These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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] Tech 1 Battleships - Minmatar

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1101 - 2013-05-14 13:37:43 UTC
Basically they would have to try very hard to make tempest worse than it is now. But I hope they do not take this as a personal challange :P

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#1102 - 2013-05-14 14:27:18 UTC
Giving it some extra CPU and PG would make a big difference as you can then comfortably fit 2 Cruise launchers or Torpedos/Nuets for close range. Right now its a challenge without making the tank suffer. I would suggest increasing PG/CPU so we can properly use the two extra highs, and then a damage boost to bring it in line with the other Minmatar battleships. I don't think that would make it OP in anyway as I calculated in previous posts. Don't want to second guess CCP Rise here, but I reckon that might be the way he will go along with some tweaks to the agility perhaps at the expense of EHP.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1103 - 2013-05-14 15:33:03 UTC
Issue is they keep adamant that typhoon is to be the fastest battlship. But typhoon has a better slot layout for tank and for gank and far mroe drones and more powerful weaponry. So typhoon is faster, smaller, more resilient after fit, more gangy. Suprior to the tempest in everything.

TO solve tempest issues with agility and mass you would need to make it FASTER than the typhoon.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
#1104 - 2013-05-15 03:53:00 UTC
I'm perfectly fine with making the Tempest faster than the 'Phoon. Of course, I want a battleship-sized Stabber, so... -shrugs-
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#1105 - 2013-05-15 07:02:11 UTC
Wrayeth wrote:
I'm perfectly fine with making the Tempest faster than the 'Phoon. Of course, I want a battleship-sized Stabber, so... -shrugs-

Haven't you heard of the Fleet Hurricane? Failing that I hear sleipnirs are pretty good at being "battleship-sized Stabber" - seriously, we don't need more overlap in that direction.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1106 - 2013-05-15 08:45:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagura Nikon
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Wrayeth wrote:
I'm perfectly fine with making the Tempest faster than the 'Phoon. Of course, I want a battleship-sized Stabber, so... -shrugs-

Haven't you heard of the Fleet Hurricane? Failing that I hear sleipnirs are pretty good at being "battleship-sized Stabber" - seriously, we don't need more overlap in that direction.



Well you know the real offender is the tornado not the sleipnir that is a VERY high skil ship qith evry shihg cost.



But at least a stabberpest is better than the current NTOHIGNpest.

There are several ways you can make the tempest more competitive.

The change of layouts its the most agressive one, with better resutls but highr stress cost for CCP rise :P Lets supppose for a minute that slot layout ore off the table, because god knows what reason forces that.....

There are othyer options, more subtle like the change of the DAMAGE bonus ti 7.5%. Yes, that is not overpowered on a ship taht dedicated 2 of its bonuses to damage. After all its fair for hyperion to have 10% damage on a single bonus and more droens AND a repair bonus AND better slots.

A 7.5% damage bonus woudl compensate HALF a low slot. That would bring the tempest CLOSE to maelstrom in effective damage (remember,. drones and shield tanker), of course while keepign a MUCH inferior tank. Seem pretty fair.Would bring its damage clsoe to typhoon as well.


The only thing that will nto cut alone is giving the tempest extra 5 ms. Just check tornado speed and see why, that role can only be competed if tempest speed goes to like 145ms with same agility as the raven. Adn even so woudl not be as interestign as a simple 7.5% damage bonus. With the extra bennefit that this same bonus coudl be applied to the fleet tempest.

The final option woudl be a fittigns boost nd a 7th turret.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
To mare
Advanced Technology
#1107 - 2013-05-15 10:44:29 UTC
Deerin wrote:
The Djego wrote:
Hey Rise,

I think the main problem with the tempest is that with the current stats, it isn't focused to anything. It is the worse brawler compared to the mega/hype, it's use as a nano med range BS takes kind of a hit if you make the other BS also a lot faster while reducing the damage at range with the TE nerf and in general it lacks something that it can do better than other BS to be a useful option compared to them.

If you look at it a bit, it basically comes down to two major options, armor artillery platform for fleet fights or nano med range BS. While you might not make everybody happy with gearing the tempest more towards one of the roles, it will be something necessary to bring it up to the same level as the other BS.

As a armor artillery platform something like this would be nice:

Tempest(armor tanked fleet BS)
Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret rate of fire
+7,5% bonus to Large Projectile damage

Slot layout: 7H(-1), 5M, 7L(+1); 6 turrets , 2 launchers
Fittings: 17700 PWG(+2200), 550 CPU
Defence (shields / armor / hull) : 6500 / 7000 / 6500
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second) : 5800(+487.5) / 1154s / 4.68
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 / .12 / 101000000(-2300000) / 16.81s(-.37s)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(-25) / 50(-25)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 72.5km(+10) / 100 / 7
Sensor strength: 21 Ladar Sensor Strength(+2)
Signature radius: 340

With the higher damage bonus, it can archive a useful level of alpha with a armor tank, similar to the maelstrom with 1 or 2 gyros less and it got enough grid for the job. While the maelstrom will still have better EHP\dps\alpha in the end, the Tempest got the lower sig, extra utility and can be reasonable armor tanked without reducing the alpha and dps to much(quite like gallente ships). The extra damage would also help for solo and small gang pvp, making it a more desirable option compared to the higher speed of the phoon, the higher tank of the maelstrom or the BS from the other races.

