These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#781 - 2013-05-15 19:49:05 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
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

Fall off is less game breaking, and that way we can have the appropriate number of slots. Either way, start with the t1 tempest first if your serious about a fix.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#782 - 2013-05-15 19:50:02 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
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


Pg looks too high for a 6 turret ship. TFI can fit almost everything without problems. Other than that it looks very decent. Maybe too decent. 9 turrets worth alpha is quite high..thouh pest is paying with loss of one lot in this case
Jason Sirober
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#783 - 2013-05-15 19:54:14 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
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


Whatever bro. Happy trolling
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#784 - 2013-05-15 19:54:23 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Grath made a series of extremely revealing comments revealing ignorance of basic missile mechanics


I'm sorry, I stand by what I said, if you are a moving target, you mitigate missile damage, and no amount of telling me otherwise will change my mind because I have 6 years of working proof, so you can say i have an ignorance of missile mechancis all you want, and you can rant and rave about wanting to do 1100 dps at 200km all you want, but none of that will actually ever be true or make it happen.

If you move, you take less missile damage, that is not ignorance of missile mechanics, that is a fact.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Trolly McForumalt
Doomheim
#785 - 2013-05-15 19:57:15 UTC
Deerin wrote:


Pg looks too high for a 6 turret ship. TFI can fit almost everything without problems. Other than that it looks very decent. Maybe too decent. 9 turrets worth alpha is quite high..thouh pest is paying with loss of one lot in this case


It was a rhetorical post. It's a nerf (sorta). With the proposed change it went from 10 effective turrets to 9 effective turrets with better tracking. He was trying to prove a point about the CNR losing dps with the proposed bonus change.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#786 - 2013-05-15 20:02:37 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Grath made a series of extremely revealing comments revealing ignorance of basic missile mechanics


I'm sorry, I stand by what I said, if you are a moving target, you mitigate missile damage, and no amount of telling me otherwise will change my mind because I have 6 years of working proof, so you can say i have an ignorance of missile mechancis all you want, and you can rant and rave about wanting to do 1100 dps at 200km all you want, but none of that will actually ever be true or make it happen.

If you move, you take less missile damage, that is not ignorance of missile mechanics, that is a fact.


Your understanding of missile mechanics has been rebuffed repeatedly by many many well known voices in the community. I wasn't attempting to pick on you for it - simply illustrate that I was not making **** up in my post. Many of the people who are in favor of the CNR changes have very flawed understandings of the ship and missile mechanics as a whole. As I said, for the most part you have a great deal of respect in my eyes. :)

That said - I neeeeeeed my utility high and torp deeps.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Trolly McForumalt
Doomheim
#787 - 2013-05-15 20:05:01 UTC
I'm not sold on your claim that signature radius has the biggest effect on missile damage and that target painters provide the largest boost. I need to go home and model it in a spreadsheet and apply effects from TPs, webs, and various bonuses to fully judge. I've been wanting to do this for a while now though so...
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#788 - 2013-05-15 20:07:49 UTC
Trolly McForumalt wrote:
Deerin wrote:


Pg looks too high for a 6 turret ship. TFI can fit almost everything without problems. Other than that it looks very decent. Maybe too decent. 9 turrets worth alpha is quite high..thouh pest is paying with loss of one lot in this case


It was a rhetorical post. It's a nerf (sorta). With the proposed change it went from 10 effective turrets to 9 effective turrets with better tracking. He was trying to prove a point about the CNR losing dps with the proposed bonus change.


Nah, I feel like that Pest would actually be pretty decent for certain kinds of engagements. It's definitely a raw DPS nerf (especially if you use ACs) but the volley and tracking with 1400s would be even higher than the Machariel.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#789 - 2013-05-15 20:07:57 UTC
Trolly McForumalt wrote:
Deerin wrote:


Pg looks too high for a 6 turret ship. TFI can fit almost everything without problems. Other than that it looks very decent. Maybe too decent. 9 turrets worth alpha is quite high..thouh pest is paying with loss of one lot in this case


It was a rhetorical post. It's a nerf (sorta). With the proposed change it went from 10 effective turrets to 9 effective turrets with better tracking. He was trying to prove a point about the CNR losing dps with the proposed bonus change.

which is funny because he produced a more meaningful ship than the crap we have now.

