Test Server Feedback

Or Maybe...

Nanofiber, renamed Fernite Composite = (Minmatar) Lower hull HP for Least +Hp, and decreased mass, costs much more CPU and less PG, this would discourage minmatar players from fitting a single plate to use all their mid slots as e-war.

Crystaline Carbonate (Gallente) = Mass addition but small, Moderate HP, balanced stats for CPU and PG, bonus to active/remote repair.

Rolled Tungsun (Amarr) = Current stats. Best protection, High mass, Low CPU, High Powergrid.

No idea what to do with a caldari racial plate.

Just throwing ideas out, the current mechanics that the only plate you ever fit is a Rolled Tungstun is kinda meh. There is a lot of opportunity to promote different mechanics.

If you're going to be giving ships a bonus to fundamentally change the way a module works, wouldn't it just be easier to add a new module?

Which bonus do you remove to make ABs work the way you've described?

Something I'd like to see is a new module that instead of adding thrust to a ship, changed it's top speed to a fixed amount. For example, lets assume it works by making a ships top speed 2km/s. No matter what size ship this module is placed on it makes the top speed 2km/s when activated. The capacitor cost to activate the module is based on the mass of the ship and/or the difference of the top speed and 2km/s. The module would be active for about 5 seconds and then cycle of 30 seconds or more. Fitting one would mean that you'd be unable to fit a MWD and/or AB. Give the Gallente blaster boats a 10% per level speed increase, doing away with either tracking, active tanking, or MWD cap bonuses where applicable. Blaster tracking should be buffed so that tracking bonuses on ships would be redundant in most cases, much like lasers and projectiles are now.

Insurance will no longer be paid for ships lost as a result of Concord intervention.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=320187#post320187

This must be stressed. When designing new ships or balancing old ships, don't just take a look at numbers but ask the players how they work. Battleship size missiles are PERHAPS middle-powered if not underpowered. Stating that the Naga could get overpowered by buffing its damage or its "precision" or by giving it cruise missiles is quite false. Heh, in truth, while we're at this, why don't you take a look at those missiles as well? I wouldn't mind a useful Caldari battleship. That is, outside of PVE.

The problem is not that misiles are "underpowered", except maybe in their "high damage" ammo, wich deals lower damage than normal ammo to 90% of the targets.

Yet using faction ammo, Missiles on a Raven for example, would have the neat highest DPS (from the EFT arround 570 with 3 BCS while the next strongest, the BL have arround 450 on a sniper apocalypse).

The problem is just long range sniping, at 250km, such as cruises on a raven can, is dead atm, so we have a weapon with a lot of range, 150km on ship without bonus, 250 on a raven, but there is just no use for them. The weapon looses this way a lot of its potential in the long range it covers, and that turns out to de completely useless; plus other cons misiles do actually have.

Do not make the Naga missiles only. More importantly, do not make the Naga a cruise missile ship. This will make it even more useless.

Doing this will only blockade it into being yet another PvE only Caldari ship. Caldari should not be "PvE only". I do not like the idea that in order to be effective in PvP, I have to crosstrain, likely for Minmatar. This is not the way to maintain the sandbox feel of a game, by having ship stats and weapon mechanics be fundamentally better for one (far less exciting) style of play than another.

I'm noticing that the Naga's bonuses are rather crap. And the 40% decrease in fitting requirements for torps compared to the 95% for hybrids is... Weird. I honestly think that the Naga should get a damage bonus for hybrids and maybe a RoF bonus for torps, as well as something that'd help it's torps hit smaller targets. The Eagle (which I'm aware is lackluster) has a damage bonus, so why can't the Naga? It may also be worthwhile to boost it's tank SLIGHTLY seeing as it lacks the speed of the other BCs. (Not talking drake levels of tank, though.)

Hell, maybe Caldari engineers decided to think outside their little box and decided to tweak the Naga's tracking systems or something too.

The scorpion is useless?

Nope, but given the marked decrease of sniper fleets, its usefulness has quite lowered. In the ranges where most gangs fight, a recon is a much better option.
Plus, the scorpion has the ambiguous advantage of being the only "support" battleship. That is, pew pewing is not its objective.



Like I said, don't look at those numbers. Cruise missiles, damage wise, would be quite decent on paper, but even battleship speed will limit their damage quite faster than guns, since it's not relative speed the factor in missile damage calculations but absolute speed of the target. Add to that the fact on sniping ranges, you get a delay of up to 20-30 second from fire to hit, which is simply daft in PVP.

