These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Donedy
Lulzsec Space
#861 - 2013-05-16 11:42:04 UTC
Also im not convinced at all with the tempest. Even his description is not fitting with the reality (Im referring to his "unsual speed and agility")
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#862 - 2013-05-16 11:46:30 UTC
Janna Windforce wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


I have also raised the issue of torp launcher fitting costs with CCP Rise and he agreed that they're out of synch with the way that SR/LR turret fittings work. Whether this will translate into a change in the immediate future will be for him to tell us.

One of my pet peeves about missiles is that there are no low-tier options to enable fitting compromises.


Cheers! At least there is hope :)
Could you more elaborate on the second paragraph? Malkuth launchers require less CPU and meta 3 are a lot cheaper than arbalests.




Those are meta, not tier.



Say you're fitting your Megathron and you discover that you just can't get your fit to work with 7x 450mm II Rails. You have the option to drop to 350mm II Rails, losing some range, and gaining some tracking by fitting lower tier guns with reduced fitting requirements.


If you're fitting Torp launchers to your Raven, and you just can't get 6 to fit with the rest of your mods, then you have to drop one launcher, losing 1/6th of your primary DPS with no gain in any other attribute. There are no "low tier" launcher options that have a penalty to missile velocity but better explosion radius or more damage and less RoF, in return for reduced fitting costs.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
mama guru
Yazatas.
#863 - 2013-05-16 11:47:53 UTC  |  Edited by: mama guru
Donedy wrote:
Also im not convinced at all with the tempest. Even his description is not fitting with the reality (Im referring to his "unsual speed and agility")



The sad reality is that the "attack/combat" differentials might work for battlecruisers and cruisers. Battleships are simply too slow, especially armor versions, to have a dedicated speed role that a smaller ship won't do better.

"Attack" battleships ought to be designed as linebreakers. Good dps with good damage projection, with slightly less tank overall and an increase in maneuverability. The megathron as it is for example would be better of if the tracking bonus was swapped to a hybrid falloff bonus. This might even make blasters viable for PVE.

EVE online is the fishermans friend of MMO's. If it's too hard you are too weak.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#864 - 2013-05-16 11:49:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
Donedy wrote:
Also im not convinced at all with the tempest. Even his description is not fitting with the reality (Im referring to his "unsual speed and agility")


In all fairness, pretty much every single ship description in the game needs a re-write...

They are all pretty much uninformative, unimaginative, and often flat out wrong. A modest amount of time put into these descriptions would result in longer, more well thought out, and far more detailed descriptions which coincide perfectly to how the ship is used. All in all, far better ship descriptions would be a very welcome change...

an example of how ship descriptions could be changed.

1. Date of design/introduction
2. Company/Persons who designed it.
3. Overall Design goal of the ship.
4. Some kind of short story linked with a date of a battle highlighting the ships strengths.
5. Overall Consistency in the manner in which ship descriptions appear.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#865 - 2013-05-16 11:53:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
Malcanis wrote:

I specifically said "missile platform".



So we should all just discredit half of the ship so that the argument supports your initial statement?

Come now dude... Lets be objective...

You're ignoring 2 turret/nuets slots as well as a full sized drone bay which can very easily be used for sentries in missions/pvp or other drones (like 5 heavies) in smaller scale closer range pvp.
Janna Windforce
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#866 - 2013-05-16 11:54:18 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


Those are meta, not tier.



Say you're fitting your Megathron and you discover that you just can't get your fit to work with 7x 450mm II Rails. You have the option to drop to 350mm II Rails, losing some range, and gaining some tracking by fitting lower tier guns with reduced fitting requirements.


If you're fitting Torp launchers to your Raven, and you just can't get 6 to fit with the rest of your mods, then you have to drop one launcher, losing 1/6th of your primary DPS with no gain in any other attribute. There are no "low tier" launcher options that have a penalty to missile velocity but better explosion radius or more damage and less RoF, in return for reduced fitting costs.


I see, those are somewhat valid points, but probably counterbalanced by facts that you don't have to train for T2 stuff in sequence from smaller ones?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#867 - 2013-05-16 12:07:10 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

I specifically said "missile platform".



So we should all just discredit half of the ship so that the argument supports your initial statement?

Come now dude... Lets be objective...

