These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Balancing Feedback: Tier3 Battlecruisers

First post
Author
Frothgar
Moosearmy
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#261 - 2011-11-07 22:28:40 UTC
Cailais wrote:
Frothgar wrote:
Daedalus Arcova wrote:
Frothgar wrote:
1600 Rolled Tungstun has both the Highest HP addition in addition to the lowest (non-faction/storyline) mass addition. This of course makes it so there is only one choice when it comes to fitting plates.

Perhaps this needs to change.


This is a very good point. At present, the only downside to using Rolled Tungsten over lower meta-level plates is only 1 or 2 points of CPU. It's almost always a no-brainer. T2 plates are also completely pointless because of this mechanic.

Perhaps another way of adding some helpful complexity to choosing plates would be more variation in the CPU and/or PG need of the various grades of plates.



Perhaps in addition to mass/inertia variations within plates, we could have them have variations in CPU and powergrid.

eg light light plates have lower PG usage, higher CPU, while heavy well fortified ones are lower CPU and higher PG usage. This would be able to adress concerns of Minnie ships doing Nanofiber plates exclusively to have LOLOL 5 E-war slots.

At the same time, at one point recently on test, Trimarks reduced shields, and extenders reduced armor. Perhaps test this with polycarbons also reducing hull?

I think there are ways this can be done that aren't a straight "Nerf ACs, Boost Blasters!!!" (Which might be another topic all together)

I'd like to see armor tanking in general get a stern looking at to promote more varying play styles across the spectrum.


What if certain plates boosted HP regen from armour reps?

C.



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.
Seamus Donohue
EVE University
Ivy League
#262 - 2011-11-07 22:37:52 UTC
By the way, in case this was missed, the new battlecruisers will have an impact on suicide ganking for profit from the cargo on the wreck.

At present, if someone uses a Tempest battleship with artillery and torpedoes, it can do about 11,000 (eleven thousand) damage in 0.5 space before CONCORD shows up (which takes 15 seconds). Such a Tempest, if meta zero fit, would cost 34 million ISK (after Insurance). So, it would cost a suicide ganker in a Tempest about 3000 ISK for each point of damage he/she wants to do. The target would have to be carrying more than 6000 ISK per effective hitpoint to be a profitable target.

For artillery Thrashers, it costs 1,050,000 ISK to do 2800 damage before CONCORD shows up, so that's 375 ISK per point of damage (and a target would have to be carrying more than 750 ISK per effective hitpoint to be profitable), which is more cost-efficient, but you would need 60 Thrashers to suicide gank a typical freighter.

With the new Naga class Caldari battlecruiser, I can fit it with meta zero siege launchers and ballistic control systems for a cost of 13.75 million ISK (after insurance payout) and it can deal 11,384 damage (at my skills; an All-Five capsuleer can get higher) before CONCORD shows up, assuming that the target is large and slow (such as a freighter). It would therefore cost 1200 ISK per point of damage (so, the target would have to be carrying more than 2400 ISK per effective hitpoint). This is about 40% of the cost that Tempests would require.

Freighters tend to have between 150,000 and 200,00 effective hitpoints. Let's say 160,000 effective hitpoints. Thus, to suicide gank it with Thrashers for profit, it would have to be carrying more than 960 million ISK of cargo, preferably more. With nagas, though, it only needs to be carrying more than 384 million ISK to be profitable.

Conclusion: Many freighters that stay below 1 billion ISK in cargo to not be worth suicide ganking for profit will now need to stay below 400 million ISK, instead.

If a suicide ganker needs to use a turret weapon of some kind, instead, then the leading choice seems to be a Talos battlecruiser fit with Magnetic Field Stabilizers and Neutron Blaster Cannon Is. The battleship blasters are more expensive than the siege launchers, so it'll cost 25.24 million ISK (after insurance) to do 11095 damage (at my skills). The cost would be 2275 ISK per point of damage, so the target needs to carry more than 4550 ISK per effective hitpoint to be profitable to suicide gank.

