These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Trolly McForumalt
Doomheim
#1301 - 2013-05-23 17:22:48 UTC
The problem remains that the Fleet Phoon is too strong.

Suggested changes:

Remove 2 launcher and turret slots and bump the bonuses down to 5% - to reach full dps you'll need to fit 4 of each. Also move one more low to a mid making it 8/6/6 - now you have a true choice in shield or armor tank. Keep the drones as they are.

-or-

Make the drone bandwidth/bay 75/100.

Keeping the turret/launcher damage along with the drones is ridiculous and will be impossible to balance.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1302 - 2013-05-23 17:27:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Johnson Oramara wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Someone is mighty butt hurt for some reason.

We get it, you don't like the new CNR. That's tough. Don't fly it after June 4th.

I think it's fine and prefer it to the other ships people keep mentioning. Somehow you seem to feel like CCP is taking something away from you. Maybe so, but you'll really just need to get over that.

Is that the only thing you can come up with if you have no argument against him?
That is becoming an pattern.


I didn't bother arguing with him because he's unreasonable. you see i'm not replying to Liang either, both of them are too emotional about this to talk to (as I alluded to, it's like CCP killed their dog or something lol). I don't plan on being that emotional when they nerf my beloved Mach (Blessed be it's Frame).

You guys can take out your dislike of what CCP is doing on me all you want. It doesn't change the fact that the currently proposed CNR (+ the cruise buff) is pretty cool (to some of us at least). If ccp wants to give a bit more cpu that would be cool, but otherwise, it's nice as is. if they want to do more dps well, that's cool too but i don't think it's necessary.

I'm still posting to demonstrate appreciation to Rise and Co. at having the courage to change things around a bit. Overall their ship balancing efforts are moving in the right direction.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1303 - 2013-05-23 17:30:07 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Johnson Oramara wrote:

Putting 3 sentries on the CNR means you don't have space for other drones and will have to kill the frigs with missiles. Which will be slow. That TP falloff won't really end up as a problem since all the rats will come to you.

CNR has 100m3 dronebay. It's not changing in Odyssey.


I think he confused the CNR with the regular Raven. I still tend to MJD out and deal with them with sentries, but I keep a flight of lights incase that doesn't work and I want to keep my missiles for big ships.

Lugalzagezi666
#1304 - 2013-05-23 17:50:55 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

We get it, you don't like the new CNR. That's tough. Don't fly it after June 4th.

I think it's fine and prefer it to the other ships people keep mentioning. Somehow you seem to feel like CCP is taking something away from you. Maybe so, but you'll really just need to get over that.

Oh, how many times I heard that already. Dont like punisher? Dont fly it. Dont like maller? Dont fly it. Dont like prophecy? Dont fly it. Dont like kestrel? Dont fly it. Dont like moa? Dont fly it... What will be next? If you dont like how it is, bring your own dram? Bring your own falcon, bring your own logi, bring your own ogb, bring your own supercarrier?

Do you even understand the point of the discussion? Apparently not, you live in your phantasmagory where every t2 ship outclasses anything t1 and faction, just because its t2. "Uhhuh, I close my eyes and everything is moving direction where t2 ships lose they specialization and are universal omgwtfpwnmobiles." Place, where giving people badly designed ships that dont reward piloting and overpowered hulls that can destroy the balance of whole ship lines is ok. Apparently in your corner of the universe it is perfectly viable that one race gets "easymode" noobsips, while other is served "hardmode" ships that actually benefit from piloting effort.

Well, I would prefer if all races could choose from ships, that reward piloting and fitting skills. I would prefer if ships of one race werent so good, that there is no reason to fly anything but them and I dont consider averse to using more than 2 functional keys a valid reason.

If there is something that is annoying me, it is people without basic understanding of game mechanics who are spamming bullshit in F&I threads instead of posting facts and arguments, that would actually help with balancing. Instead of that we get "I got bunch of fphoons in station so Im happy and I like to shoot cruises to frigs so its good..."

And as usual, after they run out of arguments or when their arguments show invalid, we are back to "u mad, dont be butthurt, ccp ate your dog etc."
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1305 - 2013-05-23 17:54:58 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
CNR has 100m3 dronebay. It's not changing in Odyssey.

