they've tweaked, I'll hold final judgement on the CNR till after the Golem chnages are in and through, then see how they tweak it a bit more to bring some difference to the two ships.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#635 - 2013-05-14 23:01:54 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:


My objection to the CNR changes is that they're just bad changes though. Without the raw damage deriving from 7 launchers and a ROF bonus, there's really not a whole lot of room for the CNR to exist as a distinct ship. In PVE it's just a bad Golem, and in PVP the missing utility high is a pretty big deal. I honestly don't see why you wouldn't just fly Phoons with the way you described the CNR. It should be just as effective and a million times easier to get fights.



For me since they're actually going back and retweaking the things they've tweaked, I'll hold final judgement on the CNR till after the Golem chnages are in and through, then see how they tweak it a bit more to bring some difference to the two ships.


Hmmmm, I'd say that the Golem isn't a popular ship for a few reasons and the only place for it to go is up. And considering it already completely obsoletes the CNR in PVE..... What?

-Liang

Ed: But yes, we can always take the approach of make ****** balance changes now and iron them out later. As long as there is a later. Blink

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
mama guru
Yazatas.
#636 - 2013-05-14 23:04:06 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey guys

I've been watching the thread closely, and I really want to post something because I would hate to think you feel ignored. The problem is, I'm really not sure what to tell you! The discussion here seems extremely passionate, but for almost every ship and topic there are people arguing both sides. I think overall thats a good sign, and I feel good about the ships as a whole.

There are a few common concerns and I'm going to keep watching and then have a talk with the rest of the balance team in a day or two about some possible adjustments.

Thanks for the discussion - I really appreciate seeing all the different perspectives.


Would you concider an increase in the dronebays on the more dedicated droneboats in particular? The Vexor Navy Issue, T1 Dominix and it's navy counterpart could use the extra "ammo" so to speak. Maybe less on the Navy dominix. But the T1 definately needs an increase the way it's been designed with gank traded for additional damage projection.


EVE online is the fishermans friend of MMO's. If it's too hard you are too weak.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#637 - 2013-05-14 23:06:45 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
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!".


I liked how you proved the new CNR is worse than the old CNR by saying it's not a Golem


We should get married!


You weren't paying attention:
- It's worse at RR (no utility high for RR)
- It's worse at missioning (no utility high for a tractor, lacks damage application)
- It's worse at torp fitting (no damage bonus, less effective turrets)
- It's worse at PVP (no utility high for a neut, smartbomb, etc)

The list really goes on and on and on. Blink

-Liang


i would put 10 bucks down and say your fav super hero is batman...

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#638 - 2013-05-14 23:08:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
MeBiatch wrote:
i would put 10 bucks down and say your fav super hero is batman...


Gambit, actually.

-Liang

Ed: Also, I don't like Batman much. Superman's just stupid. And Spiderman is a whiny *****.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Prime
Argentium Astrum
#639 - 2013-05-14 23:11:14 UTC
Elendar wrote:
The navy apoc is insane and I love it. Love it in the face.

So long sweet hellcat hello napoc o7



Prime > giving an 8 torp to cnr, and they couldn't even give 7th turret to tempest fleet??? WTF CCP f1x teh sucking pls... obvious troll is obvious™
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#640 - 2013-05-14 23:21:15 UTC
Rise, I gave you **** in the Amarr BS thread because of losing the Geddon.

Thanks for keeping a classic in some form. It might be several hundred mil more expensive than the old ship and I'll never bring one into PvP, but I'll fly one around hisec bumping "yo diggity" now and again, all the same.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?