Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 50 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9375
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 22:28:00 -
[631] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: Ed: Also, I like how you've gone from "The new CNR is better than the old CNR" to "But dealing damage at 200km is OP!".
I liked how you proved the new CNR is worse than the old CNR by saying it's not a Golem
We should get married!
1 Kings 12:11
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
795
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 22:40:00 -
[632] - Quote
Hey guys
I've been watching the thread closely, and I really want to post something because I would hate to think you feel ignored. The problem is, I'm really not sure what to tell you! The discussion here seems extremely passionate, but for almost every ship and topic there are people arguing both sides. I think overall thats a good sign, and I feel good about the ships as a whole.
There are a few common concerns and I'm going to keep watching and then have a talk with the rest of the balance team in a day or two about some possible adjustments.
Thanks for the discussion - I really appreciate seeing all the different perspectives. |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
253
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 22:48:00 -
[633] - Quote
I did not saw many posts from peopel capable of absic math defending the status quo between the fleet tempest and fleet typhoon.... |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3505
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 22:53:00 -
[634] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote: Perhaps, like in the Tracking Enhancer thread in relation to the Talos, we'll just agree to disagree quitely without lookling like the retards.
To me, the CNR has more cap, more slots, more calibration, WAY more speed (its phoon levels of fast) more agility, and its damage application will be better versus things like sig tanking cruisers.
To you the loss of the utility high slot cripples it for PVP, for me, not so much, I can deal without it and look at the larger picture of the ship and still be happy.
For you the lost of 3km on the Talos was basically game over, for me, doesn't matter in the slightest.
So far the only thing we seem to agree on is that the Geddon sig bloom was a bit on the "WTF" side of the deal, but I'm pretty sure its just because we have different philosophies where ships and fittings are concerned. Mine is more fleet oriented, yours is more solo PVP oriented.
Also you said something about the Rattlesnake, I'll be the first to spoil it, we have a RS fleet comp, just no actual war to field it in or opponent who would fight us with it if we did. You'll find that once you start fielding faction BS comps the hardest thing to do is find somebody that doesn't go "holy ****" and run away when they see 64 faction/pirate BS.
The funny thing about it is that we only notice when we disagree because things get so loud. We actually seem to agree on most things (not just relating to the changes - but ship fitting and doctrine as well). I also try very hard not to comment on things that I don't know a fair amount about - which means I never try to comment on large fleet doctrines. I do appreciate the Foxcat discussion and agree completely with you. Even with the TE and Talos nerfs, I was fully in favor of them. I was (am) a bit sad that it ruins the Talos for my particular use, but there's other stuff for me to play with coming down the pipe. Hell, I think that was the entire point of my post in that thread. ;-)
My objection to the CNR changes is that they're just bad changes though. Without the raw damage deriving from 7 launchers and a ROF bonus, there's really not a whole lot of room for the CNR to exist as a distinct ship. In PVE it's just a bad Golem, and in PVP the missing utility high is a pretty big deal. I honestly don't see why you wouldn't just fly Phoons with the way you described the CNR. It should be just as effective and a million times easier to get fights.
Anyway, I'd be much happier with 7 launchers and a ROF bonus. From there the explo radius is pretty snazzy looking for cruise and the missile velocity bonus is pretty awesome for torps. I'm fine with either. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1542
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 22:56:00 -
[635] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys
I've been watching the thread closely, and I really want to post something because I would hate to think you feel ignored. The problem is, I'm really not sure what to tell you! The discussion here seems extremely passionate, but for almost every ship and topic there are people arguing both sides. I think overall thats a good sign, and I feel good about the ships as a whole.
There are a few common concerns and I'm going to keep watching and then have a talk with the rest of the balance team in a day or two about some possible adjustments.
Thanks for the discussion - I really appreciate seeing all the different perspectives.
Concerns I'd address that seem to be common:
Fleet pest = meh Fleet mega = meh Fleet geddon = too much sig and too much drone bay (outclassing drone boats) Fleet raven = needs some fitting to make fitting torps a possibility (currently its a pain in the nuts, normally long range systems are harder to fit, in this case you can get the cruise on (lr) but not the torps).
Other than that the rest of the complaints seem to largely be cosmetic **** thats down to individual pilot preference/misunderstanding game mechanics
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3505
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 22:56:00 -
[636] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: Ed: Also, I like how you've gone from "The new CNR is better than the old CNR" to "But dealing damage at 200km is OP!".
I liked how you proved the new CNR is worse than the old CNR by saying it's not a Golem We should get married!
You weren't paying attention: - It's worse at RR (no utility high for RR) - It's worse at missioning (no utility high for a tractor, lacks damage application) - It's worse at torp fitting (no damage bonus, less effective turrets) - It's worse at PVP (no utility high for a neut, smartbomb, etc)
The list really goes on and on and on.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada The Nightingales of Hades
115
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 22:58:00 -
[637] - Quote
The Raven Navy Issue is freaking boss now, better damage application, now I am going to say that it needs about 40tf of more CPU, and swap the Missile Velocity bonus with a Rate of Fire or Dmage Bonus to shut thse whining little children up, otherwise I like the changees as they are. Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1543
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 22:58:00 -
[638] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
My objection to the CNR changes is that they're just bad changes though. Without the raw damage deriving from 7 launchers and a ROF bonus, there's really not a whole lot of room for the CNR to exist as a distinct ship. In PVE it's just a bad Golem, and in PVP the missing utility high is a pretty big deal. I honestly don't see why you wouldn't just fly Phoons with the way you described the CNR. It should be just as effective and a million times easier to get fights.
For me since they're actually going back and retweaking the things they've tweaked, I'll hold final judgement on the CNR till after the Golem chnages are in and through, then see how they tweak it a bit more to bring some difference to the two ships.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3505
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 23:01:00 -
[639] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:
My objection to the CNR changes is that they're just bad changes though. Without the raw damage deriving from 7 launchers and a ROF bonus, there's really not a whole lot of room for the CNR to exist as a distinct ship. In PVE it's just a bad Golem, and in PVP the missing utility high is a pretty big deal. I honestly don't see why you wouldn't just fly Phoons with the way you described the CNR. It should be just as effective and a million times easier to get fights.
For me since they're actually going back and retweaking the things they've tweaked, I'll hold final judgement on the CNR till after the Golem chnages are in and through, then see how they tweak it a bit more to bring some difference to the two ships.
Hmmmm, I'd say that the Golem isn't a popular ship for a few reasons and the only place for it to go is up. And considering it already completely obsoletes the CNR in PVE.....
-Liang
Ed: But yes, we can always take the approach of make ****** balance changes now and iron them out later. As long as there is a later. Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
mama guru
Thundercats The Initiative.
114
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 23:04:00 -
[640] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys
I've been watching the thread closely, and I really want to post something because I would hate to think you feel ignored. The problem is, I'm really not sure what to tell you! The discussion here seems extremely passionate, but for almost every ship and topic there are people arguing both sides. I think overall thats a good sign, and I feel good about the ships as a whole.
There are a few common concerns and I'm going to keep watching and then have a talk with the rest of the balance team in a day or two about some possible adjustments.
Thanks for the discussion - I really appreciate seeing all the different perspectives.
Would you concider an increase in the dronebays on the more dedicated droneboats in particular? The Vexor Navy Issue, T1 Dominix and it's navy counterpart could use the extra "ammo" so to speak. Maybe less on the Navy dominix. But the T1 definately needs an increase the way it's been designed with gank traded for additional damage projection.
______
EVE online is the fishermans friend of MMO's. If it's too hard you are too weak. |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
980
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 23:06:00 -
[641] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Malcanis wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: Ed: Also, I like how you've gone from "The new CNR is better than the old CNR" to "But dealing damage at 200km is OP!".
