EVE Search - Naglfar, Captial Projectile Turrets and Citadel Torpedos

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Naglfar, Captial Projectile Turrets and Citadel Torpedos

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 29 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 14 post(s)
Typhado3 Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.05.04 00:22:00 - [481] Originally by: Sexorella hotz Edited by: Sexorella hotz on 03/05/2009 22:10:08 Just a thought, since we're so opposed to split weapon systems, but there are a ton of naglfar pilots who have committed valuable training time to it. As a possible change to weapons, I like the 2 high slot marauder idea, but perhaps either you can fit 2 cit's or 2 projectiles, depending on what you're doing. Make it such that citadels would be the ideal pos shooting platform, since they're bad at shooting caps, autocannons for high damage short range hot drops, and artilleries for sniping(and if you're dumb you can do one of each). In other words, reduce the total highs to 3, but still have two turret and 2 missile hardpoints. Citadels should out damage arties(shorter "effective" range), autocannons obviously highest damage makes them better for hot drop situations, and artilleries be the weakest damage of the 3, but with good range. It remains to have some versatility in tanking, shield tank for pos shoot and hot-dropping, freeing lows for damage, and an armor tank for sniping(using meds for range and generally having to take less damage in a sniping situation). You still have your options but they're at the fitting window. Also if we bring their damage in line with the other caps at this point, their tank still needs review, and to be brought up to par with the other dreads. They should probably have the same number of low/med fittings as other dreads, cause their hull based damage increases should create the illusion of 3 weapons. So I'd say 3/6/6 . Finally, future nagl owners can get into the ship faster, they only need to train projectiles to fully function, since they can use it in capital battles(auto's or arti's for sniping) and pos shooting(arties), and can make the choice to increase their pos damage by training into citadels. Also this does not negate the need for fixing citadels, but that then stops being a problem worth discussing with the nagl, it becomes its own problem. Summary: 3 highs, 2 turret, 2 missile 6 meds 6 lows Damage to bring 2 weapons in line with 3, including the damage boosts inherent in other dreads, damage bonus has to apply to both weapon systems. Technically it has more bonus's than other dreads, but they would not all be relevant at all times Benefits: No model redevelopment No split weapons(lots of inherent benefits here) Retains options to shield/armor tank Essentially, double training the weapons still stands to retain benefits by allowing choices at time of fitting /signed this would make it still feel minmatar give it some options (imaginary flexibility) and make it competitive. ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
Gragnor The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.05.04 00:26:00 - [482] Edited by: Gragnor on 04/05/2009 00:27:43 It is very frustrating reading these forums with a raft of opinion that split weapon systems are terrible. The CCP response is simple; it is not going to change in the short term. So please,no more posts asking for what we won't get no matter how logical or appropriate it is. It is frustrating but that's CCP's fault for some of the stupid inconsistent nerfs. What do I want? - The Naglfar has 4 damage high slots, 1 more than every other dread. Therefore, dps should be 1/3 GREATER than every other dread. Yes, that's right a full one third greater. That's called equality and it will make CCP think a bit more about slots in the future. - Citadel torpedoes should be given a speed boost and not a rate of fire boost to ensure they hit the target. - Adjust Artillery damage modifier upwards. Make it a damage boost. That's the minnie way. - Adjust siege autocannon's optimal to represent some kind of reality; say 40km. - Slot layout - take a low slot and give it a mid slot. - Tank - Naglfar needs to be a shield tank; so adjust shield hitpoints upwards by 25% and lower armor hit points by 25% - Give it the power and CPU to fit a decent shield tank. It is not that hard. CCP; if you want us to design it for you; give us the parameters and we will tell you what we think is about right.
