These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#301 - 2013-05-14 06:07:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Destoya wrote:
Kind of sad my torp CNR got murdered; no longer any good as a herocat capital killer.

Still, I can switch right over to the navy phoon so it's not a huge deal to me.


If by "murdered" you mean "got an 11% DPS boost compared to how it is now", I guess.

I mean I don't know maybe 11% more DPS is bad in your worldview?

EDIT: I guess also 43% more alpha is bad too. Man the numbers just keep stacking up Sad

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#302 - 2013-05-14 06:08:34 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
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.

All beams are terrible. Large rails are fine.
Therefore beams take priority, with medium rails close to follow.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#303 - 2013-05-14 06:09:44 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Crash Lander wrote:
So you abandoned the Amarr re-balancing thread despite the heavy criticism on the Apoc changes and made the same changes the the napoc.

I think we all understand the meaning of asking for feedback a little better now.


No, its called ignoring you because you have no idea what you're talking about, the changes to both the Apoc and the Napoc are amazing, and its literally dudes like the idiot a few posts above me who's pissed he can't fit a tractor beam and you who want a cap use bonus or some crap like that on the Apoc, or even worse, the CVA guy asking for falloff on lasers



wait what? Shocked

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Dr Ngo
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#304 - 2013-05-14 06:12:06 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Crash Lander wrote:
So you abandoned the Amarr re-balancing thread despite the heavy criticism on the Apoc changes and made the same changes the the napoc.

I think we all understand the meaning of asking for feedback a little better now.


No, its called ignoring you because you have no idea what you're talking about, the changes to both the Apoc and the Napoc are amazing, and its literally dudes like the idiot a few posts above me who's pissed he can't fit a tractor beam and you who want a cap use bonus or some crap like that on the Apoc, or even worse, the CVA guy asking for falloff on lasers



wait what? Shocked


Be nice guys, the poor roleplayer just really wants to know what it feels like to fly minmatar Sad
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#305 - 2013-05-14 06:16:13 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Crash Lander wrote:
So you abandoned the Amarr re-balancing thread despite the heavy criticism on the Apoc changes and made the same changes the the napoc.

I think we all understand the meaning of asking for feedback a little better now.


No, its called ignoring you because you have no idea what you're talking about, the changes to both the Apoc and the Napoc are amazing, and its literally dudes like the idiot a few posts above me who's pissed he can't fit a tractor beam and you who want a cap use bonus or some crap like that on the Apoc, or even worse, the CVA guy asking for falloff on lasers



wait what? Shocked


Yea its in there, you couldn't make up the stuff that they're flinging in this thread.


Like the guy who swears his missiles always hit for full damage, or the other guy who jumped in some dudes butt because TD's work on missiles and have since retribution or the fact that tracking on BS guns is a wasted bonus or OH MY GOD IT FEELS LIKE MY HEAD MIGHT EXPLODE FROM THE HEAPING MOUNDS OF BULLSHIT

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#306 - 2013-05-14 06:16:39 UTC
Dr Ngo wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Crash Lander wrote:
So you abandoned the Amarr re-balancing thread despite the heavy criticism on the Apoc changes and made the same changes the the napoc.

I think we all understand the meaning of asking for feedback a little better now.


No, its called ignoring you because you have no idea what you're talking about, the changes to both the Apoc and the Napoc are amazing, and its literally dudes like the idiot a few posts above me who's pissed he can't fit a tractor beam and you who want a cap use bonus or some crap like that on the Apoc, or even worse, the CVA guy asking for falloff on lasers



wait what? Shocked


Be nice guys, the poor roleplayer just really wants to know what it feels like to fly minmatar Sad


Maybe he's roleplaying a numerical dyslexic.

Like quite a few other people in this thread...

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Astirit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#307 - 2013-05-14 06:20:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Astirit
Navy, similar to the bonus of T1? Not interested.


