These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
cryingblood
Outcasts of New Eden
#201 - 2013-05-13 22:38:48 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
cryingblood wrote:
Maximus Andendare wrote:
cryingblood wrote:
Can we reconsider the Navy Scorpion and make it a rail/blaster ship? Caldari have enough shield/missile combo but no strong navy/pirate caldari based gunboat.
This would be awesome, but if their Navy cruisers are any indication, unlikely. The Osprey and Caracal Navies both use missiles to some effect, when certainly, as is the case with the Battleships as well, could well be served by becoming a hybrid boat. TBH, "close range missiles" vs. "long range missiles" isn't enough distinction to make the ships all that different.



There is a ton of overlap between CNS / CNR / Rattlesnake. The only non t1 gun boat that we have is the nightmare which is lazor, so why train hybrids as a caldari pilot? Seriously, hybrid faction battleship makes for more of a distinction.


I don't see a lot of overlap between the CNR/CNS/Rattlesnake, personally. The RS in particular is very very different.

-Liang


I agree that they are not completely overlapping, and the RS does have a good drone bonus to differentiate it. That being said, which is more diverse, the current prospect for a CNS or the possibility of a Hybrid platform CNS? It just doesn't seem logical to me that the ONLY faction/pirate bs with caldari skills uses lasers not hybrids.
Jason Sirober
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#202 - 2013-05-13 22:41:14 UTC
All I see here is WIN for Caldari, tears for Amarr, Ho-hum for Minimtar and more hate for Gallente....

CCP Rise, your Battleship changes suck donkeyballs.... please bring back CCP Fozzie
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#203 - 2013-05-13 22:46:23 UTC
cryingblood wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
cryingblood wrote:
Maximus Andendare wrote:
cryingblood wrote:
Can we reconsider the Navy Scorpion and make it a rail/blaster ship? Caldari have enough shield/missile combo but no strong navy/pirate caldari based gunboat.
This would be awesome, but if their Navy cruisers are any indication, unlikely. The Osprey and Caracal Navies both use missiles to some effect, when certainly, as is the case with the Battleships as well, could well be served by becoming a hybrid boat. TBH, "close range missiles" vs. "long range missiles" isn't enough distinction to make the ships all that different.



There is a ton of overlap between CNS / CNR / Rattlesnake. The only non t1 gun boat that we have is the nightmare which is lazor, so why train hybrids as a caldari pilot? Seriously, hybrid faction battleship makes for more of a distinction.


I don't see a lot of overlap between the CNR/CNS/Rattlesnake, personally. The RS in particular is very very different.

-Liang


I agree that they are not completely overlapping, and the RS does have a good drone bonus to differentiate it. That being said, which is more diverse, the current prospect for a CNS or the possibility of a Hybrid platform CNS? It just doesn't seem logical to me that the ONLY faction/pirate bs with caldari skills uses lasers not hybrids.


Ask for a Navy Rokh. The Scorp already exists.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Arline Kley
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#204 - 2013-05-13 22:52:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Arline Kley
Luscius Uta wrote:
Arline Kley wrote:


+7.5% to Large Energy Turret falloff range



Jesus, no.
Falloff bonuses on anything but projectiles are hardly useful. Better give 10% bonus to optimal, like Rokh has.



Problem is, what do then give it in the 5% field? (since most ships tend to have a split 15% bonus) At least with falloff, the range is extended a little further.



Beaver Retriever wrote:
Literally everything in this post is completely off the mark.

Complaining that a battleship with a tracking bonus can't hit a Rifter? Okay? I guess you'd rather fly one of the battleships without the tracking bonus? What's your point?

I'm not even going to bother picking apart the rest, I see others have started.

tldr; stop posting.


Actually, no, do please continue tearing apart what you actually feel is wrong with my post. I would prefer it, so that I can return with a counter point to said argument, unless of course you don't actually have an argument and are merely attempting to silence those that would have something to stand on.

In reply to your issues with my concerns about the tracking bonus, it has been proven to be a pointless bonus, so if you read the rest of my post (which apparently you didn't) I suggested that the falloff bonus would be a better ideal, to which I have replied to above.

