These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
BlinDeamon
Asteroid Liberation Force
#721 - 2013-05-15 12:20:03 UTC
Just bringing up a concern I've always had about the Navy Phoon. While both the Phoon and Navy Phoon have always been tight on CPU for pvp fits the Phoon got 40 CPU bonus to go along with its specialization in missiles (more cpu cost, more cpu given) which makes sense. However the Navy Phoon received no bonus to CPU to go along with its increased role as a missile ship. As such I'm not sure that Cruise or Torps are a viable option for the Navy Phoon as a primary weapon system. The bonus will be great for filling those utility slots (usually neuts instead) but honestly I only ever see the Navy Phoon as functioning with guns.

In Summery:
- The Typhoon got a bonus to CPU to go with its missile role
- Both the Typhoon and Navy Typhoon have been tight on CPU for pvp fits
- The Navy Typhoon did not get a bonus to CPU but lost a low (low cpu), gained a mid (high cpu) and gained a missile hardpoint (high cpu)

- It seems like while the Navy Typhoon gets a nice bonus to missiles along with guns, guns will always have to be your primary weapon with missiles filling the utility slots if you want to take full advantage of the ships bonuses simply because of the CPU.
Kaelnor Heidan
Supermassive Singularity
#722 - 2013-05-15 12:29:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaelnor Heidan
Why not give the NApoc a damage bonus instead of the tracking one ?

Its the Navy version of the Attack BS, it should hit like a truck despite being squishier than the Combat alternative - and it would make a change from the standard version.

With the proposed changes the NGeddon is overdamaging the NApoc and has more EHP (though the increased sig radius may compensate this a little) unless I missed something.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#723 - 2013-05-15 12:37:37 UTC
GallowsCalibrator wrote:
I am still amazed how many people are arguing the badness of the new CNR and the tears are goddamn delicious.

For PvE after Odyssey hits, a cruise setup will do more damage compared to pre-patch; and be able to apply that damage much, much better against smaller targets. Cruisers and frigate NPCs will melt. (Oh yeah, the fairly huge speed buff will also help survivability.) Yup, a Golem - a T2 PvE specialist ship is probably going to be slightly better than the CNR, and? It really should be. The Raven has much easier entry requirements to sit in as well, so hey-o.

Torpedo fits have never been fantastic (apart from my slightly comedy Forsaken Hub chaining monster that only works on them) so nbd.

For PvP? The above, but more so. This thing is going to be beastly in dealing with smaller targets thanks to the combination of launch velocity and additional precision. The extra speed will help it to chase down those targets and keep them tackled, and that lovely 7th mid provides additional flexibility. One of these in a small gang is going to be a serious sight to behold and should put the fear of God into a lot of pilots for the range of damage application it can put on targets.

If you just want paper DPS, fly a Fleet Typhoon; just don't be surprised when something smaller kills you because it seems to fit much more comfortably into an anti-BC/BS role.

(And if you want to fly a solo battleship with missiles fly a post-Odyssey Geddon and neut everything forever, theres your goddamn utility highs damn, that thing is going to be fun)



This is me agreeing with a Goon, don't get used to it! (j/k, well said Gallows)
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#724 - 2013-05-15 12:41:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Caitlyn Tufy
Johnson Oramara wrote:
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Johnson Oramara wrote:
the new CNR become even worse at many situations that the old could do.


Might I inquire as to what those situations might be?


If you would bother to read before posting you wouldn't need to ask... but check back a page or two where Liang Nuren has made an excellent points of it's weaknesses and it involves missing utility high.


A missing utility high, you don't say? Much like Rokh, Abaddon, Apocalypse, Maelstrom, Vindicator, I take it? Funny enough, many of those are also some of the most wanted fleet ships in game, so obviously, a "missing utility high" isn't as "missing" after all.

I understand where Liang is coming from, but in my opinion CNR has always been primarily a cruise missile ship. If I wanted to fly a torpedo boat, there are and always were better options out there.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#725 - 2013-05-15 12:49:37 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


The New CNR will be better than the current CNR. If you don't believe me, believe the market; prices are up.



That's all thats really important, it's kind of hard to stomach all the complaining about a ship that will be demonstrably better than it is now (like how for example the loss of a utility slot is more that compensated by a mid slot you can put a prop mod in).

I guess for some people "better" just isn't enough.
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#726 - 2013-05-15 12:57:24 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


The New CNR will be better than the current CNR. If you don't believe me, believe the market; prices are up.



That's all thats really important, it's kind of hard to stomach all the complaining about a ship that will be demonstrably better than it is now (like how for example the loss of a utility slot is more that compensated by a mid slot you can put a prop mod in).

I guess for some people "better" just isn't enough.


The CNR will be the premier mission runner for those that can't buy or fly a Golem in the Caldari world, no doubt. And with the changes to cruise, maybe we'll see more in PvP, too.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#727 - 2013-05-15 13:18:10 UTC
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Johnson Oramara wrote:
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Johnson Oramara wrote:
the new CNR become even worse at many situations that the old could do.


Might I inquire as to what those situations might be?


If you would bother to read before posting you wouldn't need to ask... but check back a page or two where Liang Nuren has made an excellent points of it's weaknesses and it involves missing utility high.


A missing utility high, you don't say? Much like Rokh, Abaddon, Apocalypse, Maelstrom, Vindicator, I take it? Funny enough, many of those are also some of the most wanted fleet ships in game, so obviously, a "missing utility high" isn't as "missing" after all.

I understand where Liang is coming from, but in my opinion CNR has always been primarily a cruise missile ship. If I wanted to fly a torpedo boat, there are and always were better options out there.

Fleet ships aren't the only thing in this game as many of you seem to think, if you think dumbing down ships possibilities is an upgrade then i have nothing to argue with you. It's also interesting how many of you argue the new CNR being better without actually pointing out how. It's minor upgrade to what typhoon can also do but is it worth that for half billion?
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#728 - 2013-05-15 13:19:49 UTC
Ruze wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


The New CNR will be better than the current CNR. If you don't believe me, believe the market; prices are up.



That's all thats really important, it's kind of hard to stomach all the complaining about a ship that will be demonstrably better than it is now (like how for example the loss of a utility slot is more that compensated by a mid slot you can put a prop mod in).

I guess for some people "better" just isn't enough.


The CNR will be the premier mission runner for those that can't buy or fly a Golem in the Caldari world, no doubt. And with the changes to cruise, maybe we'll see more in PvP, too.

So you are fine with CNR being reduced from special role it has today to just stepping stone to Golem?
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#729 - 2013-05-15 13:27:32 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


The New CNR will be better than the current CNR. If you don't believe me, believe the market; prices are up.



That's all thats really important, it's kind of hard to stomach all the complaining about a ship that will be demonstrably better than it is now (like how for example the loss of a utility slot is more that compensated by a mid slot you can put a prop mod in).

I guess for some people "better" just isn't enough.

Does losing an utility high and it's dps edge over other missile battleships make it "better"? Please explain to me what it does better.
Arthur Frayn
V.O.F.L IRON CORE
#730 - 2013-05-15 13:45:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Frayn
I really need to be enlightened incase I have an incorrect understanding of the CNR and CNS changes.

Forget about the cruise missile buff for the moment. I have two points that I'd like answering:

1. The Golem is now like a CNR that uses half the ammo and has a tanking and painter bonus. Is this correct?

2. The CNS with 6 launchers and a RoF bonus will do the same effective DPS as the CNR with its 8 launchers with no direct damage or RoF bonus (6 launchers*1.33 recurring = 7.99 recurring) unless one factors in range and explosion velocity affecting hits(I understand explosion velocity affects damage a lot). Is this correct?
TheFace Asano
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#731 - 2013-05-15 14:00:40 UTC  |  Edited by: TheFace Asano
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
Ruze wrote:
...
I got it. I also saw where, in almost every post, she referenced that utility high.

Might have a point. Don't know. But sh sure loves her utility belt ... I mean, slots.
I liked my utility high slot, but would sacrifice it in a minute to get a nice upgrade to my CNR. But, to strip the ROF bonus and to fill the eight slot with another launcher was a double slap.

I lost the slot and raw DPS. Cry




Your taking these changes without looking at the CM buff of 30% damage. The CNR will still be more dps that the current one when the changes go live because of this buff. See the term "Balanced". With Torps it will be less EFT dps but more applied dps. This is a different beast than the current one. It will also use slightly less ammo than the RoF bonus. This will do more Alpha by a good margin, especially because of the CM buff.

Buffs:
More Alpha through +1 launcher
More applied damage through +exposion radius on smaller targets
+29 max velocity
more mobility through decreased mass and align time and increased agility
-50 sig radius
increased pwg and cpu (probably not enough to cover the extra launcher slot, needs more here)
increased cap
+1 mid slot

Nerfs:
decreased shields, armor and hull
removal of RoF bonus
loss of high slot

Looks like more increases in power than decreases....
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#732 - 2013-05-15 14:20:15 UTC
Johnson Oramara wrote:
marVLs wrote:
Old CNR:

http://scr.hu/4s/uu30c

New CNR:

http://scr.hu/4s/ldtjp




And plenty of CPU with 3xRigor missile stats:

http://scr.hu/4s/nnsdx

Congratulations, it performs the same as a typhoon or even raven in dps, and with the Raven pilot fitting in a TP and rigs it has the damage application too!
And then please check the Typhoon FI which will have even more missile dps while still retaining slots for bonused turrets too, and don't forget 125 drone bw.

When you compare all these WITH the new cruise missile changes that CNR is just not performing anywhere worth it's price tag... heck, the new CNR become even worse at many situations that the old could do.


It has better EHP, better fitting, better cap, moves faster, has better damage application, has more drones than normal raven.
It has better EHP, better fitting, better cap, has better damage application, has more raw dps(Can fit more BCU's), tanks better than normal typhoon.
It has better damage application and has more raw dps (can fit more BCU's) better tank than Typhoon Fleet Issue.

Note1: The moment you try shield tank the phoon, you lose painters, which you don't really want. Hence the BCU comment.
Note2: Raw Cruise missile DPS difference before modules between FPhoon and others is %3
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#733 - 2013-05-15 14:23:08 UTC
TheFace Asano wrote:
...Your taking these changes without looking at the CM buff of 30% damage. The CNR will still be...
A lot better. I will love my new more powerful CNR, but... it doesn't mean I wish they hadn't done it different. I can be gready can't I?

Raven, SNI, CNR and Golem each have the same raw damage output at Caldari Battleship 5, but other than the CNR they keep a utility slot. It isn't a big thing.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#734 - 2013-05-15 14:27:01 UTC
Johnson Oramara wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


The New CNR will be better than the current CNR. If you don't believe me, believe the market; prices are up.



That's all thats really important, it's kind of hard to stomach all the complaining about a ship that will be demonstrably better than it is now (like how for example the loss of a utility slot is more that compensated by a mid slot you can put a prop mod in).

I guess for some people "better" just isn't enough.

Does losing an utility high and it's dps edge over other missile battleships make it "better"? Please explain to me what it does better.


Yea, as i said, the utility high is being compensated for with a (to me and folks like me) more useful mid. And the cruise buff means the new CNR will do more DPS than the old. The Explosion Radius bonus means it will apply more damage to everything smaller than a BC. It's faster.


It loses some tank but also has a smaller sig. Comparing the current CNR to the new, the new one is better, if different.

As Malcanis points out again and again, leaving the 7 launchers + RoF bonus makes it wildly overpowered so that's not going to happen. These changes puts the CNR in it's proper place as a Navy BS while making it incredibly attractive to fly for me and many others. It never should have been the equivalent of a Tech2 specialized Battleship to begin with and these changes are just putting it in it's proper place.

If you don't like it, don't fly it in odyssey is all I can tell you. I will be flying the hell out of it.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#735 - 2013-05-15 14:32:07 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
TheFace Asano wrote:
...Your taking these changes without looking at the CM buff of 30% damage. The CNR will still be...
A lot better. I will love my new more powerful CNR, but... it doesn't mean I wish they hadn't done it different. I can be gready can't I?

Raven, SNI, CNR and Golem each have the same raw damage output at Caldari Battleship 5, but other than the CNR they keep a utility slot. It isn't a big thing.






At least you're rational about it :) . many others who don't liek the change don't like it because they want a massively overpowered ship that is out of line with what a Navy BS should be. If CCP did miraculously do an about face and say "were keeping it with 7 launchers and a RoF bonus" (hello 1100 dps at 200 km lol), i'd abuse the HELL out of it and make loads and loads of isk from PVE before they nerfed it, But they WOULD nerf it. The currently proposed CNR is a good compromise.

The CNR shouldn't be compared to the Golem or SNI. The Question that should be asked is "is this a step up from the regular Raven?". The answer to that question is "Of course".




To those who don't like the change, what reasonable changes would you make?
Gimme more Cynos
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#736 - 2013-05-15 14:40:52 UTC
marVLs wrote:
Gimme more Cynos wrote:
Maybe because we want to fly missile-boats in the meantime? Have you ever thought about that? Not? Oh well..


By tracking You'r post in this topic i must admit that You don't think at all when talking about new CNR... sry, no harm but that's the true.
The most funny is that missioners and CNR PVE players on June 5th will get big buff to thier ship, and what they say? Complains and some heresies that CNR will be worse...

And just a few weeks ago no one even thinks that he's CNR will get some love in even next years...

(cruise missile buff included)

Ain't You some Liang alt? Cause he's way of thinking is the same, pointed things that CNR will be better, showed eft photos with fits ect. and still saying "new CNR will be worse at PVE activities..."

All that bulls... You and some dudes talk about here make a lot of fun for rest on players that know something, and sometimes they writes here making nice inteligent fun of that.

So when changes to pirate BS will come and Mach will loose some falloff You will be there telling everyone that's nice buff to ship?


How about you take your head out of malcanis ass first? I have said it over and over (you can even go back and read first) - the CNR (yes, the ships hull) gets nerfed. This is true, and no matter how many shitheads like you try to argue against, it's not going to be a buff of the hull.

Yes, cruise missiles are buffed at the same time, which does compensate the nerf, increasing overall performance. However, this doesn't change the fact that the CNR-Hull gets nerfed. All I've said is that the ships hull gets nerfed (and this is true), and that it bugs me for various reasons. Yet some guys still produce a lot of blablablablablablabla (you included) cause they lack the mental abilities to read and properly understand what I'm talking about.

Yes, the performance of the new CNR will be better than it currently is, but the ships hull just get's worse. Besides of some guys who shouldn't really argue here (like the one who desperately needs his tractor and his crapstable fit), the complaining is about the nerf to the hull.

The problem in one sentence: No reason to ever fly a CNR again.



Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#737 - 2013-05-15 14:43:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Gimme more Cynos wrote:
marVLs wrote:
Gimme more Cynos wrote:
Maybe because we want to fly missile-boats in the meantime? Have you ever thought about that? Not? Oh well..


By tracking You'r post in this topic i must admit that You don't think at all when talking about new CNR... sry, no harm but that's the true.
The most funny is that missioners and CNR PVE players on June 5th will get big buff to thier ship, and what they say? Complains and some heresies that CNR will be worse...

And just a few weeks ago no one even thinks that he's CNR will get some love in even next years...

(cruise missile buff included)

Ain't You some Liang alt? Cause he's way of thinking is the same, pointed things that CNR will be better, showed eft photos with fits ect. and still saying "new CNR will be worse at PVE activities..."

All that bulls... You and some dudes talk about here make a lot of fun for rest on players that know something, and sometimes they writes here making nice inteligent fun of that.

So when changes to pirate BS will come and Mach will loose some falloff You will be there telling everyone that's nice buff to ship?


How about you take your head out of malcanis ass first? I have said it over and over (you can even go back and read first) - the CNR (yes, the ships hull) gets nerfed. This is true, and no matter how many shitheads like you try to argue against, it's not going to be a buff of the hull.

Yes, cruise missiles are buffed at the same time, which does compensate the nerf, increasing overall performance. However, this doesn't change the fact that the CNR-Hull gets nerfed. All I've said is that the ships hull gets nerfed (and this is true), and that it bugs me for various reasons. Yet some guys still produce a lot of blablablablablablabla (you included) cause they lack the mental abilities to read and properly understand what I'm talking about.

Yes, the performance of the new CNR will be better than it currently is, but the ships hull just get's worse. Besides of some guys who shouldn't really argue here (like the one who desperately needs his tractor and his crapstable fit), the complaining is about the nerf to the hull.

The problem in one sentence: No reason to ever fly a CNR again.





Highlighted the only part of that that is important and makes any sense.

If you don't like the new CNR, don't fly it, I will be.
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#738 - 2013-05-15 14:54:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Bi-Mi Lansatha
Jenn aSide wrote:

To those who don't like the change, what reasonable changes would you make?
I doubt my changes would be reasonable, because I don't understand some of those that CCP made.

1. Why do all of the Caldari Cruise Missile throwers have the same raw DPS at level 5? Is CCP waiting for the polishing pass to adjust? I assume the Golem will be changed later.

2. Why did the CNR loss it's utility slot while the other ships keep theirs? Because it was too much or they could not find a bonus to seven launcher to make it equal the same DPS as the other ships.

3. The CNR tank was weakened... why?

4. The CNR is faster and leaner... for PvE? Was this to offset the weaker tank?

The CNR has stronger Alpha and is smaller and faster, which is of limited use in PvE. Now in PvP that is different, but the CNR is +500M ISK... not a common PvPer.


Like I said, the new CNR will have significantly better DPS and application. I just need to find out about what the other changes mean. (My ignorance).

Blink
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#739 - 2013-05-15 15:02:46 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

To those who don't like the change, what reasonable changes would you make?
I doubt my changes would be reasonable, because I don't understand some of those that CCP made.

1. Why do all of the Caldari Cruise Missile throwers have the same raw DPS at level 5? Is CCP waiting for the polishing pass to adjust? I assume the Golem will be changed later.


That's my Guess. With regards to the golem it's probably a temporary situation, eventually the Golem will be better for PVE than any other battleship class missile chucker.

Quote:

2. Why did the CNR loss it's utility slot while the other ships keep theirs? Because it was too much or they could not find a bonus to seven launcher to make it equal the same DPS as the other ships.


They did the same to the new Navy drake, which is the new CNR's inspiration.

Lots of 8 gun ships don't have utility slots and work find, like the Vindicator.

Quote:

3. The CNR tank was weakened... why?

4. The CNR is faster and leaner... for PvE? Was this to offset the weaker tank?
Attack role

Quote:

The CNR has stronger Alpha and is smaller and faster, which is of limited use in PvE. Now in PvP that is different, but the CNR is +500M ISK... not a common PvPer.


Like I said, the new CNR will have significantly better DPS and application. I just need to find out about what the other changes mean. (My ignorance).

Blink


EVe ships except maraduers and non-combat ships tend to be balanced with PVP in mind as far as I know.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#740 - 2013-05-15 15:11:29 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Listen guys, I understand that some of you were really looking forward to being able to do 1100 DPS at 200km, but there's no way in the real world that the CNR was ever going to be allowed to be that good - and if by some freak of persuasion or oversight it did, then it would pretty soon get nerfed.

Some of you were acting like it was a done deal and you were given a firm promise of that level of performance. You weren't. Get over it.

The New CNR will be better than the current CNR. If you don't believe me, believe the market; prices are up.



The market goes up with any announced change, buff or nerf. You should know that by now.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.