Player Features and Ideas Discussion

i was trying to be funny cuss like batman you are obsessed with utility...

batman has his belt you have your high slot.

nevermind...

Thank you for leaving the Typhoon Fleet Issue in the spirit of its original form. it is a very special ship to a lot of pilots.
If you had turned it into what you did with the regular Typhoon, I would have been exceptionally disappointed.
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU.

As for the SNI, I think I kind of know why you went w/the 5th low slot and I'm not gonna bark about it but ya that's not a big deal.

In PVE: the new CNR is just outright worse than the Golem
In PVP: Why aren't you using a Typhoon or Fleet Phoon again?

-Liang

That is true. If I could fly a Golem, I wouldn't fly a CNR. Just like if I could fly an Iteron IV why would I fly and Iteron II?

Previously, CCP said they didn't like that concept and wanted every Industrial to have a role. I wonder why the CNR has been reduce to an entry level Golem?

There are some differences between the Golem and CNR, but at least from a PvE perspective (where I have some experience)... the CNR is now just something you fly until you can get into a Golem. Low experience or players with limited ISK.

PvP might be different.

---

We want to reach a place where cheaper ships are more than just something you fly when you start the game, but instead present a viable and interesting option to be chosen by people of many levels of experience."

"Our vision for cost-balancing is that cost should play a limited part in balancing ships and that obtaining a roughly linear increase in effectiveness should require an exponential increase in cost."

-CCP Fozzie

The CNR/Cruise missile system isn't bad. In fact, the new CNR is better than the old one. However, was this the right design choice: making it an entry level Golem? A stepping stone or should it have remained unique?

Concernig the CNR:
All I can say is, that I strongly need one high slot for a Tractor Beam. So please do not change the slot-layout nor the Rate of Fire-Bonus.
You have changed the Cruise Missile Ammunition. Thats enough.
A Tech I Raven is useless for my skillset but my ALL Level 5 Golem is also bad today (And will be bad after the CM change). The best solution for MY PERSONAL Playstile ever was the CNR. But with this change it is ruined for me. I need one free available high-slot. Thats all.
Torpedo's where NEVER EVER an option for me. Sure I have also all Level 5 in torpoedoes.. but they are useless for my playstile.

So please overthink the Rate Of Fire-Bonus and the Slot Layout. Perhaps it will be better to change back some statistics of the CM to fit again with an ROF-bonus and a 7 launcher Slot-layout. Thanks.

MY PERSONAL OPINION:
Do not touch the CNR as ship. Changing the ammunition is enough.
+ I see a Problem with the gone rof-bonus. Yeah! I can make damage with the new CM but if the BS in Vengeance repairs itself faster than I can shoot the new CM wont be better.
+ I Need one free available high Slot for my Tractor Beam. (Noctis is not an Option. Playstile.. you know?)

I've seen some SNI vs CNR PVP arguments, but not any for PVE. However, we can delve down that particular rabbit hole if you like. I'm gonna lead with arguments about painters though - because if you're doing PVE with a missile ship and not using painters you are doing it wrong. It's not even worth discussing the ships if you ignore painters.

That said, the CNR is faster than the SNI (occasionally useful in the long haul missions) and has the handy explosion radius bonus. However, the SNI has a tank bonus, a utility high, and an extra mid slot that allows for an extra painter, more tank, or a prop mod. I'm hard pressed on believing any arguments that the SNI isn't going to sport more painters than the CNR - so I guess the question is whether or not the 3rd/4th painter or second painter set combined with the utility high+mid outweighs the CNR's explo radius bonus and superior speed. Honestly, at this point my money's on the CNR retaining the PVE lead vs the SNI. That said, the Golem obviously blows both of them away tank, explo velocity, and painter bonuses while maintaining the same raw DPS.

The Fleet Phoon is another issue entirely. It's got more raw DPS than the CNR via having more eff launchers and more drone bandwidth and maintains the (IMO mandatory) utility high. This should allow the Fleet Phoon to chew through the bulk of mission EHP where the damage application bonus will be significantly less useful. That is, afterall, what allowed the CNR to be better than the Golem despite the Golem's dramatically superior damage application.

In PVP, however, I'm super hard pressed to see any CNR use case that isn't more than adequately fulfilled by the Typhoon and it's explosion velocity bonus. The loss of that utility high is really painful.

-Liang

I do my missions without a painter. I have one mission where I use a painter. But If you have all Level 5 you do not need a painter if you use cruise missiles.
It would even be possible to shoot elite frigates with my skillset, without painter but with cruise missiles. It is not much effective but possible. I had to do this in a Worlds Collide. Thanks to drone eating NPC's.

Some frigates one salve, other frigates 3.
Cruiser two salves.
All BC and above no problem.

I barely use a painter. Not necessary if you have skills. And should skilling not be a goal in EVE? It seems to me that CCP and the community wants fast results with modules rather than a strong skillset.

I have better skills and implants than you, and I need a painter. You're just deluding yourself.

-Liang

You are right pal. Skills should be the answer for problems in EVE. Not changed statistics on ships, new / other modules or something other. Just hard skillsets.
I hate the idea of a fast entry on BS for noobs or absolute low-skiller. THEY deserve problems with their missions if they have a bad skillset. CCP should not listen to such persons.

Btw: The GOLEM (or the Marauder Class at once) is a poor design at present. And I do not mean the color or shape.