These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Navy Caracal Rebalance

Author
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1 - 2016-02-15 15:23:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
To start off with, yes I know other ships need rebalance. There are more pressing matters currently. But i just wanted to put this out there.

I've been using the Navy Caracal recently and attempted to find a decent role for it. I think, it might have been aimed at more of a fleet setup for heavy missiles. But heavy missiles are still terrible, and I think the ship is lacking in the tank department to make this viable.

So, the Navy Caracal or Naracal (Narwal) has the same mid/low setup as T1 Caracal, but has an extra launcher. It also has no drones. It does remove the range bonus in favor of an application bonus (which is fantastic imo), which favors HAMs/HML over RLML.

I think the general idea of what they have is good, but it needs tweaking to actually make it viable, for consideration in things like fleets or even just solo/general roaming.

This is what i would consider in terms of buffing it, without changing the nature of the ship itself:

Remain with 6 launchers, but make it the king of application by bumping application from 5% per level, to 10% per level.

No other caldari ship that i'm aware of has a 10% bonus per level to application. For a ship that has limited mids, and no drones, it really should have awesome application so 1 web will help apply a decent amount of damage to most targets. Or more ideally, 1 web, 1 rigor.

From there, to help address tank issues, it needs 2 things. Increase fitting, as it struggles to fit 2 LSE and MWD with 6 HAMs. I would also recommend shifting armor or hull into shield HP, to give it a better shield HP pool.

Currently its a 3750 @ 5 skills, for base shield. Taking some hull/armor away and increasing that to 4250-4500 would go a long way to giving it a solid buffer for either brawling, or in fleet settings. It has decent speed and great agility, so i don't see a need to tweak those stats.

Just make it a dps/application powerhouse. It doesn't have utility high's and doesn't have a good mid layout for any kind of active tank, and lacks the shield resist bonus. So, giving it a high base shield HP and buffing application would give it a better role in fleet usage, or even solo/general roaming. At least from what i've experienced so far by flying it.

So, would you think what i proposed would buff it too much, or enough to make it useful? Its one of the least used ships in the game last time i checked.

TL;DR: Buff Navy Caracal by bumping application bonus from 5% per level to 10% per level. Shift armor/hull into shield to increase shield buffer.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#2 - 2016-02-15 15:30:00 UTC
Thinking about it more, maybe it doesn't need the dps buff, but mainly application buff.

The dps it puts out is comparable to most of other navy cruisers, but it loses a good chunk of it through application, especially in the current meta. So maybe if we stay with just the 10% bonus to application, and keep RoF at 5% per level.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#3 - 2016-02-15 16:42:53 UTC
i don't fully agree with it needing more tank or dps but the application change alone would certanly be enough to see this used more
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#4 - 2016-02-15 17:12:31 UTC
I edited to remove damage bonus. On second glance, the dps is fine as long as it can apply it.

Best tank i could manage on it was 38k EHP in a fleet setup, which is pretty meh tbh. Fit a point and web, and it'll drop down to 28-30k pretty easily, which is comparable to solo navy ships, but still pretty weak for a fleet doctrine. I mean, the navy aug can boast 100k EHP and still do around 300-400dps and has drones and utility highs. I don't think its too far of a stretch to give this another 5-10% shield by taking away from armor/hull.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#5 - 2016-02-15 17:41:47 UTC
with a cheap fleet fit i could get 60kehp and 130hp/s 557 dps (655heat)


and considering the caracal is generally not a tanky hull thats not bad
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#6 - 2016-02-15 17:54:46 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
with a cheap fleet fit i could get 60kehp and 130hp/s 557 dps (655heat)


and considering the caracal is generally not a tanky hull thats not bad


I was doing 2 LSE II + Invuln (though i didn't include fleet boosts, so that might be where i'm off).

I also don't know if i would use Rage/Fury as point for DPS stats as you take a big range/application nerf. Depending on the scenario it may not be an accurate representation of available damage. Faction is alittle more consistent. Regardless though, faction will be around 475 with HAMS and 360 with HML.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#7 - 2016-02-15 19:36:47 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
with a cheap fleet fit i could get 60kehp and 130hp/s 557 dps (655heat)


and considering the caracal is generally not a tanky hull thats not bad


For long range missiles the dps value is mostly irrelevant since you will be grouping your launchers and fire salvos that have to go on a journey first.

But I agree with Stich that the Navy Caracal needs a little love and more base targetting range.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Valkin Mordirc
#8 - 2016-02-15 20:05:13 UTC
I bought a Navy Cara back in 2013. I haven't touched it since. I would agree that a buff to it is needed.
#DeleteTheWeak
Lugh Crow-Slave
#9 - 2016-02-17 05:25:31 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
with a cheap fleet fit i could get 60kehp and 130hp/s 557 dps (655heat)


and considering the caracal is generally not a tanky hull thats not bad


For long range missiles the dps value is mostly irrelevant since you will be grouping your launchers and fire salvos that have to go on a journey first.

But I agree with Stich that the Navy Caracal needs a little love and more base targetting range.



The reason I brought up the dps was as a comparison to his earlier example