These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#761 - 2013-05-15 18:29:48 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


How should the Golem be differentiated from the CNR?


Everyone keeps on harping about how awesome that damage application bonus is, so why not keep it with more raw damage but worse damage application?

-Liang


Which is "it"? The Golem?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Trolly McForumalt
Doomheim
#762 - 2013-05-15 18:33:06 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


How should the Golem be differentiated from the CNR?


Everyone keeps on harping about how awesome that damage application bonus is, so why not keep it with more raw damage but worse damage application?

-Liang


Which is "it"? The Golem?


He's referring to the CNR - he wants the rof bonus back in lieu of the explosion radius bonus.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#763 - 2013-05-15 18:34:19 UTC
Trolly McForumalt wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:


The problem with the CNR discussion is that people who have literally no idea how the ship works are defending the new ship. We've got people defending the new CNR who don't think utility highs are useful in PVP, people who don't know the difference between explo radius and explo velocity, people who don't understand missile damage, people who think you don't need damage mods or painters, etc.


-Liang


Let me ask you this question (which also sorta builds on some previous posts you had) just in case I'm missing something here.

What happens when you paint a BS-sized target with max skills using faction cruise missiles? Does it add damage? Or are you mostly addressing tp usage for combat (both pvp and pve) against BC- and cruiser-sized targets?


No, missile damage works as a constant and partial application. Once you've reached full application, that's it. That's why you'll see the same damage over and over and over when you're shooting a POS in a missile ship. For battleships, you're going to deal pretty good damage all the time so extra painters and damage application bonuses aren't really going to help you much. For shooting BCs, Cruisers, and Frigs the damage application bonuses (explo radius, explo velocity, painter effectiveness) will help you and actually increase your damage.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Trolly McForumalt
Doomheim
#764 - 2013-05-15 18:44:21 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:


No, missile damage works as a constant and partial application. Once you've reached full application, that's it. That's why you'll see the same damage over and over and over when you're shooting a POS in a missile ship. For battleships, you're going to deal pretty good damage all the time so extra painters and damage application bonuses aren't really going to help you much. For shooting BCs, Cruisers, and Frigs the damage application bonuses (explo radius, explo velocity, painter effectiveness) will help you and actually increase your damage.

-Liang


OK. So... if one were to expect to be mostly fighting BS-sized targets wouldn't fitting a TP be counter-productive? Especially if fighting beyond the TP's optimal (don't know what that is fully skilled - someone help me out here)? I'm not saying they are useless - simply situational. Also it seems that explosion velocity bonuses and web support might be the stronger of the two (my perception).

What should be the balancing factor for BSes - damage against other BSes? IMO yes. Also, do turret weapons hit stationary small targets too easily (and too 'fully')? IMO also yes. But then again maybe that difference between missiles and turrets (that turrets can pop low transversal frigs) is a good balancing factor.
Jason Sirober
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#765 - 2013-05-15 18:44:34 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:


The problem with the CNR discussion is that people who have literally no idea how the ship works are defending the new ship. We've got people defending the new CNR who don't think utility highs are useful in PVP, people who don't know the difference between explo radius and explo velocity, people who don't understand missile damage, people who think you don't need damage mods or painters, etc.

Which, of course, is kinda a big problem. Right now CCP is judging the fact that total incompetents are piping up in favor of bad changes as evidence that the change is a good one. This is exactly equivalent to me using one of my alt accounts to extoll the virtues of the new Navy Mega and Fleet Pest and talk about how they're gonna be just so awesome. And then there'd be a dissenting voice and we're stuck with a **** change. In either case, I'm absolutely not relenting on the CNR (and then the Geddon) until CCP explains why they're smacking it that hard with a nerf hammer.

As to the Geddon's drone bay: It seems excessive and I'd be more than happy to trade it down for decreasing the sig radius. The Navy Mega and Fleet Pest are just unexciting to me. I can't really think of any better alternatives though, so I'm not harping on the subject.

-Liang


About the Geddon, that's fine then. About the CNR, you'd be better served by starting a thread about missile damage application than complaining that the ship will now do less damage against bigger targets and more against smaller targets. Unless you like to fight in large BS vs BS battles which would suit the current CNR with the new cruise missile changes better than the new CNR.

Except you are not talking about BS fights, you are talking about missions and how it's going to interfere with your isk/hour ratio. If I'm wrong tell me so and explain why. If I'm right, go ahead and start that other thread.
Trolly McForumalt
Doomheim
#766 - 2013-05-15 18:51:13 UTC
Jason Sirober wrote:


About the Geddon, that's fine then. About the CNR, you'd be better served by starting a thread about missile damage application than complaining that the ship will now do less damage against bigger targets and more against smaller targets. Unless you like to fight in large BS vs BS battles which would suit the current CNR with the new cruise missile changes better than the new CNR.