Quote:
ARMAGEDDON NAVY ISSUE

Amarr Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+5% Large Energy Turret rate of fire
-10% Large Energy Turret cap use


fixed
Avald Midular
Doomheim
#308 - 2013-05-14 06:21:26 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Avald Midular wrote:


Lol 4 fitting mods? It's a single scripted faction tracking computer or only 7% more than a scripted TC II. Lets not go overboard. .


T2 tracking enhancer (the mod I quoted) gives you 9.5% tracking, this bonus will be stacking penalized with each new tracking enhancer you put on.

Meaning to get near 37.5% you will need a MINIMUM OF FIVE FITTINGS TO EQUAL THIS BONUS.

You see a Tracking Enhancer is the only thing that gives BOTH bonuses (tracking and optimal) so its the one I used for the comparison, those "geniuses" in the other thread simply don't understand what the hell they're talking about.

Why an optimal bonus? How about pushing scorch out to 90km? And while your out there tracking nearly as good as medium guns while applying BS gun sized DPS? (medium pulse lasar tracking .08 napoc MP II tracking will be around .04)

Also just because you were hitting doesn't mean you were hitting near hard enough with beams, imagine hitting hard even IF they have a perfect orbit, probably near doubling your applied dps.


Lastly, everything you're posting about seems to assume that you MUST balance a ship around PVE, whereas the Navy Apoc is VERY popular in PVP, as a fleet line battleship, this just made it better.


Just not for PL though right? I can't seem to find a BS battle on your killboards where an Apoc or Napoc were used even once (checked the most recent 10 large BS battles). Lots of Abaddons and Geddons though, but what do I know.

First, I never mentioned anything about PvE. You said 4 tracking mods at first so I quoted you TC's number and why you only need 1. How 37.5% on 0.04 tracking gets you anywhere close to 0.08 for medium is beyond me or why you'd consistently want that at 90km over a straight damage bonus.
Dr Ngo
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#309 - 2013-05-14 06:22:47 UTC
Avald Midular wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Avald Midular wrote:


Lol 4 fitting mods? It's a single scripted faction tracking computer or only 7% more than a scripted TC II. Lets not go overboard. .


T2 tracking enhancer (the mod I quoted) gives you 9.5% tracking, this bonus will be stacking penalized with each new tracking enhancer you put on.

Meaning to get near 37.5% you will need a MINIMUM OF FIVE FITTINGS TO EQUAL THIS BONUS.

You see a Tracking Enhancer is the only thing that gives BOTH bonuses (tracking and optimal) so its the one I used for the comparison, those "geniuses" in the other thread simply don't understand what the hell they're talking about.

Why an optimal bonus? How about pushing scorch out to 90km? And while your out there tracking nearly as good as medium guns while applying BS gun sized DPS? (medium pulse lasar tracking .08 napoc MP II tracking will be around .04)

Also just because you were hitting doesn't mean you were hitting near hard enough with beams, imagine hitting hard even IF they have a perfect orbit, probably near doubling your applied dps.


Lastly, everything you're posting about seems to assume that you MUST balance a ship around PVE, whereas the Navy Apoc is VERY popular in PVP, as a fleet line battleship, this just made it better.


Just not for PL though right? I can't seem to find a BS battle on your killboards where an Apoc or Napoc were used even once (checked the most recent 10 large BS battles). Lots of Abaddons and Geddons though, but what do I know.

First, I never mentioned anything about PvE. You said 4 tracking mods at first so I quoted you TC's number and why you only need 1. How 37.5% on 0.04 tracking gets you anywhere close to 0.08 for medium is beyond me or why you'd consistently want that at 90km over a straight damage bonus.


I'm not sure if you're trolling or not Straight
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#310 - 2013-05-14 06:24:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Grath Telkin wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Crash Lander wrote:
So you abandoned the Amarr re-balancing thread despite the heavy criticism on the Apoc changes and made the same changes the the napoc.

I think we all understand the meaning of asking for feedback a little better now.