Patterns design with the falloff bonus and the extra med would also be very nice as dedicated autocannon platform. You could even split the roles with the T1 and faction BS bonuses, similar to what you did with some other BS. The stuff you did write about the fleet pest made me think you wanted to make the navy pest a very good armor fleet platform.


I believe this would be too good and upset the balance. You have improved:

Damage Bonus to %7.5
PG +2200
+1 L -1H

If you were to pick two of these, which ones would you pick.


damage 1st
more speed 2nd
more fitting 3rd even if i would like more cpu
slot change no thanks
To mare
Advanced Technology
#1108 - 2013-05-15 12:28:35 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Wrayeth wrote:
I'm perfectly fine with making the Tempest faster than the 'Phoon. Of course, I want a battleship-sized Stabber, so... -shrugs-

Haven't you heard of the Fleet Hurricane? Failing that I hear sleipnirs are pretty good at being "battleship-sized Stabber" - seriously, we don't need more overlap in that direction.



Well you know the real offender is the tornado not the sleipnir that is a VERY high skil ship qith evry shihg cost.



But at least a stabberpest is better than the current NTOHIGNpest.

There are several ways you can make the tempest more competitive.

The change of layouts its the most agressive one, with better resutls but highr stress cost for CCP rise :P Lets supppose for a minute that slot layout ore off the table, because god knows what reason forces that.....

There are othyer options, more subtle like the change of the DAMAGE bonus ti 7.5%. Yes, that is not overpowered on a ship taht dedicated 2 of its bonuses to damage. After all its fair for hyperion to have 10% damage on a single bonus and more droens AND a repair bonus AND better slots.

A 7.5% damage bonus woudl compensate HALF a low slot. That would bring the tempest CLOSE to maelstrom in effective damage (remember,. drones and shield tanker), of course while keepign a MUCH inferior tank. Seem pretty fair.Would bring its damage clsoe to typhoon as well.


The only thing that will nto cut alone is giving the tempest extra 5 ms. Just check tornado speed and see why, that role can only be competed if tempest speed goes to like 145ms with same agility as the raven. Adn even so woudl not be as interestign as a simple 7.5% damage bonus. With the extra bennefit that this same bonus coudl be applied to the fleet tempest.

The final option woudl be a fittigns boost nd a 7th turret.

i would be happy with a 7th turrett but the the 7.5% to damage alone would make the pest the premier subcap alpha ship that`s for me is already something, ofc a 7 turret would do as well but still you sacrifice 1 slot for it
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#1109 - 2013-05-15 14:19:11 UTC
The slot layout is the dumbest thing about the tempest, utility highs are next to pointless if your working with 1400s.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#1110 - 2013-05-15 14:33:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Rebecha Pucontis
Pattern Clarc wrote:
The slot layout is the dumbest thing about the tempest, utility highs are next to pointless if your working with 1400s.

Remember cruise missile have been buffed significantly. If we are given enough PG and CPU to fit two launchers without comprising other aspects, then 6 1400mms and two Cruise Launchers should provide enough dps to bring the Tempest close to the Mael and Tornado in terms of dps. So those extra utility highs should give a dps boost for long range fits.

Also I've always liked having split weapon platforms on Minmatar ships. I'm not happy with the Naglfr having its launcher slots taken away even though it is much better in terms of performance. It would have been better if they could have fixed the performance without removing the unique aspect of the ship.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#1111 - 2013-05-15 14:45:52 UTC
Understand that your firmly in the minority in that aspect. Performance issues stemmed from split weapons requiring twice as many damage or tracking mods as single weapons, and thus effectively having less lows. You can't fix performance issues of split weapons without removing split weapon systems.

And Fly a fleet issue typhoon if you must fit missiles with your autocannons, there at least, you have bonused launchers to go with your x9.6 turrets, there you can also forfill all of your bigger BC fantasies too due to having real attack ship stats.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
The Djego
Hellequin Inc.
#1112 - 2013-05-15 15:24:22 UTC
CMs would hardly be useful in a fleet fight with artillery, since it comes down to alpha targets and any kind of delayed DPS is more often than not wasted. Even in general game play, assuming people fly a gank fitted pest this days(and I bet a fair amount of money they don't), 2 CMs give you only about 100 extra dps(130 with the changes).

A armor pest with a higher damage bonus or a shield pest with a falloff bonus would in each of this scenarios archive the better dps on the target, even with one CM launcher less. While the 2 utility high slots can be nice, it is something that will probably have to change to create a new and more useful tempest for everyone.

Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
Alek Row
Silent Step
#1113 - 2013-05-15 15:44:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Alek Row
Personally, I'm not interested in another arty boat.
We have Maelstrom for that, Phoon for missiles, Pest for ACs, I like it that way.

More speed and more damage and it would be fine by me (despite the existence of ABCs).

The Djego wrote:
(...) shield pest with a falloff bonus (...)