Except you are not talking about BS fights, you are talking about missions and how it's going to interfere with your isk/hour ratio. If I'm wrong tell me so and explain why. If I'm right, go ahead and start that other thread.



There are instances other than missions where one may reasonably expect to fight smaller targets: namely solo and small gang pvp. I think that is the area to which he is referring.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#767 - 2013-05-15 18:54:53 UTC
Trolly McForumalt wrote:

OK. So... if one were to expect to be mostly fighting BS-sized targets wouldn't fitting a TP be counter-productive? Especially if fighting beyond the TP's optimal (don't know what that is fully skilled - someone help me out here)? I'm not saying they are useless - simply situational. Also it seems that explosion velocity bonuses and web support might be the stronger of the two (my perception).

What should be the balancing factor for BSes - damage against other BSes? IMO yes. Also, do turret weapons hit stationary small targets too easily (and too 'fully')? IMO also yes. But then again maybe that difference between missiles and turrets (that turrets can pop low transversal frigs) is a good balancing factor.


It's never counter productive to fit and use a target painter as long as you can tank the mission. If you can't tank the mission, then you need to change something. However, I think that I wasn't clear enough when describing the way that missile damage applies. Sig is much more important in the missile damage formula, so the painter bonus is significantly more powerful (on top of being more powerful numerically).

There's pretty much not a reasonable place to take the CNR on a superior damage application front.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#768 - 2013-05-15 18:55:33 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
I'd just leave the bonuses and high slots alone. The advantage of this:
- It maintains a unique role for both PVE and PVP
- It maintains a utility high slot
- It doesn't nerf torp fits

I know that Malcanis thinks it's OP because of 1100 DPS at 200km... but can we please come the **** back to reality here? Missiles are not instant damage and there's more than ample opportunity for warp outs and pre-reps. Honestly if someone can find a way to make the CNR work at that range then more power to them.

-Liang

Ed: I would also scale back a big chunk of the Navy Geddon's sig increase.


Are you serious?

With the CNR you propose, I'd do NOTHING but orbit the beacon in Sanctums at 99km and spew 1100 Rigor assisted DPS at rats that can't even hit me or affect me in any way (and that 1100 DPS would start much quicker because of the cruise missile speed boost). and it would be safe because a neutral would have zero chance of landing on you because you're orbiting so far out.

And missions, please, a MJD 1100 dps CNR, talk about inflationary pressure lol. People wouldn't be able to redeem caldari corp LPs fast enough to supply the extreme wave of CNR demand lol.

I mean, you simply just gotta be kidding with this. You think CCP wouldn't nerf that to hell and back. NO ship save a capital ship can project that kind of DPS at that range in any PVE situation in EVE except maybe a carrier with 15 sentries and drone damage mods (which then wouldn't be in range because it's highs are filled with drone control units).

Unbelievable if you think this is a good idea, it's crazy. With 2 sensor boosters or so you wouldn't even need to MOVE in the 1st room of the Worlds Collide mission until everything on both sides was dead and you needed to go to a gate, you wouldn't need a tank (at least in the 1st room) because nothing could hit you and everything would be dead before it came within 90 km of you.

Insanity. (And i hope CCP listens to you because now i really want to do this until they nerf it LOL.....).
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#769 - 2013-05-15 18:59:03 UTC
Jason Sirober wrote:

About the Geddon, that's fine then. About the CNR, you'd be better served by starting a thread about missile damage application than complaining that the ship will now do less damage against bigger targets and more against smaller targets. Unless you like to fight in large BS vs BS battles which would suit the current CNR with the new cruise missile changes better than the new CNR.

Except you are not talking about BS fights, you are talking about missions and how it's going to interfere with your isk/hour ratio. If I'm wrong tell me so and explain why. If I'm right, go ahead and start that other thread.


This is the Navy BS Feedback thread. If you don't like the feedback for Navy Battleships (the CNR is one), then feel free to leave. If you want to add more feedback about whatever battleship you are concerned about, then do that. However, encouraging me to fork the conversation into a thread that will never be read by CCP is simply not a constructive comment.

However to answer your question: I torp fit my PVP CNRs and torp fits are getting ******* murdered by this change. It's one of the reasons I'm so adamant against it. However, people want to talk about missions because that's the ship's primary use - and it just so happens I know a bit about that as well.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#770 - 2013-05-15 19:03:09 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:


The problem with the CNR discussion is that people who have literally no idea how the ship works are defending the new ship. We've got people defending the new CNR who don't think utility highs are useful in PVP, people who don't know the difference between explo radius and explo velocity, people who don't understand missile damage, people who think you don't need damage mods or painters, etc.

Which, of course, is kinda a big problem. Right now CCP is judging the fact that total incompetents are piping up in favor of bad changes as evidence that the change is a good one. This is exactly equivalent to me using one of my alt accounts to extoll the virtues of the new Navy Mega and Fleet Pest and talk about how they're gonna be just so awesome. And then there'd be a dissenting voice and we're stuck with a **** change. In either case, I'm absolutely not relenting on the CNR (and then the Geddon) until CCP explains why they're smacking it that hard with a nerf hammer.




This is a problem you always display, you always figure that people who are disagreeing with you are somehow ignorant of something. it' basically no different from the folks who scream "you just want easy targets you nasty PVPr" when we talk about high sec issues.

I've been flying CNRs since my buddy gave me my 1st one in 2007, i love the ship and know how it works in PVE. The fact that you could suggest such an insane thing for what is one of the premier PVE ships (meaning keeping it's RoF bonus and 7 launchers when Cruise missiles and their launchers are getting super buffed) demonstrates that it's you who don't have a firm grasp of (EVE PVE reality).

I've never ever us a mach, Vargus or Golem in pve again with the CNR you think is a good idea came to be. it would be incredibly bad for the game. And all this because you don't want to lose the current CNRs rarely used PVP capability? That's really, really wrong.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#771 - 2013-05-15 19:08:39 UTC
Hey was there a valid reason given as to why the Navy Domi has only 19 slots and the Navy Geddon has 20?
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#772 - 2013-05-15 19:10:11 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:


The problem with the CNR discussion is that people who have literally no idea how the ship works are defending the new ship. We've got people defending the new CNR who don't think utility highs are useful in PVP, people who don't know the difference between explo radius and explo velocity, people who don't understand missile damage, people who think you don't need damage mods or painters, etc.

Which, of course, is kinda a big problem. Right now CCP is judging the fact that total incompetents are piping up in favor of bad changes as evidence that the change is a good one. This is exactly equivalent to me using one of my alt accounts to extoll the virtues of the new Navy Mega and Fleet Pest and talk about how they're gonna be just so awesome. And then there'd be a dissenting voice and we're stuck with a **** change. In either case, I'm absolutely not relenting on the CNR (and then the Geddon) until CCP explains why they're smacking it that hard with a nerf hammer.


This is a problem you always display, you always figure that people who are disagreeing with you are somehow ignorant of something. it' basically no different from the folks who scream "you just want easy targets you nasty PVPr" when we talk about high sec issues.

I've been flying CNRs since my buddy gave me my 1st one in 2007, i love the ship and know how it works in PVE. The fact that you could suggest such an insane thing for what is one of the premier PVE ships (meaning keeping it's RoF bonus and 7 launchers when Cruise missiles and their launchers are getting super buffed) demonstrates that it's you who don't have a firm grasp of (EVE PVE reality).

I've never ever us a mach, Vargus or Golem in pve again with the CNR you think is a good idea came to be. it would be incredibly bad for the game. And all this because you don't want to lose the current CNRs rarely used PVP capability? That's really, really wrong.


A few comments:
- I was referencing specific lapses in judgment and knowledge by specific people in that comment. Grath made a series of extremely revealing comments revealing ignorance of basic missile mechanics and Malcanis straight up came out and openly questioned the utility of a utility high in PVP. The guy last night apparently doesn't need painters to complete missions (lol). I'm not making this up - I'm simply reporting facts.
- You won't be able to apply your damage at those ranges because your painters won't reach that far.
- The CNR is getting smacked in the face for all torp fits. I'm pretty sure nobody thought torp CNRs were OP.
- The currently proposed CNR is just a ****** Golem. The NApoc is not obsoleted by the Paladin and nor should the CNR be by the Golem. Right now the CNR has a role, and after the patch it will not. If you think it'd be OP then suggest something that distinguishes it from all the other missile ships.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#773 - 2013-05-15 19:11:02 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Hey was there a valid reason given as to why the Navy Domi has only 19 slots and the Navy Geddon has 20?


The drone bonus is the (un?)stated reason... but valid? No. Decrease the drone bay and sig radius on the Navy Geddon IMO.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Trolly McForumalt
Doomheim
#774 - 2013-05-15 19:16:01 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
If you think it'd be OP then suggest something that distinguishes it from all the other missile ships.

-Liang


I suggested earlier that in place of the velocity/range bonus a bonus to explosion velocity be used. Seems a little different.

Thoughts?
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#775 - 2013-05-15 19:19:50 UTC
Trolly McForumalt wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
If you think it'd be OP then suggest something that distinguishes it from all the other missile ships.

-Liang


I suggested earlier that in place of the velocity/range bonus a bonus to explosion velocity be used. Seems a little different.

Thoughts?