Good catch, however it does not counter my argument. Smile

stoicfaux wrote:
Not true[1]. EFT's DPS chart would seem to say the RF Ammo Vargur is better against a 575m sized Golem moving perpendicular at 131m/s. Even with 3 TCs and 2x TPs on the TFI.

With bouncers, there's a ~40 DPS difference at 12.5km and ~335 DPS difference at 61km (which is right outside of drone control range.)

In other words, it's worth investigating fittings and doing a proper comparison between the TFI and Vargur. I won't have time to do so though.

On a side note, the Cruise Missile TFI is doing a flat 925 DPS of applied missile damage.


[1] in a very limited situation. ;-)

I can see that TFI's ac's have more trouble hitting the Golem, however the Bouncers seems to make it up. I don't think i would fit sentrys on the Vargur because of the risk of frigs getting under your guns. I still like the cruise+bouncer TFI best Lol
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1306 - 2013-05-23 18:09:52 UTC
Trolly McForumalt wrote:
The problem remains that the Fleet Phoon is too strong.

Suggested changes:

Remove 2 launcher and turret slots and bump the bonuses down to 5% - to reach full dps you'll need to fit 4 of each. Also move one more low to a mid making it 8/6/6 - now you have a true choice in shield or armor tank. Keep the drones as they are.

-or-

Make the drone bandwidth/bay 75/100.

Keeping the turret/launcher damage along with the drones is ridiculous and will be impossible to balance.


And this is a horrible idea. The phoon use to be 8 high (4 launcher 4 turret) and it just didn't work very well because of how split weapons work. You have to have too many support modules to deal decent dps, and pretty much defines all the problems that split weapon ships have.

The typhoon is the traditional minmatar armor battleship, moving the slot layout to 8/6/6 plants it firmly as a shield ship.

My conclusion is your idea is terrible.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1307 - 2013-05-23 18:15:51 UTC
Lugalzagezi666 wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

We get it, you don't like the new CNR. That's tough. Don't fly it after June 4th.

I think it's fine and prefer it to the other ships people keep mentioning. Somehow you seem to feel like CCP is taking something away from you. Maybe so, but you'll really just need to get over that.

Oh, how many times I heard that already. Dont like punisher? Dont fly it. Dont like maller? Dont fly it. Dont like prophecy? Dont fly it. Dont like kestrel? Dont fly it. Dont like moa? Dont fly it... What will be next? If you dont like how it is, bring your own dram? Bring your own falcon, bring your own logi, bring your own ogb, bring your own supercarrier?

Do you even understand the point of the discussion? Apparently not, you live in your phantasmagory where every t2 ship outclasses anything t1 and faction, just because its t2. "Uhhuh, I close my eyes and everything is moving direction where t2 ships lose they specialization and are universal omgwtfpwnmobiles." Place, where giving people badly designed ships that dont reward piloting and overpowered hulls that can destroy the balance of whole ship lines is ok. Apparently in your corner of the universe it is perfectly viable that one race gets "easymode" noobsips, while other is served "hardmode" ships that actually benefit from piloting effort.

Well, I would prefer if all races could choose from ships, that reward piloting and fitting skills. I would prefer if ships of one race werent so good, that there is no reason to fly anything but them and I dont consider averse to using more than 2 functional keys a valid reason.

If there is something that is annoying me, it is people without basic understanding of game mechanics who are spamming bullshit in F&I threads instead of posting facts and arguments, that would actually help with balancing. Instead of that we get "I got bunch of fphoons in station so Im happy and I like to shoot cruises to frigs so its good..."

And as usual, after they run out of arguments or when their arguments show invalid, we are back to "u mad, dont be butthurt, ccp ate your dog etc."


And the butt hurt continues.

I never said any of the things you're talking about here. Simply posting to combat the reactionary response as a few of you are shoving out.

I've been on sisi, I've flown the (cruise missile) ships in question in some of the hardest pve sites EVE has to offer (sometimes solo, sometimes dual boxing) and I find the changes to the CNR to be pretty damn good. Once again, I'm sorry that you don't. Either you can stay enraged by it or get used to it because I doubt CCP is going to do any about-faces on it. if they did though, I think it would be a bad idea but meh, i'd abuse the hell out of the overpower CNR you guys want.

