These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Missile attack battlecruiser
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#21 - 2014-03-28 03:30:47 UTC
Naga would be beautiful if they tweaked it to allow 8 missile slots, and didn't change the bonuses excepting usage of large missiles for the OPTION of fitting them. Cruise launchers with THAT level of mobility, even without bonuses, would be positively wonderful in a wide variety of situations.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2014-03-28 06:05:30 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:

That seems like more of an ammunition problem than a hull problem to me, and part of a list of small problems that add up to missiles being unacceptably neglected.
Besides, a missile Naga should be able to fit both cruise and torp launchers unless turrets are going to have monopoly on short and long range Tier 3s.


Don't think anyone is saying Missiles don't need some re-working :)

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#23 - 2014-03-28 09:11:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack C Hughes
it is not that hard to understand why naga was turned into a railgun ship.

Battleship class Missle + 8 luncher slots + damage bonus means too much damage(10 effective lunchers).
Even the Golem hasonly 8 effective lunchers, and that is probably the highest damage a missle ship could have.
25% more than that? it will be over powered.

you might say well okay lets give it 6 lunchers/ range + explosion speed bonus.
Those doesn't work.
6 lunchers either means utility highes, or more mid/low.
range +explosion bonus means similar damage compaired to other ABCs, but better damage projection.

you can see it is easier to keep missles out of ABC than try to find strange solutions for the problem.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2014-03-28 09:34:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
WTB Caldari Navy Naga that looks like this:

5% reduction in Cruise and Torpedo explosion radius per level
10% bounus to Heavy, Cruise and Torpedo missile velocity per level

Special bonus
Fitting reduction bonus to RHML, CML and Torpedo launchers.
25% reduction in loading time of RHML, CML and Torpedo launchers (8.75 sec reduction for RHML and 2.5 seconds other launchers)

Slot layout: 8H 6M 4L

30% buff to HP (standard Navy buff)
Slight mobility buff (standard navy buff)
etc etc.


Would love to fly this!!
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2014-03-28 10:31:02 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
25% reduction in loading time of RHML, CML and Torpedo launchers (8.75 sec reduction for RHML and 2.5 seconds other launchers)




So I'm admittedly curious as to why this bit is necessary? Missiles are designed to have longer reload times, like lazors insta reload/swap. It's a choice when using the weapons system/ship.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#26 - 2014-03-28 11:14:45 UTC
The original missile Naga was binned because it was terrible beyond belief. With torps, it could not survive an encounter with anything it could effectively apply damage to; with cruise, it was simply bad because cruise was so bad.

Today, the torp Naga problem remains - normal non-bomber torps are a heavy brawler weapon, to be used at close range against large targets, and an ABC by definition doesn't want to go brawling. Cruise is usable now (it only took a ~30% damage increase!) so a cruise ABC would be viable. But it's absurd to introduce it at the cost of the popular rail Naga, which is generally the highest-damage and best-tracking ABC in a vague 70-130 km window, depending on fit ofc.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2014-03-28 12:06:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
Kenrailae wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
25% reduction in loading time of RHML, CML and Torpedo launchers (8.75 sec reduction for RHML and 2.5 seconds other launchers)




So I'm admittedly curious as to why this bit is necessary? Missiles are designed to have longer reload times, like lazors insta reload/swap. It's a choice when using the weapons system/ship.


It is mainly to improve the sustained dps of RHML by reducing reload times to 26 seconds. It is probably an unnecessary bonus but I thought I would throw it in as an extra.

Still, a CML or RHML Navy Issue Naga would be superb. Essentially a highly mobile Navy Raven with small tank and no MJD
Sato Page
Auctor Illuminatas Infinitum
#28 - 2014-03-28 12:07:48 UTC
So it's the mini phoenix. lol no. -1

Dinsdale Pirannha for [u]CEO [/u]of [u]CCP[/u]
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2014-03-28 12:33:40 UTC
Points for trying I guess....

As much as I'd like to see a ship just vomit missiles EVERYWHERE.... reload reduction isn't really balance-able, don't think.

The Rail naga isn't a bad platform though.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#30 - 2014-03-28 13:22:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Lephia DeGrande
Some Destroyer or Battlecruiser Series exclusiv for Missile based weapon System would be cool, just like the twisted Brother of Stealth Bomber or Attack BCs!

They could be based on Rapid Light and Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher with Bonus for Ammunition Capacity and missiles velocity.

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#31 - 2014-03-28 15:20:39 UTC
Jack C Hughes wrote:
it is not that hard to understand why naga was turned into a railgun ship.

Battleship class Missle + 8 luncher slots + damage bonus means too much damage(10 effective lunchers).
Even the Golem hasonly 8 effective lunchers, and that is probably the highest damage a missle ship could have.
25% more than that? it will be over powered.

you might say well okay lets give it 6 lunchers/ range + explosion speed bonus.
Those doesn't work.
6 lunchers either means utility highes, or more mid/low.
range +explosion bonus means similar damage compaired to other ABCs, but better damage projection.

you can see it is easier to keep missles out of ABC than try to find strange solutions for the problem.

But it's ok for a Machariel and Vindicator to have 11+ effective launchers while the vaunted Golem and Navy Raven are gimped to 8?
I like the idea that Spugg Galdon put forth, keep the Naga a hybrid platform, but add a Navy version that can fit missiles. Everybody, except for Sato Page and his biases, is now happy.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2014-03-28 16:01:04 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Jack C Hughes wrote:
it is not that hard to understand why naga was turned into a railgun ship.

Battleship class Missle + 8 luncher slots + damage bonus means too much damage(10 effective lunchers).
Even the Golem hasonly 8 effective lunchers, and that is probably the highest damage a missle ship could have.
25% more than that? it will be over powered.

you might say well okay lets give it 6 lunchers/ range + explosion speed bonus.
Those doesn't work.
6 lunchers either means utility highes, or more mid/low.
range +explosion bonus means similar damage compaired to other ABCs, but better damage projection.

you can see it is easier to keep missles out of ABC than try to find strange solutions for the problem.

But it's ok for a Machariel and Vindicator to have 11+ effective launchers while the vaunted Golem and Navy Raven are gimped to 8?
I like the idea that Spugg Galdon put forth, keep the Naga a hybrid platform, but add a Navy version that can fit missiles. Everybody, except for Sato Page and his biases, is now happy.


Except for that small teeny tiny issue where BS class launchers get far far more dps out of each slot when fitting a long range weapon system than guns do. 11+ Effective weapon cruise missile naga? 1400 DPS of 200km missile spewing death. Yeah. Not going to happen.

Though the missile using crowd tends to whine and bemoan how their weapons don't get enough love, the reason there will never be a 1k+ dps cruise missile platform on a 60 mil hull is because it would be broken as ****.
Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#33 - 2014-03-28 16:14:31 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Jack C Hughes wrote:
it is not that hard to understand why naga was turned into a railgun ship.

Battleship class Missle + 8 luncher slots + damage bonus means too much damage(10 effective lunchers).
Even the Golem hasonly 8 effective lunchers, and that is probably the highest damage a missle ship could have.
25% more than that? it will be over powered.

you might say well okay lets give it 6 lunchers/ range + explosion speed bonus.
Those doesn't work.
6 lunchers either means utility highes, or more mid/low.
range +explosion bonus means similar damage compaired to other ABCs, but better damage projection.

you can see it is easier to keep missles out of ABC than try to find strange solutions for the problem.

But it's ok for a Machariel and Vindicator to have 11+ effective launchers while the vaunted Golem and Navy Raven are gimped to 8?
I like the idea that Spugg Galdon put forth, keep the Naga a hybrid platform, but add a Navy version that can fit missiles. Everybody, except for Sato Page and his biases, is now happy.


I think I didn't make my point clear:

all paladin, Vargur, Koronos has 10 effective turrest, and Golem 8.
Also Abaddon, Mealstorm and megathron more than 8, but Raven 8.
We don't have a pirate ship with missle as main weapon.
This shows that 8 effective launchers is the maximum, and it should be considered as 10 or near to 10 effective turrets.

But if you wish to have a 8 launcher Naga, this makes it more than 8 and reaches 10, which is unfair for other ABCs..
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#34 - 2014-03-28 17:23:50 UTC
Just to recall, at the time of ABC-deployment cruises were yet left untouched and torps didn't have GMP applied yet - so while the naga back then didn't succeed as a decent missileplatform, those things could have greatly changed by now. Eight Cruise Launchers with their massive alpha and flawless application in such a situation, bound to a ship slightly faster than a phoon and significantly cheaper might prove one-sided.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#35 - 2014-03-28 19:59:57 UTC  |  Edited by: scorchlikeshiswhiskey
EFT warrioring to come soon. :)

Edit: No EFT Warrioring, work soon instead. Carry on gents
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#36 - 2014-03-28 20:45:39 UTC
The Naga should be converted to a missile platform, plain and simple. The only reason it was redesigned as a hybrid because large missiles sucked at the time. Just revise the bonuses as follows:

Battlecruiser Skill bonus per level:
5% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret damage » 5% bonus to cruise/torpedo explosion velocity
10% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret optimal range » 10% bonus to cruise/torpedo missile velocity

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2014-03-28 21:52:42 UTC
sprototles Ganzo wrote:
So we have 4 attack BC
2 hybrid : talos and naga
1 projectile: tornado
1 laser: oracle
Well, where is missile attack BC ?

My bonuses:
5% reduction torpedo and cruisers explosion radius
5% increase torpedo and cruisers explosion velocity

p.s. Drone attack BC would be impressive too

Comment and comment again

dont even suggest it because theyll change the oracle to ebing a missile/drone boat, because they hate beautiful lazorz.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#38 - 2014-03-28 21:58:16 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
The Naga should be converted to a missile platform, plain and simple. The only reason it was redesigned as a hybrid because large missiles sucked at the time. Just revise the bonuses as follows:

Battlecruiser Skill bonus per level:
5% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret damage » 5% bonus to cruise/torpedo explosion velocity
10% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret optimal range » 10% bonus to cruise/torpedo missile velocity



the naga is a good and popular ship as is. no it should not be converted into a missile boat. the state of missiles at the time was not the only reason it was an unpopular idea.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2014-03-28 22:03:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
The Naga should be converted to a missile platform, plain and simple. The only reason it was redesigned as a hybrid because large missiles sucked at the time. Just revise the bonuses as follows:

Battlecruiser Skill bonus per level:
5% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret damage » 5% bonus to cruise/torpedo explosion velocity
10% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret optimal range » 10% bonus to cruise/torpedo missile velocity


That's a lovely Naga you have there. Not ridiculously overpowered at all.

Why it can only do a mere 1050k DPS at 250 km with one flight time rig. And a pathetic 1250 dps at 200km with furies.

I especially like the damage application bonus against smaller targets.

Let them eat cake! And carry rocket launchers, and miniguns! And they shall be unto all as a fierce wind, scouring thine enemy before you with as much dps as a gank vindicator, projecting at ranges better than a sniper Rohk, and being highly effective vs all classes of ships!

And let the hull be cheap, and affordable, and quick to train! Let them be agile, quick to align, high scan resolution! Let them have low mass, and massive dps. For nothing is too good for my dear missile users.

TLDR: No.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#40 - 2014-03-28 23:33:33 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
That's a lovely Naga you have there. Not ridiculously overpowered at all.

Why it can only do a mere 1050k DPS at 250 km with one flight time rig. And a pathetic 1250 dps at 200km with furies.

I especially like the damage application bonus against smaller targets.

Let them eat cake! And carry rocket launchers, and miniguns! And they shall be unto all as a fierce wind, scouring thine enemy before you with as much dps as a gank vindicator, projecting at ranges better than a sniper Rohk, and being highly effective vs all classes of ships!

And let the hull be cheap, and affordable, and quick to train! Let them be agile, quick to align, high scan resolution! Let them have low mass, and massive dps. For nothing is too good for my dear missile users.

TLDR: No.

Yeah, with a 20-second flight time... A missile-based Naga wouldn't be any different than the other Attack Battlecruisers. You obviously have no concept of how missiles work if you think even a 25% explosion velocity bonus gives it damage application against smaller targets.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Previous page123Next page