Sexorella hotz Pyre of Gods	Posted - 2009.05.04 02:31:00 - [483] Edited by: Sexorella hotz on 04/05/2009 02:44:39 Edited by: Sexorella hotz on 04/05/2009 02:32:39 Originally by: Marcellus Corteaz Originally by: Sexorella hotz Post. Sniping with a 7/5 isn't a problem. You don't need as large of a tank as you would for a close range fit, as you're not receiving nearly the amount of damage. That means you can free up a slot for a sensor booster (you only need two, and you should already be fitting one), and locus rigs take care of the optimal problem. Honestly, I just can't agree with a 6/6 slot layout. That introduces the problem (that CCP doesn't factor in) of having to train two tanking systems, and leaves you with a subpar tank regardless. Agreed, and it would be the converse of the moros which likewise makes sense. I had suggested using a weak armor tank as a sniper for the same reason, so I have to agree:P It probably would have an adequate shield tank just partially fitted. The fact that its weapons are capless also compensate for the cap heaviness of a shield tank. With the arti range boost I'm expecting perhaps one tracking comp, a tracking enhancer, 3 damage mods and a damage control plus shield tank would work nicely enough for sniping, and I assume a sensor booster somewhere in there. Leaves 5 slots for tank. Not gonna open EFT to see if that's enough to make it a sniper however:P
isdisco3 Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2009.05.04 02:54:00 - [484] Edited by: isdisco3 on 04/05/2009 02:56:24 It can't be 6/6 for low and mids. All that does is guarantee that, while the nag's tank is flexible, it will always be completely inferior to any other dread's. It needs to be 5/7 either mid / low or vice versa; I vote for 7 lows 5 mids for the reasons I posted about already in this thread. I think its stupid to make the nag shield-tank when only 4 ships in the entire minmatar lineup active-tank shield. Furthermore, the typhoon (presumably the bs "equivalent" of the nag, since it splits damage types) is a heavily armor-tanked ship.
VoiceInTheDesert Zebra Corp Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2009.05.04 03:00:00 - [485] I actually like the Nag as a shield tanker...mostly cause the niddy tanks better with shield than armor. As does the Hel...
Killerhound Caldari Stardust Heavy Industries Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.05.04 06:31:00 - [486] Was just curious to see which 4 you meant... - Claymore - Sleipnir - Maelstrom - maybe the nidhogur .. question of taste but there are muchmore passif shield tanker ...
isdisco3 Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2009.05.04 07:20:00 - [487] Edited by: isdisco3 on 04/05/2009 07:23:01 Originally by: Killerhound Was just curious to see which 4 you meant... - Claymore - Sleipnir - Maelstrom - maybe the nidhogur .. question of taste those 3 and the cyclone, the t1 variant of the claymore and sleip. so its really just 2 ship hulls, total. Yet, given this massive breadth of minmatar ship tanking, people want to make the dread tank shields? No minmatar ships are purely passive tank except the broadsword. Many fit extenders because they're nano, but they're by no means "tanked", just buffered. But I dont want to get into a semantics debate.
Kenpachi Viktor Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.05.04 08:46:00 - [488] Now, for something completely different. Change the tracking and the alpha of cap projectiles for shooting at webed BSs, at the cost of DPS Reduce the total mass by %15 Increase Jump range by 2 ly Reduce cap needed to jump to %50 Increase scan resolution to 95mm Add 1 mid and 1 low for extra versatility Reduce the cost of production by %15 GIVE IT BUBBLE IMMUNITY I now present, king of the hot-drop gank. (not a serious post ) ===============
Shadow Devourer	Posted - 2009.05.04 09:57:00 - [489] Everything worth saying already has. Now we need to see some dev comments.
IsoMetricanTaliac 2 Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.05.04 10:12:00 - [490] Let the naglfar have it's own racial weapons just like all the other dreads & fix the slots so it can tank like the other dreads cause it is a sad fact that less & less of these are being used in fleet battles because they are pre gimped. Don't make changes to the split weapons system, get rid of it all together drop one of the hi slots and configure the Mid/Lows accordingly so that a pilot in one of these is more than just a number on the field. It's like minmatar are just being left to waste away to nothing while the other races ships are forever getting overhauls of one type or another. Anyway here's hoping the changes are the right ones & not just changes for the hell of saying we are trying at least... In a Time When Many Will Seek Death, There Will Always Be Those Like Me Who Won't Mind Helping Them Along Their Way!?!

Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.05.04 11:05:00 - [491] Edited by: Seishi Maru on 04/05/2009 11:05:54 Originally by: isdisco3 Edited by: isdisco3 on 04/05/2009 07:23:01 Originally by: Killerhound Was just curious to see which 4 you meant... - Claymore - Sleipnir - Maelstrom - maybe the nidhogur .. question of taste those 3 and the cyclone, the t1 variant of the claymore and sleip. so its really just 2 ship hulls, total. Yet, given this massive breadth of minmatar ship tanking, people want to make the dread tank shields? No minmatar ships are purely passive tank except the broadsword. Many fit extenders because they're nano, but they're by no means "tanked", just buffered. But I dont want to get into a semantics debate. Add: Vagabond Rapier, Huggin, Scimitar (hint look at the type of bonus it has) broadsword and to hell with "they are not tanked jsut buffered". The word tank implies jsut where their defense is. REal life TANKS also do not active regenerate their armor as well.. so the tanks do not tank?