You're ignoring 2 turret/nuets slots as well as a full sized drone bay which can very easily be used for sentries in missions/pvp or other drones (like 5 heavies) in smaller scale closer range pvp.


As said above, it's a platform.

Let's see the Typhoon fit you have in mind - along with the CPU & PG it will require.

"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.
#868 - 2013-05-16 12:08:47 UTC
Janna Windforce wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


Those are meta, not tier.



Say you're fitting your Megathron and you discover that you just can't get your fit to work with 7x 450mm II Rails. You have the option to drop to 350mm II Rails, losing some range, and gaining some tracking by fitting lower tier guns with reduced fitting requirements.


If you're fitting Torp launchers to your Raven, and you just can't get 6 to fit with the rest of your mods, then you have to drop one launcher, losing 1/6th of your primary DPS with no gain in any other attribute. There are no "low tier" launcher options that have a penalty to missile velocity but better explosion radius or more damage and less RoF, in return for reduced fitting costs.


I see, those are somewhat valid points, but probably counterbalanced by facts that you don't have to train for T2 stuff in sequence from smaller ones?


And that's counterbalanced in turn by having to train the short and long range missiles seperately, plus the missile support skills giving less bonuses and having higher ranks.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#869 - 2013-05-16 12:21:51 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

But the Navy Apoc... Shudder.
Quote:

That, combined with the new tracking bonus along with increased agility and speed will hopefully provide for a very powerful laser platform.


It's a bit lighter on it's feet, I'll give you that.

But in both the Large Energy Turrets and Amarr Tech 1 Battleship threads, we have repeatedly expounded upon the tracking bonus being very lackluster for the Apocalypse.

It really only helps in one way, and that is firing at cruiser size ships (who happen to be a near perfect transversal, at that).

It offers little to no benefit against other ship types at nearly every range. And it's cap runs dry remarkably fast just firing it's own guns.

Are we just bulling through this point for the hell of it, or are the numbers disputable in some way? Do I have to resort to some serious vernacular here, and say "feedbak plox"? The community at large is only happy with the new Apoc design vision in one way, the new model. Otherwise the Apoc response has been overwhelmingly negative.

No, plenty of people are fine with it. They just got tired of the ranting and left the various threads.
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#870 - 2013-05-16 12:31:48 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
That typhoon is a bit ridiculous. Again with the vastly different bonuses, making it basically just a turret ship with double damage bonus, but also with a missile bonus that won't come into play much. It's like the fleet scythe all over again.

It's exactly how it should be, IMO - split bonuses that actually work, though I'd be happier if the missile bonus was RoF rather than damage, to make it symmetrical with the gun bonus. I realise that it's probably not because of the strength of the new cruise missiles, but what of short-range fits?
Icarius
The Wings of Maak
#871 - 2013-05-16 12:34:14 UTC
My proposal

Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+5% to Cruise and Torpedo launcher damage
+5% to Large Projectile Turret rate of fire

Slot layout: 7H, 5M, 8L; 6 turrets(+1) , 6 launchers(+1)
Fittings: 13000 PWG, 660 CPU

Defense (shields / armor / hull): 8200 / 9300 / 9300 (back to old value, please ccp could you understand once for all that NO ONE use shield tank with a typhoon fleet , if you want missiles + shield go for a sni !!!)

Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 5800(+800) / 1100s(+12.5s)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 138(-5) / .11(-.0001) / 102600000 (-1000000) / 14.93s(-.059s)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 200
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km(+5k) / 115 / 7
Sensor strength: 23 Ladar Sensor Strength(+.5)
Signature radius: 320

The main problem is again the versatility.

You said : "With the Typhoon Fleet Issue we wanted to offer a home for the heavily trained Minmatar pilot who loves the extreme versatility that Matar can offer"

And you remove a low slot from the previous typhoon fleet issue, which one can be use for a bcu, and you add a +12.5% rof
From a versatility point of view, you do not think that having a lot slot where u may or not had a bcu is not is far better than a forced +12.5% rof. Sometines i really wonder what do you smoke?

With the removal of 1 low slot, I had to remove something on my current fitting, if i want to keep my current tank i have to remove one of my bcus. Conclusion, if i want to keep my tank, with your new supposed pawn machine ... well ...i have a 60dps loss. Same tank level => dps loss ... great.