Oh, I thought I directly addressed that when I said there's not a lot of room on the damage application front. The Golem's damage application is pretty boss and going that direction means that the CNR will be forever doomed to be a ****** Golem.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#776 - 2013-05-15 19:20:29 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:


A few comments:
- I was referencing specific lapses in judgment and knowledge by specific people in that comment. Grath made a series of extremely revealing comments revealing ignorance of basic missile mechanics and Malcanis straight up came out and openly questioned the utility of a utility high in PVP. The guy last night apparently doesn't need painters to complete missions (lol). I'm not making this up - I'm simply reporting facts.


I get some of that, but hell, I don't use painters now with my mission or null anom/plex CNRs (because I dual box and the CNr isn't shooting small stuff except in an emergency is a small ship is webbed to hell by my vindi or mach or loki)
Quote:

- You won't be able to apply your damage at those ranges because your painters won't reach that far.


So you need painters to kill battleships in Worlds Collide and other PVE content? That's news to me, or mabye i've been doing it wrong for 6 years?

Quote:

- The CNR is getting smacked in the face for all torp fits. I'm pretty sure nobody thought torp CNRs were OP.

Use Golem?
Quote:

- The currently proposed CNR is just a ****** Golem. The NApoc is not obsoleted by the Paladin and nor should the CNR be by the Golem. Right now the CNR has a role, and after the patch it will not. If you think it'd be OP then suggest something that distinguishes it from all the other missile ships.

-Liang


It's a Navy BS. Tech II pve BS is supposed to be better, in the same way Navy is supposed to be better than regular. CCP is just catching up to it's on design concept (lol).

You concerns are unfounded IMO. i'll bet you won't be able to find 20 CNR pilots who hate it after june 4th (i'l bet you Arum, i don't have no isk).
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#777 - 2013-05-15 19:34:21 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

TEMPEST FLEET ISSUE
The Tempest Fleet Issue is becoming Minmatar’s ‘combat’ battleship, and as a result will move more solidly into a role that it already takes on as a very strong projectile platform with an armor base – something that is difficult to find elsewhere. The Tempest, as always, wants to occupy a space between attack and combat, and therefor has unusually high speed and unusually low sig for its role.

Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret rate of fire
+5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret damage

Slot layout: 8H, 5M, 7L; 6 turrets, 4 launchers
Fittings: 17500 PWG(+450), 580 CPU(+3)
Defense (shields / armor / hull): 10200(+884) / 10800(+369) / 9000(-961)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 5500(+187.5) / 1150s(-4.875s)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 130(-2) / .115(+.007) / 103300000 / 16.47s(+1s)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 / 100
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 74km(+11.5km) / 100 / 7
Sensor strength: 24 Ladar Sensor Strength(+.25)
Signature radius: 350(+10)


Nobody seems very excited by the new Fleet Pest. What would you say to this instead:

Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+7.5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret tracking
+10% bonus to Large Projectile Turret damage

Slot layout: 7(-1)H, 5M, 7L; 6 turrets, 0(-4) launchers
Fittings: 21000 PWG (+XXX), 580 CPU(+3)
Defense (shields / armor / hull): 9316 / 11684(+369+884) / 9000(-961)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 5500(+187.5) / 1150s(-4.875s)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 130(-2) / .115(+.007) / 103300000 / 16.47s(+1s)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 / 100
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 84km(+21.5km) / 100 / 7
Sensor strength: 24 Ladar Sensor Strength(+.25)
Signature radius: 350(+10)

The goal here is to encourage a relatively fast armor artillery platform with limited utility highs. I haven't looked too hard at the grid change, and used the Abaddon as a base. I wouldn't quibble much if it went up or down from there.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#778 - 2013-05-15 19:42:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Pattern Clarc
Better than some proposals I guess, but that's actually a noticeable DPS drop from current and that much base tracking to 1400s may be a... problem. Lol

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#779 - 2013-05-15 19:44:52 UTC
Well, yes I knew it was a significant base DPS drop. It's also a pretty substantial alpha increase and the tracking 'problem' was intentional. ;-)

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#780 - 2013-05-15 19:46:13 UTC
Johnson Oramara wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


The New CNR will be better than the current CNR. If you don't believe me, believe the market; prices are up.



That's all thats really important, it's kind of hard to stomach all the complaining about a ship that will be demonstrably better than it is now (like how for example the loss of a utility slot is more that compensated by a mid slot you can put a prop mod in).

I guess for some people "better" just isn't enough.

Does losing an utility high and it's dps edge over other missile battleships make it "better"? Please explain to me what it does better.


Better damage application, faster, more cap, more calibration, more dangerous to smaller targets, theres more but you don't actually care because you've latched on to Liangs arguments for solo PVP (which weren't anywhere near y our own in the begining) and you're riding them out. You originally claimed that its worse in every way (without any facts to back that up) and now that a good dozen people have gone through the updated EFT files an posted screen shots showing you that you're wrong you're clinging to that missing high slot like its a life vest.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.