These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

[Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships - Caldari

First post First post
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#181 - 2013-04-09 17:27:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Lina Theist wrote:
As it stands right now, a rokh will never snipe because it's outperformed in every way by a naga. As such, blasters are the only viable option for a rokh. However, if it got a damage bonus instead, rails would actually do enough damage to be viable. Blasters would lose range, and be niche.

Right now, rokh is fitted with blasters only as a brawler.

Just FYI, you're totally out of touch with reality. The Rail Rokh is a dominant fleet BS.

And I hope the guy above me wasn't suggesting deadspace MWDs as a method of going faster... Straight
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#182 - 2013-04-09 17:46:34 UTC
Hmm? The c-types are sold at a very resonable price, if you can afford a rokh hull, you shouldnt have any problems affording a c-type MWD.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#183 - 2013-04-09 17:51:49 UTC
Van Mathias wrote:
Hmm? The c-types are sold at a very resonable price, if you can afford a rokh hull, you shouldnt have any problems affording a c-type MWD.

It's not the cost. Why do you think they're so cheap? Maybe because they don't give any speed bonus over a T1 MWD...?
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#184 - 2013-04-09 18:02:25 UTC
After further though... I have to say that after carefull examination the Raven its a complete piece of crap that shouldn't even exist and might as well be in a trash bin.
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#185 - 2013-04-09 18:25:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Lithorn
Please look into improving the scorpions viability as an armor tank, it's a really bad armor tanking ship, not expecting miracles just improve the armor aspect of it somehow.

-1 or -2 high slots, add 1 or 2 low slots (hint hint)
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#186 - 2013-04-09 18:36:40 UTC
Why should the scorp, a Caldari ship, armor tank? The problem is that ECM's take mids, and several people have suggested to making it a highslot mod, which it should be. Once that is done, you will be able to shield tank it adequately.
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#187 - 2013-04-09 18:49:56 UTC
CCP rise, you said in the galent thread that the other ones whernt sayign much of interest, but i have yet to hear your take on how to make the scorp more useful? especialy above the much cheeper BB or the much more suprising Falcon. It donsent have manuverability, nore tank, hell it doent even do decent DPS, it dosent have anything a Battle ship should have, just an aditional mid over the Falcon. Why do we need this ECM BS? for big fleet fights where a BS EHP will keep it on field longer? nope because it will have Craptastic tank and still die, and if we shield tank it, the BB will out jam it. so for the love of Zombie jesus, give it either more tank, more DPS, or somethign special to make it worth takign over a BB or falcon.

Seriosuly, last time i saw a Scorpion at all was XL-ASB shield bait ones
Caldari State
#188 - 2013-04-09 19:05:57 UTC
why the hell scorp has better tank than raven?
p.s : scorp is a support ship and utterly almost useless.
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#189 - 2013-04-09 19:14:15 UTC
Actually, I could see the tank order for Caldari BS being Raven/Light - Scorpion/Meduim - Rokh/Heavy. I would also reccomend that if this is the way forward, to redo the raven hull to look like a thick B2-Spirit.
#190 - 2013-04-09 20:02:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Would someone care to give an explanation of the reasoning behind the velocity bonus on the Raven?

The number one problem among the racial traits of Caldari ships (with the L-Missile platforms included) for the past few years have been that they've not been updated to the changing environment around them. "Range" has been their trait for as long as i can remember, and application of range bonuses is understandable on that background; but many of those platforms wrestle with problems allowing the bonuses help define the ships and their roles.

Torpedos have a range that hit the standard tackling breakpoints yet with bonuses do not hit the next common "bracket" (eg., even range bonused Torps are quite underwhelming when looking at L-pulse and L-auto; assuming Torps are not meant to have range-appeal similar to that of Rockets, maybe it's time to look over the bonuses).

Cruise already overshoot targets, far too many weapon systems in the game hit the desirable breakpoints and so forth so the value of a range bonus is even more limited on them. Utilizing range bonuses, with inferior ammunition flexibility, while most LR weapon systems (both M and L) hit the desired breakpoint ranges, proves quite difficult. The platforms balanced around that would make sense if they were the only systems capable of hitting 150km. Even if that would remain a narrow niche, they would at least retain their niche. Now they overshoot that logic into old probing- or warp-ranges (250km) while many other platforms operate in the common "LR" 100-150km range without bonuses.

This has been the case for various Caldari hybrid platforms for years as well, though recent changes have made the Rokh and Naga somewhat more competetive options (ammo flexibility, hitting breakpoints, other appeal). The struggles with logic still remain though: having a range bonus would assume you'd hit a desirable range.

There are obviously a number of ways to deal with these problems, from affecting breakpoints (probing-, warp-, and tackle- ranges etc.) to diminishing projection across the board of all weapons to fit into present breakpoints, to looking over the general projection of all missiles rather than adapting a malbalanced case-by-case prod (Torps and Rockets relative their peers in size, or the isolated nerf of HML; missile ranges are really all over the place now) or simply changing bonuses and redefining the Caldari racial traits to something that fit into the game as envisioned in recent times. They are exhaustive in their own different ways of course, and it's likely better to adapt the small (details) to the larger (environment) as it is in most cases.

Regardless of whatever route is chosen: The ~250km LR variants and ~45km SR variants (on a system that is meant to be projectible in a ~0-10-25-60-100-150km meta) simply have massive troubles finding a place in the world. L-rails (along with both S-hybrids and S-missiles) have always had a knack for hitting those breakpoints very well with various ammunition choices on bonused hulls while essentially all the other racial options fall between the cracks of the trait.

ed, i didn't sleep enough last night and i've had a long day ... let me know if something in the choice of words is unusually unclear (usually unclear is alright Lol).
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#191 - 2013-04-09 20:17:57 UTC
Yeah, with current cruise/torp stats, the Raven's missile velocity bonus is of very little use, it's an obsolete holdover from past ages. I would criticise it further, but it's pointless, since we know that cruise and torps will be changed, and those changes may make it useful again. But we won't know until we know how cruise and torps are getting changed. Ugh
Steel Rat Knights
#192 - 2013-04-09 20:43:35 UTC
Raven needs more tank, less PG and CPU for torpedoes. Torpedoes have to be rebalanced too - they can't hit anything in it's full damage. More drones and drone's bandwidth for rokh and raven.
Rokh is no way going to loose this 1% shield resistance bonus. Just don't touch the rokh.
Relocate ECM for high slot, give the option to put tank and propulsion (point maybe too) in mid slots. Same for all shield tank caldari ships.

Those speed changes for BS are commonly useless. All outperformed by big gun In small hulls battle cruisers, T3 cruisers.
Bring back solo of 2005-2008.
MItchell Jensen
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#193 - 2013-04-09 21:06:54 UTC
Xiaodown wrote:
I'll quote what I said in the Reddit thread:

The scorpion is almost worthless at this point. It used to be literally the most OP ship in the game - twice. But now, with the multiple nerfs to ECM, it's inability to speed, sig, or armor tank, and the latest nerf to ECM in the way of skills that can boost your sensor strength, I just don't see why anyone would ever fly it.
It costs 15x blackbird, and two blackbirds would be better. It costs the same as a falcon and, tbh, has a similar train time, but the falcon is better in every conceivable way. It's the only battleship without a bonus to either damage or tank; it is a strictly PVP ship - it's just a solution for a question that no one asks anymore.

I really wish something would be done about the scorpion. Since 2008 or so, ECM has been nerfed many times (at least 3 that I remember); it is only marginally effective, and even then only when you fill every mid and low slot for jamming, with maybe holding back two slots for tank.

So, basically, it's a ship that's only effective when hero tanked, and yet it's primaried first in almost every fleet I've been in, so what's the point? It's not cost effective, it's not mobile, it's not effective at jamming for more than a couple of cycles before it explodes, it has little to no tank, no PVE role.... Its role needs to be rethought, IMO.

Yes. I was trying to fit a scorp all night on the test server to try and get a fit that could survive more than 3 volleys and still be able to lock down targets.

Spoilers: My efforts were in vain.

CCP Dropbear: rofl

edit: ah crap, dev account. Oh well, official rofl at you sir.

Siresa Talesi
#194 - 2013-04-09 21:18:50 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Slot layout: 8H, 6M, 5L; 8 turrets , 0 launchers

This is just a typo, the Rokh will keep its launchers. Sorry about that!

What about the raven? You mention 0 turrets, but it currently has 4, and there is no (-4) notation.

This was my question as well. In frig-heavy missions, sometimes it was nice to fit a couple of small turrets to assist with the smaller targets. I won't begrudge the loss of one high slot in favor of one more mid, but if you really are removing versatility by dropping turrets entirely, then I have to say that's a bad move.
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#195 - 2013-04-09 21:24:36 UTC

After reading the respective battleship posts the caldari ones leave me with a litle problems. Amarr and Minmater looks fine, and at this time the Gallente is still in the other unrevealed build

First of All a global comment.

While atm controversial, i think the primary and secondary weaponsystems for Combat line battleships is a good chooice. While i donĀ“t really like the fact that some races have a different ratio in combat - attack - disruption ships, i can understand that atm there can be a timebased / balancing issue that just doesn't allow the implementations of 1 more battleship for each race to solve this problem.

I hope in the future this will be solved. However that leaves the Caladri in a unique position, beeing the only one with a disruption battleship, and thus haveing one less combat ship.

The rokh as a combat ship is a logical choice, since the missiles have Always been the primary weapon systems of caldari, and thus it would be more logical for the attack line ship to use missiles. However due to this, i believe a future caldari battleship should be a combat missile ship. And There lies the problem. With the current Typhoon and Raven, finding a combat ship that is missile based, is nigh impossible.

Individual ships:


I can understand why you want the effective hp amount reduced. However, All things beeing equal, a shield ship has fewer options to increase it then the armor versions. In effect these ships will have an average lower hp then armor versions.

While this isn't the biggest problem, there incomming damage is further increased by the fact that it has a substantial bigger signature radius. Especially when you add a few much needed shield extenders. The chang of getting a wrecking shot, or full damage from a missile will be a LOT higher then on eg the Abaddon.

I am not completely satisfied with the other stats of the rokh, but those aren't as worrysome as the big difference in effective hp and effective incomming damage the current ships have.

The current problems with hybrids, is that either the tracking, alpha or range is sup par to the other shield based gunboat


Although i like the Raven, i don't concider it at all near the other attack line missile based ship the Typhoon. 86% of the speed of a Typhoon is a big difference, and it extra range is no where near as potent as the explosion range velocity, wich will make the typhoon apply its damage much better.

Its a slower moveing less damageing version of the typhoon, wich makes the other things it has above the typhoon, in an Attack line ship negliable.

It can't pass as an Combat ship either, and as i stated above, if your going to introduce a 4th battleship this logically would become an missile based combat ship. Makeing the raven a slower ship and less damageing option then another ship, and a less sturdy and less damageing? ship in thet corner.


I've Always loved the scorpion, really i did. But in about 6 years of PvP i've only taken it out maybe 5 times. The cost and effect of this ship truelly is abysmal. Its to slow in speed maneuverability and locking, to effectively use it in small skirmishes, and its to squishy and to high of a priority target to use in large fights.

With added ECM nerfs, more and more increased sensor strength on all ship sizes and additional skills to counter ECM even further, the usefull ness of this ship is dropped below any other ship choice, of its class or below. To make the scorpion work, something drastic needs to be done

Either convert it fully to a combat ship and use the navy issue scorpion as a template, or drasticly increase its effectiveness as a disruption battleship, by upping its base scan resolution, Amount of targets locked, and ecm strength bonus. Also a greater buffer would be much needed on this ship.


Amarr and Minmitar ships look distinct, in line with the new philosophies, and alloweing for a whole new meta game. Caldari ships need to be worked with to make you want to chose them.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#196 - 2013-04-09 21:37:09 UTC
Raven still sucks, Rohk is still meh, scorp still sucks.

Lame. Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.

Kor'el Izia
#197 - 2013-04-09 21:56:09 UTC
Buff to cap/s was recieved to the following ships and wasnt included in the "stats-o-spreadsheet";
Raven: cap/s +0.16
Scorpion: cap/s +0.17
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#198 - 2013-04-09 21:56:43 UTC
Jezza McWaffle
Night Crawlers.
#199 - 2013-04-09 22:04:14 UTC
With the missiles. Would not having 2 types of cruise missile and buffing torps be a good idea?


- Long range cruise missiles.
Have faster travel time and sligtly lower explosion radius, current dps

- Short range cruise missiles
Around 35km range, decent dps (think ultraviolet damage and range), slightly higher explosion radius and slower travel time

Wormholes worst badass | Checkout my Wormhole blog

TheFace Asano
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#200 - 2013-04-09 22:24:27 UTC  |  Edited by: TheFace Asano
CCP Rise, is it a possibility we are getting an XL shield extender? Looking at the drop in shields on quite a few of these BS makes me think we might. Something that takes quite a bit of grid like a 1600 and can't be placed on ships lower than BS? The Raven has sub-par tanking abilities even ratting in null, my minnie ships do better by far, both the tempest and mael, and that's active tanked, buffered for pvp I wouldn't want to fly it now or after the changes.