These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#701 - 2013-05-15 09:31:50 UTC
Karig'Ano Keikira wrote:

1) identical bonuses to Golem:
- there are reasonably few battleships based on missiles, why make two of them virtually identical?
- making it 'better phoon' and 'worse golem' is imo simply lazy move, it could be made much more interesting ship by giving it advantage and disadvantage(s) compared to other ships in its class
- if you can sit in golem, there is no reason whatsoever to sit into CNR; currently these two ships have strengths and weaknesses and outperform each other in different scenarios - that is good design; after change CNR will simply be inferior in every aspect in every scenario - that is bad design


If you want a PvE ship and you can sit in a golem, by all means do so. It is what that ship is designed for. T2. Specialization. This is the intended design.

Marauders are designed to be PvE ships with high price tags and low PvP use. They have sensor strengths below frigate level and can be jammed to hell with a single flight of ECM drones. CNR on the other hand can do both PvE and PvP. It is a more generalized ship.

I find it perfectly adequate for golem to outperform CNR, Vargur to outperform FPest, Paladin to outperform NApoc and Kronos to outperform Nmega, PvE wise.

There is one more thing: The damage application bonus on CNR is huge. It is an exp radius bonus, not a measly exp velocity bonus. It is a (1/0.75)=1.33 bonus to damage application formulas. It applies to both terms in the function, so that you can increase your damage vs smaller ships even when they are webbed.
The Djego
Hellequin Inc.
#702 - 2013-05-15 09:42:32 UTC  |  Edited by: The Djego
Alexander Renoir wrote:
Perhaps you are right. But in my eyes the Golem needs torpedoes to be really effective. My problem is the range of a torpedo. I do not salvage every mission. I often fly against Serpentis / Gurista. Looting from this NPC is waste of time. I need the tractor beam to loot some (far away from all) BS zu refine this loot and build my missiles. I am a strong Cruise Missile user. I do not like torps because of the range. But one Defender and my calculated CM launchers on a Golem would fire like a normal Tech I Raven.

You see? Golem is not needed because I do not loot / salvage very often. The range of a torp-golem is not enough for me. I love the range of the CM. I want to decide to kill at 92km or 24km to use the tractor. But a CM-Golem is just LOL.
Best solution was ever a CM-CNR with one tractor. But this will be changed soon. If I fly the new CNR with 7 launcher and one tractor like I have ever done; this new ship would be horrible bad.


Defenders are chance based, it doesn't matter if you have 4 or 8 launchers, the result will be the same(at average over time).

The reason why the CNR was preferred with CMs was the higher launcher count. Now both are similar with CMs, while the CNR gives you more dps if you lazy with the painting and the Golem got the more powerful painter and utility. There is literally nothing wrong if people go with CMs on the Golem after the patch since you not lose anything in raw DPS compared to the CNR.

Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
marVLs
#703 - 2013-05-15 09:45:33 UTC
Gimme more Cynos wrote:
Maybe because we want to fly missile-boats in the meantime? Have you ever thought about that? Not? Oh well..


By tracking You'r post in this topic i must admit that You don't think at all when talking about new CNR... sry, no harm but that's the true.
The most funny is that missioners and CNR PVE players on June 5th will get big buff to thier ship, and what they say? Complains and some heresies that CNR will be worse...

And just a few weeks ago no one even thinks that he's CNR will get some love in even next years...

(cruise missile buff included)

Ain't You some Liang alt? Cause he's way of thinking is the same, pointed things that CNR will be better, showed eft photos with fits ect. and still saying "new CNR will be worse at PVE activities..."

All that bulls... You and some dudes talk about here make a lot of fun for rest on players that know something, and sometimes they writes here making nice inteligent fun of that.

So when changes to pirate BS will come and Mach will loose some falloff You will be there telling everyone that's nice buff to ship?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#704 - 2013-05-15 09:48:48 UTC
Gimme more Cynos wrote:
marVLs wrote:
Why comparing CNR to Golem if Golem will be changed, like all marauders, maybe even with totally different bonuses/roles.
CCP have the long term plan and they know what they doing. Just stop posting nonsens ffs...


Maybe because we want to fly missile-boats in the meantime? Have you ever thought about that? Not? Oh well..


I have a Tengu I'm looking to sell, if that's any good to you?

"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.
#705 - 2013-05-15 09:54:17 UTC
Alexander Renoir wrote:
Gimme more Cynos wrote:
Alexander Renoir wrote:
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?)