"For it was said they had become like those peculiar demons, which dwell in matter but in whom no light may be found." - Father Grigori, Ravens 3:57
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#205 - 2013-05-13 22:52:21 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
cryingblood wrote:
Maximus Andendare wrote:
cryingblood wrote:
Can we reconsider the Navy Scorpion and make it a rail/blaster ship? Caldari have enough shield/missile combo but no strong navy/pirate caldari based gunboat.
This would be awesome, but if their Navy cruisers are any indication, unlikely. The Osprey and Caracal Navies both use missiles to some effect, when certainly, as is the case with the Battleships as well, could well be served by becoming a hybrid boat. TBH, "close range missiles" vs. "long range missiles" isn't enough distinction to make the ships all that different.



There is a ton of overlap between CNS / CNR / Rattlesnake. The only non t1 gun boat that we have is the nightmare which is lazor, so why train hybrids as a caldari pilot? Seriously, hybrid faction battleship makes for more of a distinction.


I don't see a lot of overlap between the CNR/CNS/Rattlesnake, personally. The RS in particular is very very different.

-Liang


it would be nifty if the guiritas line of pirate bs's lost the velocity bonus for missiles and adopted the new secondary bonus for the tech I domi... i.e tracking and optimal range.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Grunnax Aurelius
State War Academy
Caldari State
#206 - 2013-05-13 22:54:39 UTC
Jason Sirober wrote:
All I see here is WIN for Caldari, tears for Amarr, Ho-hum for Minimtar and more hate for Gallente....

CCP Rise, your Battleship changes suck donkeyballs.... please bring back CCP Fozzie


It's about f u c k i n g time, Caldari had almost 0 love in the t1 battleship rebalance!!!

Now it think they should maybe release Navy Versions of the Teir 3 Battleships, as I will not stand for the Scorpion Navy Issue being changed to a Hybrid Gunboat
The Rokh is that way guys for those who vote the SNI be Hybrid ------->

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=342042&find=unread
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#207 - 2013-05-13 23:06:34 UTC
The N.apoc will have the very same problems driving anything without a 3-5 piece slot tax just have cap for anything resembling a medium duration engagement, never mind the actual slugfests. You really need to push the main laser revisions before or at the same time as you axe the cap bonus .. or find a solution to it.

N.Geddon is pretty good as is, granted, but it is nowhere near good enough to justify letting it stand still while all its main dps competitor gets buffed .. RoF change on Mega translates to a massive dps increase especially when it is combined with the tracking bonus .. can your detractors really be correct when they claim you have a heavy Gallente bias? Smile
Honestly don't see what purpose the N.Geddon is supposed to have, Cruise Raven will dominate medium/long range and Megathron will be untouchable at short range while the Geddon gets spare drones .. what!? Question
Move high to mid, increase RoF bonus to 7.5% and take away 100m3 drone bay .. it will be sporting lasers so tracking is going to be in the dumps right off the bat .. that alone balances out any paper-dps it might present.

Good call on the Typhoon, absolutely adore the Scythe solution to the dual-weapon conundrum .. we need more ships capable of making people go 'WTF!?!' when the lead starts flying Big smile
Tempest not so much, it is going to benefit enormously from your inability to balance projectile fittings and/or "force" the issue by having low fittings .. it has same grid and more CPU than the N.Geddon for Goddess sake .. you have no problems gimping Amarr hulls should they be dumb enough to be nostalgic and run beams ... increase AC requirements already and save yourself a lot of pain down the road.

Also, why on Earth do you insist on giving Minmatar (and a lesser degree Caldari) hulls strong capacitors when they have capless weapons and active tanks on BC up (except for Gall BCs) are suicide. Amarr/Gallente NEED more cap, period whereas Caldari/Minmatar does not
Giving free neuting cap to capless ships is a very real and direct nerf to any attempt to active tank not to mention shoot when it comes to Amarr/Gallente .. if they want to expend cap they should bloody well have to inject like everyone else. That is unless you are paving the way for an ASB fix that will make it function in a similar fashion to the AAR (ie. cap drain), in which case good on you!