For that kind of bonus I would love a slot layout change to 766 please Big smile
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#1114 - 2013-05-15 15:47:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Rebecha Pucontis
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Understand that your firmly in the minority in that aspect. Performance issues stemmed from split weapons requiring twice as many damage or tracking mods as single weapons, and thus effectively having less lows. You can't fix performance issues of split weapons without removing split weapon systems.

I agree that performance wise the Naglfar change is undoubtedly better than before. As for split weapons even with dual bonuses they are generally nothing more than a bit of extra dps on top of the main weapon system due to the fact that no good fit will use two different types of damage mods. When you view them simply as a little additional dps that then the only drawback is the extra training time required to get the full benefit of them, which is something most Minmatar pilots have always accepted.

The Djego wrote:
Even in general game play, assuming people fly a gank fitted pest this days(and I bet a fair amount of money they don't), 2 CMs give you only about 100 extra dps(130 with the changes).

130dps extra can be the difference between win or lose between skilled pvpers. Secondary weapon system will never be anything more that that slight bit of extra dps on top of the primary weapon system though unless CCP brings in damage mods with dual bonuses. Also the fleet fight example isn't completely relevant as the Tempest is a fast attack BS and so will be more geared towards small gang warfare.
The Djego
Hellequin Inc.
#1115 - 2013-05-15 17:00:06 UTC
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
The Djego wrote:
Even in general game play, assuming people fly a gank fitted pest this days(and I bet a fair amount of money they don't), 2 CMs give you only about 100 extra dps(130 with the changes).

130dps extra can be the difference between win or lose between skilled pvpers. Secondary weapon system will never be anything more that that slight bit of extra dps on top of the primary weapon system though unless CCP brings in damage mods with dual bonuses. Also the fleet fight example isn't completely relevant as the Tempest is a fast attack BS and so will be more geared towards small gang warfare.


A falloff bonus at 20-30km is well worth 70 DPS you would give up and a armor pest with a higher damage bonus would do more dps when brawling, it would do more dps when shield fitted and more alpha in fleet fight, that is considerably better than a extra unbounded CM launcher. A single high slot isn't worth to hold the tempest back in the current BS changes.

The idea is to decide between something that is more useful for fleet(armor + artis + alpha) or for solo/small gang(shield+ac+falloff) and gear the tempest to one of this things. As we speak you could use the tempest for any of this roles, but it wouldn't be particular good at any of them if you compare it to the other BS. In my opinion it doesn't even matter this much in what direction CCP would go, as long as the Tempest stays a useful BS it is all good to me.

Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#1116 - 2013-05-15 17:07:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Rebecha Pucontis
The Djego wrote:
A falloff bonus at 20-30km is well worth 70 DPS

I'm not saying that the two high utility slots should preclude a falloff bonus. On the contrary in fact, as I proposed that the Tempest should have a 5% falloff bonus and a 8.5% rate of fire bonus instead of the current bonuses.

The only point I'm making is I like to keep the dual weapon systems even though they only add an extra modicum of damage. There is something cool about seeing projectiles and missiles firing from a ship. :) And also two high utilities are exactly that, they allow extra utility which can allow for some more creative fittings rather than the cookie cutter stuff that we are being forced into with much of the laser focused design choices on some of the current hulls. There will be literally only one good way to fit many of these current tiericided ships. But anyway, whatever they decide to do it should not preclude the rest of the ship being buffed appropriately for sure.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#1117 - 2013-05-15 17:35:54 UTC
The increased utility argument does not apply if your in favour of keeping a high instead of a mid or low. You are less predictable, have more options than, and generally more productive with -1 high and +1 mid or low, especially when, comparatively speaking, you have so few lows and mids to begin with.

In a 7/6/6 or 7/5/7 tempest, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from dropping 1 or more of your 6 turret hardpoints for an additional launcher, if you are so inclined. (why conform amirite?)

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#1118 - 2013-05-15 17:42:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Pattern Clarc
Either way, there isn't actually anything stopping CCP Rise simply adding a slot arbitrarily in the special case of the tempest, i mean, they don't do it *just because of :gamedesign:* but then again 3 battleships already have the wrong number of slots and minmatar battlecruisers in the past have had more slots than their peers.... so all this high vs lows vs mids is really academic.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#1119 - 2013-05-15 17:45:07 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
In a 7/6/6 or 7/5/7 tempest, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from dropping 1 or more of your 6 turret hardpoints for an additional launcher.

The high slot modules offer specific abilities which you will not get on a mid or low slot items. And lets be honest, you are going to fill every bonused turret, launcher slot with the specified weapon.
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#1120 - 2013-05-15 17:48:59 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Either way, there isn't actually anything stopping CCP Rise simply adding a slot arbitrarily in the special case of the tempest, i mean, they don't do it *just because of :gamedesign:* but then again 3 battleships already have the wrong number of slots and minmatar battlecruisers in the past have had more slots than their peers.... so all this high vs lows vs mids is really academic.

I would suggest a 9/5/6 slot layout if this was the case. Only kidding :) Yes an 8/6/6 would be an interesting ship for sure.