Dude, seriously.. get a Golem. Best advice you can probably get.

After all, you have the mini Golem allready.. shouldn't be much of a change (and might actually improve your missile experience).

There is just no reason to fly a CNR in PvE any longer.


Perhaps you are right. But in my eyes the Golem needs torpedoes to be really effective. My problem is the range of a torpedo. I do not salvage every mission. I often fly against Serpentis / Gurista. Looting from this NPC is waste of time. I need the tractor beam to loot some (far away from all) BS zu refine this loot and build my missiles. I am a strong Cruise Missile user. I do not like torps because of the range. But one Defender and my calculated CM launchers on a Golem would fire like a normal Tech I Raven.

You see? Golem is not needed because I do not loot / salvage very often. The range of a torp-golem is not enough for me. I love the range of the CM. I want to decide to kill at 92km or 24km to use the tractor. But a CM-Golem is just LOL.
Best solution was ever a CM-CNR with one tractor. But this will be changed soon. If I fly the new CNR with 7 launcher and one tractor like I have ever done; this new ship would be horrible bad.


On the other hand the CNR is getting a massive speed buff and an extra mid which you can use for a prop mod. You'll be far more mobile, so you'll have less need for the tractor.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#706 - 2013-05-15 10:07:41 UTC
Alexander Renoir wrote:
If I fly the new CNR with 7 launcher and one tractor like I have ever done; this new ship would be horrible bad.


Why the hell is a tractor beam a balance argument for a Navy Battleship.

If you are THAT desperate about tractor beam, maybe you should look at the new SNI, which looks like a monster. It has 8 meds and shield resist bonus. You can easily put 3 target painters in that one, put rigors as rigs and apply full damage to almost everything....and still have a good tank to boot.
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#707 - 2013-05-15 10:09:37 UTC
i like new CNR. but i think range bonuses on caldari hulls must go way amarrian cap bonuses. i.e. buff HAML & torps range , so they can be used not only on the a few ships , & give us something usefull instead

Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn ♡♡♡

GallowsCalibrator
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#708 - 2013-05-15 10:19:17 UTC
I am still amazed how many people are arguing the badness of the new CNR and the tears are goddamn delicious.

For PvE after Odyssey hits, a cruise setup will do more damage compared to pre-patch; and be able to apply that damage much, much better against smaller targets. Cruisers and frigate NPCs will melt. (Oh yeah, the fairly huge speed buff will also help survivability.) Yup, a Golem - a T2 PvE specialist ship is probably going to be slightly better than the CNR, and? It really should be. The Raven has much easier entry requirements to sit in as well, so hey-o.

Torpedo fits have never been fantastic (apart from my slightly comedy Forsaken Hub chaining monster that only works on them) so nbd.

For PvP? The above, but more so. This thing is going to be beastly in dealing with smaller targets thanks to the combination of launch velocity and additional precision. The extra speed will help it to chase down those targets and keep them tackled, and that lovely 7th mid provides additional flexibility. One of these in a small gang is going to be a serious sight to behold and should put the fear of God into a lot of pilots for the range of damage application it can put on targets.

If you just want paper DPS, fly a Fleet Typhoon; just don't be surprised when something smaller kills you because it seems to fit much more comfortably into an anti-BC/BS role.

(And if you want to fly a solo battleship with missiles fly a post-Odyssey Geddon and neut everything forever, theres your goddamn utility highs damn, that thing is going to be fun)
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#709 - 2013-05-15 10:28:33 UTC
Also people complaining about it being similar to the golem are missing the whole "the golem is going to be rebalanced too" thingg

I'm hoping Marauders will be made pvp viable. Having a ship specialized for mission running when mission running is so ******* easy is kinda ********.

Also the new paladin LOOKS ******* DELICIOUS AND I MUST HAVE IT (but i don't PVE) BUT I MUST HAVE IIIIIT




RISE, FOZZIE, PALADIN, PVP VIABLE, YES?

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

LakeEnd
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#710 - 2013-05-15 10:36:33 UTC  |  Edited by: LakeEnd
The Fleet Tempest is disappointment in my opinion. It´s quoted role as only viable armor alphafleet ship is bollocks, its only very marginally better than arty-Abaddon. Its dual bonus to guns are quite meh, when Abaddon with 8 turrets and one gyro delivers more alpha than Fleet Tempest with same one gyro, EHP difference is not all that big either. That is bit silly in my opinion.