That means I win no matter what happens lol. But hey, i know how to keep video game issues in context.....

Your reaction to someone with a different opinion is very telling, some people can't properly handle disagreement and go all batshit because of it. That's a problem with you, not with me, and you should find a way to work though that. If you don't like what I'm posting, by all means use the ignore function.

I think CCP is mostly doing a fine job of it but should perhaps reconsider the Floon. what works great fro the Scythe Fleet Issue might be over the top in a Battleship hull like the Floon. And the Floon being basically overpowered is nothing more than fuel for others who want their pet ship (the CNR) to be overpowered to match.
Trolly McForumalt
Doomheim
#1308 - 2013-05-23 18:20:02 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:
Trolly McForumalt wrote:
The problem remains that the Fleet Phoon is too strong.

Suggested changes:

Remove 2 launcher and turret slots and bump the bonuses down to 5% - to reach full dps you'll need to fit 4 of each. Also move one more low to a mid making it 8/6/6 - now you have a true choice in shield or armor tank. Keep the drones as they are.

-or-

Make the drone bandwidth/bay 75/100.

Keeping the turret/launcher damage along with the drones is ridiculous and will be impossible to balance.


And this is a horrible idea. The phoon use to be 8 high (4 launcher 4 turret) and it just didn't work very well because of how split weapons work. You have to have too many support modules to deal decent dps, and pretty much defines all the problems that split weapon ships have.

The typhoon is the traditional minmatar armor battleship, moving the slot layout to 8/6/6 plants it firmly as a shield ship.

My conclusion is your idea is terrible.


Spoken by someone who doesn't want their new favorite toy nerfed. At the very least the fleet phoon needs its drone bay gutted.
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1309 - 2013-05-23 18:20:17 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
....And some of us don't salvage/loot.

Then you are missing on a big part of profit, the missions are intended to be looted/salvaged.

Jenn aSide wrote:
That's ccp's choice, and while I'd abuse it, I don't think it's the best idea. Better would be to bring the Floon back down to earth a bit. The idea is what's best for the game's balance, not what I would like personally (because personally i'd like a CNR with citidel torps , a bomber like power grid bonus so they would fit, and a 400% TP bonus for the CNR lol)..

Can you call any of my suggestions for the CNR really OP? I'm not here to ask them to make it the pwnmobile, it's just that i find it currently lacking in many general roles you would normally use it for and i don't count niche roles as a role. It's just bland.

Jenn aSide wrote:
Yea, it's flat out better in the worst case scenarios i've put it in (Tank is nice but SNI had a harder time with the whole GTFO thing in plexes and lvl 5s). What are to you "tiny" advantages are to me the difference between a popped ship and survival. That's why I like the new CNR concept, it has a proper place in the t1/navy/t2 line up and it works the way I need it to when it counts.

Just because it's fine to you does not make it fine to others. Also that "GTFO" isn't really a clear role for a ship, with SNI you might not even need to GTFO or if you need you have more time for it thanks to it's tank.
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1310 - 2013-05-23 18:27:16 UTC
Trolly McForumalt wrote:
Ersahi Kir wrote:
Trolly McForumalt wrote:
The problem remains that the Fleet Phoon is too strong.

Suggested changes:

Remove 2 launcher and turret slots and bump the bonuses down to 5% - to reach full dps you'll need to fit 4 of each. Also move one more low to a mid making it 8/6/6 - now you have a true choice in shield or armor tank. Keep the drones as they are.

-or-

Make the drone bandwidth/bay 75/100.

Keeping the turret/launcher damage along with the drones is ridiculous and will be impossible to balance.


And this is a horrible idea. The phoon use to be 8 high (4 launcher 4 turret) and it just didn't work very well because of how split weapons work. You have to have too many support modules to deal decent dps, and pretty much defines all the problems that split weapon ships have.

The typhoon is the traditional minmatar armor battleship, moving the slot layout to 8/6/6 plants it firmly as a shield ship.

My conclusion is your idea is terrible.


Spoken by someone who doesn't want their new favorite toy nerfed. At the very least the fleet phoon needs its drone bay gutted.

The drone bay is exactly what allows those ridiculous dps numbers on it. Losing 2 sentrys makes it a little more acceptable.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#1311 - 2013-05-23 18:33:24 UTC
Johnson Oramara wrote:

The drone bay is exactly what allows those ridiculous dps numbers on it. Losing 2 sentrys makes it a little more acceptable.


I'm quite against nerfing the Phoon FI's drones, but I'd be more than happy to see a 5/5 layout.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1312 - 2013-05-23 18:34:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenshi Hanshin
DO NOT NERF THE CNS EVER!!

We caldari pilots are bent over and rammed by game mechanics.
____________________________________________________

Overall, I am a bit more pleased with these changes than the standard BS changes.
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#1313 - 2013-05-23 18:46:07 UTC
Trolly McForumalt wrote:
The problem remains that the Fleet Phoon is too strong.

Suggested changes:

Remove 2 launcher and turret slots and bump the bonuses down to 5% - to reach full dps you'll need to fit 4 of each. Also move one more low to a mid making it 8/6/6 - now you have a true choice in shield or armor tank. Keep the drones as they are.

-or-

Make the drone bandwidth/bay 75/100.

Keeping the turret/launcher damage along with the drones is ridiculous and will be impossible to balance.

That is a pretty heavy nerf there, and also a pretty rubbish ship in total as you would need to fit two sets of damage mods. The Typhoon looks fine to me, I don't see the reason for any nerfs to it, and especially not as heavily as you suggested.
Trolly McForumalt
Doomheim
#1314 - 2013-05-23 18:55:12 UTC
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:

That is a pretty heavy nerf there, and also a pretty rubbish ship in total as you would need to fit two sets of damage mods. The Typhoon looks fine to me, I don't see the reason for any nerfs to it, and especially not as heavily as you suggested.


Good luck selling that. It seems the consensus that the fleet Typhoon is op (it's better than the CNR with missiles and better than the fleet pest fit with turrets and has 5 sentries to boot) - the discussion is what to do with it.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1315 - 2013-05-23 18:56:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Ersahi Kir
Trolly McForumalt wrote:
Ersahi Kir wrote:
Trolly McForumalt wrote:
The problem remains that the Fleet Phoon is too strong.

Suggested changes:

Remove 2 launcher and turret slots and bump the bonuses down to 5% - to reach full dps you'll need to fit 4 of each. Also move one more low to a mid making it 8/6/6 - now you have a true choice in shield or armor tank. Keep the drones as they are.

-or-

Make the drone bandwidth/bay 75/100.

Keeping the turret/launcher damage along with the drones is ridiculous and will be impossible to balance.


And this is a horrible idea. The phoon use to be 8 high (4 launcher 4 turret) and it just didn't work very well because of how split weapons work. You have to have too many support modules to deal decent dps, and pretty much defines all the problems that split weapon ships have.

The typhoon is the traditional minmatar armor battleship, moving the slot layout to 8/6/6 plants it firmly as a shield ship.

My conclusion is your idea is terrible.


Spoken by someone who doesn't want their new favorite toy nerfed. At the very least the fleet phoon needs its drone bay gutted.


And now we're just shotgunning insults blindly hoping to hit the mark. You missed.

The 125 drone bandwidth pretty much has to stay. With the way they pulled the carpet out from under many typhoon pilots with the new basic phoon they more or less promised to keep the main qualities of the old typhoon in the fleet typhoon. Namely, the large drone bay, armor tank, and the flexibility of fitting missiles, turrets, or other utility highs.

Now I wouldn't be too opposed to going 5/5 turret-launcher split, or moving the bonus down to 5% RoF, or some other things to balance out the damage are fair arguments. But keeping the 8 highs, 125 drone bandwidth, and at least 7 lows are off the table to keep the spirit of the old typhoon alive.

Trolly McForumalt wrote:
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:

That is a pretty heavy nerf there, and also a pretty rubbish ship in total as you would need to fit two sets of damage mods. The Typhoon looks fine to me, I don't see the reason for any nerfs to it, and especially not as heavily as you suggested.


Good luck selling that. It seems the consensus that the fleet Typhoon is op (it's better than the CNR with missiles and better than the fleet pest fit with turrets and has 5 sentries to boot) - the discussion is what to do with it.


Seeing as how the fleet pest is hands down the worst faction battleship by miles I don't think it should be the gold standard for comparisons. The fact that the double turret bonused fleet pest is worse than the single bonused fleet typhoon says more about how horrible the design of the fleet pest is.
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1316 - 2013-05-23 18:57:57 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
I use sentry CNR now, I contend with the Light drones by using a MJD and popping them as they approach with the sentries (and the occasional precision missile salvo). The New CNR is muucchh better at that with the extra mid slot and explosion radius bonus + rigs (flare II instead of flare one).

Few pages ago you said you hate using drones. Also using that strategy with MJD is tricky depending how many frigs there are some may catch up to you and with MJD's cooldown time you won't be doing that a lot. Now imagine a scramming frig in your deadly situation.

Jenn aSide wrote:
Depends on the mission/site and the rats. Blood Raiders and Guristas have more long range orbit rats than other races, even some of the cruisers orbit further out than the normal 17-18 k of angel and serps.

The range is ~50km where TP's still work fine.

Jenn aSide wrote:
Hate the current Golem but like the current CNR etc.

I actually use it as it was meant to and really like it. When i have someone for salvaging/looting i really like my CNR too.

After Odyssey i will like my Golem even more but when i have friend salvaging/looting then TFI is going to be absolutely murdering the missions.

Btw, can you post some of your CNR fittings here?
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1317 - 2013-05-23 19:06:53 UTC
Lugalzagezi666 wrote:

Thats why they also buffed assault ships (you know, t2 should be universally better, right?) so they automatically outclassed every other frig in the universe. Good they forgot to tell my hookbill.Lol


No, they didn't forget the Hookbill and it gets more mass in Odyssey. It just took a while :)

Temporary imbalances are a result of CCP doing this in their original :18 months: style, and never balancing the whole class at a time.

Rest assured that all marauders will be better than navy BS in their specialty, which is PVE, when their time comes.

.
Trolly McForumalt
Doomheim
#1318 - 2013-05-23 19:09:42 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:


And now we're just shotgunning insults blindly hoping to hit the mark. You missed.

The 125 drone bandwidth pretty much has to stay. With the way they pulled the carpet out from under many typhoon pilots with the new basic phoon they more or less promised to keep the main qualities of the old typhoon in the fleet typhoon. Namely, the large drone bay, armor tank, and the flexibility of fitting missiles, turrets, or other utility highs.

Now I wouldn't be too opposed to going 5/5 turret-launcher split, or moving the bonus down to 5% RoF, or some other things to balance out the damage are fair arguments. But keeping the 8 highs, 125 drone bandwidth, and at least 7 lows are off the table to keep the spirit of the old typhoon alive.


If you're insulted by my claim that you don't want your (increasingly apparent) 'new favorite toy' to get nerfed then that's your problem - not mine. Your reaction only makes it look like I 'hit the mark' as you said - otherwise you would've just let it go. Regardless...

The drones and slot layout should *absolutely* be on the table. Not that what we type here will decide anything - it's CPP's call and I can guess what will happen... nothing. The stats will go live as is (unfortunately).
Trolly McForumalt
Doomheim
#1319 - 2013-05-23 19:12:44 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:


Seeing as how the fleet pest is hands down the worst faction battleship by miles I don't think it should be the gold standard for comparisons. The fact that the double turret bonused fleet pest is worse than the single bonused fleet typhoon says more about how horrible the design of the fleet pest is.


How does the fleet tempest compare to the CNR? Somewhat favorably IMO. Just further illustrates the problem with the fleet typhoon.
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1320 - 2013-05-23 19:16:07 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Johnson Oramara wrote:

The drone bay is exactly what allows those ridiculous dps numbers on it. Losing 2 sentrys makes it a little more acceptable.


I'm quite against nerfing the Phoon FI's drones, but I'd be more than happy to see a 5/5 layout.

-Liang

Actually, i might have jumped too quickly to that conclusion.
I have been playing with autocannon+bouncer fitted TFI now and this just seems to underline how much more powerful the cruise+bouncer fitted TFI is.

With ac's you get 1375dps at 5km, 1092dps at 20km, 855dps at 50km, 513dps at 81.25km which is it's targeting range.
With cruises you still get 1349dps to 60km, 1259dps to 81.25km.

And autocannons have the better rof damage bonus... cruise missiles are a bit on the op side.