These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Ship-troduction: The Caldari Naga

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
John Hand
#161 - 2011-11-06 09:21:35 UTC
Seems like the naga is missing some of its bonuses on SiSi, it doesn't have its hybrid bonuses yet the missile ones are there but not the hybrid ones. At any rate from what I have found and seen from people the hybrid bonuses are supposed to be 10% opti per a level and 7.5% tracking per a level. This makes it a great blaster boat as it will be able to ACTUALLY HIT something smaller then a battleship, and at longer ranges then its armor tanked counterpart. This is the major issue of all these ships, they will be unable to fight ships smaller then there own class, or maybe not even that. The two ships that stand a chance against something smaller is the Talos with its drones, and the Naga with its missiles or with its tracking bonus it gets with guns.

People will say "well thats why you have friends" but then why dose EVERY OTHER SHIP BIGGER THEN A CRUISER HAVE DRONES? These new ships will be the ONLY ships sub cruiser to NOT have drones (some T1 cruiser don't have drones either I know). This is yet another example of CCPs war against drones which cause a lot of lag. Grouping drones server side to treat them as one big super drone when attacking 1 target would SOLVE a lot of that issue.
SARPIDON
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#162 - 2011-11-06 10:07:17 UTC
Whilst its great to look at you've gimped it from the getgo CCP. By spitting the bonus you've put it firmly into The Typhoon bracket of useless.

Could someone who has a clue please look at the stats and address the issue. It's a pittty to have gone to all this hard work over a new ship for it just to become a hanger queen.
Maaxeru
State War Academy
Caldari State
#163 - 2011-11-06 10:39:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Maaxeru
First - Great looking ship! TY CCP for that.

Second - Gimme back my 4th Lowslot and the 2nd Hybrid Bonus.

These are Tier 3 BCs. Make them need BC V or something. But make them useful.

And to those who are b******ng about cruise missiles, really?

- Fire a cruise missile at a target in combat at range, it warps after getting a sandwich, watching some pron, balancing the checkbook, and coming back to game. But certainly before your missile hits it.

- Fire a cruise missile at close range and be laughed at by those fielding torps / blasters / autocannons etc.

I'm sure you can continue to use cruise missiles on your ravens while you are doing your next level 4 mission. Roll
Rip Minner
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
#164 - 2011-11-06 11:24:57 UTC
Just tell them the truth. Hybirds still suck we want missiles plz.Big smile

Is it a rock point a lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship point a lazer at it and profit. I dont see any problems here.
Shin Dari
Covert Brigade
#165 - 2011-11-06 12:55:45 UTC
John Hand wrote:
but then why dose EVERY OTHER SHIP BIGGER THEN A CRUISER HAVE DRONES?
Its mostly an old game design flaw. CCP created too many generalist designs.
Phantomania
Lonely Trek
#166 - 2011-11-06 12:58:21 UTC

Do away with Hybrids on this Missile Boat.

Instead of current stats-


The Naga is a Tier 3 Battlecruiser that sacrifices durability for the ability to fit Large (Battleship-grade) weapons.

Traits
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus Per Level:
• 10% decreased factor of signature radius for Torpedo's
• 10% bonus to Siege Missile Launchers rate of fire

Role Bonus:
• 40% reduction in the powergrid need of Siege Missile Launchers
• 60% reduction in the CPU need of Siege Missile Launchers


Not sure if the CPU reduction is enough, but a little more is needed!

Big smile Please Big smile
Hakuja
White Snake Inc.
#167 - 2011-11-06 14:35:31 UTC
Phantomania wrote:

Battlecruiser Skill Bonus Per Level:
• 10% decreased factor of signature radius for Torpedo's
• 10% bonus to Siege Missile Launchers rate of fire

Role Bonus:
• 40% reduction in the powergrid need of Siege Missile Launchers
• 60% reduction in the CPU need of Siege Missile Launchers


This, please! Smile
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#168 - 2011-11-06 14:38:35 UTC
No ****** torp ship.
Only matar wants another useless torpedo ship for caldari.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#169 - 2011-11-06 14:55:23 UTC
Phantomania wrote:

Do away with Hybrids on this Missile Boat.

Instead of current stats-


The Naga is a Tier 3 Battlecruiser that sacrifices durability for the ability to fit Large (Battleship-grade) weapons.

Traits
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus Per Level:
• 10% decreased factor of signature radius for Torpedo's
• 10% bonus to Siege Missile Launchers rate of fire

Role Bonus:
• 40% reduction in the powergrid need of Siege Missile Launchers
• 60% reduction in the CPU need of Siege Missile Launchers


Not sure if the CPU reduction is enough, but a little more is needed!

Big smile Please Big smile


Well actually Torps with explo radius of faction HM's (if that's what you're suggesting) would just make it incredibly overpowered against small stuff.

Those BC's are intended to hit stuff of their size and above, not below. Rad explo for torps shouldn't go under 250m and with this would already be able to apply serious dmg on small sign ships.
You can already fly tornados hitting with no tracking issues stuff under 200m sign radius with huge transversal/radial, those need a big stick nerf on tracking for sure.
Phantomania
Lonely Trek
#170 - 2011-11-06 15:00:54 UTC
Tanya Powers wrote:
Phantomania wrote:

Do away with Hybrids on this Missile Boat.

Instead of current stats-


The Naga is a Tier 3 Battlecruiser that sacrifices durability for the ability to fit Large (Battleship-grade) weapons.

Traits
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus Per Level:
• 10% decreased factor of signature radius for Torpedo's
• 10% bonus to Siege Missile Launchers rate of fire

Role Bonus:
• 40% reduction in the powergrid need of Siege Missile Launchers
• 60% reduction in the CPU need of Siege Missile Launchers


Not sure if the CPU reduction is enough, but a little more is needed!

Big smile Please Big smile


Well actually Torps with explo radius of faction HM's (if that's what you're suggesting) would just make it incredibly overpowered against small stuff.

Those BC's are intended to hit stuff of their size and above, not below. Rad explo for torps shouldn't go under 250m and with this would already be able to apply serious dmg on small sign ships.
You can already fly tornados hitting with no tracking issues stuff under 200m sign radius with huge transversal/radial, those need a big stick nerf on tracking for sure.


Well, actually that bonus was aimed at annoyingly fast BC's(not mentioning any names) !Lol
Nimrod Nemesis
Doomheim
#171 - 2011-11-06 16:35:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Nimrod Nemesis
ITT: People who never used torps outside of an SB.

Fix cruise missiles.
Centurax
CSR Engineering Solutions
Citizen's Star Republic
#172 - 2011-11-06 19:34:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Centurax
As much as I like the Naga, it is trying to do too many things and unfortunately not very well.

Compared to the other 3 tier 3 BCs it is somewhat missing something. This ship would probably fit in better with other Caldari ships if it were made purely a missile platform.

The Naga would benefit from the following:

Arrow The slots

8 High - want to keep those
5 Mid - Drop 1 and yes we loose a bit of the tanking capability but seriously not what this ship is about
4 Low - Add 1 low slot so it brings the damage mod capability more in line with the other BCs

Arrow The bonuses

10% bonus to Cruise and Torpedo Velocity
10% bonus to Cruise and Torpedo Rate of fire

70% reduction in CPU Cruise and Siege Missile Launchers
50% reduction in Powergrid Cruise and Siege Missile Launchers

Biggest Change would be the ability to use both Cruise and Siege Launchers which would bring it in line with the other BCs again Cruise for long range and Siege for close range (if you want to use them like that)

Keeping the velocity bonus works well to get some much needed range out of the launchers and gets the damage to target a bit quicker.

This ship seriously needs the rate of fire bonus, as launching torps now is painfully slow.

With the CPU and Power, based on what happens currently could use a larger reduction.

ArrowDrone bay

A small drone bay (25m3, 5 light drones) would make this ship a bit more usable.

In conclusion, the Naga is a good ship and I really like the ship model that Daved L did, a nice job there congrats on that. BUT this ship is trying to do too many things and unfortunately it is falling short of doing any of them well and I think we can let the Gallente have their hybrid guns this ship will be perfect as a missiles boat.
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#173 - 2011-11-06 20:37:10 UTC
nah dont make it missiles only
Katabrok First
Apukaray Security
#174 - 2011-11-06 21:34:21 UTC
I want a 5% rof bonus for hybrids and torps on the naga, in addition to the current bonuses.
Garr Earthbender
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#175 - 2011-11-07 03:09:21 UTC
Well crap. Time to start training for BC5....

-Scissors is overpowered, rock is fine. -Paper
Nimrod Nemesis
Doomheim
#176 - 2011-11-07 03:37:28 UTC
Garr Earthbender wrote:
Well crap. Time to start training for BC5....


You must be in the wrong thread.
Meat Mayos
Meat Group
#177 - 2011-11-07 04:22:31 UTC
Nimrod Nemesis wrote:
Garr Earthbender wrote:
Well crap. Time to start training for BC5....


You must be in the wrong thread.



You're funny
joomla alacard
Indifferent Bastards
#178 - 2011-11-07 05:23:20 UTC
What? What a shame that this ship design was chosen over so many others in the contest that looked Caldari and looked unique while still being awesome; this ship is not impressive.

However, the Amarr, Gallente, and Minmatar ships all look badass, so 75% is still a decent grade. Still unfortunate...could've been a flawless lineup.
Project 69
League of Non-Aligned Worlds
#179 - 2011-11-07 10:37:49 UTC
Now if we could only see the launchers for those amazing ships *hint* ;)
Bosdos
EVE University
Ivy League
#180 - 2011-11-07 11:57:33 UTC
It's great idea to rebalance weapon systems effectiveness. What about cost? If you reduce armor and shield by 20% are you also reducing mineral costs to build the ships? If it cost the same to build them with 20% and removing the drone bay? So, are you also balancing cost to build it minus the drone bay on BPO/BPC?