Adjust the ROF bonus higher, 7.5% or even 10% and replace the damage bonus with either tracking or optimal bonus. Bit more drone bandwidth would not hurt either.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#711 - 2013-05-15 10:44:25 UTC
LakeEnd wrote:
The Fleet Tempest is disappointment in my opinion. It´s quoted role as only viable armor alphafleet ship is bollocks, its only very marginally better than arty-Abaddon. Its dual bonus to guns are quite meh, when Abaddon with 8 turrets and one gyro delivers more alpha than Fleet Tempest with same one gyro, EHP difference is not all that big either. That is bit silly in my opinion.

.



That 1 million times. Pay attention Fozzie and Rise, read that and try to come with a sensible mistake on this post. OF course the NAVY version of the MOSTLY TURRET focused ship of the PROJECTILES race is a bit better than the AMARR ship using arties. But Do you think a ship is balanced when on these conditions its BARELY better?

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Aaron Kyoto
Frozen Silver.
Arkhos Core
#712 - 2013-05-15 10:59:50 UTC
Cpt Gulag wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Cpt Gulag wrote:




range bonus .. really .. apoc with scorch is mdoin something like 500 dps.. now that is a shame to even say that my battleship does 500 dps...

but to be honest ... all you have to do is put amarr next to gallente tier for tier, battleships ofc.. now all you have to do is choose..

either amarr is too nerfed or gallente is too buffed..


Hey there, I see you're the leader of the local brain trust so tell me, how much DPS does a Megathron do at 50km?

Do you think its more or less than any, ANY Amarr BS can do at 50km?



do you warp 50 km away from an apoc in a mega to start a fight with it?



Nah just sit in a station and Smacktalk.

Unlike mission pubbies I trust the CSM and other people who understand the mechanical background of the game to make decisions based on balance.
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#713 - 2013-05-15 11:08:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Johnson Oramara
marVLs wrote:
Old CNR:

http://scr.hu/4s/uu30c

New CNR:

http://scr.hu/4s/ldtjp




And plenty of CPU with 3xRigor missile stats:

http://scr.hu/4s/nnsdx

Congratulations, it performs the same as a typhoon or even raven in dps, and with the Raven pilot fitting in a TP and rigs it has the damage application too!
And then please check the Typhoon FI which will have even more missile dps while still retaining slots for bonused turrets too, and don't forget 125 drone bw.

When you compare all these WITH the new cruise missile changes that CNR is just not performing anywhere worth it's price tag... heck, the new CNR become even worse at many situations that the old could do.
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#714 - 2013-05-15 11:17:01 UTC
LakeEnd wrote:
The Fleet Tempest is disappointment in my opinion. It´s quoted role as only viable armor alphafleet ship is bollocks, its only very marginally better than arty-Abaddon. Its dual bonus to guns are quite meh, when Abaddon with 8 turrets and one gyro delivers more alpha than Fleet Tempest with same one gyro, EHP difference is not all that big either. That is bit silly in my opinion.

Adjust the ROF bonus higher, 7.5% or even 10% and replace the damage bonus with either tracking or optimal bonus. Bit more drone bandwidth would not hurt either.


Actually Abaddon has better resists, which is better for fleet work. Though Pests cycle guns much faster thus alphaing more stuff in given time. Still...in lagy circumstances and when the FC is counting down for alpha pulses, the RoF doesn't mean that much.

Since it is quite a niche I believe a nice, fleet issue only boost would be very adequate. 7.5 dmg per level maybe? It will increase total alpha and dps by a 10% (1.375/1.25=1.1) and will make Fpest a distinct choice for these type of operations.

Another option would be %10 per level damage (a total increase of 20% alpha) and losing the rof bonus for a tracking bonus. This would nerf the total DPS of the ship (10% lower), but make it a very scary alpha platform.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#715 - 2013-05-15 11:28:34 UTC
what i cant understand is why bring a ship that can be potentialy very fun for various purposes into a role that only a fraction of players performe in ther lifetime JUST because the ship as it is has no other use at the moment?

with other ship devs havnt been shy to make big changes (and i like those).

so i beg rise (and fozzie) to think of a solution for the pest and fleetp. that doesnt remove the ship from 95% of the eve game world.

only thing that should be taken as base for new ideas should be keep it agile and fast as its design promises and the ship is remembered (thinking of nanopest).
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#716 - 2013-05-15 11:45:44 UTC
Kane Fenris wrote:
what i cant understand is why bring a ship that can be potentialy very fun for various purposes into a role that only a fraction of players performe in ther lifetime JUST because the ship as it is has no other use at the moment?

with other ship devs havnt been shy to make big changes (and i like those).

so i beg rise (and fozzie) to think of a solution for the pest and fleetp. that doesnt remove the ship from 95% of the eve game world.

only thing that should be taken as base for new ideas should be keep it agile and fast as its design promises and the ship is remembered (thinking of nanopest).