Shadow Devourer	Posted - 2009.05.04 11:16:00 - [492] Then there's the mom and titan. Minmatar are half and half. You can argue for an armor tank because you like it better for whatever reason no need to try to pass it off as being because minmatar are armor tankers.
Amy Wang	Posted - 2009.05.04 13:46:00 - [493] lets take this from another perspective: I have both Minmatar and Amarr Dread to lvl 4, all involved XL weapons at lvl 4 as well in fact I have Amarr Dread lvl 5 to 15% done already, but I stopped when they announced the Naglfar buff to see how it plays out so would anyone advise me to: a) continue training Amarr dread 5 now as the Naglfar will be worse then Revelation/Moros even if they buff it more as suggested so far b) train for Minmatar Dread 5 as it will be sweet with the changes so far suggested c) hold on training any Dread 5 for now to see if they buff the Naglfar more as suggested so far and if they do consider training Minmatar Dread 5 instead of another
prefectro Minmatar Amok. Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.05.04 14:17:00 - [494] Edited by: prefectro on 04/05/2009 14:18:12 Originally by: Shadow Devourer Everything worth saying already has. Now we need to see some dev comments. QFT 100 million isk Chronotis is not even reading this anymore (I doubt he read past the 3rd page). Enough with the chit chat, I want to see what CCP thinks (based on the responses)
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.05.04 14:34:00 - [495] Originally by: prefectro Edited by: prefectro on 04/05/2009 14:18:12 Originally by: Shadow Devourer Everything worth saying already has. Now we need to see some dev comments. QFT 100 million isk Chronotis is not even reading this anymore (I doubt he read past the 3rd page). Enough with the chit chat, I want to see what CCP thinks (based on the responses) I think YOU shoudl shut up. Since obviously YOU had not read it past page 3 sicne CCP Shronotis has posted far later than page 3 and answering direct questions made far later than that. So obviously you are the one that is failing here.
Sexorella hotz Pyre of Gods	Posted - 2009.05.04 14:57:00 - [496] If they make it an armor tank its basically a moros(4/5/7). There's plenty of minmatar ships that shield tank, including their capitals, therefore there is no argument that it should not be a shield tank. Furthermore, its already quite inclined to be a shield tank(except for its slot layout) as with its lower hitpoints(same overall, fewer focused into any one system), a burst tank is more essential, also its weapons are capless, supporting the high capacitor needs of a shield tank. Caldari shouldn't be the only race that has to train tactical shield manipulation, an admittedly broken and long training skill(FIX IT DAMNET!).
isdisco3 Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2009.05.04 17:36:00 - [497] Edited by: isdisco3 on 04/05/2009 17:41:07 Originally by: Seishi Maru Add: Vagabond Rapier, Huggin, Scimitar (hint look at the type of bonus it has) broadsword and to hell with "they are not tanked jsut buffered". The word tank implies jsut where their defense is. REal life TANKS also do not active regenerate their armor as well.. so the tanks do not tank? I said I wasn't going to get into a semantics debate. But to clarify, most people do not consider battleship setups which rely on armor plates and resists to be armor "tanks." They call them "buffer tanks," because they are not actively repaired by the pilot flying the ship. The same thing applies to the ships you mentioned above. None of them actually fit things to their ship which is designed to permanently tank any amount of dps (except broadsword). They (and I, and my 40m of minmatar spec) fit LSE's to give them enough EHP buffer to shoot things or GTFO if said things start shooting me more than I want. I could not even tell you what the "tank" caused by natural shield regen on my vaga is (probably something pitiful like 30 dps), but I can tell you that my broadsword should be able to tank 200ish dps. Hope that explains what I'm calling the difference between "buffer" and "active" tank. Minmatar ships do not active-tank shields, except for 2 ship hulls. Many of them fit a buffer, or actively tank armor (typhoon can (but usually fits buffer), tempest, rupture, munin, hurricane). Minmatar is not by any stretch of the imagination half and half. If you want to claim they're shield-based, then give the nidh 20% more shield per level or something laughable like that, and invent a capital shield extender. That would more accurately reflect the type of buffer tank Minmatar uses as a whole.