All in all a good first pass, but you still need to figure out if the races are to have flavours because if not you need to account for difference in gameplay, particularly cap-less vs. cap-hungry.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#208 - 2013-05-13 23:13:22 UTC
I think the give capacitor to minmatar came with the same idea of makign minmatar into slugish ships to align. This is very wrong. Minmatar shoudl have good align time m better speed, LESS EHP and LESS CAPACITOR.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#209 - 2013-05-13 23:28:28 UTC
Arline Kley wrote:


In reply to your issues with my concerns about the tracking bonus, it has been proven to be a pointless bonus, so if you read the rest of my post (which apparently you didn't) I suggested that the falloff bonus would be a better ideal, to which I have replied to above.


I can't believe a CVA guy is as clueless about Amarr ships as you are.


Did you just call a tracking bonus useless? How do you even manage to tie your own shoes? Falloff? On lasers? ....


Ok, so, really slow so you might follow along, Tracking, owns, it owns har,d, 37% tracking owns super super hard. How hard? Harder than woodpecker lips hard. Literally every BS with a tracking bonus is generally considered best in class because in a non shocker you need less tracking mods to apply DPS on target.

On the other hand, you're asking for a FALL OFF bonus for LASERS....which if you didn't know is actually useless. Like, super useless, the guns with the least fall off you want to give a paltry 37% increase to fall off. WHOP DE FRIGGIN DO. Here, let me help you, that would bring the Napoc with MP II's up to about 14km fall off, or in laymans terms, NOBODY CARES AT ALL because in that last brand spanking new 4km your dps is so weak that its almost like it doesn't even matter.

I'm not sure who taught you eve mechanics but you might want to go and get your money back. Lasers want optimal and Tracking, Projectiles want Fall Off and Tracking, Blasters want Fall Off and Tracking, and thats pretty much the exact way it is short round.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#210 - 2013-05-13 23:29:53 UTC
man, going through this thread it seems to be a CVA/PIE theme'd handicapped event of people that understand little to nothing about battleship combat.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Lord MuffloN
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#211 - 2013-05-13 23:31:28 UTC
Rabble rabble something about Navy Megas and 8 turrets.

Oh well, good changes otherwise Big smile Odyssey will be interesting to say the least.
TehCloud
Guardians of the Dodixie
#212 - 2013-05-13 23:31:57 UTC
I don't like all of the changes but some are pretty decent.
Can't understand why the Napoc looks almost completely the same as the normal Apoc with 1k PG and 40CPU more.

I really hoped to see that the 200-300mil it costs extra are worth it, I fear they won't.
A Damage Bonus on it would make it at least feel superior to the normal one. Or maybe give it the Hyperion treatment.
Swap 1 or 2 guns for an adequate damage bonus and extra slots.

But I think I'm just speaking for myself here :3

My Condor costs less than that module!
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#213 - 2013-05-13 23:35:16 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
This list. I don't suppose we can get any sneak peeks at what's in store for rebalance in the near future? Not in any order, obviously, but just to see what's on the menu.


Of course, no promises in terms of order or anything - but the short list includes things like medium rails, hacs, eafs, beams, some other t2 classes like inties/maurders, and some other mods which i don't want to name atm incase they get pushed back awhile. =)

Beams need to be the absolute first thing on your list.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#214 - 2013-05-13 23:37:02 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
please tell me TD's with missiles are on there and command links /T3 nerf and command ships


You're right, these things too. Theres so much to do!


Do not make TD"s affect missiles unless you nerf unbonussed TD's into the ground! There are already lots of mitigating tactics to reduce the medium DPS of missiles as is making TD affect missiles would make them the most OP e-war mods in game.

Other than that I like the new navy ships. I might even fly some of them soon. maybe...

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#215 - 2013-05-13 23:42:52 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
This list. I don't suppose we can get any sneak peeks at what's in store for rebalance in the near future? Not in any order, obviously, but just to see what's on the menu.