No, its called ignoring you because you have no idea what you're talking about, the changes to both the Apoc and the Napoc are amazing, and its literally dudes like the idiot a few posts above me who's pissed he can't fit a tractor beam and you who want a cap use bonus or some crap like that on the Apoc, or even worse, the CVA guy asking for falloff on lasers



wait what? Shocked


Yea its in there, you couldn't make up the stuff that they're flinging in this thread.


Like the guy who swears his missiles always hit for full damage, or the other guy who jumped in some dudes butt because TD's work on missiles and have since retribution or the fact that tracking on BS guns is a wasted bonus or OH MY GOD IT FEELS LIKE MY HEAD MIGHT EXPLODE FROM THE HEAPING MOUNDS OF BULLSHIT


Oh well I suppose it helps to take a long perspective on these things?

Remember when the nanonerf was going to end all PvP forever and lead to utter uniformity of fitting doctrines?

*Fit doctrines explode in diversity

*No retraction from the Chicken Littles

*In fact some of them are still saying it.


For the record I will say that the CSM did have input into these changes. Concerns were voiced, and some were taken into account by CCP and resulted in modifications to the proposals. The request was also made that these changes be reviewed in a few months to make sure that they didn't result in overpowered ships.

The criticisms I've read in this thread mostly seem to revolve around a single theme "If I keep fitting and flying my ship in exactly the same way after it gets changed, I'm going to have problem x, and I'm not going to waste a single second of complaining time on trying to think of ways to mitigate that problem and leverage buffs y and z that the hull has just received"

Now don't get us wrong: we're still your CSM and we still represent you. We are passing these concerns back to the 5-0 team in the CSM channel. However concerns structured in that way are prefaced with "OMG look at what this windowlicker just said? Can you even believe this?"

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Cpt Gulag
Terrortronfleet
#311 - 2013-05-14 06:25:25 UTC
Why dont you just remove amarr from the game=?

i have been on singularity testing amarr tier..

they are horrible. compared to other races not alone amarr has just as many hitpoints as other but 3-400 dps less then their gallente counterpart..


i dont see any logic in this as apocalypse being an attact battleships this is ridicoulus.. less ehp then a geddon you can add 300 dps alone by fitting neutron on it witch usses less cap and has better tracking anyways...


i,m a really the only one seeing the issue here?
Jose Montalvo
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#312 - 2013-05-14 06:26:06 UTC
Good day CCP Rise, so far great balancing changes done a good job. I only got one question:
Why make the t1 dominix superior to the navy version in the drone department???
It seems to me that you can operate drones more effectively with the t1 version rather than the faction.
Almost everybody that flys a dominix knows that the main weapon system will be drones not the hybrids. Guns can applied supplemental damage but the main weapon will always be drones. Why not transfer the t1 changes to the navy version, I'm sure many will agreed on that one. Please give a chance to the Navy Dominix to truly shine and excel just like you did with the navy apoc which rocks btw, excelent job on that one.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#313 - 2013-05-14 06:27:11 UTC
Sorry I can't hear you over my Geddon's massive drone bay and superior range and being able to instantly switch ammo type and having a utility high slot.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#314 - 2013-05-14 06:27:43 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Crash Lander wrote:
So you abandoned the Amarr re-balancing thread despite the heavy criticism on the Apoc changes and made the same changes the the napoc.

I think we all understand the meaning of asking for feedback a little better now.


No, its called ignoring you because you have no idea what you're talking about, the changes to both the Apoc and the Napoc are amazing, and its literally dudes like the idiot a few posts above me who's pissed he can't fit a tractor beam and you who want a cap use bonus or some crap like that on the Apoc, or even worse, the CVA guy asking for falloff on lasers



wait what? Shocked


Yea its in there, you couldn't make up the stuff that they're flinging in this thread.


Like the guy who swears his missiles always hit for full damage, or the other guy who jumped in some dudes butt because TD's work on missiles and have since retribution or the fact that tracking on BS guns is a wasted bonus or OH MY GOD IT FEELS LIKE MY HEAD MIGHT EXPLODE FROM THE HEAPING MOUNDS OF BULLSHIT

Well I've been moderately converted.
I do believe (which I didn't before) that the tracking bonus on the Apoc and Napoc is an improvement over what we had before.
I still believe however that lasers are in need of a lot of work.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#315 - 2013-05-14 06:33:17 UTC
Avald Midular wrote:


Just not for PL though right? I can't seem to find a BS battle on your killboards where an Apoc or Napoc were used even once (checked the most recent 10 large BS battles). Lots of Abaddons and Geddons though, but what do I know.


https://www.pandemic-legion.com/killboard/view_battle.php?start_time=2012-10-15%2010:52:00&end_time=2012-10-15%2020:19:00&system=GE-8JV

We call them Foxcats, they're used against sig tanking cruisers to great effect, we basically invented them to deal with the t3 cruiser menace, but yea, what do you know

Avald Midular wrote:
First, I never mentioned anything about PvE. You said 4 tracking mods at first so I quoted you TC's number and why you only need 1.


No, I said TRACKING ENHANCES, see, here, I quoted myself for you:

Grath Telkin wrote:
you're getting 4 free tracking enhances on your ship


1 Tracking computer only gives you 30%, and only if you script it, otherwise its nowhere near that high, and if you script it, you get NO bonus to optimal.


Avald Midular wrote:
How 37.5% on 0.04 tracking gets you anywhere close to 0.08 for medium is beyond me or why you'd consistently want that at 90km over a straight damage bonus.


And thus we have the problem. If you want to know what a 37.5% tracking bonus looks like on a napoc, fit 5 tracking enhancers and look at the tracking on a mega pulse two. Its not that hard, this isn't quantum physics here, and if you can't see why you'd want damage projection and tracking out to 90km then I firmly believe there might not be any saving you. If the idea of applying DPS from 0-90+km (with 2 optimal range scripted TC's you'll actually break 100km) with great tracking doesn't make sense to you then you have literally no idea what you're doing.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#316 - 2013-05-14 06:33:27 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:


Well I've been moderately converted.
I do believe (which I didn't before) that the tracking bonus on the Apoc and Napoc is an improvement over what we had before.
I still believe however that lasers are in need of a lot of work.


I'm glad you've taken that perspective. CCP Rise has already definitely assered that lasers are going to get a balancing pass (I hope this rsults in lasers being the prototype for tierciding modules).

For the record, we voiced concerns that a ship with a tracking bonus AND a range bonus was a significant risk to balance.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#317 - 2013-05-14 06:36:23 UTC
Ok then Malcanis just made my enemy list.

FOREVER MALCANIS, YOU HEAR ME, FOREVER.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#318 - 2013-05-14 06:36:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Grath Telkin wrote:


And thus we have the problem. If you want to know what a 37.5% tracking bonus looks like on a napoc, fit 5 tracking enhancers and look at the tracking on a mega pulse two. Its not that hard, this isn't quantum physics here, and if you can't see why you'd want damage projection and tracking out to 90km then I firmly believe there might not be any saving you. If the idea of applying DPS from 0-90+km (with 2 optimal range scripted TC's you'll actually break 100km) with great tracking doesn't make sense to you then you have literally no idea what you're doing.


It's actually a lot better than "5 tracking enhancers", because there's no stacking penalty on ship bonuses. You get the +37.5% tracking AND you can still actually fit the tracking enhancers as well.

Basically the Napoc has been turned into a battleship-sized faction Destroyer. As in: it will destroy medium ships that get closer than 100Km.

If people could do maths, Tengu hull prices would have fallen 10% overnight just on the announcement of this change.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#319 - 2013-05-14 06:41:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Grath Telkin
Yea i know its better but I'm trying to put these changes into terms the lvl 4 mission runners and mechanic nubbin crowd might understand because one guy literally honest was mad that its not a fall off bonus....on lasars.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#320 - 2013-05-14 06:42:05 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Ok then Malcanis just made my enemy list.

FOREVER MALCANIS, YOU HEAR ME, FOREVER.



I hope the evident fact that we didn't voice them very effectively will one day give me a chance for redemption.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016