/adds liang to the ignore list.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#790 - 2013-05-15 20:09:56 UTC
Trolly McForumalt wrote:
I'm not sold on your claim that signature radius has the biggest effect on missile damage and that target painters provide the largest boost. I need to go home and model it in a spreadsheet and apply effects from TPs, webs, and various bonuses to fully judge. I've been wanting to do this for a while now though so...


Uhhhhhhhhh..... ok. You can see it at a glance really: http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Missile_Damage. Notice how sig radius is factored into both the explo radius and the explosion velocity parts of the equation? Yyyeaaaahhhhh...

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#791 - 2013-05-15 20:12:43 UTC
Trolly McForumalt wrote:
I'm not sold on your claim that signature radius has the biggest effect on missile damage and that target painters provide the largest boost. I need to go home and model it in a spreadsheet and apply effects from TPs, webs, and various bonuses to fully judge. I've been wanting to do this for a while now though so...


Sig radius is actually the biggest effect on missile damage, but regardless of sig you can mitigate damage by moving.

If you want to test it, get a missile boat and a vaga, turn the vagas mwd on to bloom its sig, hit it with a missile, note the damage, the put the vaga at speed and hit it with a missile, note the difference.

You can do the same test without a MWD on and you'll still see the same differences in damage, simply moving mitigates the damage, not as much as sig reduction will as thats the primary dirver in relation to missile and target, but movement will always mitigate it.

These are simple tests that the guys who love the formulas can go out and test (field tests have an always will be a huge part of theory that half of EVE skips over like it doesn't matter) but don't.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Trolly McForumalt
Doomheim
#792 - 2013-05-15 20:22:42 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Trolly McForumalt wrote:
I'm not sold on your claim that signature radius has the biggest effect on missile damage and that target painters provide the largest boost. I need to go home and model it in a spreadsheet and apply effects from TPs, webs, and various bonuses to fully judge. I've been wanting to do this for a while now though so...


Uhhhhhhhhh..... ok. You can see it at a glance really: http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Missile_Damage. Notice how sig radius is factored into both the explo radius and the explosion velocity parts of the equation? Yyyeaaaahhhhh...

-Liang


It is in both. I've seen the equation. However, the damage reduction due to velocity is a logarithmic decrease compared to the linear nature of signature size.

Like I said I need to model it myself but it looks like once you're in the velocity regime (where the third part of the equation is the deciding factor), target velocity reduction has the largest impact (assuming you're not trying to hit frigates with torpedoes or something).

Also, I'm not saying you're wrong (or right) - I want/need to see the graphs for myself.

This seems a bit tangential...
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#793 - 2013-05-15 20:28:59 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:

These are simple tests that the guys who love the formulas can go out and test (field tests have an always will be a huge part of theory that half of EVE skips over like it doesn't matter) but don't.


Oooh, oooh, is this where we start talking about the field test I did that finally convinced Gripen to add falloff damage reduction into EFT?

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#794 - 2013-05-15 20:34:12 UTC
Trolly McForumalt wrote:
Deerin wrote:


Pg looks too high for a 6 turret ship. TFI can fit almost everything without problems. Other than that it looks very decent. Maybe too decent. 9 turrets worth alpha is quite high..thouh pest is paying with loss of one lot in this case


It was a rhetorical post. It's a nerf (sorta). With the proposed change it went from 10 effective turrets to 9 effective turrets with better tracking. He was trying to prove a point about the CNR losing dps with the proposed bonus change.


No. 9 turrets worth alpha with tracking to boost its application is a serious buff that can tip scales of balance.

If he wanted to make such a point he would've said: "Consider a mach with 8 turrets and trackng bonus instead rof bonus"
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#795 - 2013-05-15 20:37:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Deerin wrote:
Trolly McForumalt wrote:
Deerin wrote:


Pg looks too high for a 6 turret ship. TFI can fit almost everything without problems. Other than that it looks very decent. Maybe too decent. 9 turrets worth alpha is quite high..thouh pest is paying with loss of one lot in this case


It was a rhetorical post. It's a nerf (sorta). With the proposed change it went from 10 effective turrets to 9 effective turrets with better tracking. He was trying to prove a point about the CNR losing dps with the proposed bonus change.


No. 9 turrets worth alpha with tracking to boost its application is a serious buff that can tip scales of balance.

If he wanted to make such a point he would've said: "Consider a mach with 8 turrets and trackng bonus instead rof bonus"


I mean it's true that it loses out on raw DPS, but dat alpha :swoon:

-Liang

Ed: In other news, I'm glad we have people discussing the Fleet Phoon now. I'm also curious if Grath has anything to add about the Fleet Phoon. I enjoyed his discussion of the NApoc.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#796 - 2013-05-15 20:52:26 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
That said - I neeeeeeed my utility high and torp deeps.