Of course, no promises in terms of order or anything - but the short list includes things like medium rails, hacs, eafs, beams, some other t2 classes like inties/maurders, and some other mods which i don't want to name atm incase they get pushed back awhile. =)

Beams need to be the absolute first thing on your list.



well they already looked at fittings so...

how about decrease cap activation cost by 15%

increase rate of fire by 5%

increase base damage by 10%


that should do it.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#216 - 2013-05-13 23:47:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Pattern Clarc
Edit, seems like it's not on sisi right now after all...

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Grunnax Aurelius
State War Academy
Caldari State
#217 - 2013-05-13 23:48:00 UTC
Taoist Dragon wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
please tell me TD's with missiles are on there and command links /T3 nerf and command ships


You're right, these things too. Theres so much to do!


Do not make TD"s affect missiles unless you nerf unbonussed TD's into the ground! There are already lots of mitigating tactics to reduce the medium DPS of missiles as is making TD affect missiles would make them the most OP e-war mods in game.

Other than that I like the new navy ships. I might even fly some of them soon. maybe...


TD already affect missiles since retribution, Optimal reduces flight time and Tracking reduces Explosion Velocity and Increases Explosion Radius., but Tracking Computers don't buff them, bit BIAS don't you think?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=342042&find=unread
TehCloud
Guardians of the Dodixie
#218 - 2013-05-13 23:51:32 UTC
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:


TD already affect missiles since retribution, Optimal reduces flight time and Tracking reduces Explosion Velocity and Increases Explosion Radius., but Tracking Computers don't buff them, bit BIAS don't you think?


That is complete and utter bullcrap. The changes were postponed.

My Condor costs less than that module!
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#219 - 2013-05-13 23:51:34 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
This list. I don't suppose we can get any sneak peeks at what's in store for rebalance in the near future? Not in any order, obviously, but just to see what's on the menu.


Of course, no promises in terms of order or anything - but the short list includes things like medium rails, hacs, eafs, beams, some other t2 classes like inties/maurders, and some other mods which i don't want to name atm incase they get pushed back awhile. =)

Beams need to be the absolute first thing on your list.


Wrong. Medium rails.
S4nn4
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#220 - 2013-05-13 23:52:12 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:


the cnr having the same base dps as the raven isn't a good thing imo, ok I know it will be better applied in this version but forcing it to use 8 launchers instead of the 6 of the raven to get the same result is painful.


It's not the same result, though: it's qualitatively superior in damage application and alpha.

They'll both be equally good for shooting structures and capitals, I suppose. For anything else, the CNR will be a quantum step ahead.


I dunno man. Stop and think about it this way. The damage application on the CNR is already good enough that people weren't clamoring to use Cruise Golems despite the dramatically superior damage application. The new bonus is extremely underwhelming and an outright nerf to the CNR.

-Liang


I agree with Liang. This is a nerf for torp-CNR's.


The Explosion Radius bonus is slightly better than the bonus from a T2 Rigor rig (20%, but rigor rigs doesn't have a stacking penalty, this is important). Anyone who already uses Rigor rigs will save at most one rig slot and loose 14% raw DPS (1- 8 / (7 / 0.75)) for a very slight increase in damage application.
The 14% DPS that was lost can not be gained back by fitting a T2 Loading Accelerator rig (15% ROF bonus) instead, this is because this rig has a stacking penalty with the Ballistic Control Units that will surely be on the ship already.
This is a net loss. The only people who gain are those who didn't know they needed Rigors to begin with.


To be fair. It will however be slightly easier to get out more damage from T2 Fury ammo, especially for ships who are still Rigor crazy. Although, fury ammo is still the easiest one to speed tank against, so it will not work so great against "fast" targets (base speed or with AB, MWD has sig bloom which mostly cancels out the bonus from speed). An example of "fast" when the target has 420m sig radius is: old CNR (T2 fury ammo, all skills 5, two T2 rigor's, no implants) does half damage against the target when it is moving at 177m/s, the new CNR does half damage against the target when it is moving at 235m/s (for navy torps, the corresponding values are 360m/s and 479m/s).