I understand and sympathize, but the "nanopest" role is quite crowded atm. Fleet Cane, Tornado, New Fleet Phoon, Machariel, Sleipnir are some of the few candidates. Even gallente ships have taken over that role and they can do it better than the tempest.

So the only unique role we can crawl tempest into seems to be armored alpha.
Alexander Renoir
Covenant Trading Agency
#717 - 2013-05-15 11:48:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexander Renoir
Deerin wrote:
Alexander Renoir wrote:
If I fly the new CNR with 7 launcher and one tractor like I have ever done; this new ship would be horrible bad.


Why the hell is a tractor beam a balance argument for a Navy Battleship.

If you are THAT desperate about tractor beam, maybe you should look at the new SNI, which looks like a monster. It has 8 meds and shield resist bonus. You can easily put 3 target painters in that one, put rigors as rigs and apply full damage to almost everything....and still have a good tank to boot.


What I mean is:
Let the CNR ship as it is. With NO 8 Launchers BUT with the rate of fire bonus. With the free high Slot. I am more flexible than with a additional med-slot. An AB or MWD does not do the same, what a Tractor does. Not the Tractor is an argument against balancing. The design of the slot layout is an argument. Let it with 7 launchers but 8 high slots and the ROF bonus. There is no need to do more on the CNR.
I do not complain of the changes for the ammunition just the slot-layout and changed bonus is what I hate and what does not fit to a faction BS. NO flexibility with the 8 launcher slot-layout. And this for a gam, claiming Sandbox, do what you want etc.

I d not want that the CNR must be better than a Golem. This would be crap! But I want flexibility with an free high slot.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#718 - 2013-05-15 11:51:15 UTC
Johnson Oramara wrote:
the new CNR become even worse at many situations that the old could do.


Might I inquire as to what those situations might be?
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#719 - 2013-05-15 11:55:44 UTC
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Johnson Oramara wrote:
the new CNR become even worse at many situations that the old could do.


Might I inquire as to what those situations might be?

If you would bother to read before posting you wouldn't need to ask... but check back a page or two where Liang Nuren has made an excellent points of it's weaknesses and it involves missing utility high.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#720 - 2013-05-15 12:13:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Kane Fenris
Deerin wrote:
Kane Fenris wrote:
what i cant understand is why bring a ship that can be potentialy very fun for various purposes into a role that only a fraction of players performe in ther lifetime JUST because the ship as it is has no other use at the moment?

with other ship devs havnt been shy to make big changes (and i like those).

so i beg rise (and fozzie) to think of a solution for the pest and fleetp. that doesnt remove the ship from 95% of the eve game world.

only thing that should be taken as base for new ideas should be keep it agile and fast as its design promises and the ship is remembered (thinking of nanopest).


I understand and sympathize, but the "nanopest" role is quite crowded atm. Fleet Cane, Tornado, New Fleet Phoon, Machariel, Sleipnir are some of the few candidates. Even gallente ships have taken over that role and they can do it better than the tempest.

So the only unique role we can crawl tempest into seems to be armored alpha.


you might have misunderstood me, i dont want to be it like a good old nanopest!
i just want to keep it a fast and speedy ship cause thats how i feel it shall be and lots of people have it in their minds.

but thats just what the base of a new approach should be caues i feel the old approch leads nowhere....

so what can you make of it?
yes the fast ac platform is crowded and outperformed by sme ships although i feel there could be found a spot

BUT

maybe there could be a radical approch to make it soem kind of diffrent ship
so yeah it has those two utility highs that ccp wants to keep.... why not make something of it like bonused smartbomb range/reduced consumption?
or energy transfer range?
or even crazyer ideas that make it uniqe and fill a new spot in bs lineup? (while remaining a fast bs what players like me and others feel it should be)

[edit] sry for highjacking this thread cause my post is more about pest than fleet pest