Shadow Devourer	Posted - 2009.05.04 18:24:00 - [498] By your definition drakes don't shield tank because they fit extenders and megathrons aren't armor tankers. Hell most of the caldari race doesn't shield tank and only one of them (golem) is an active tanker. It would be simpler for everyone if you accepted standard nomenclature.
isdisco3 Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2009.05.04 19:08:00 - [499] Edited by: isdisco3 on 04/05/2009 19:11:40 great, a successful complete derail based on semantics. the difference between buffer and active tanking is crystal clear and obvious to anyone who'se spent more than an hour looking at ship fittings. drakes, the broadsword, and other ships which rely on passive shield regen for tank (as opposed to pure EHP, like the vaga does), are called "passive." now i realize this is complicated for some of you, so i'll re-summarize: armor: - buffer (plate-based) - active (repper-based) shield: - buffer (LSE/PDU based) - active (repper-based) - passive (SPR / LSE / PDU / invul-based) But i'm done arguing semantics here, as its pointless and doesn't help the issue at hand. my point stands that minmatar does not commonly active-tank shields. it buffer-tanks them. as such, pointing to these buffer-based setups as proof that the nag should active-tank shields is a bad argument.

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2009.05.04 19:14:00 - [500] A quick update: We are currently looking at the following changes or amendments to the original proposals. The capital projectile changes remain the same. Naglfar Bonuses: * 7.5% Capital Projectile Damage per level * 7.5% Capital Projectile Rate of fire per level Naglfar Attributes * +1 med slot * +150 cpu (850 base) * -65,000 powergrid (560,000 base) * the model has been fixed and rotated on its axis 90 degrees so is horizontal now. Citadel Torpedoes * velocity increased to 2,750 m/s * flight time decreased to 25 secs Regarding Split Weapons Many of you have made good arguments against split weapons primarily focused around damage mods. We certainly do not disagree with those points that split weapon systems need adequate bonuses to factor in modules, rig or implant choices and the ease of using single weapon systems. Our current objective is to recognise the unique nature of the naglfar and retain its dual weapon system but focus the bonuses on the matari projectile side of the weapons with the missiles retaining a secondary role. The Naglfar in its new horizontal role The dual projectile bonus in addition to its unbonused citadel torps gives it an edge outside drone range within its missile range, then its damage is comparable to the moros and revelation at the longer ranges. The addition of the med slot and cpu allows for more viable shield or armour tanks and with the high bonuses allows for a roughly equivalent performance with only one damage mod. Combine this with much faster torpedoes, then the delayed damage factor is reduced and using the torpedoes becomes a much better option within its effective ranges. We believe this package of changes puts the naglfar at equal height (lol pun) with the other dreadnoughts and allows it to be a more viable choice out on the field. Feedback is welcome and the usual disclaimer applies, things may change before patch day. The original post will be updated shortly with these changes! Crystal Ball Time - The Future of Dreadnoughts, Capital ships and 0.0 Warfare We mentioned that what we are trying to achieve here was an effective band aid, a simple set of quick changes requiring minimal resources from our side to fix the Naglfar and give a little buff to the Phoenix as a short term solution. Some of you (Hi DigitalCommunist!), looked at the bigger picture straight away and wide ranging ideas for changes to increase the scenarios and possibilities of the ships role and use. We have not kept it secret that we are not happy with the capital ships, their place in the universe and 0.0 warfare as a whole. It is a constant topic of heated discussion internally, with the CSM and here on the forums amongst the rest of you. Currently, we are looking very hard at possible wide ranging changes to 0.0 warfare at its core and the heart of our high level game play which defines eve. The possible changes will entail a reworking of capital ships to some lesser of greater degree along the way and the mechanics and strategies surrounding them. This is by no means something which has even a soon attached to it for now. It's a very deep and in-depth look at our core gameplay, at 0.0 itself and everything that goes on there which is why we are not spending too much effort on short term solutions. It would definitely be interesting for us to harvest your grey matter on 0.0 and our core gameplay, capital ship warfare, 0.0 life and combat and by all means, lets hear your thoughts on this with conceptual changes as you see fit for now. A sticky thread will be forthcoming on this in the features and ideas forum since there is much interest in the wider topics around dreadnoughts themselves and we need to keep all the ideas in one place so we don't spend the day reading the last 3 pages of F&I like usual with our morning coffee :). -Ave ps. was joking about making the naglfar horizontal!