---

I estimate the mineral cost of building a Naga with Production Efficiency Level 5 and infinite Material efficiency on the Blueprint Original to be about 41.45 million ISK at current average Metropolis mineral prices. I assume that Platinum insurance will pay out exactly 41.45 million ISK, and require 30% of that as premium, so 12.43 million ISK. 8 siege launchers and 3 ballistic controls will cost 1.32 million ISK. I assume Caldari Navy faction torpedoes, that CONCORD shows up 15 seconds after the first shot is fired, and that the aggressors are destroyed (or ECM jammed) instantly upon CONCORD appearing.

For the Talos, I estimate the mineral cost at 46.31 million ISK, and assuming 30% of that as a Platinum premium is 13.89 million ISK. 8 Neutron Blaster Cannon Is and 5 Magnetic Field Stabilizer Is is 11.35 million ISK. I assume Federation Navy or Caldari Navy Antimatter charges, and 15 second CONCORD respons time.

These assumptions are optimistic for the ganker.

Survivor of Teskanen.  Fan of John Rourke.

I have video tutorials for EVE Online on my YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/SeamusDonohueEVE

Kiev Duran
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#263 - 2011-11-07 22:46:54 UTC
Knoppaz wrote:
Shin Dari wrote:

Quote:
way too many quotes Shocked


And you think it would be a good idea to give all blasterboats this bonus?

And how will this prevent Gallente ships from being constantly the fastest ships?


Well, they can be the fastest. That's what everyone is talking about it seems. Blasterboats need to get in range quick and this way they are able to.
On the other side, since it uses more cap than regular size MWD it would only be useful to close the gap so Gallente would be the fast sprinters over "short" distance.
Minmatar would still be the kings on sustained top speed as they should be.


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.
Maksim Cammeren
Taxless Corp
#264 - 2011-11-07 22:50:44 UTC
Seamus Donohue wrote:
Thus, to suicide gank it with Thrashers for profit, it would have to be carrying more than 960 million ISK of cargo, preferably more.

I suppose you mean Tempests, as your own numbers suggest that Thrashers are almost 10x cheaper.

Also, it seems that you no longer get insurance for losses to Concord, which changes the math by a lot.
Kiev Duran
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#265 - 2011-11-07 22:51:50 UTC
Seamus Donohue wrote:
By the way, in case this was missed, the new battlecruisers will have an impact on suicide ganking for profit from the cargo on the wreck.

At present, if someone uses a Tempest battleship with artillery and torpedoes, it can do about 11,000 (eleven thousand) damage in 0.5 space before CONCORD shows up (which takes 15 seconds). Such a Tempest, if meta zero fit, would cost 34 million ISK (after Insurance). So, it would cost a suicide ganker in a Tempest about 3000 ISK for each point of damage he/she wants to do. The target would have to be carrying more than 6000 ISK per effective hitpoint to be a profitable target.

For artillery Thrashers, it costs 1,050,000 ISK to do 2800 damage before CONCORD shows up, so that's 375 ISK per point of damage (and a target would have to be carrying more than 750 ISK per effective hitpoint to be profitable), which is more cost-efficient, but you would need 60 Thrashers to suicide gank a typical freighter.

With the new Naga class Caldari battlecruiser, I can fit it with meta zero siege launchers and ballistic control systems for a cost of 13.75 million ISK (after insurance payout) and it can deal 11,384 damage (at my skills; an All-Five capsuleer can get higher) before CONCORD shows up, assuming that the target is large and slow (such as a freighter). It would therefore cost 1200 ISK per point of damage (so, the target would have to be carrying more than 2400 ISK per effective hitpoint). This is about 40% of the cost that Tempests would require.

Freighters tend to have between 150,000 and 200,00 effective hitpoints. Let's say 160,000 effective hitpoints. Thus, to suicide gank it with Thrashers for profit, it would have to be carrying more than 960 million ISK of cargo, preferably more. With nagas, though, it only needs to be carrying more than 384 million ISK to be profitable.

Conclusion: Many freighters that stay below 1 billion ISK in cargo to not be worth suicide ganking for profit will now need to stay below 400 million ISK, instead.

If a suicide ganker needs to use a turret weapon of some kind, instead, then the leading choice seems to be a Talos battlecruiser fit with Magnetic Field Stabilizers and Neutron Blaster Cannon Is. The battleship blasters are more expensive than the siege launchers, so it'll cost 25.24 million ISK (after insurance) to do 11095 damage (at my skills). The cost would be 2275 ISK per point of damage, so the target needs to carry more than 4550 ISK per effective hitpoint to be profitable to suicide gank.

---

I estimate the mineral cost of building a Naga with Production Efficiency Level 5 and infinite Material efficiency on the Blueprint Original to be about 41.45 million ISK at current average Metropolis mineral prices. I assume that Platinum insurance will pay out exactly 41.45 million ISK, and require 30% of that as premium, so 12.43 million ISK. 8 siege launchers and 3 ballistic controls will cost 1.32 million ISK. I assume Caldari Navy faction torpedoes, that CONCORD shows up 15 seconds after the first shot is fired, and that the aggressors are destroyed (or ECM jammed) instantly upon CONCORD appearing.

For the Talos, I estimate the mineral cost at 46.31 million ISK, and assuming 30% of that as a Platinum premium is 13.89 million ISK. 8 Neutron Blaster Cannon Is and 5 Magnetic Field Stabilizer Is is 11.35 million ISK. I assume Federation Navy or Caldari Navy Antimatter charges, and 15 second CONCORD respons time.

These assumptions are optimistic for the ganker.



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
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Midgard Academy
RONA Directorate
#266 - 2011-11-07 22:53:37 UTC
incrase the speed of the talos just a big, and maybe give it a drone bay.

Why Can't I have a picture signature.

Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.

Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#267 - 2011-11-07 22:53:54 UTC
Kiev Duran wrote:

CCP, please take a look at how missiles are used in your game. Through posts like these, myself and others get the feeling that there is a disconnect between how you want missiles to be used and how they actually are.


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.
Seamus Donohue
EVE University
Ivy League
#268 - 2011-11-07 23:07:03 UTC
Maksim Cammeren wrote:
Seamus Donohue wrote:
Thus, to suicide gank it with Thrashers for profit, it would have to be carrying more than 960 million ISK of cargo, preferably more.

I suppose you mean Tempests, as your own numbers suggest that Thrashers are almost 10x cheaper.
You are correct, I mis-typed. I did mean "Tempests" in that sentence.

Kiev Duran wrote:

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

Ah, thank you, I was not aware that the change was definitely planned by CCP.

Survivor of Teskanen.  Fan of John Rourke.

I have video tutorials for EVE Online on my YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/SeamusDonohueEVE

Cyvhiros
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#269 - 2011-11-07 23:11:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Cyvhiros
Gecko O'Bac wrote:
Kiev Duran wrote:

CCP, please take a look at how missiles are used in your game. Through posts like these, myself and others get the feeling that there is a disconnect between how you want missiles to be used and how they actually are.


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.
Cyvhiros
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#270 - 2011-11-07 23:12:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Cyvhiros
Cyvhiros wrote:
Gecko O'Bac wrote:
Kiev Duran wrote:

CCP, please take a look at how missiles are used in your game. Through posts like these, myself and others get the feeling that there is a disconnect between how you want missiles to be used and how they actually are.


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 sniping 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 targeting, 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.



Wana make better cruises, just find the way to reduce their range for more damage, or a way to make sniping viable, otherwise, they are just worse than other weapons, same as happens with RG.
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#271 - 2011-11-07 23:18:23 UTC
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.
Mariner6
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#272 - 2011-11-07 23:46:33 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
TALOS




Thanks for responding and staying engaged in your thread. It really make a difference, at least to me, to see some kind of CCP feedback regularly in the threads. After 50 so pages in the Hybrid thread with no response makes one start to feel people are just talking to a wall.

Your right, you all have some tough decisions to make. My only recommendation would be to focus on the Gallente ships, their bonuses, and the guns specifically. I honestly don't see rail guns as being overly challenging for smart guys like you fix due to it being a simpler problem. Just amp up the damage in line with the other long range guns and you'll get some people using them.

My meager two cents are that changes to plates/shield extenders/rigs/modules etc etc will end up just boosting another race and create second and third order unwanted effects as you mentioned. Focus on the things you can change directly to the ships and to blasters that would make them utile. But you will have to make some paradigm shifts to be successful. You need to be bold and throw it out there on Sisi for feedback. Give it shot.

Thanks for listening and good luck.... we're anxiously waiting.
Mariner6
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#273 - 2011-11-07 23:49:41 UTC
Gecko O'Bac wrote:
[quote=Kiev Duran]
I wouldn't mind a useful Caldari battleship.


The scorpion is useless?
Selar Nox
#274 - 2011-11-07 23:53:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Selar Nox
Shin Dari wrote:
I might have a fix for you. Two things need to be done.

1. Create a new propulsion system -> Warp Pulse Drive. Provides an massive sprint but consumes an insane amount of cap points. Deactivates itself after 1 cycle.

2. Massively increase cap capacity and decrease recharge rate on all gallante ships. This would mean that other races won't be able to use Warp Pulse Drives. And that even Gallante ships can't use it constantly in battle.

Like this one. Already suggested a similar approach: Make Gallente Masters of MWD / (first version).

Same principle: increase sprint ability without touching the agility/speed domain of Minmatar ships.
And in this case without the need of a new and faction exclusive module.

Basically it's about reducing the mass gain by MWDs (better acceleration) and reducing MWD cycle time (better dosage of speed to reduce risk of overshooting your target.
Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#275 - 2011-11-08 00:08:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Gecko O'Bac
Mariner6 wrote:
Gecko O'Bac wrote:

I wouldn't mind a useful Caldari battleship.


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.

Cyvhiros wrote:

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.


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".
Voith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#276 - 2011-11-08 00:22:45 UTC
Split bonuses are awesome and more ships should have them!


(Provided they make sense!)

The issue here is shoehorning the BS weapons on the BC.

If the Naga as +5% Shield Resists and +10% Optimal and Random Missile bonus it would be an awesome ship. Fit it with HMLs and Rat, then swap to Hybrids for a anti-support BC! (Provided Hybrids are ever fixed)

Instead you're trapped because of the whole BS guns on a BC issue. When a design makes you trapped before it is even released it is a bad design.
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#277 - 2011-11-08 00:27:05 UTC
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
Rawls Canardly
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#278 - 2011-11-08 01:41:27 UTC
oops wrong thread. disregard.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#279 - 2011-11-08 02:20:13 UTC
Gecko O'Bac wrote:


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".


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.
Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#280 - 2011-11-08 02:59:01 UTC
My thoughts, after reading the last half-dozen pages of this thread, all Ytterbium's posts, and playing with the new BCs extensively on the test server and in fitting tools:

My main thought on the Naga is that it really needs its fourth lowslot back, or just a bit more tank in lieu of that. There are a couple of funny fits for it, but it is largely bereft of any modicum usefulness the other races' new ships have outside of killing capitals and stationary battleships.

I also disagree that the explosion velocity bonus given to torpedoes was giving it too much leeway with smaller ships. Sure it can sort of do OK damage sometimes if it has one, but if my experience with missiles has taught me anything, explosion velocity is no substitute for a small explosion radius -- something that torpedoes can never have.

The Talos seems OK to me. Any problems it has are endemic to hybrids and should be treated as such.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature