EVE Search - The Naglfar

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

The Naglfar

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kerkar Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.04.19 10:14:00 - [1] Okay a rather serious thought as im at the point where i train up for capitals but am a bit stuck currently as the Naglfar just seems to suck. I cant really figure out how it can "work" unless you sheild tank it. Mainly i want to know if there will be an overhaul within the next 2-3 months to put it into a position where it isnt the primary in any fleet battle for being so easy to kill, and where it does less dps than the moros/revelation. Thoughts on it - Make it a dedicated shield or armor tanker? Just a matter of switching the slots around. TBH im not too sure what could easily be changed without inducing alot of anger from players who have trained it. Since you need two capital weapon skills changing it to a guns only ship wouldn't go down well. Possibly some bonus to give you a little extra damage without fitting damage mods? Split weaponry means say 1 mod per weapon? Possibly just lose a mid slot for a low slot to give it more of an option when it comes to getting some sort of tank on it. If you compare domi/moros then geddon/revelation then phoon/naglfar you find they all have the same slot config except the geddon (one less mid) and the naglfar (one less low slot and one more mid). I may not be making any sense but yeah, mainly IS it going to be looked at within next 2-3 months? :D Ill probably train for it anyway just because it looks awesome. However it would be nice if it actually WAS awesome to go with that.
Kateryne Minmatar Nisaba Syndicate	Posted - 2009.04.19 10:39:00 - [2] I think it is fairly usable at the moment. It has the most choice in damage types. With the right setup it theoretically has the highest Alpha strike damage. Definitely needs a look at the slot layout though... swapping a low for a mid or vice versa ought to go a long way to sorting it though.
Bary OBama	Posted - 2009.04.19 17:26:00 - [3] The Nag is crap. A simple fix without ****ing anyone off would be to remove a highslot and give it a 3 turret 3 launcher layout plus some extra CPU.
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.04.19 17:39:00 - [4] 3 turret/launcher slots, 4 highs total. Boni such that fitting all Proj + Siege mod gives you comparable damage to Moros or Rev. Or all cap torp giving similar damage to Phoenix. Or just increase the boni to both sides of the split weapons system to the point that people can fit 3 damage mods and have comparable dps to a Moros or Rev. (Or if properly balanced fill the lows with damage mods and have a true paper tiger) Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
Lyyraia	Posted - 2009.04.19 17:41:00 - [5] Originally by: Bary OBama The Nag is crap. A simple fix without **ing anyone off would be to remove a highslot and give it a 3 turret 3 launcher layout plus some extra CPU. THIS!!!** and nothing else...
Xelios Minmatar Broski Enterprises Avarice.	Posted - 2009.04.19 20:02:00 - [6] Problems as I see them: - 2/2 split on weapons makes damage mods only 50% effective - Not enough lows to fit armor tank and damage mod - Not enough CPU to fit shield tank - Effectively only 1 bonus while other dreads get 2 Fixes: - Give it 4 high slots with a 3/3 turret/launcher split - Increase cpu somewhat to allow shield tanking - Give it 2 bonuses to each weapon type (rof and damage) or a secondary bonus that's not useless - Possibly give it another low slot to allow for the standard dread armor tank and a damage mod These are just rough ideas, if they're all implemented it might make the Nag too powerful, but IMO the high slots and ship bonuses are the biggest problems. All the nag's problems stem from this idea that minmatar ships have to be "versatile", in other words a jack of all trades and master of none. If you want to make the Nag versatile you have to give it the ability to be good at both citadels and projectiles, shield and armor tank. Right now it's not good at any of them, that doesn't make it versatile, it makes it broken. This extends to other minmatar ships as well, it's just most apparent in the capitals because they don't benefit from the one thing minmatar have going for them; speed.
Rahjadan Shardur Minmatar Poisoned Heart	Posted - 2009.04.19 20:39:00 - [7] Edited by: Rahjadan Shardur on 19/04/2009 20:42:00 Well I can't fly a Dead jet but I have Minmatar BS 5 so the Naglfar would not be far away. However as it is now I won't train for capitals unless I have another race up so I don't need the Minmatar ones. I can clearly see the intention in the disign of the Naglfar: It sacrafices one slot in mid or low (mid + low = 11 on the Naglfar and 12 on the other Dreads) to have another high for more firepower. In theory that should leave it less durable but much more damaging than the other Dreads are. However the disign fails competely due to the spilt weapon system to a point where the ship has less damage and less tank than the other Dreads. The solution would be simple: Remove the launcher and give it 4 turrets, also give it 2 bonus to turrets (dmg and rof each 5%). Adjust PG and CPU accordingly. Now the Naglfar would still be far less tankable than the other Dreads but would do alot more damage, and fit perfectly to the Minmatar mindset to just fit lots of guns to an otherwise inferior ship. ------------------ In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. (Douglas Adams)
Kagura Nikon Minmatar M. Corp	Posted - 2009.04.20 01:17:00 - [8] 3/3 on slot types won't cut Because everyoen woudl always use projectiles and then woudl stil be a dread with 1 less bonus than others. CCP just need to give a healthy boost to XL projectiles (and they can do that without fear of unbalancign any other thing in game) and the things start to fall in place lovely.... .. but wil rephrase it.. give an WTFOMFGOD boost on XL projectiles..... (like 25% more damage),, come on we are talkign about projectiles the size of freakign HOUSES!!! Naglfar looses a tank slot to get an extra high slot.. so it NEEDS to have MORE DAMAGE OUTPUT THAN ANY OTHER DREAD!!! ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
prefectro Minmatar Amok. Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.04.20 05:50:00 - [9] Naglfar sucked as soon as it was introduced. If CCP felt something was wrong with it they would of fixed it a looong time ago. The reality is they feel the ship is balanced so do not expect them to do anything as they will not. Just to make it clear. CCP WILL NEVER FIX THE NAGLFAR. Accept this and then you can more easily move on and train the Amarr Dread.
Bobbeh Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.04.20 06:33:00 - [10] Yet CCP Admits most of the Capital Ships and Super Caps Need Tweaking and Adjusting. This includes and prolly mostly pertains to minmattar caps. I fly a Naglfar and i dont mind it at all, i just hate knowing that no matter how i fit it i will be primary cause of the lack of tank compared to other dreads

Typhado3 Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.04.20 10:41:00 - [11] Edited by: Typhado3 on 20/04/2009 10:41:52 Never flown capitals partly because I fly minmatar partly because I don't like the role of massive tank/dps i prefer more support like ewar/logistics. But I was wondering if any who has capital experience can tell me what they think of this idea, been thinking about it for a while and from what I know it seems stupid but it's one of the few ways i could think of to give the nag something unique. drop 1 high 2 missile hardpoints add 1 low 1 turret hardpoint swap the missile rof bonus to 7.5% bonus to armour rep amount per level OR 10% armour hp per level. unfortunately after 3 years I have to agree with the following post however Originally by: prefectro Naglfar sucked as soon as it was introduced. If CCP felt something was wrong with it they would of fixed it a looong time ago. The reality is they feel the ship is balanced so do not expect them to do anything as they will not. Just to make it clear. CCP WILL NEVER FIX THE NAGLFAR. Accept this and then you can more easily move on and train the Amarr Dread. ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.04.20 11:23:00 - [12] Well if ccp pays attention on the thread themselves opened to request players what they want fixed, there is NO WAY they can skip projectiles and the naglfar. Both are reuqested every other post on that thread.
Aeleva Caldari Hegemonic Core	Posted - 2009.04.20 11:25:00 - [13] I have seen CCP have something broken in game for ages then fix it :) It just seems sad that its revelation/moros as standard for dreads. I mean its not like they are multirole ships so you shouldnt worry TOO much about making them unbalanced. Naglfar should either out DPS the moros or be similar for DPS with a good tank.
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.04.20 13:23:00 - [14] Caldari; 3 Missiles. Amarr; 3 Lasers. Gallente; 3 Hybrids. Minmatar; 2 projectiles, 2 missiles. Capitals represent the end-all be-all of a races technology, so why is it minmatar share half their weapons with another race, instead of their racial speciality?. Drop a highslot, give it a lowslot, drop the missiles, give it another turret. Remove the ROF bonus for launchers, give it a 10% damage/level bonus for projectiles. Change the 7.5% rof bonus to projectiles to a 5% bonus. hell even a 2.5% rof. minmatar are kings of alpha, the Naglfar should represent this. Please note, this is all right off the top of my head. Thanks ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.04.20 14:21:00 - [15] CCp made the naglfar a 1 less tank slot to get a 1 plus high slot witha crap damage progression. How about to INVERT that? REmove 2 high slots and the 2 launchers.. Yes only 2 guns. But change the rof bonus from missiles to 7.5% damage per level (yes sided with the 7.5% rof bonus) now move those 2 slots to 1 extra mid and 1 extra low slot....
Kerkar Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.04.20 15:37:00 - [16] Originally by: Seishi Maru CCp made the naglfar a 1 less tank slot to get a 1 plus high slot witha crap damage progression. How about to INVERT that? REmove 2 high slots and the 2 launchers.. Yes only 2 guns. But change the rof bonus from missiles to 7.5% damage per level (yes sided with the 7.5% rof bonus) now move those 2 slots to 1 extra mid and 1 extra low slot.... Nice idea but a few issues... 1. Gives it less ammo use but still high dps (not sure what actual dps would work out at) 2. 3 Guns look cooler :D I prefer the idea of losing a high, 3 turrets, then changing bonuses and giving it an extra low slot. Yes the dreads racially wont be "massively" different but then they all are aiming at the same role.
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.04.20 15:41:00 - [17] Originally by: Kerkar Originally by: Seishi Maru CCp made the naglfar a 1 less tank slot to get a 1 plus high slot witha crap damage progression. How about to INVERT that? REmove 2 high slots and the 2 launchers.. Yes only 2 guns. But change the rof bonus from missiles to 7.5% damage per level (yes sided with the 7.5% rof bonus) now move those 2 slots to 1 extra mid and 1 extra low slot.... Nice idea but a few issues... 1. Gives it less ammo use but still high dps (not sure what actual dps would work out at) 2. 3 Guns look cooler :D I prefer the idea of losing a high, 3 turrets, then changing bonuses and giving it an extra low slot. Yes the dreads racially wont be "massively" different but then they all are aiming at the same role. problem is.. beign realistic.. they will NOT give a 3rd turret because woudl need to remake the model. And there is no space left on naglfar to fit another huge turret. The proposed change from mine has about same dps as 3 turrets with 5% rof bonus would have.
Ahz	Posted - 2009.04.20 17:02:00 - [18] Originally by: Bary OBama The Nag is crap. A simple fix without **ing anyone off would be to remove a highslot and give it a 3 turret 3 launcher layout plus some extra CPU. I like the idea of keeping the 5 high slots but in a 4 / 2 layout: - Configuration 1: 2 XL Arti + 2 launchers (exactly as currently) - Configuration 2**: 4 XL auto cannons If done like this it can continue to me a mediocre POS sieging tool. Or with 4 ACs it can be a dangerous anti cap ship tool. Any change to the layout will mean that the model needs to be updated. CCP will have to modify the model to support one or two more guns.
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.04.20 17:07:00 - [19] Originally by: Seishi Maru problem is.. beign realistic.. they will NOT give a 3rd turret because woudl need to remake the model. And there is no space left on naglfar to fit another huge turret. The proposed change from mine has about same dps as 3 turrets with 5% rof bonus would have. Not true. All they really need to do is add two damn graphical turret placement slots, not so hard and considering we're only working with one graphic asset now, shouldn't take too long. And it has plenty of room on the top bit just before those tiny solar panels. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.04.20 17:08:00 - [20] Originally by: Ahz Originally by: Bary OBama The Nag is crap. A simple fix without **ing anyone off would be to remove a highslot and give it a 3 turret 3 launcher layout plus some extra CPU. I like the idea of keeping the 5 high slots but in a 4 / 2 layout: - Configuration 1: 2 XL Arti + 2 launchers (exactly as currently) - Configuration 2**: 4 XL auto cannons If done like this it can continue to me a mediocre POS sieging tool. Or with 4 ACs it can be a dangerous anti cap ship tool. Any change to the layout will mean that the model needs to be updated. CCP will have to modify the model to support one or two more guns. They will NOT give it one more gun than the other caps, all you need is damage bonus tweaking. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008

Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.04.20 18:32:00 - [21] Originally by: Blane Xero Not true. All they really need to do is add two damn graphical turret placement slots, not so hard and considering we're only working with one graphic asset now, shouldn't take too long. And it has plenty of room on the top bit just before those tiny solar panels. They won't do it. It would be a sufficiently radical change to the model as to have the idea thrown out as a non-starter. I strongly suspect any balance changes to the Naglfar will come in the form of slot and bonus tweaks, but with CCP having indicated several times in the past that they don't want to tweak individual capital ships outside of a large-scale sovereignty / capital ship revamp, I don't really see that we're going to see the Naglfar changed particularly in this 'balancing' round.
