These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1161 - 2013-05-21 16:30:20 UTC
Lugalzagezi666 wrote:


So no, there arent any viable reasons to use cnr over golem and give up isk/h increase that 3 utility highs provide through salvaging and looting, while not lowering your killspeed at all.


OMG someone go to iceland and assassinate CCP because a TECH TWO SPECIALIZED PVE SHIP is better at some aspect of PVE than a navy battleship!

I mean, how dare they follow their own design plan! That's why everyone was flying Fleet Tempests instead of Vargurs, right?

Raven (T1) -> Navy Raven(T1.5)-> Golem(T2) is a natural and proper progression.

Raven -> Navy Raven OR Golem isn't.

(although the CNR is still better in some hihgh end PVE sites, but still, what ccp is doing it good).
drake duka
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1162 - 2013-05-21 16:34:00 UTC  |  Edited by: drake duka
Hagika wrote:
EXIA MIKOSZ wrote:
Well Im using My CNR only in PVE and currently with this setup:

[Raven Navy Issue, RAVEN]
Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Signal Amplifier II

Pithum A-Type Medium Shield Booster
Pith A-Type Shield Boost Amplifier
Pith A-Type Kinetic Deflection Field
Pith A-Type Thermic Dissipation Field
Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Core A-Type 100MN Afterburner

Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile
Auto Targeting System II

Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst II
Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst II
Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I

Hobgoblin I x5

DPS: 916
Volley: 5873
Sig. Radius: 235 m fury
ROF: 6,41 sec

after Patch and new changes to CNR,rate of fire of lunchers and cruise missiles i shouls have:

[Raven Navy Issue, RAVEN]
Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Signal Amplifier II

Pithum A-Type Medium Shield Booster
Pith A-Type Shield Boost Amplifier
Pith A-Type Kinetic Deflection Field
Pith A-Type Thermic Dissipation Field
Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Core A-Type 100MN Afterburner
FREE SLOT ( i will decide after patch what i can still put here) but with ease i can put more tank or Cap Recharger II

Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile

Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst II
Large Bay Loading Accelerator I

Hobgoblin I x5

DPS: 1228,25
Volley: 8389,6
Sig radious: 246,75m fury
ROF: 6,83 s


In the End im loosing 15% explosion velocity Bonus from Rig and almost 12m sig radious from changes
Thats Nothing with that amount of boosted DPS



Life doesnt revolve around just PVE. Also you are using Furies and damage application on this is drastically worse.
It irks me that a carebear pops on and says.. Hey look everything is fine !

Basing ships around your play style ruins mine.


You do have a point about CNR getting shafted. IMO it makes a great torp boat but the only problem is torps will be irrelevant considering how hard cruises are getting buffed. If torps also got a redesign to reflect their limited use in PvP, then the cnr would be a great ship.. It could still have some niche roles in PvP as it is but you're right the fleet phoon makes a better cruise platform.

The fact that it can use furies where other cruise boats need faction could prove useful, and the exp radius bonus will help nullify the damage application penalties. Also, the 125 drone bw for the phoon isn't that practical at cruise ranges though it does help and adds versatility for sure. While damage may be more useful for cruises, velocity is more important than just range. Also, doing 900 dps at 200+ (with rigs ofc) would be quite interesting. It has the ability to use furies at rokh ranges which is quite scary.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#1163 - 2013-05-21 16:49:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Jenn aSide wrote:

OMG someone go to iceland and assassinate CCP because a TECH TWO SPECIALIZED PVE SHIP is better at some aspect of PVE than a navy battleship!


Ok, so now how do we explain the fact the CNR is worse at pretty much everything (PVE as well as PVP) than the other faction (and some T1) battleships? Tell me more about how the explo radius bonus is going to help out with my torp DPS getting raped.

-Liang

Ed:

Quote:
(although the CNR is still better in some hihgh end PVE sites, but still, what ccp is doing it good).


Please justify this statement. The Golem has absolutely more of everything - from EHP to utility highs to damage application... to, well, everything.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1164 - 2013-05-21 17:04:36 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Johnson Oramara wrote:

I'm sorry to hear that you just want to F1 everything and not actually you know, play the game. I'm still laughing at your FoF missile comment though Big smile

Most of your points are only from the 9/10 and 10/10 complex soloing side and some are non issue if you just fit correctly.

Oh and i bolded something i agree with you on your post Lol



I'm sorry to hear you don't like the new and improved CNR and have spent multiple pages whining about it.

Others of us do like it and I'll bet you real actual space money (1 MILLION ISK) that CCP isn't going to reverse course on the CNR. So you'll simply have to learn to dislike it, or not, up to you.

It's a fine ship on SiSi (even compared to the other missile ships) and I can't wait to get it on June 4. And on the off chance that CCP does listen to the few of you who are complaining about it, well thats win/win for the rest of us too (until the nerf it for being to strong).

I see many disliking it and even simulated data about it's performance has been provided but i don't see anyone else than you supporting it for your solo complexes. Most only go nuts about finally having missile battleship with 8 launchers but fail to see the rest of it and what it actually means.

Also i hope you understand that it could be much better than the proposed one without being op and stepping on the TFI's role. If you bother to slap single TP or rigs on almost any other missile battleship they can perform very similarly.

But i don't expect you to really understand any of this since you can't even use EFT.

I'll be trying some pvp with it on SiSi when i have time but i'm willing to bet that TFI will best it on almost every way.
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1165 - 2013-05-21 17:12:00 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

OMG someone go to iceland and assassinate CCP

I hope you know that threats against CCP employees, even if jokingly are taken seriously.
drake duka
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1166 - 2013-05-21 17:18:46 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

OMG someone go to iceland and assassinate CCP because a TECH TWO SPECIALIZED PVE SHIP is better at some aspect of PVE than a navy battleship!


Ok, so now how do we explain the fact the CNR is worse at pretty much everything (PVE as well as PVP) than the other faction (and some T1) battleships? Tell me more about how the explo radius bonus is going to help out with my torp DPS getting raped.

-Liang

Ed:

Quote:
(although the CNR is still better in some hihgh end PVE sites, but still, what ccp is doing it good).


Please justify this statement. The Golem has absolutely more of everything - from EHP to utility highs to damage application... to, well, everything.

I haven't eft'd it but in PvP would the explo radius counteract the lost dps using torps (this is assuming you're not using rigors in a pvp fit)? The explo radius sounds good on paper but I'm not sure how useful it will be in practice.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#1167 - 2013-05-21 17:23:07 UTC
drake duka wrote:

I haven't eft'd it but in PvP would the explo radius counteract the lost dps using torps (this is assuming you're not using rigors in a pvp fit)? The explo radius sounds good on paper but I'm not sure how useful it will be in practice.


I already responded to this. The answer is that it does not in fact make up for it.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1168 - 2013-05-21 17:52:12 UTC
Johnson Oramara wrote:

I see many disliking it


And where is this "many"? I can't see them.

Quote:

and even simulated data about it's performance has been provided but i don't see anyone else than you supporting it for your solo complexes. Most only go nuts about finally having missile battleship with 8 launchers but fail to see the rest of it and what it actually means.


You dislike the new CNR and imagine others do to. Which is why I offer my wager, when the changes hit TQ the market with be the final arbiter.

Also https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3059391#post3059391

The Sto's last paragraph says it all.

Quote:

Also i hope you understand that it could be much better than the proposed one without being op and stepping on the TFI's role. If you bother to slap single TP or rigs on almost any other missile battleship they can perform very similarly.
The above linked analysis pretty much disagrees.
Quote:

But i don't expect you to really understand any of this since you can't even use EFT.

I'll be trying some pvp with it on SiSi when i have time but i'm willing to bet that TFI will best it on almost every way.


I can and do use EFT, I tend not to Fap over it. The truth is the new CNR is pretty good and fits where a navy BS should. If the TFI is op it will get nerfed. The Goelm should be buffed and all is righ tin the world of the CNR. Again, sorry if you don't like it, these changes have given me more reason to use my CNR compared to the current one.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#1169 - 2013-05-21 17:57:54 UTC
The only reason you aren't seeing everyone hating on the new CNR is because you have your eyes closed.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1170 - 2013-05-21 17:59:06 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

OMG someone go to iceland and assassinate CCP because a TECH TWO SPECIALIZED PVE SHIP is better at some aspect of PVE than a navy battleship!


Ok, so now how do we explain the fact the CNR is worse at pretty much everything (PVE as well as PVP) than the other faction (and some T1) battleships?


Answer: it's not. I've flown all of them on SiSi, I still prefer the CNR for reasons i've listed.

Quote:

Tell me more about how the explo radius bonus is going to help out with my torp DPS getting raped.


I'm sorry about your torps but CNR does better with Cruise. Use Goelm for Torps maybe?
Quote:

-Liang

Ed:

Quote:
(although the CNR is still better in some hihgh end PVE sites, but still, what ccp is doing it good).


Please justify this statement. The Golem has absolutely more of everything - from EHP to utility highs to damage application... to, well, everything.


Smaller sig + more speed, the Citidel torps don't hurt as much, less need for TPs means easier to fit MJD or ecm burst or target lock breaker, built in rigor better than built in flare of the Golem and TFI. CNR is less vulnerable to jams and defenser missles.

I'd take the new CNR into a tranqulity plex (where it really matters) long before I'd do so with a Golem,, though I did in the past use an Ancillery Boosted Golem and i'd not do that with any brand of CNR.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1171 - 2013-05-21 18:00:05 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
The only reason you aren't seeing everyone hating on the new CNR is because you have your eyes closed.

-Liang


So testing it on SiSi is eyes closed. That's rich, you're just starting to get butt hurt because you imagine CCP taking one of your toys away.

The CNR is fine, get over it.
Zeta Kalin
Large Rodent Hunters
#1172 - 2013-05-21 18:03:40 UTC
Kil2 wrote:
+10% bonus to Cruise Missile Torpedo Velocity


Could you please fucking make sense?
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1173 - 2013-05-21 18:28:18 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
The only reason you aren't seeing everyone hating on the new CNR is because you have your eyes closed.

-Liang


So testing it on SiSi is eyes closed. That's rich, you're just starting to get butt hurt because you imagine CCP taking one of your toys away.

The CNR is fine, get over it.

If you are fine with both the proposed CNR and possible slightly altered version as you said, then why are you still here?
You are fine with the current proposed CNR in your own limited usage scenario and like it, everyone already got this many pages ago.

However, your opinion is not our opinion and many of us in fact agree that it could still use some work. As it stands, it's even cpu starved.
TehCloud
Guardians of the Dodixie
#1174 - 2013-05-21 18:41:05 UTC
I still haven't heard a decent explanation why the new CNR should be bad. Additional Slots and more damage, even on moving targets.
Rage Torps actually hitting subcaps, Cruise Missiles getting buffed.

I'd really like to know why there is all that crying over the new CNR.

My Condor costs less than that module!
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1175 - 2013-05-21 19:04:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Johnson Oramara wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
The only reason you aren't seeing everyone hating on the new CNR is because you have your eyes closed.

-Liang


So testing it on SiSi is eyes closed. That's rich, you're just starting to get butt hurt because you imagine CCP taking one of your toys away.

The CNR is fine, get over it.

If you are fine with both the proposed CNR and possible slightly altered version as you said, then why are you still here?
You are fine with the current proposed CNR in your own limited usage scenario and like it, everyone already got this many pages ago.

However, your opinion is not our opinion and many of us in fact agree that it could still use some work. As it stands, it's even cpu starved.


I'm still here because i want CCP to know some of us like what they are doing and that we won't be drowned out by people who seem to want overpowered ships. So while i'd have no qualms using the new curse buffed +RoF + explosion radius CNR monster, I don't think it's right for the CNR or the game. I like the new Navy Drake and Navy Raven idea (even if they do present me the problem of not having that utility spot for a cloak which is very helpful in null sec).

Some of you act like CCP is committing a crime against humanity, and as long as you keep riding that train, I'll keep riding the "nope, CNR is fine by me" train. Because it is fine.

Try making REASONABLE counter proposals to CCP and you'll have my support (for what it's worth).
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1176 - 2013-05-21 19:11:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
TehCloud wrote:
I still haven't heard a decent explanation why the new CNR should be bad. Additional Slots and more damage, even on moving targets.
Rage Torps actually hitting subcaps, Cruise Missiles getting buffed.

I'd really like to know why there is all that crying over the new CNR.


You'll have to ask those crying (wait, I think you just did lol). I'm sure there are lots of "reasons" )most i don't agree with). But I think the big thing is kind of a knee-jerk conservative over-reaction that happens when the powers that be (in this case, CCP) propose change. Some people just don't like change, while others are ok with change but would prefer to keep their (torp spewing CNR) advantages (lol).

We've seen it with the change to the Domi (making it a super sentry boat) and Armageddon (turing it into The amarrians own Domi like pocket carrier) and omg the complaining is epic. While i am a huge machariel fan (i profit soooo much from how the mach is now and don't like the TE nerf one bit lol), i'm not looking forward to the crapstorm that will emerge when Pirate BSs go under the balance hammer.

But I know that for a game like EVE to stay fresh, some change has to happen. When i started the game, Gallente was the end all/be all of pvp, so much has changed and it's time for another good series of change. People got used to a NAVY BS being on par with a Marauder and don't seem to want to let that go. Hopefully, in time, they will adapt and see that CCP is on a good track with the ships in this game.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#1177 - 2013-05-21 19:36:06 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
The only reason you aren't seeing everyone hating on the new CNR is because you have your eyes closed.

-Liang


So testing it on SiSi is eyes closed. That's rich, you're just starting to get butt hurt because you imagine CCP taking one of your toys away.

The CNR is fine, get over it.


I am also testing on sisi, it's not like you are the only one. The new CNR is complete and total ****, even compared to the other faction ships.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#1178 - 2013-05-21 19:41:24 UTC
TehCloud wrote:
I still haven't heard a decent explanation why the new CNR should be bad. Additional Slots and more damage, even on moving targets.
Rage Torps actually hitting subcaps, Cruise Missiles getting buffed.

I'd really like to know why there is all that crying over the new CNR.


You know, there's been like 20 pages devoted to this topic. But no, it's cool, we'll spell it out for you again:
- Less EHP which you have to spend a mid slot getting back
- Less raw DPS with Torps that the damage application bonus doesn't make up for.
- Equivalent Cruise DPS, only because of the cruise missile buff
- The cruise missile buff applies to everyone, so other ships T1 and faction come out of the cruise missle buff even better than the CNR
- No utility high slot

The new CNR is significantly worse than the Typhoon Fleet and Golem and usually worse than the T1 Typhoon and and Scorp Navy. It is a ship without a role or use case. It is garbage.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1179 - 2013-05-21 19:46:09 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
The only reason you aren't seeing everyone hating on the new CNR is because you have your eyes closed.

-Liang


So testing it on SiSi is eyes closed. That's rich, you're just starting to get butt hurt because you imagine CCP taking one of your toys away.

The CNR is fine, get over it.


I am also testing on sisi, it's not like you are the only one. The new CNR is complete and total ****, even compared to the other faction ships.

-Liang


lemme guess, you put torps on it....

But I'm sorry, no, it's not crap, it' works fine and I prefer it to the Floon because of it's mid slots and much more useful bonuses (not even 50 km for the Floon and you're counting salvos again, which sucks).

Time and the odyssey market will tell, but you're just overreacting.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1180 - 2013-05-21 19:55:18 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:


You know, there's been like 20 pages devoted to this topic. But no, it's cool, we'll spell it out for you again:
- Less EHP which you have to spend a mid slot getting back


No mention of the speed increase and sig radius decrease. See, your focusing on what you want to see, AND the CNR gives an extra mid to recover EHP...while being "smaller" and faster.
Quote:

- Less raw DPS with Torps that the damage application bonus doesn't make up for.
use Golem
Quote:

- Equivalent Cruise DPS, only because of the cruise missile buff
- The cruise missile buff applies to everyone, so other ships T1 and faction come out of the cruise missle buff even better than the CNR


And yet no mention of the fact that it gets the equivilent fo a free rigor rig and BS5, which pushes it above with any other missile chucking BS has as a hull bonus (those flare like bonuses of the Golem and Floon just aren't as good).
Quote:

- No utility high slot
regrettable, but not the end of the world

Quote:

The new CNR is significantly worse than the Typhoon Fleet and Golem and usually worse than the T1 Typhoon and and Scorp Navy. It is a ship without a role or use case. It is garbage.

-Liang


That last part is just flat out wrong with regards to to Scorp navy and the regular Typhoon for highest end PVE you can't make those ships do with a CNR can do, and the Floon and Golem won't do certain things as well. For PVP you may have a point but you pvp types can hash that out.

I don't fly crap ships but this sucker i've been flying on SiSi this weekend is aces compared to the CNR i've been pushing around for 5 years.. It only seems to suck for you because it doesn't do quite what the old one does with torps i guess. Change is sometimes hard to accept, but I really don't see CCP going back on this (in the same way they aren't going back in the Navy Drake).