I liked how you proved the new CNR is worse than the old CNR by saying it's not a Golem We should get married! You weren't paying attention: - It's worse at RR (no utility high for RR) - It's worse at missioning (no utility high for a tractor, lacks damage application) - It's worse at torp fitting (no damage bonus, less effective turrets) - It's worse at PVP (no utility high for a neut, smartbomb, etc) The list really goes on and on and on. -Liang
i would put 10 bucks down and say your fav super hero is batman... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3505
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 23:08:00 -
[642] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:i would put 10 bucks down and say your fav super hero is batman...
Gambit, actually.
-Liang
Ed: Also, I don't like Batman much. Superman's just stupid. And Spiderman is a whiny *****. Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Prime
Argentium Astrum
7
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 23:11:00 -
[643] - Quote
Elendar wrote:The navy apoc is insane and I love it. Love it in the face.
So long sweet hellcat hello napoc o7
Prime > giving an 8 torp to cnr, and they couldn't even give 7th turret to tempest fleet??? WTF CCP f1x teh sucking pls... obvious troll is obviousGäó |
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative Trans-Stellar Industries
239
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 23:21:00 -
[644] - Quote
Rise, I gave you **** in the Amarr BS thread because of losing the Geddon.
Thanks for keeping a classic in some form. It might be several hundred mil more expensive than the old ship and I'll never bring one into PvP, but I'll fly one around hisec bumping "yo diggity" now and again, all the same. If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality.-á That 'griefer/thief' is probably more sane than you are.-á How screwed up is that? |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
982
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 23:21:00 -
[645] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:MeBiatch wrote:i would put 10 bucks down and say your fav super hero is batman... Gambit, actually. -Liang Ed: Also, I don't like Batman much. Superman's just stupid. And Spiderman is a whiny *****.
i was trying to be funny cuss like batman you are obsessed with utility...
batman has his belt you have your high slot.
nevermind... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative Trans-Stellar Industries
239
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 23:29:00 -
[646] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:MeBiatch wrote:i would put 10 bucks down and say your fav super hero is batman... Gambit, actually. -Liang Ed: Also, I don't like Batman much. Superman's just stupid. And Spiderman is a whiny *****. i was trying to be funny cuss like batman you are obsessed with utility... batman has his belt you have your high slot. nevermind...
I got it. I also saw where, in almost every post, she referenced that utility high.
Might have a point. Don't know. But sh sure loves her utility belt ... I mean, slots.
If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality.-á That 'griefer/thief' is probably more sane than you are.-á How screwed up is that? |
Minister of Death
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 23:33:00 -
[647] - Quote
Thank you for leaving the Typhoon Fleet Issue in the spirit of its original form. it is a very special ship to a lot of pilots. If you had turned it into what you did with the regular Typhoon, I would have been exceptionally disappointed. Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU.
As for the SNI, I think I kind of know why you went w/the 5th low slot and I'm not gonna bark about it but ya that's not a big deal. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
846
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 02:23:00 -
[648] - Quote
1. If you think the CNR is bad; you're terrible 2. Navy Geddon maintains its ****** gank while now being able to easily get over 135k ehp.. alright.. 3. Malcanis you shitpost too much, chill. BYDI (Shadow cartel) Recruitment open!
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3508
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 02:27:00 -
[649] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote: 1. If you think the CNR is bad; you're terrible 2. Navy Geddon maintains its ****** gank while now being able to easily get over 135k ehp.. alright.. 3. Malcanis you shitpost too much, chill.
In PVE: the new CNR is just outright worse than the Golem In PVP: Why aren't you using a Typhoon or Fleet Phoon again?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Tritanium Avenger
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 02:34:00 -
[650] - Quote
megathron looks very meh imo what's good about it compared to other attack ships? for example the typhoon looks superior in every aspect:
typhoon has: -more than 12 effective turrets/launchers (that's huge is my math wrong?) -better cap due to less usage -more speed -smaller signature
megathron has: -better tracking -and?
I didn't do the math on PWG difference vs turret requirements but i think they're similar |
|
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope Gallente Federation
128
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 02:47:00 -
[651] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: In PVE: the new CNR is just outright worse than the Golem...
-Liang
That is true. If I could fly a Golem, I wouldn't fly a CNR. Just like if I could fly an Iteron IV why would I fly and Iteron II?
Previously, CCP said they didn't like that concept and wanted every Industrial to have a role. I wonder why the CNR has been reduce to an entry level Golem?
|
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope Gallente Federation
130
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 03:06:00 -
[652] - Quote
Tritanium Avenger wrote:...-more than 12 effective turrets/launchers (that's huge is my math wrong?) I think it is wrong. The bonus is to damage not rate of fire for missiles. I think it works out to around 8.25 launchers.
The bonus is +7.5% to Cruise and Torpedo launcher damage |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope Gallente Federation
130
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 03:12:00 -
[653] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:1. If you think the CNR is bad; you're terrible... The CNR/Cruise missile system isn't bad. In fact, the new CNR is better than the old one. However, was this the right design choice: making it an entry level Golem? A stepping stone or should it have remained unique?
|
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope Gallente Federation
130
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 03:20:00 -
[654] - Quote
Ruze wrote:... I got it. I also saw where, in almost every post, she referenced that utility high.
Might have a point. Don't know. But sh sure loves her utility belt ... I mean, slots.
I liked my utility high slot, but would sacrifice it in a minute to get a nice upgrade to my CNR. But, to strip the ROF bonus and to fill the eight slot with another launcher was a double slap.
I lost the slot and raw DPS.
|
Alexander Renoir
State War Academy Caldari State
56
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 03:53:00 -
[655] - Quote
Concernig the CNR: All I can say is, that I strongly need one high slot for a Tractor Beam. So please do not change the slot-layout nor the Rate of Fire-Bonus. You have changed the Cruise Missile Ammunition. Thats enough. A Tech I Raven is useless for my skillset but my ALL Level 5 Golem is also bad today (And will be bad after the CM change). The best solution for MY PERSONAL Playstile ever was the CNR. But with this change it is ruined for me. I Need one free available high-slot. Thats all. |
Nessa Aldeen
First Among Equals
46
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 04:02:00 -
[656] - Quote
I just don't get the argument over the SNI. Having 6 turrets ROF @25 percent and allows turrets for the 7 makes it worse. It does not have an explosion bonus or a velocity bonus, without the help of painters. The actual applied damage is far worse than the CNR in its raw form.
To the CNR is being too similar vs the Golem, well that may be true but it is a Marauder. One can take parallels to the Kronos vs the Vindicator, the Kronos is more efficient despite not having the mad dps the former has. While the CNR does not have paper DPS, it does make killing ships easier.
On the Typhoon issue, I do concur that the ship is better than the SNI and CNR because of flexibility and as well as the better paper dps. However, some of you are making again the conclusion that it will outperform the CNR, which is hardly true. Like the SNI, it lacks explosion or velocity bonuses to make it come on top. Without rigs and painters, it may come close but the CNR is better at Pve and it has always been like that in the past.
I would readily accept that Typhoon is more suited for a pvp role but even then the SNI should match it too as is why would anyone not choose the Typhoon over the SNI in pvp. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3516
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 04:31:00 -
[657] - Quote
Nessa Aldeen wrote:I just don't get the argument over the SNI. Having 6 turrets ROF @25 percent and allows turrets for the 7 makes it worse. It does not have an explosion bonus or a velocity bonus, without the help of painters. The actual applied damage is far worse than the CNR in its raw form.
To the CNR is being too similar vs the Golem, well that may be true but it is a Marauder. One can take parallels to the Kronos vs the Vindicator, the Kronos is more efficient despite not having the mad dps the former has. While the CNR does not have paper DPS, it does make killing ships easier.
On the Typhoon issue, I do concur that the ship is better than the SNI and CNR because of flexibility and as well as the better paper dps. However, some of you are making again the conclusion that it will outperform the CNR, which is hardly true. Like the SNI, it lacks explosion or velocity bonuses to make it come on top. Without rigs and painters, it may come close but the CNR is better at Pve and it has always been like that in the past.
I would readily accept that Typhoon is more suited for a pvp role but even then the SNI should match it too as is why would anyone not choose the Typhoon over the SNI in pvp.
I've seen some SNI vs CNR PVP arguments, but not any for PVE. However, we can delve down that particular rabbit hole if you like. I'm gonna lead with arguments about painters though - because if you're doing PVE with a missile ship and not using painters you are doing it wrong. It's not even worth discussing the ships if you ignore painters.
That said, the CNR is faster than the SNI (occasionally useful in the long haul missions) and has the handy explosion radius bonus. However, the SNI has a tank bonus, a utility high, and an extra mid slot that allows for an extra painter, more tank, or a prop mod. I'm hard pressed on believing any arguments that the SNI isn't going to sport more painters than the CNR - so I guess the question is whether or not the 3rd/4th painter or second painter set combined with the utility high+mid outweighs the CNR's explo radius bonus and superior speed. Honestly, at this point my money's on the CNR retaining the PVE lead vs the SNI. That said, the Golem obviously blows both of them away tank, explo velocity, and painter bonuses while maintaining the same raw DPS.
The Fleet Phoon is another issue entirely. It's got more raw DPS than the CNR via having more eff launchers and more drone bandwidth and maintains the (IMO mandatory) utility high. This should allow the Fleet Phoon to chew through the bulk of mission EHP where the damage application bonus will be significantly less useful. That is, afterall, what allowed the CNR to be better than the Golem despite the Golem's dramatically superior damage application.
In PVP, however, I'm super hard pressed to see any CNR use case that isn't more than adequately fulfilled by the Typhoon and it's explosion velocity bonus. The loss of that utility high is really painful.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Drachiel
Mercury LLC
17
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 04:40:00 -
[658] - Quote
AMARR VICTOR! |
Alexander Renoir
State War Academy Caldari State
56
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 04:54:00 -
[659] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: ... because if you're doing PVE with a missile ship and not using painters you are doing it wrong. It's not even worth discussing the ships if you ignore painters.
I do my missions without a painter. I have one mission where I use a painter. But If you have all Level 5 you do not need a painter if you use cruise missiles. It would even be possible to shoot elite frigates with my skillset, without painter but with cruise missiles. It is not much effective but possible.
Some frigates one salve, other frigates 3. Cruiser two salves. All above BC no problem.
I barely use a painter. Not necessary if you have skills. And should skilling not be a goal in EVE? It seems to me that CCP and the community wants fast results with modules rather than a strong skillset. |
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative Trans-Stellar Industries
244
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 04:56:00 -
[660] - Quote
I don't fly Caldari, so it took me a while to catch up. But let me get this straight:
Some of you guys are upset that the Caldari Navy Raven, which is a faction Battleship, cannot out PVE a Golem, which is a Marauder?
I mean, maybe I'm just Amarr, but the Apoc's Navy version has never even come close to the Paladin. I guess I'm just ignorant, but the pure training time and requirements to use a Marauder over a navy issue (which is essentially just more money, and if I'm reading the numbers right, isn't even close to the cost of that marauder) makes the marauder the pure win every single time. Fewer weapons, more damage, room for tractor and salvage, t2 tank, lots of cargo hold, etc, etc, etc.
So if by some chance I'm just an idiot who doesn't understand why a cheaper ship that requires less skills to use as a prerequisit should outperform a more expensive and more skill intensive ship, or even come close enough to be an option ... please, say so. I know you will.
Maybe it's just an Amarr thing. But if somebody told me the Navy Apoc or Geddon was supposed to be as good as a Marauder, I'd kick them from corp and call them an idiot. Well, not in that order. Then I'd have to create a private channel and probably pay some outrageous CSPA charge, and .... If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality.-á That 'griefer/thief' is probably more sane than you are.-á How screwed up is that? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 50 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |