These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#441 - 2013-05-14 13:24:58 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Earlier in the day I told someone - I'm afraid I don't remember who - that I was pretty sure that the Torp CNR would outdamage the Torp Typhoon (at least as far as missiles went) in most situations. So here's the math on that. Each ship is modeled with max skills, Tech II launchers and (despite the fact that the TyFI will probably not do this very often given the armor tank) three BCS II.

Any Dreadnaught
Faction Torps
CNR: 948 DPS
TyFI: 1098 DPS
Rage Torps
CNR: 1115 DPS
TyFI: 1149 DPS

Basically the max damage scenario.

Target: Alphafleet Maelstrom, 547m sig radius, 118m/s
Faction Torps
CNR: 948 DPS
TyFI: 1098 DPS
Rage Torps
CNR: 948 DPS
TyFI: 724 DPS

The max damage scenario still applies here for faction torps, however with rage torps the CNR deals full DPS, while the TyFI loses 26% of its damage. It's similar against armor tanking combat BS, which have a smaller sig but are slower. The Abaddon tanks full damage from either with faction missiles, full damage from a Rage torp CNR, but only 76% damage (872 DPS) from a Rage TyFI.

With a Tech II target painter, both ships do full damage in all scenarios.

Target: Tempest. 340m sig, 150m/s
Faction Torps
CNR: 920 DPS
TyFI: 712 DPS
Rage Torps
CNR: 630 DPS
TyFI: 422 DPS

Raven's dealing very nearly full damage with the faction missiles and 56% of its max with rage. The Typhoon only gets 73% and a mere 37%, respectively.

With a Tech II target painter, both ships do full damage with faction missiles. The CNR deals 77% of its damage with rage torps, while the TyFI is up to 50%. Even in that case, though, you're still better off shooting the normal torps. Kinda goes to show how bad (or at least niche) Rage torps really are.

Target: Naga, 1x LSE II. 240m sig, 244m/s
Faction Torps
CNR: 920 DPS
TyFI: 712 DPS
Rage Torps
CNR: 630 DPS
TyFI: 422 DPS

DPS on both ships drops way off here, to 43% for the CNR and 32.5% for the TyFI with faction missiles. Shooting rage, it's 25% and 16% respectively.

With a target painter, that's 59%, 44%, 35% and 23%, respectively.


Numbers drop from there as you'd expect. Of course, this is just with one painter at most. Start throwing in more support (and thus more painters and webs) and the TyFI pulls ahead, but by no more than 3%. That goes up when you factor in the drones, of course, though not by much; in the max damage scenario, a flight of Ogres for the Typhoon only puts it up by about 80 DPS (~7%) over the CNR with a flight of Hammerheads.

And then there's more reality. Both ships are difficult to fit as torpedo ships, and the Typhoon especially requires extensive compromises. Expect to make extensive use of Meta 4 and/or faction equipment to get it to fit. A buffer tanked Typhoon fields a smaller tank than a fully buffer tanked Raven, though to compensate it has the edge in sig radius. I comes down to the Typhoon uses neuts and its drone bay to fight off smaller ships, while the CNR is capable of taking the more direct route. Overall, I feel like they're very balanced ships.


I thought you might be trying to compare damage without the benefit of webs/painters. Well, yes, if you flew your Raven like a total incompetent before you'll be better off now. The rest of us will be worse.


-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#442 - 2013-05-14 13:29:12 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

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"


You expect people to actually think about new stuff? That just means you don't know people :) . Mr Rigor'd up FoF missile CNR of doom is going to kill everything, including Jita!

Also, your sig is now a lie. 1 Kings 12:11 menations scorpions, you are now whipping people with NAVY Scorpions. Therefore the bible is now OP.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#443 - 2013-05-14 13:30:19 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
This thread is amazing, its full of mission runners who simply have no concept of how the weapons they put on their ships function, or how the math that goes into them figures out when considering weapon and target


Grath Telkin wrote:
Alexander Renoir wrote:


Perhaps for guns you are right. But with Missiles I always hit with full damage. And if you cut this damage by 25% (rate of fire bonus) I will lose 25%.


Haha, you absolutely do NOT always hit for full damage, in point of fact, with missiles, unless the target is DEAD STOPPED you rarely will EVER hit for full damage, thats one of the reasons why the added bonus is good.


CCP Rise wrote:

Caldari Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+5% bonus to Torpedo and Cruise Missile explosion radius
+10% bonus to Cruise Missile Torpedo Velocity


Delicious irony, Grath. Delicious.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#444 - 2013-05-14 13:30:56 UTC
Maybe reven should revert to 7 launchers, keep the old ROF bonus and loose the velocity bonus in favor of the explosion speed.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#445 - 2013-05-14 13:33:40 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Dr Ngo wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Let's talk Navy Mega.

Why use it over any of the other navy ships? What role does it fill exactly that another navy ship does not do better?


Space camouflage

Even the space camouflage is inferior. Not too many battles happening over Endor lately. Ugh
E

Endor is an R-64 moon, so just wait, there WILL be fighting over it.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#446 - 2013-05-14 13:34:06 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Doctor Carbonatite wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


Can you propose a scenario where the CNR will be worse on June 5th than it is right now?


POS-bashing with torps. 8 effective launchers vs. previous 9.3.


Wrong. Those 8 effective launchers will each be doing 30% more DPS because of the cruise missile changes, meaning the ship will do 11.4% more DPS to structures on June 5th than it does now.


You POS bash with Cruise? Baddie McBads over here...

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#447 - 2013-05-14 13:36:09 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Doctor Carbonatite wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


Can you propose a scenario where the CNR will be worse on June 5th than it is right now?


POS-bashing with torps. 8 effective launchers vs. previous 9.3.


Wrong. Those 8 effective launchers will each be doing 30% more DPS because of the cruise missile changes, meaning the ship will do 11.4% more DPS to structures on June 5th than it does now.


You POS bash with Cruise? Baddie McBads over here...

-Liang



You POS bash? that is bad enough!

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#448 - 2013-05-14 13:41:35 UTC
The explosion radius and velocity bonus should be rolled into one for the navy raven tbh.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#449 - 2013-05-14 13:44:01 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Those 8 midslots will eat plenty of CPU.



Not telling they won't mearly explaining why the SNI is a ship CCP is monitoring so it won't be to good.
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#450 - 2013-05-14 13:45:09 UTC

CCP Rise wrote:
… The ‘standard’ upgrade package for Navy BS is an extra slot (along with appropriate fitting adjustment) as well as approximately 50% more hitpoints. Some of these rebalanced versions will follow that pattern very closely, while others will diverge more significantly to completely new bonuses and roles…
CCP plays a mean game of Three-Card Monte.

The Cruise Missile change: +30% increase in damage, but a 10% increase in explosion radius. (Big ships get the full 30%, while smaller ships take less)

Rig Calibaration: a 50 point increase. (smaller ships take more damage)

CNR Change: Changing 7 launchers with a 25% bonus – to - 8 launchers with a 25% reduction in explosion radius. (bigger ships take less damage, while smaller ships take more)

So what are you guys trying to do?

Simplified: +20% damage and a 20% reduction in Explosion radius. (one option)

It looks like for PvE an increase in damage from 20%-40%? Yes/No/Maybe? Can the CNR also get the 50% increase in hitpoints… the standard upgrade package?

Over all the CNR/Cruise platform change is going to be interesting.

(All math is incorrect… that is a given.)
John Ratcliffe
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Alliance
#451 - 2013-05-14 13:45:51 UTC
Mike Whiite wrote:

callibration should be able to fit t2 rigors, though with 8 midslots you might consider to put in an other launcher rigg.



The SNI can already fit 2 x T2 Rigor and 1 T1 Flare.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#452 - 2013-05-14 13:47:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Gimme more Cynos wrote:

What you've said is true, but not related to the ship. Instead, this is related to the CM Buff. The current slot-layout and bonus's would be better in a lot of cases (like shooting other BS's, or Caps/ structures). While the new slot-layout only favours PvP in the absence of other TP's and webs.

