EVE Search - Navy ship changes for Dominion

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Navy ship changes for Dominion

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.09.04 21:29:00 - [1] Originally by: Kayosoni Quote: Dominix Navy Issue: ò Slot layout: 6 high, 6 med, 7 low slots, 6 turrets, no launchers ò Fittings: 660 CPU, 9900 powergrid, 350 calibration, 3 rig slots ò Hitpoints: +50% hit points on hull (9961), armor (9316) and shields (8203) ò Capacitor: +5% max capacitor (5250 capacitor, 1087.5s recharge) ò Dronebay increased by 25m3, bandwidth unchanged ò Sensor: +25% magnetometric sensor strength sorry but 6 mids and 7 lows for a battleship that uses drones as its main DPS is horribly unbalanced slot configuration compared to other BS. Far too much versatility. Yeah that Domi is far too good. Compare it to the Tempest, with its 5 mids and 6 lows. The Domi has five bonused drones and an extra lowslot and medslot. It's too good.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.09.04 21:53:00 - [2] Originally by: Ariane VoxDei Originally by: CCP Ytterbium II. Navy Tier 2 Battleships: General: all navy battleship shield recharge time has been increased to 3390s. That has considerable negative impact on the passive regen of the Navy Raven (mainly PVE/mission implications). We are looking at going from 2500s to 3390s (+890s or roughly +35%). Was it an oversight or was it deliberate, that it was not excluded from this nerf? Deliberate, to stop idiots passive tanking battleships. They still will, though. Would probably just be better to just delete SPRs and purger rigs from the game though.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.09.05 10:51:00 - [3] Edited by: Gypsio III on 05/09/2009 10:51:45 Originally by: CCP Ytterbium Scorpion Navy Issue: òSlot layout: 7 high, 8 med, 4 low slots, 5 launchers, 4 turrets, 350 calibration, 3 rig slots òFittings: 787 CPU, 10350 powergrid, 350 calibration, 3 rig slots òNew bonuses: 5% bonus to cruise and siege launcher rate of fire and 5% shield resistances per level òHitpoints: +50% hit points on hull (8203), armor (8203) and shields (9961) òDronebay unchanged next to standard hull òSpeed: +10% max velocity òSensor: +25% gravimetric sensor strength, -50 signature radius next to standard hull What's the point of this ship? We already have one Caldari Navy battleship that shield-tanks and uses missiles - the CNR. Add the Rattlesnake (which is basically just a Raven with an extra lowslot) and then there are two. We don't need a third. These are Caldari ships, and Caldari uses rails. Make it a railboat.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.09.06 13:40:00 - [4] I don't want an ECM Navy Scorpion. We have enough ECM boats in game, they have fairly well-defined roles and I don't see the need for another. You could argue that a close-range ECM-torp-Scorp brawler is desirable - and you'd be right. But a faction ship isn't really the place for a weak-tanked insta-primary such as a close-range ECM ship - especially given the impossibility of RR shield BS gangs because of the absolutely moronic CPU requirements of Shield Transfers. Having the Navy Scorp as a missile boat, however, doesn't make much sense either. We have plenty of shield-tanked missile BS already. The Raven is a cheap gank boat. The CNR is an expensive supergank boat. The Golem is focused on active tanking. So far, so good. But after this we run into problems. The Rattlesnake has no role and is basically just a Raven with an extra lowslot, as it doesn't have the fittings to use its hybrid bonus and would only ever fit two turrets even if it could. There's no actual Gallente influence here - it's basically just another Caldari shield-tanked missile BS, just a Raven with an extra lowslot. The proposed Navy Scorp is just a CNR with a bit less gank and more tank. It's boring. We already have four shield-tanked missile BS (Rattler, Raven, CNR, Golem), we don't need another. As seen with the revised Hookbill, CCP seems keen to focus on missiles, overlooking the Caldari railboat line - it's like ignoring Gallente's focus on blasters. The only problem here is that a Navy Scorp railboat would ideally have an optimal and shield resist bonus - basically making it a Rokh. I don't know where I'm going with this any more.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.09.07 08:20:00 - [5] Originally by: Xavier Sunder Originally by: Gypsio III The Rattlesnake has no role and is basically just a Raven with an extra lowslot, as it doesn't have the fittings to use its hybrid bonus and would only ever fit two turrets even if it could. Rattlesnake is a passive shield tanking beast. It's a BS-sized Drake. No, a Raven is a BS-sized Drake, as both buffer-tank. And the Rattler is just a Raven with an extra lowslot. Sure, you could fit a passive tank to Rattler or Drake, but more fool you.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.09.13 13:24:00 - [6] I think the Navy Scorp will be quite decent in practice - the slot distribution is nice, the extra tank is useful because faction ships get primaried and the DPS is respectable. It's just not very interesting... there's only so many ways to do "missiles plus shields". The new Rattler is interesting. The missile range bonus complements the sentries that it'll use. Tank is solid enough, although I still feel an urge to armour-tank it with TDs or ODTs so it can receive BS RR. Maybe the absurd CPU requirements of shield RR will one day be fixed...
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.09.18 20:57:00 - [7] That Navy Scorp looks better now, although I haven't checked to see how everything actually fits. DPS of a Raven but with much more tank, while CNR has the tank of a Raven (yeah yeah more base EHP though) but with more gank. Sounds sensible enough, although there's only so many ways you can do shield + missile BS.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.09.22 13:52:00 - [8] Cry more, passive failRavens.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.09.22 16:15:00 - [9] Originally by: AccesiViale Originally by: Gypsio III Cry more, passive failRavens. i would like to hope thats sarcasm but seriously. You would have to be stupid to not realize the quality of a t2 rigged cnr atm. It totally has a time and place for plausible and effective use. Yea its total fail for your Raven to keep soaking up rediculous damage when totally cap drained and still be shelling out heavy damage. There are only 2 downsides to this fit: Expensive Large Sig...but your a bs already "When totally cap drained"? You mean to tank L5s with their neut towers? You don't need a CNR for that - as you recognise.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.09.25 16:52:00 - [10] Originally by: Ulstan Excellent changes, except I'd still rather see the tempest shield tanked :p We have more than enough armor tanking gunboats. Even if the Tempest was intended to be a shield-tanker, everyone would still have to armour tank it, thanks to the absurdly imbalanced, diversity-destroying fitting requirements of remote armour reps and shield transporters... SUBTLE HINT CCP, A LARGE SHIELD TRANSPORTER ON A MEGATHRON SHOULD NOT REQUIRE OVER 20% OF ITS CPU...
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.09.26 11:26:00 - [11] No, that extra CPU and PG is really useful on the CNR, while the change to shield recharge time is utterly inconsequential.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.09.26 14:47:00 - [12] 15 CPU would allow me to use a DC II where before I'd have to use an IFFA suitcase.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.09.29 16:28:00 - [13] Yeah, I tried putting SMLs, MWD, MSE buffer, disruptor and then some ewar on the Hookbill, making a nice kiting frigate with ewar. But the fittings were hopelessly inadequate.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.10.08 21:39:00 - [14] Untanked ship in dying shocker?
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.10.10 16:25:00 - [15] Originally by: elitatwo Oh noes - I figured it out. I'm a complete failure He's right you know.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.10.14 18:31:00 - [16] Originally by: dalman Errr, the stats of the Navy Scorpion and the Rattlesnake are a joke, right? Surely it would be more convenient to just implement a "God mode" button on the UI instead of actually creating indestructible ships? Confirming that BS 1v1 comparisons are meaningful, that tanking is a role, that these ships are immune to neuting, that their tanks won't just collapse to a handful of BS, and that you're stupid. A nano-Machariel is by far a more survivable ship than the Navy Scorp or Rattler.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.11.06 13:51:00 - [17] Originally by: darkmancer Is it me or is the Hookbill stupidly hard to fit? ie impossible at least with standard missile launchers. I'm not talking about a t2 fit either even with naff fitting-lite named items I still can't get anything sensible out of it (mind you thats standard with Caldari missile frigs it seems). It's not just you.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.11.19 17:44:00 - [18] What a lolfit. Originally by: Lambeau Field i can get 875 Defence and do lvl 4 missions all day Important bit highlighted. Without any BCS, a mission probably would take you "all day". The sooner that Shield Power Relays are deleted from the game, along with any ship that has them fitted, the better.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.11.27 09:18:00 - [19] Originally by: EoH253 Dominix Navy Issue: While the HP bumps are greatly welcomed, some increase in DPS would have been far better. It is a Drone ship that even with skills MAXXED, a flight of Ogre II's will be doing only 467 dps. I know, you might be thinking "thats effing amazing for drones, what are you complaining about?!" But with a Dominix, my drones arren't a damage suppliment, they are my primary means of doing damage. I think ANY other pilot would be up in arms, and be out for blood if their battery of 8 lasers or 6 missile launchers were only doing 467 dps at maxed skills. You have six bonused turrets and the fittings to use them, you blithering fool.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.12.01 18:57:00 - [20] lol passive-tanking CNRs.

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.