Torpedoes are quite slow, and so the delay on hit issue is present here as well, though the shorter range kinda makes up for it. The problem is that Torpedoes are mitigated in damage even against battleships standing still in some cases, due to their huge explosion radius. Most battleships will also be able, without speed mods, to mitigate most of the damage through speed alone. So a Torpedo ship will have to web its target (probably double or triple web) like other short range BS platforms, and will need, as well, target painting on the target to hit for full damage. Other ships need TCs or TEs, which is quite better than target painting since they give other advantages beside "tracking".

If anyone are nervous about these ships not being able to take out battleships without their ridiculous fast speed I would suggest a 100% role bonus on afterburners... With a tracking role bonus and their already small signature that should do a pretty good job. with a MWD those tier 3 battlecruisers are way too fast. Being able to run from even cruisers is just way out of touch with the spirit of the game

Just to clarify this...

The difficulty of application of torp damage against BS can be overstated. It certainly exists, but it's not a crippling problem. As you say, six of the twelve T1 BS do not receive full damage from torps even when sitting still, because of the large explosion radius. These are the Apoc, Mega and Domi (~10% damage via sig) and the Geddon (18%), Tempest and Typhoon (24% and 29%).

The other issue is speed. Most BS, without prop mods, cannot speed tank against torps. For those that do, this is always eliminated by a single web. Accounting for both speed and sig, and assuming trimarks/CDFEs as appropriate, you get the following application of torp damage - assuming in all cases that the target is moving at top speed:

Armageddon: 77%, one 36% painter takes it to 100% damage.
Apocalypse: 83%, one 36% painter takes it to 100% damage.
Abaddon: 100%

Scorpion: 100%
Raven: 100%
Rokh: 100%

Dominix: 92%, one 36% painter takes it to 100% damage.
Megathron: 83%, one 36% painter takes it to 100% damage.
Hyperion (armour): 95%, one 36% painter takes it to 100% damage.
Hyperion (shield): 99%, one 36% painter takes it to 100% damage.

Typhoon: 55%, needs a web and 36% painter to get to 97% damage
Tempest (shield, no nanos/ODIs): 66%, one 36% painter takes it to 89% damage.
Tempest (armour): 63%, one 36% painter takes it to 84% damage.
Maelstrom: 100%.

So overall, seven of twelve BS receive >95% damage from torps without the benefit of any web or painter. With a painter applied, the only BS that receive any damage mitigation are the Typhoon and Tempest. Now, if you want to argue that, despite this, the unpopularity of torps in BS PVP indicates that they need boosting, then that's a valid argument. Personally I'd say it had more to do with the preference for more heavily armour-tanked Scorch/artillery platforms, and the weak tank and difficulty of fitting of the Raven, rather than the weapon itself, but there you go.

However... while I'm arguing that torps are effective anti-BS weapons, the reality is that BS aren't very popular these days in the kind of small-gang environments where you'd consider using torps over a Scorch or artillery platform. And the introduction of tier 3 BCs will only make this situation worse. So a torp Naga will find itself effective against targets that simply won't be common at all - the targets are more likely to be other BCs, tier 2 and tier 3. This is the fundamental problem for the Naga. While the other tier 3 BCs will also meet some level of difficulty tracking each other, this can be mitigated by range and manual piloting, while the torp Naga will specifically require web and painter. The combination of this, and the lack of a damage/ROF bonus for torps on the Naga, results in lower raw damage that is more difficult to apply, relative to the turret platforms, against other BCs.

So how to solve this? Well, some people have called for an explosion velocity bonus, but explosion radius is also a problem, so explosion radius would be considerably more useful. Alternatively, you can just increase the Naga's raw torp DPS output, under the principle that, with the web and tackle support, it should be devastating. A 25% ROF bonus would take the 948 DPS (CN ammo, 3x BCS) to 1264 DPS... that might be a bit much... or maybe not, considering the difficulties of application to non-BS targets... plus being the slowest of its class it should have some firepower advantage, after all. A 25% damage bonus would be 1185 DPS. These numbers require 3x BCS though, so the absence of a DC takes a big chunk of EHP out.

TLDR - torps good against BS but not so hot against BCs, many BC targets but few BS targets, relatively low raw damage on Naga, suggest 25% ROF bonus to give it really good EFT damage that's hard to apply.