Shadow Devourer	Posted - 2009.05.04 19:18:00 - [501] The majority of PvP drakes don't regen tank, they buffer tank. I thought that was obvious. Anyhow the titan and mom are shield tankers, the carrier was a shield tanker until it got changed. Making the nag a shield tanker doesn't go against CCPs design for the race.
isdisco3 Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2009.05.04 19:20:00 - [502] Edited by: isdisco3 on 04/05/2009 19:22:29 lol, pwned. i fell for the horizontal thing :D
Chris Sandstorm Minmatar	Posted - 2009.05.04 19:24:00 - [503] Seriously, drop the citadels please
prefectro Minmatar Amok. Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.05.04 19:34:00 - [504] Originally by: Seishi Maru Edited by: Seishi Maru on 04/05/2009 15:01:18 Originally by: prefectro Edited by: prefectro on 04/05/2009 14:18:12 Originally by: Shadow Devourer Everything worth saying already has. Now we need to see some dev comments. QFT 100 million isk Chronotis is not even reading this anymore (I doubt he read past the 3rd page). Enough with the chit chat, I want to see what CCP thinks (based on the responses) I think YOU shoudl shut up. Since obviously YOU had not read it past page 3 sicne CCP Shronotis has posted far later than page 3 and answering direct questions made far later than that. So obviously you are the one that is failing here. Btw you can send the isk for this char... You need to chill the hell out noob. You are goin to start popping zits soon. And finally the response I was looking for from CCP, a vast improvement over the OG OP.
Incantare	Posted - 2009.05.04 19:46:00 - [505] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Citadel Torpedoes * velocity increased to 2,750 m/s * flight time decreased to 25 secs While the velocity increase is welcome you still haven't taken care of the main issue with citadels: explosion velocity. You said in you opening post dreads had other capital ships as intended targets but with 50% damage reduction to a carrier moving at 20 m/s they citadels fail at this role. Log on the test server, fire some cits at a moving capital then do the same with guns and the problem will be obvious.
Amy Wang	Posted - 2009.05.04 20:01:00 - [506] Edited by: Amy Wang on 04/05/2009 20:04:57 interesting, the double damage bonus means citadel torps are just an added but minor part of the dps so you can concentrate on turrets both training and damage mod wise, that is good on the other hand with +1med (instead of +1 low which is the obvious alternative) the grid and cpu changes you seem to want to make it a shield tanker which is not so cool as it brings back the additional training requirement in form of tactical shield manipulation, so yea, still not convinced give it 7 lows instead of 5 meds plus switch some shield hp to armor and we are talking took you a while to realize that the Nid wasn't working as a shield tanker, don't got that path with the Naglfar
Arramis Minmatar ROMANIA Renegades Legiunea ROmana	Posted - 2009.05.04 20:08:00 - [507] Now i have to train for shield tanking , anyway, better than having an usless ship:)) Manelele`s expresia clara a prostiei si inculturii romanesti.
isdisco3 Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2009.05.04 20:12:00 - [508] Edited by: isdisco3 on 04/05/2009 20:13:03 6 mids means it will have a less effective shield tank than the phoenix. 6 lows means it will have less effective armor tank than the moros or rev. its still going to be insta-primary in every fleet fight, and its still going to die horribly. please, give it 5 mids and 7 lows.
Incantare	Posted - 2009.05.04 20:17:00 - [509] It makes sense for it to have less tank than the Phoenix because it has more gank. Look at it this way: with 6 mids it has a better burst tank than a moros fitting one damage mod or a rev fitting two. At the same time it can fit for full damage at the cost of sustainability. Looks good to me.
isdisco3 Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2009.05.04 20:23:00 - [510] Edited by: isdisco3 on 04/05/2009 20:23:43 yeah, i agree actually. we'll have to test it out. according to my maths, the cpu boost means it should be able to fit: - all weapons + siege in highs - a full tank (booster, 2 invuls, 2 amps) + sensor booster in mids - 2 weapon modifiers (gyros), 4 cap modules in lows obviously this isn't how people will fit them in pvp, but as a theory-fit to test how well the fittings work, i think its worthwhile. overall, its much better than the OP, and might even prove feasible :)



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 29 :: 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.

ps. was joking about making the naglfar horizontal!