You can't call it a CNR buff just because the weapon gets buffed. Infact, the CNR gets a nerf which isn't even remotely compensated by the buff it gets. While the new CNR is a bit better at solo PvP'ing, this isn't remotely helpful, as noone will use them at PvP, just because the standard-raven will perform equally, especially if grouped with fleet support.

That's the whole point of my rage, the CNR gets a questionable "buff", while it's beeing nerf for the majority of cases. I agree that it still seems balanced (!), given that it will project almost 1k dps at long distances, but:

is the Faction price tag worth that? For PvE, the Golem and the freakin SNI will perform better (golem has double dmg-application bonus and an active Tank bonus, while the SNI provides more significantly more tank than the CNR, with almost equal damage).

The only reason to use the CNR is it's range, so it's either Torps or GTFO, as it's likely that noone will need the speed-bonus for CM's. Therefore, the CNR will be weaker than almost every single alternative in the majority of the cases.

That's why this change is not well thought out, and that's why I'm raging.


The new CNR is significantly worse at solo PVP than the old one. It loses the mandatory utility high slot.

-Liang

Ed: It's also worse with Torps, but I guess they're trying to remove the option of fitting torps and leaving us with a mostly useless missile velocity bonus.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#453 - 2013-05-14 13:50:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniel Plain
Malcanis wrote:
Well I guess some people won't be convinced. I guess I'll stop trying to persuade and put up some lowball buy orders instead. We'll let the market do the talking.

bought 11 fleet phoons @230mil. two hours later they were @280. i guess the market has spoken ;)

I should buy an Ishtar.
MinutemanKirk
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#454 - 2013-05-14 13:53:13 UTC
mynnna wrote:

930 DPS with Gardes (realistically, use sentries with longer range, but it's still a lot of dps), 150k EHP, aligns in 10 seconds, moves at 1033m/s, has a heavy neut if things try to go to zero on you, and only needs booster 150s at a minimum to be cap stable.

It's kinda good. Might be slightly disadvantaged in solo/small gang compared to the Vindicator, but it's a fine fleet ship.


You realize that the T1 version can do all of that (with a nearly identical setup) with the only differences being two less sentries, less buffer and no neut right?
Certainly not enough to warrant the additional 300-400 mil of the navy variant.
I also don't understand why people are trying to compare it with the vindi. It can't get anywhere near the DPS of a Vindi without an 8th turret (even by sacrificing tank for many magstabs) and has no web bonus. The whole reason why I'm upset the suggested navy mega is because there is such little difference from it's T1 counterpart.
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#455 - 2013-05-14 13:53:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Bi-Mi Lansatha
John Ratcliffe wrote:
Mike Whiite wrote:

callibration should be able to fit t2 rigors, though with 8 midslots you might consider to put in an other launcher rigg.



The SNI can already fit 2 x T2 Rigor and 1 T1 Flare.
Come June, you will be able to make that a Flare II.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#456 - 2013-05-14 13:58:12 UTC
MinutemanKirk wrote:
The whole reason why I'm upset the suggested navy mega is because there is such little difference from it's T1 counterpart.


50m3 more bandwidth, 2 flights of lights, a heavy nuet, and a bunch more ehp is little difference?

come now... I don't think you're really being objective here...
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#457 - 2013-05-14 13:58:50 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Gimme more Cynos wrote:

What you've said is true, but not related to the ship. Instead, this is related to the CM Buff. The current slot-layout and bonus's would be better in a lot of cases (like shooting other BS's, or Caps/ structures). While the new slot-layout only favours PvP in the absence of other TP's and webs.

You can't call it a CNR buff just because the weapon gets buffed. Infact, the CNR gets a nerf which isn't even remotely compensated by the buff it gets. While the new CNR is a bit better at solo PvP'ing, this isn't remotely helpful, as noone will use them at PvP, just because the standard-raven will perform equally, especially if grouped with fleet support.

That's the whole point of my rage, the CNR gets a questionable "buff", while it's beeing nerf for the majority of cases. I agree that it still seems balanced (!), given that it will project almost 1k dps at long distances, but:

is the Faction price tag worth that? For PvE, the Golem and the freakin SNI will perform better (golem has double dmg-application bonus and an active Tank bonus, while the SNI provides more significantly more tank than the CNR, with almost equal damage).

The only reason to use the CNR is it's range, so it's either Torps or GTFO, as it's likely that noone will need the speed-bonus for CM's. Therefore, the CNR will be weaker than almost every single alternative in the majority of the cases.

That's why this change is not well thought out, and that's why I'm raging.


The new CNR is significantly worse at solo PVP than the old one. It loses the mandatory utility high slot.

-Liang


I'll take your word for it on this, although historically, actually fitting something in that "mandatory" utility high has been problematic in the extreme.

However I think you're underestimating the effect of the precision bonus, as well as the value of the increase effective and real alpha for PvE.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
MinutemanKirk
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#458 - 2013-05-14 14:10:22 UTC  |  Edited by: MinutemanKirk
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
MinutemanKirk wrote:
The whole reason why I'm upset the suggested navy mega is because there is such little difference from it's T1 counterpart.


50m3 more bandwidth, 2 flights of lights, a heavy nuet, and a bunch more ehp is little difference?

come now... I don't think you're really being objective here...


Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Navy geddon

"Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 375(+200)"

Why?


If 50 m3 bandwidth is such an improvement, how come you asking why on the geddon and not simply rejoicing at such a clearly huge buff?
Again though, it's not JUST that the difference is so little, it's the additional cost. When in demand, 400 extra mil is almost an additional plex, and I can't believe that you would think those small differences would be worth that much more. If almost the cost of my subscription for not a lot of gain isn't "objective" enough I guess I don't know what is.
Drunken Bum
#459 - 2013-05-14 14:10:22 UTC
Turelus wrote:
CNR is king of PVE again? Big smile

Only people who havent flown a machariel say this ;)

After the patch we're giving the market some gentle supply restriction, like tying one wrist to the bedpost loosely with soft silk rope. Just enough to make things a bit more exciting for the market, not enough to make a safeword necessary.  -Fozzie
Gimme more Cynos
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#460 - 2013-05-14 14:11:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Gimme more Cynos
Nessa Aldeen wrote:

The CNR hasn't been King of Missiles for a LONGGG TIME. That belongs to the Golem. Period


It was the King for cruise missiles, as it allways had more damage than the Golem with them. Yes, it had a slight disadvantage against small targets, but the dps with cruises allways were CNR > Golem. And for cruise missiles, and especially since the latest buff to precisions, the damage against smaller targets was allways pretty good.

Golem was the undisputed King for torps, and will remain the same.

@ Malcanis,

It bugs me that you still don't have a clue why some people (me included) are arguing (or raging) against that changes.

The problem is, that the proposed "tracking" buff for missiles just doesn't cut what the raven lost on potencial DPS. The application bonus is (on the PvE-side) only useful against Elite cruisers and frigs on a proper fitted CNR (That is: 2x Rigor II's, 1x Rigor I and dual TP's in Odysee). It only helps against those targets, as the rest will take full potencial damage regardless, or just pop in one volley with just the raw damage bonus. Rate of fire Bonus is just more useful.

In Addition, there is no dmg-role for caldari BS any longer - That role was given to the TyFi with it's split weapon-bonus...

Previously you had

- CNR for RAW DPS
- SNI for Tank and a little less DPS
- Golem for Torps

While now you will have:

- CNR for Range/Speed and application
- SNI for Tank or damage application through 1 more midslot
- Golem for everything (Tank/Damage/Application/Range)
- T1 Raven for Range/Speed

Which all do more or less the same potencial dps.

Now take that list and ask yourself - what would you prefer in PvE, where the benefit of the CNR's range-bonus doesn't even exist, and where the damage application is null and void while shooting most NPC's. There is simply no reason to fly it any longer for PvE. Add in the fitting issues which the CNR will face with that 8th launcher..

I'm not arguing against the new CNR beeing balanced on the greater scheme, but the CNR will be inferior for PvE to the other options available once this thing goes live. And given Liangs correction to my statement (thanks btw), I think that does not only apply to PvE.