Kerdrak Big Guns Inc. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.20 20:58:00 - [22] Revelation -> Armageddon Moros -> Dominix Phoenix -> Raven (a ECM dread have no sense) Naglfar -> Typhoon with tempest slots <-- This is where CCP did the mistake. Dominix have the same slot layout than Typhoon, thus have sense if Naglfar have Moros slot layout (4/5/7) to allow enough armor/damage mods. ________________________________________ [img]http://www.atlas-alliance.com/killboard-new/sig.php/4652/alliancerank/signature.jpg[/img
Xelios Minmatar Broski Enterprises Avarice.	Posted - 2009.04.20 23:34:00 - [23] Originally by: Kerdrak Revelation -> Armageddon Moros -> Dominix Phoenix -> Raven (a ECM dread have no sense) Naglfar -> Typhoon with tempest slots <-- This is where CCP did the mistake. Dominix have the same slot layout than Typhoon, thus have sense if Naglfar have Moros slot layout (4/5/7) to allow enough armor/damage mods. That won't be enough though, due to the split weapons layout a damage mod will only be half as effective as it is on other dreads. The Typhoon gets away with this because most people use the other 4 highs as utility slots (neuts or RR usually), and because it can use 5 heavy drones to augment its damage (same as the Domi).
Ahz	Posted - 2009.04.21 00:46:00 - [24] Originally by: Xelios Originally by: Kerdrak Revelation -> Armageddon Moros -> Dominix Phoenix -> Raven (a ECM dread have no sense) Naglfar -> Typhoon with tempest slots <-- This is where CCP did the mistake. Dominix have the same slot layout than Typhoon, thus have sense if Naglfar have Moros slot layout (4/5/7) to allow enough armor/damage mods. That won't be enough though, due to the split weapons layout a damage mod will only be half as effective as it is on other dreads. The Typhoon gets away with this because most people use the other 4 highs as utility slots (neuts or RR usually), and because it can use 5 heavy drones to augment its damage (same as the Domi). Exactly. This is why I think four high slots which support 4 projectile turrets and 2 missile turrets will make the Nag more viable. It also gives the Nag a slightly different role than the other dreads: It can have a powerful anti-cap role as well as a POS take-down role.
Hun Jakuza 24th Imperial Guard	Posted - 2009.04.21 04:59:00 - [25] Edited by: Hun Jakuza on 21/04/2009 05:03:07 Problems as I see them: All Dred have 16 slot that's fine i think, but... Naglfar have 5 high slot but shorter than others 1 mid or 1 low slot. The CCP splitted their weapons and when anyone try to fitting them, must using splitted damage mods too > less damage (splitted weapons need more training time, that's sux, need minimum plus 1 months training time than others) The problem is the 5 high slot, and splitted weapons. Need changes to 4 high slot and 3 same type weapon rack. 3 projectile slot or 3 Citadel launcher and 5th remaining slot transfer to mid or low.
Azirapheal Amarr Ministry of War	Posted - 2009.04.21 05:28:00 - [26] i dont fly one myself but was definately thinking of training for one when i have the isk. i prefer the minnie carriers, but i love the verticalness of teh nag, its just a crying shame that split weapons hurts it so much paper cannon it or make it tankeable. both of which require removing the launcher slots or better still, allow full choice across 3 highslots Originally by: Grohalmatar The proposed changes in the game development forum are obviously a nerf to falcon pilots. However, what they really are is a nerf to falcon alts.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.