-Liang
Laing, I don't want this to sound a certain way, but it seems like this is the crux of the problems you're having with the proposed CNR changes. If you really want a utility high and torp damage, maybe its better for you to stick to Scorpion NIs after June 4. It's generous amount of mids and built-in resist bonuses mean that you can use more of those mids on ewar/tackle and you still get the utility high.

The Golem by design will always outperform a Navy Issue battleship in PVE situations (and perhaps moreso once the Marauders get a balance pass), while its small sensor str cripple it for PVP. Again, by design. The CNR's sensor strength is 50% stronger and it lacks a utility high to make it a formidable PVP platform while reducing its overall potential by losing that utility high. It more and more seems like the CNR change is hitting you personally (meaning your personal playstyle with it), and that is where a lot of your passion is coming from.

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

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

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#797 - 2013-05-15 20:56:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
That said - I neeeeeeed my utility high and torp deeps.

-Liang
Laing, I don't want this to sound a certain way, but it seems like this is the crux of the problems you're having with the proposed CNR changes. If you really want a utility high and torp damage, maybe its better for you to stick to Scorpion NIs after June 4. It's generous amount of mids and built-in resist bonuses mean that you can use more of those mids on ewar/tackle and you still get the utility high.

The Golem by design will always outperform a Navy Issue battleship in PVE situations (and perhaps moreso once the Marauders get a balance pass), while its small sensor str cripple it for PVP. Again, by design. The CNR's sensor strength is 50% stronger and it lacks a utility high to make it a formidable PVP platform while reducing its overall potential by losing that utility high. It more and more seems like the CNR change is hitting you personally (meaning your personal playstyle with it), and that is where a lot of your passion is coming from.


I like how you point out that the CNR is going to be worse in PVP than the SNI and worse at PVE than the Golem. Where, exactly, does it state that faction battleships should be literally useless? The NApoc isn't obsoleted by the Paladin and the CNR shouldn't be by the Golem. I really don't understand why that's so ******* hard to understand.

-Liang

Ed: And the CCNR will be worse in PVP than either the Fleet Phoon or regular Typhoon. That's the part that's really cute. It really can't catch a break and the ship will come out of the gates completely obsolete. Right now it has a role - and it can keep that role. But if we need it to have a different role, let's do that. But wholly obsolete ships are bullshit and the reason we're doing Tiericide in the first place.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Trolly McForumalt
Doomheim
#798 - 2013-05-15 21:03:05 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:


I like how you point out that the CNR is going to be worse in PVP than the SNI and worse at PVE than the Golem. Where, exactly, does it state that faction battleships should be literally useless? The NApoc isn't obsoleted by the Paladin and the CNR shouldn't be by the Golem. I really don't understand why that's so ******* hard to understand.

-Liang

Ed: And the CCNR will be worse in PVP than either the Fleet Phoon or regular Typhoon. That's the part that's really cute. It really can't catch a break and the ship will come out of the gates completely obsolete. Right now it has a role - and it can keep that role. But if we need it to have a different role, let's do that. But wholly obsolete ships are bullshit and the reason we're doing Tiericide in the first place.


Gotta wait for the marauder balance pass. That may very well be their intent. I can see marauders getting some big changes.

As for the Typhoons - they do certainly look a bit strong.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#799 - 2013-05-15 21:07:09 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:

These are simple tests that the guys who love the formulas can go out and test (field tests have an always will be a huge part of theory that half of EVE skips over like it doesn't matter) but don't.


Oooh, oooh, is this where we start talking about the field test I did that finally convinced Gripen to add falloff damage reduction into EFT?

-Liang


Actually yea you can, the number nerds fail to realize that the numbers only take you so far before you need to actually see the effects in game and understand how they effect things.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#800 - 2013-05-15 21:08:28 UTC
Ok, one more time:
- Cruise Golem > PVE Cruise CNR
- Torp Golem > PVE Torp CNR
- Torp SNI > PVP Torp CNR
- Torp Phoon > PVP Torp CNR
- Cruise Phoon > PVP Cruise CNR
- Cruise PhoonFI > PVP Cruise CNR

I mean, this list really goes on and on. The ship is completely without a role. No, we do not need to wait for the marauder balance pass before pointing out that the current proposal for the CNR is kinda ****.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.