And please do not tell me i have an additionnal launcher, there is not enough cpu or grid to fit it, unless i decide to sacrifiy an utility slot and i do not want( you know .... the versatility, the concept it seems you do not understand)
Of course i gain cpu from the module removed from low slot but not enough cpu to fit a launcher(and i need cpu for the 5th med too)
It s why i think the 8th high slot is useless, this one can not be used.

An other point from a daily typhoon fleet user ... i see some theoric fits with 1500 dps or more ... guys, seriously, there is not enough cpu, power to fit 5 torp launcher, 3 turrets, 2 bcus 2 drones damage augmenter, a prop, web, disrup, cap booster ... no.

Something good from your proposal . with my current fitting i have 1 cpu left and may be 100 pw, with the additionnal launcher slot what i can add ... a festival launcher !!!! It will be really great in pvp Lol
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#872 - 2013-05-16 12:36:07 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

But the Navy Apoc... Shudder.
Quote:

That, combined with the new tracking bonus along with increased agility and speed will hopefully provide for a very powerful laser platform.


It's a bit lighter on it's feet, I'll give you that.

But in both the Large Energy Turrets and Amarr Tech 1 Battleship threads, we have repeatedly expounded upon the tracking bonus being very lackluster for the Apocalypse.

It really only helps in one way, and that is firing at cruiser size ships (who happen to be a near perfect transversal, at that).

It offers little to no benefit against other ship types at nearly every range. And it's cap runs dry remarkably fast just firing it's own guns.

Are we just bulling through this point for the hell of it, or are the numbers disputable in some way? Do I have to resort to some serious vernacular here, and say "feedbak plox"? The community at large is only happy with the new Apoc design vision in one way, the new model. Otherwise the Apoc response has been overwhelmingly negative.


Wow, that's just... nonsense. It may be strictly true in a fantasy solo BS world, or in PVE, but it's an absurdly narrow viewpoint.
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#873 - 2013-05-16 12:38:57 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:

You mean its unusually fail becuse its inferior to the Typhoon in everything but 1800 armor HP? If its a cobmat Battleship give it 100/125 drone bay at LEAST!!!

You're aware that it has more effective turrets that the Typhoon FI, right? And that the Typhoon FI only gets a small advantage from the bonused secondary weapons because they'll lack damage bonus modules?
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#874 - 2013-05-16 12:39:23 UTC
Donedy wrote:
Johnson Oramara wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

Fleet Phoon
This ship is superior to the CNR for the same reason that the old CNR was superior to the old Golem - the extra raw damage output overwhelms the superior damage application. However, this relationship isn't just in PVE - it's also in PVP. The Fleet Phoon is just better than the CNR. It is also just better than the Fleet Pest.-Liang


Phoon: 8.25 effective launchers
CNR: 8 effective launchers

The CNR has two damage application bonuses; missile velocity and explosion radius.

I don't think that "overwhelm" is the appropriate verb for doing 33/32 = 3.12% more raw DPS.

In fact I'm going to go right ahead and say that the CNR (and ipso facto the Golem) is a significantly superior missile platform to the Fleet Phoon.

How about you look at the ships as a whole, now that you finally admit that TFI does more missile dps then look at it's drone bay, those 2 free highslots which you know, are projectile bonused.

With the ships fitted the TFI will overwhelm the CNR in dps.

How about you try to fit a TFI and discover that "OH LOOK I DONT HAVE ENOUGH PG TO FIT ANYTHING MORE THAN MY 6 GUNS/LAUNCHERS!?"

And thats with only one plate/Lse. Dont even think about fitting it as an active platform.

Yes it does not fit with the biggest toys without fitting mods but... i hate to break this to you but you can downgrade the weapons *gasp* i know, incredible right? Then there are these things called pg & cpu implants...
TehCloud
Guardians of the Dodixie
#875 - 2013-05-16 13:01:58 UTC
I don't understand why all those CNR lunatics complain about their ship doing more damage than before.
Probably CCP Rise should really tune down the damage on the CNR, so that they at least have a reason to complain.

My Condor costs less than that module!
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#876 - 2013-05-16 13:02:06 UTC
Johnson Oramara wrote:
Deerin wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

Fleet Phoon
This ship is superior to the CNR for the same reason that the old CNR was superior to the old Golem - the extra raw damage output overwhelms the superior damage application.


The overwhelming DPS difference is (1.375/1.333) =%3.1
I think the exp radius bonus (which is also a 1/0.75=1.333 magnitude bonus) is far superior to this.
Also you can fit more BCU's to a CNR. 4 BCU's on fleet phoon = no place for armor tank and using 5 meds for shield tank = no place for target painter(s).

Fleet phoon also has quite low PG so I don't really think it can replace TFI as a projectile boat. Maybe the XLASB fits might work in fleet phoon's favor due to high CPU but that's it.

Speaking of CPU, CNR needs a CPU boost.

Your math sucks, factor in the tp's and rigs and then try to tell me that the CNR has superior damage. Even with 3 BCU's TFI will have superior damage but you sure can squeeze the fourth in there too.


My math is math. I'm telling you assuming both ships actually apply their damage (which CNR can do MUCH easier thanks to exp radius bonus.)

Even adding 3rd BCU on a fleet phoon is stretching it too far as you'll not be achieving any decent armor tank, yet you are talking about putting 4th....and a 4bcu cnr outdps's a 3bcu Fphoon by the same overwhelming amount: %3

CNR can field 3 gardes whereas Fphoon can wield 5 gardes This is a 120 DPS difference to a range to a limited range with limited damage application.

A cruise phoon with 2 bcu's deals 1060 dps with furies and gardes, where a CNR with 4bcu's deals 1059 DPS with furies and gardes. There is an overwhelming 1 dps difference.
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#877 - 2013-05-16 13:06:39 UTC
TehCloud wrote:
I don't understand why all those CNR lunatics complain about their ship doing more damage than before.
Probably CCP Rise should really tune down the damage on the CNR, so that they at least have a reason to complain.

Your comment is kinda funny because compared to other ships the CNR in fact was tuned down in dps.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#878 - 2013-05-16 13:08:39 UTC
Deerin wrote:


My math is math. I'm telling you assuming both ships actually apply their damage (which CNR can do MUCH easier thanks to exp radius bonus.)

Even adding 3rd BCU on a fleet phoon is stretching it too far as you'll not be achieving any decent armor tank, yet you are talking about putting 4th....and a 4bcu cnr outdps's a 3bcu Fphoon by the same overwhelming amount: %3

CNR can field 3 gardes whereas Fphoon can wield 5 gardes This is a 120 DPS difference to a range to a limited range with limited damage application.

A cruise phoon with 2 bcu's deals 1060 dps with furies and gardes, where a CNR with 4bcu's deals 1059 DPS with furies and gardes. There is an overwhelming 1 dps difference.



Well said.

The TFI looks crazy on paper, but (because of the differences between armor tanking and shield tanking) It simply won't be able to do what my new CNR will be able to do in the places where I use it (null sec PVE). The Golem can't either (if you think defener missiles are bad in empire missions, try a sanctum, ANY sanctum lol).

The fun part is I dual box, so i'll be using both the new CNR and new Floon in my monster level isk grinding activities lol.
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#879 - 2013-05-16 13:11:28 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Elise Randolph wrote:
Some really cool stuff. Navy Apoc and Scorp are the big winners here, but the Raven and Phoon also look sexual. I do appreciate the throwback nature of the Navy Domi, as well.

There are some significant changes with cruise missiles and missile platforms in general. The final thing that I think is holding cruise missiles back is the HP of the missile itself. The cruise missile has the same HP as a heavy missile combined with a slower speed. The translation, of course, is that the missiles can be smartbombed off fairly trivially. That and the cruise missile platforms aren't exactly mobile. It would be a shame if these great ships get marginalized because of missile mechanics.


what if missiles had 99% resistance?


Until there's an ewar that works on missiles like TDs do, I think it's good that smartbombs can counter them


On the other hand, smartbombs as "anti-missile ewar" are far more efficient than any available anti-turret ewar...

I seem to recall this anti-missile system called the 'defender missile'. Perhaps making those a little more effective would be a solution.
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#880 - 2013-05-16 13:15:14 UTC
TehCloud wrote:
...all those CNR lunatics...
I guess a lot of CNR owners love their ship.