EVE Search - Sticky:[Odyssey] Navy Battleships

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Odyssey] Navy Battleships

» 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 [30] 40 50 .. 50 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 8 post(s)
Josilin du Guesclin University of Caille Gallente Federation 56	Posted - 2013.05.16 12:21:00 - [871] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: But the Navy Apoc... Shudder. Quote: That, combined with the new tracking bonus along with increased agility and speed will hopefully provide for a very powerful laser platform. It's a bit lighter on it's feet, I'll give you that. But in both the Large Energy Turrets and Amarr Tech 1 Battleship threads, we have repeatedly expounded upon the tracking bonus being very lackluster for the Apocalypse. It really only helps in one way, and that is firing at cruiser size ships (who happen to be a near perfect transversal, at that). It offers little to no benefit against other ship types at nearly every range. And it's cap runs dry remarkably fast just firing it's own guns. Are we just bulling through this point for the hell of it, or are the numbers disputable in some way? Do I have to resort to some serious vernacular here, and say "feedbak plox"? The community at large is only happy with the new Apoc design vision in one way, the new model. Otherwise the Apoc response has been overwhelmingly negative. No, plenty of people are fine with it. They just got tired of the ranting and left the various threads.
Josilin du Guesclin University of Caille Gallente Federation 56	Posted - 2013.05.16 12:31:00 - [872] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: That typhoon is a bit ridiculous. Again with the vastly different bonuses, making it basically just a turret ship with double damage bonus, but also with a missile bonus that won't come into play much. It's like the fleet scythe all over again. It's exactly how it should be, IMO - split bonuses that actually work, though I'd be happier if the missile bonus was RoF rather than damage, to make it symmetrical with the gun bonus. I realise that it's probably not because of the strength of the new cruise missiles, but what of short-range fits?
Icarius The Wings of Maak Defiant Legacy 7	Posted - 2013.05.16 12:34:00 - [873] - Quote My proposal Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonuses: +5% to Cruise and Torpedo launcher damage +5% to Large Projectile Turret rate of fire Slot layout: 7H, 5M, 8L; 6 turrets(+1) , 6 launchers(+1) Fittings: 13000 PWG, 660 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull): 8200 / 9300 / 9300 (back to old value, please ccp could you understand once for all that NO ONE use shield tank with a typhoon fleet , if you want missiles + shield go for a sni !!!) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 5800(+800) / 1100s(+12.5s) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 138(-5) / .11(-.0001) / 102600000 (-1000000) / 14.93s(-.059s) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 200 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km(+5k) / 115 / 7 Sensor strength: 23 Ladar Sensor Strength(+.5) Signature radius: 320 The main problem is again the versatility. You said : "With the Typhoon Fleet Issue we wanted to offer a home for the heavily trained Minmatar pilot who loves the extreme versatility that Matar can offer" And you remove a low slot from the previous typhoon fleet issue, which one can be use for a bcu, and you add a +12.5% rof From a versatility point of view, you do not think that having a lot slot where u may or not had a bcu is not is far better than a forced +12.5% rof. Sometines i really wonder what do you smoke? With the removal of 1 low slot, I had to remove something on my current fitting, if i want to keep my current tank i have to remove one of my bcus. Conclusion, if i want to keep my tank, with your new supposed pawn machine ... well ...i have a 60dps loss. Same tank level => dps loss ... great. And please do not tell me i have an additionnal launcher, there is not enough cpu or grid to fit it, unless i decide to sacrifiy an utility slot and i do not want( you know .... the versatility, the concept it seems you do not understand) Of course i gain cpu from the module removed from low slot but not enough cpu to fit a launcher(and i need cpu for the 5th med too) It s why i think the 8th high slot is useless, this one can not be used. An other point from a daily typhoon fleet user ... i see some theoric fits with 1500 dps or more ... guys, seriously, there is not enough cpu, power to fit 5 torp launcher, 3 turrets, 2 bcus 2 drones damage augmenter, a prop, web, disrup, cap booster ... no. Something good from your proposal . with my current fitting i have 1 cpu left and may be 100 pw, with the additionnal launcher slot what i can add ... a festival launcher !!!! It will be really great in pvp
Gypsio III Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 724	Posted - 2013.05.16 12:36:00 - [874] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: But the Navy Apoc... Shudder. Quote: That, combined with the new tracking bonus along with increased agility and speed will hopefully provide for a very powerful laser platform. It's a bit lighter on it's feet, I'll give you that. But in both the Large Energy Turrets and Amarr Tech 1 Battleship threads, we have repeatedly expounded upon the tracking bonus being very lackluster for the Apocalypse. It really only helps in one way, and that is firing at cruiser size ships (who happen to be a near perfect transversal, at that). It offers little to no benefit against other ship types at nearly every range. And it's cap runs dry remarkably fast just firing it's own guns. Are we just bulling through this point for the hell of it, or are the numbers disputable in some way? Do I have to resort to some serious vernacular here, and say "feedbak plox"? The community at large is only happy with the new Apoc design vision in one way, the new model. Otherwise the Apoc response has been overwhelmingly negative. Wow, that's just... nonsense. It may be strictly true in a fantasy solo BS world, or in PVE, but it's an absurdly narrow viewpoint.
Josilin du Guesclin University of Caille Gallente Federation 56	Posted - 2013.05.16 12:38:00 - [875] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: You mean its unusually fail becuse its inferior to the Typhoon in everything but 1800 armor HP? If its a cobmat Battleship give it 100/125 drone bay at LEAST!!! You're aware that it has more effective turrets that the Typhoon FI, right? And that the Typhoon FI only gets a small advantage from the bonused secondary weapons because they'll lack damage bonus modules?
Johnson Oramara Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 51	Posted - 2013.05.16 12:39:00 - [876] - Quote Donedy wrote: Johnson Oramara wrote: Malcanis wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: Fleet Phoon This ship is superior to the CNR for the same reason that the old CNR was superior to the old Golem - the extra raw damage output overwhelms the superior damage application. However, this relationship isn't just in PVE - it's also in PVP. The Fleet Phoon is just better than the CNR. It is also just better than the Fleet Pest.-Liang Phoon: 8.25 effective launchers CNR: 8 effective launchers The CNR has two damage application bonuses; missile velocity and explosion radius. I don't think that "overwhelm" is the appropriate verb for doing 33/32 = 3.12% more raw DPS. In fact I'm going to go right ahead and say that the CNR (and ipso facto the Golem) is a significantly superior missile platform to the Fleet Phoon. How about you look at the ships as a whole, now that you finally admit that TFI does more missile dps then look at it's drone bay, those 2 free highslots which you know, are projectile bonused. With the ships fitted the TFI will overwhelm the CNR in dps. How about you try to fit a TFI and discover that "OH LOOK I DONT HAVE ENOUGH PG TO FIT ANYTHING MORE THAN MY 6 GUNS/LAUNCHERS!?" And thats with only one plate/Lse. Dont even think about fitting it as an active platform. Yes it does not fit with the biggest toys without fitting mods but... i hate to break this to you but you can downgrade the weapons gasp i know, incredible right? Then there are these things called pg & cpu implants...
TehCloud Carnivore Company 40	Posted - 2013.05.16 13:01:00 - [877] - Quote I don't understand why all those CNR lunatics complain about their ship doing more damage than before. Probably CCP Rise should really tune down the damage on the CNR, so that they at least have a reason to complain. My Condor costs less than that module!
Deerin Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy 148	Posted - 2013.05.16 13:02:00 - [878] - Quote Johnson Oramara wrote: Deerin wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: Fleet Phoon This ship is superior to the CNR for the same reason that the old CNR was superior to the old Golem - the extra raw damage output overwhelms the superior damage application. The overwhelming DPS difference is (1.375/1.333) =%3.1 I think the exp radius bonus (which is also a 1/0.75=1.333 magnitude bonus) is far superior to this. Also you can fit more BCU's to a CNR. 4 BCU's on fleet phoon = no place for armor tank and using 5 meds for shield tank = no place for target painter(s). Fleet phoon also has quite low PG so I don't really think it can replace TFI as a projectile boat. Maybe the XLASB fits might work in fleet phoon's favor due to high CPU but that's it. Speaking of CPU, CNR needs a CPU boost. Your math sucks, factor in the tp's and rigs and then try to tell me that the CNR has superior damage. Even with 3 BCU's TFI will have superior damage but you sure can squeeze the fourth in there too. My math is math. I'm telling you assuming both ships actually apply their damage (which CNR can do MUCH easier thanks to exp radius bonus.) Even adding 3rd BCU on a fleet phoon is stretching it too far as you'll not be achieving any decent armor tank, yet you are talking about putting 4th....and a 4bcu cnr outdps's a 3bcu Fphoon by the same overwhelming amount: %3 CNR can field 3 gardes whereas Fphoon can wield 5 gardes This is a 120 DPS difference to a range to a limited range with limited damage application. A cruise phoon with 2 bcu's deals 1060 dps with furies and gardes, where a CNR with 4bcu's deals 1059 DPS with furies and gardes. There is an overwhelming 1 dps difference.
Johnson Oramara Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 52	Posted - 2013.05.16 13:06:00 - [879] - Quote TehCloud wrote: I don't understand why all those CNR lunatics complain about their ship doing more damage than before. Probably CCP Rise should really tune down the damage on the CNR, so that they at least have a reason to complain. Your comment is kinda funny because compared to other ships the CNR in fact was tuned down in dps.
Jenn aSide STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries 1830	Posted - 2013.05.16 13:08:00 - [880] - Quote Deerin wrote: My math is math. I'm telling you assuming both ships actually apply their damage (which CNR can do MUCH easier thanks to exp radius bonus.) Even adding 3rd BCU on a fleet phoon is stretching it too far as you'll not be achieving any decent armor tank, yet you are talking about putting 4th....and a 4bcu cnr outdps's a 3bcu Fphoon by the same overwhelming amount: %3 CNR can field 3 gardes whereas Fphoon can wield 5 gardes This is a 120 DPS difference to a range to a limited range with limited damage application. A cruise phoon with 2 bcu's deals 1060 dps with furies and gardes, where a CNR with 4bcu's deals 1059 DPS with furies and gardes. There is an overwhelming 1 dps difference. Well said. The TFI looks crazy on paper, but (because of the differences between armor tanking and shield tanking) It simply won't be able to do what my new CNR will be able to do in the places where I use it (null sec PVE). The Golem can't either (if you think defener missiles are bad in empire missions, try a sanctum, ANY sanctum lol). The fun part is I dual box, so i'll be using both the new CNR and new Floon in my monster level isk grinding activities lol.

Josilin du Guesclin University of Caille Gallente Federation 56	Posted - 2013.05.16 13:11:00 - [881] - Quote mynnna wrote: Malcanis wrote: MeBiatch wrote: Elise Randolph wrote: Some really cool stuff. Navy Apoc and Scorp are the big winners here, but the Raven and Phoon also look sexual. I do appreciate the throwback nature of the Navy Domi, as well. There are some significant changes with cruise missiles and missile platforms in general. The final thing that I think is holding cruise missiles back is the HP of the missile itself. The cruise missile has the same HP as a heavy missile combined with a slower speed. The translation, of course, is that the missiles can be smartbombed off fairly trivially. That and the cruise missile platforms aren't exactly mobile. It would be a shame if these great ships get marginalized because of missile mechanics. what if missiles had 99% resistance? Until there's an ewar that works on missiles like TDs do, I think it's good that smartbombs can counter them On the other hand, smartbombs as "anti-missile ewar" are far more efficient than any available anti-turret ewar... I seem to recall this anti-missile system called the 'defender missile'. Perhaps making those a little more effective would be a solution.
Bi-Mi Lansatha The Scope Gallente Federation 139	Posted - 2013.05.16 13:15:00 - [882] - Quote TehCloud wrote: ...all those CNR lunatics... I guess a lot of CNR owners love their ship.
Josilin du Guesclin University of Caille Gallente Federation 56	Posted - 2013.05.16 13:20:00 - [883] - Quote MeBiatch wrote: torps are not bad on a raven or stealth bombers... cuss of the range bonus they get but on a phoon... i am not sure i would use them mainly because they lack critical range to be usefull for a large weapon. if it were up to me i would just increase flight time for torps so they can hit up to 35ish km on unbonused ships... then reduce the bonus on the stealth bombers so they dont get too much of a boost... i would not mind a raven that can shoot torps out to 52km... Flight time is a bad idea - they already take ages to land. Instead, I suggest a 50% flight velocity buff - this gives them the same speed as rockets and HAMs, and their range follows a sensible progression. Also, this would buff their current 20km range to 30km, and their range in a Raven from ~30km to ~45km. If this gives too much range to stealth bombers, adjusting their bonus down a little should be fairly simple - removing the flight time bonus would do the trick.
Johnson Oramara Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 52	Posted - 2013.05.16 13:26:00 - [884] - Quote Deerin wrote: Johnson Oramara wrote: Deerin wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: Fleet Phoon This ship is superior to the CNR for the same reason that the old CNR was superior to the old Golem - the extra raw damage output overwhelms the superior damage application. The overwhelming DPS difference is (1.375/1.333) =%3.1 I think the exp radius bonus (which is also a 1/0.75=1.333 magnitude bonus) is far superior to this. Also you can fit more BCU's to a CNR. 4 BCU's on fleet phoon = no place for armor tank and using 5 meds for shield tank = no place for target painter(s). Fleet phoon also has quite low PG so I don't really think it can replace TFI as a projectile boat. Maybe the XLASB fits might work in fleet phoon's favor due to high CPU but that's it. Speaking of CPU, CNR needs a CPU boost. Your math sucks, factor in the tp's and rigs and then try to tell me that the CNR has superior damage. Even with 3 BCU's TFI will have superior damage but you sure can squeeze the fourth in there too. My math is math. I'm telling you assuming both ships actually apply their damage (which CNR can do MUCH easier thanks to exp radius bonus.) Even adding 3rd BCU on a fleet phoon is stretching it too far as you'll not be achieving any decent armor tank, yet you are talking about putting 4th....and a 4bcu cnr outdps's a 3bcu Fphoon by the same overwhelming amount: %3 CNR can field 3 gardes whereas Fphoon can wield 5 gardes This is a 120 DPS difference to a range to a limited range with limited damage application. A cruise phoon with 2 bcu's deals 1060 dps with furies and gardes, where a CNR with 4bcu's deals 1059 DPS with furies and gardes. There is an overwhelming 1 dps difference. Looks to me that you are purposely fitting the TFI with CNR mindset and dumbing it down while playing CNR strenghts. Show the fits that you have there and make me believe then.
Josilin du Guesclin University of Caille Gallente Federation 56	Posted - 2013.05.16 13:27:00 - [885] - Quote Onnen Mentar wrote: Overall the changes look ok to me. Still sad to lose the swiss-knife phoon obviously. :( In case you wonder where the swiss-knife aspect came from: 3 unbonused high slots to do with as you please ;) You can fit the highs just as you do now, lose nothing, and probably gain some DPS with your primary weapons. I fail to see the grounds for your complaint. In terms of highs, the Phoon FI is going to be simply better than it is now.
Josilin du Guesclin University of Caille Gallente Federation 56	Posted - 2013.05.16 14:01:00 - [886] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Seriously, sometimes I wish that the guy that does EFT would just close it down and stop updating it so that you'd all have to start understanding the basic principles of what a moving target means to your guns, compared to the numbers that EFT gives you. EFT has the ability to show graphs of DPS over range vs various targets (and thus signature radius, etc.), and you can adjust both attacker and target velocity. If people actually played with this feature more, they'd have a much better idea of how these things interact. About the only thing it doesn't seem to show is lost DPS due to missiles not reaching fast moving targets, and lost DPS with drones when they over-shoot or orbit too fast.
Icarius The Wings of Maak Defiant Legacy 8	Posted - 2013.05.16 14:07:00 - [887] - Quote Josilin du Guesclin wrote: Onnen Mentar wrote: Overall the changes look ok to me. Still sad to lose the swiss-knife phoon obviously. :( In case you wonder where the swiss-knife aspect came from: 3 unbonused high slots to do with as you please ;) You can fit the highs just as you do now, lose nothing, and probably gain some DPS with your primary weapons. I fail to see the grounds for your complaint. In terms of highs, the Phoon FI is going to be simply better than it is now. I agree you failed On the paper, because you have a +12.5 rof (37.5 vs 25), you should gain 12.5 % dps, but with -1 low slot .... you have to remove some tank or a weapon upgrade, the last one is not fully replaced by the previous 12.5% dps and you have a 5-6% dps loss for nothing. Once again, if the low slot is not removed, all the current users of typhoon fleet will be agree while the new users who want to use the new 6th turret or launcher won't be nerfed at all. The typhoon fleet would become better in any case. Stop smoke blue pill ccp thank you Anyway, i will be agree with the new typhoon, because one argument ... it could have been worst ....
Josilin du Guesclin University of Caille Gallente Federation 56	Posted - 2013.05.16 14:27:00 - [888] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Just for giggles, how often do you think you have to inject with an injector? I mean you shouldn't be MWDing around the entire time with guns blazing, and the current Napoc with 3x heatsinks and 8x MP II's can fire just its guns for THIRTEEN MINUTES with a MWD fit and not turned on. With the bonus removed I would estimate that you can fire for around 8 minutes without needing a SINGLE BOOSTER . And then you inject once and BAM, 6 more minutes of CONSTANT FIRE. I do wonder how many of the people crying that the sky is falling on the Apoc/Napoc have checked to see what difference their buffed cap regen makes. When I checked with the Apoc it had quite a nice cap life just firing its guns, and no battleship has a good cap life if it uses its MWD. Not one.
Meduza13 Silver Octopus Infernal Octopus 32	Posted - 2013.05.16 14:35:00 - [889] - Quote I will focus on capacitor. It seems strange to me that ALL navy battleships getting their capacitor slightly buffed, but amarr ships opposite. APOCALYPSE NAVY ISSUE 10% less cap use for large lasers -50% cap bonus removed Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 7000(-500) / 1000s(-154s) = overall big capacitor loss ARMAGEDDON NAVY ISSUE 10% less cap use for large lasers Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 6000(+687.5) / 1100s(+125s) = overall capacitor will get minimal boost, despite large lasers changes RAVEN NAVY ISSUE Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 5900(+587.5) / 1150s(-4.875s) = overall decent capacitor boost SCORPION NAVY ISSUE Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 5500(+187.5) / 1100s(+12.5s) =overall small capacitor boost MEGATHRON NAVY ISSUE Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 6000 (+375) / 1150s(-4.875s) =overall small capacitor boost DOMINIX NAVY ISSUE Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 5500(+250) / 1100s(+12.5s) =overall minimal capacitor boost worth mentioning here basic Dominix has much better capacitor than navy version - why? Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second) : 6000(+1000) / 1087s / 5.51 TYPHOON FLEET ISSUE Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 5800(+800) / 1100s(+12.5s) =overall pretty good capacitor boost TEMPEST FLEET ISSUE Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 5500(+187.5) / 1150s(-4.875s) =overall small capacitor boost So my question is - why ships who needed their capacitor fixed the most out of all - actually getting worst deal in this "balancing" business?
Josilin du Guesclin University of Caille Gallente Federation 56	Posted - 2013.05.16 15:04:00 - [890] - Quote Ager Agemo wrote: wait... that navy raven.. got nerfed? what the hell? ravens with triple rigor rigs already hit targets pretty well with or without the exp bonus, it is getting lower real DPS an eight turret WILL NOT make up for the loss of a ROF bonus. So take a Rigor off and add a Loading Accelerator.

Meduza13 Silver Octopus Infernal Octopus 32	Posted - 2013.05.16 15:04:00 - [891] - Quote Question no2 Why Navy Apocalypse capacitor has not been upgraded even a bit compared to basic version, while nearly all other navy ships have their capacitors upgraded? If we look at Navy Apocalypse with removed 50% cap bonus better capacitor in navy version will be much appreciated and in my opinion logical as it supposed to be upgraded version of basic ship. ( Navy Dominix with his much weaker cap than basic version i mentioned before) Navy Scorpion is a bit strange too as it has slightly weaker cap recharge rate compared to basic version, but because it has different weapon bonuses it doesnt matter that much.
Drunken Bum 315	Posted - 2013.05.16 15:16:00 - [892] - Quote Meduza13 wrote: I will focus on capacitor. It seems strange to me that ALL navy battleships getting their capacitor slightly buffed, but amarr ships opposite. APOCALYPSE NAVY ISSUE 10% less cap use for large lasers -50% cap bonus removed Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 7000(-500) / 1000s(-154s) = overall big capacitor loss ARMAGEDDON NAVY ISSUE 10% less cap use for large lasers Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 6000(+687.5) / 1100s(+125s) = overall capacitor will get minimal boost, despite large lasers changes RAVEN NAVY ISSUE Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 5900(+587.5) / 1150s(-4.875s) = overall decent capacitor boost SCORPION NAVY ISSUE Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 5500(+187.5) / 1100s(+12.5s) =overall small capacitor boost MEGATHRON NAVY ISSUE Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 6000 (+375) / 1150s(-4.875s) =overall small capacitor boost DOMINIX NAVY ISSUE Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 5500(+250) / 1100s(+12.5s) =overall minimal capacitor boost worth mentioning here basic Dominix has much better capacitor than navy version - why? Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second) : 6000(+1000) / 1087s / 5.51 TYPHOON FLEET ISSUE Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 5800(+800) / 1100s(+12.5s) =overall pretty good capacitor boost TEMPEST FLEET ISSUE Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 5500(+187.5) / 1150s(-4.875s) =overall small capacitor boost So my question is - why ships who needed their capacitor fixed the most out of all - actually getting worst deal in this "balancing" business? Seems odd to me the napoc getting less cap. Specially with the laser cap use bonus removed. The ndomi stands out as well. Its still a hybrid platform. Its going to use more cap than the vanilla one. Spare some change?-á
Josilin du Guesclin University of Caille Gallente Federation 56	Posted - 2013.05.16 15:21:00 - [893] - Quote The amount of cap doesn't matter a whole lot, unless the buffs/nerfs are quite large. What matters is the recharge rate, and the Napoc got a ~7% buff to this.
Liang Nuren Heretic Army Heretic Initiative 3548	Posted - 2013.05.16 15:22:00 - [894] - Quote Garviel Tarrant wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: CNR The CNR has lost its way. In PVP it's completely outclassed by the Scorp Navy, Typhoon, and Typhoon Fleet and in PVE it's outclassed by the Typhoon Fleet and Golem. The loss of the utility high was pretty bad, but even giving that back isn't going to make a dent in the Fleet Phoon's superiority. As a shield fleet ship the CNR is quite superior to the typhoon fleet.. (I agree with the scorpion but the scorp is also majorly OP so..) I guess i could see it performing worse than the phoon at PVE (Its supposed to be worse than the golem) because of the phoons drone bay but... thats minor imo and i think the raven more than makes up for it in extra mid slots. That's really cute. The Phoon Fleet ***** all over the CNR, actually. It's worse in PVE and PVP, in both damage application, speed, sig, EHP, and ... well, everything. The extra damage and flexibility that comes from that drone bay is really impressive. -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
Doctor Ape MD Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 29	Posted - 2013.05.16 15:23:00 - [895] - Quote Meduza13 wrote: APOCALYPSE NAVY ISSUE 10% less cap use for large lasers -50% cap bonus removed Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 7000(-500) / 1000s(-154s) = overall big capacitor loss Maximum cap loss but better capacitor recharge.
Liang Nuren Heretic Army Heretic Initiative 3548	Posted - 2013.05.16 15:24:00 - [896] - Quote Deerin wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: Fleet Phoon This ship is superior to the CNR for the same reason that the old CNR was superior to the old Golem - the extra raw damage output overwhelms the superior damage application. The overwhelming DPS difference is (1.375/1.333) =%3.1 I think the exp radius bonus (which is also a 1/0.75=1.333 magnitude bonus) is far superior to this. Also you can fit more BCU's to a CNR. 4 BCU's on fleet phoon = no place for armor tank and using 5 meds for shield tank = no place for target painter(s). Fleet phoon also has quite low PG so I don't really think it can replace TFI as a projectile boat. Maybe the XLASB fits might work in fleet phoon's favor due to high CPU but that's it. Speaking of CPU, CNR needs a CPU boost. You're not counting the extra 2 bonused high slots or the much larger drone bay. It's really, really, really, really significantly better. 20-30% more applied DPS to cruiser sized targets. -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
Liang Nuren Heretic Army Heretic Initiative 3548	Posted - 2013.05.16 15:25:00 - [897] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: Fleet Phoon This ship is superior to the CNR for the same reason that the old CNR was superior to the old Golem - the extra raw damage output overwhelms the superior damage application. However, this relationship isn't just in PVE - it's also in PVP. The Fleet Phoon is just better than the CNR. It is also just better than the Fleet Pest.-Liang Phoon: 8.25 effective launchers CNR: 8 effective launchers The CNR has two damage application bonuses; missile velocity and explosion radius. I don't think that "overwhelm" is the appropriate verb for doing 33/32 = 3.12% more raw DPS. In fact I'm going to go right ahead and say that the CNR (and ipso facto the Golem) is a significantly superior missile platform to the Fleet Phoon. You would think so... and you'd be wrong. There's a reason Stoicfaux and I are both like hurrrrrr phoon fleet. The Phoon Fleet has, not even kidding, 30% more applied DPS than the CNR. -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
Jenn aSide STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries 1832	Posted - 2013.05.16 15:41:00 - [898] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: Malcanis wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: Fleet Phoon This ship is superior to the CNR for the same reason that the old CNR was superior to the old Golem - the extra raw damage output overwhelms the superior damage application. However, this relationship isn't just in PVE - it's also in PVP. The Fleet Phoon is just better than the CNR. It is also just better than the Fleet Pest.-Liang Phoon: 8.25 effective launchers CNR: 8 effective launchers The CNR has two damage application bonuses; missile velocity and explosion radius. I don't think that "overwhelm" is the appropriate verb for doing 33/32 = 3.12% more raw DPS. In fact I'm going to go right ahead and say that the CNR (and ipso facto the Golem) is a significantly superior missile platform to the Fleet Phoon. You would think so... and you'd be wrong. There's a reason Stoicfaux and I are both like hurrrrrr phoon fleet. The Phoon Fleet has, not even kidding, 30% more applied DPS than the CNR. -Liang Ed: And yes, this is with realistic fits in both PVP and PVE. Please do show my the solo Floon fit for a 10/10 DED site than can match the new CNR. i'll wait.
Meduza13 Silver Octopus Infernal Octopus 33	Posted - 2013.05.16 15:49:00 - [899] - Quote Doctor Ape MD wrote: Meduza13 wrote: APOCALYPSE NAVY ISSUE 10% less cap use for large lasers -50% cap bonus removed Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 7000(-500) / 1000s(-154s) = overall big capacitor loss Maximum cap loss but better capacitor recharge. Thats fine, max cap loss better recharge, I never said its otherwise, but if you add on top of it 50% bonus loss, overall capacitor is weaker, a lot weaker. And my main point is amarr ships are getting short straw here, as other ships getting their capacior boost, small or not, still boost and NO LOSSES at all.
Johnson Oramara Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 52	Posted - 2013.05.16 15:53:00 - [900] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: Malcanis wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: Fleet Phoon This ship is superior to the CNR for the same reason that the old CNR was superior to the old Golem - the extra raw damage output overwhelms the superior damage application. However, this relationship isn't just in PVE - it's also in PVP. The Fleet Phoon is just better than the CNR. It is also just better than the Fleet Pest.-Liang Phoon: 8.25 effective launchers CNR: 8 effective launchers The CNR has two damage application bonuses; missile velocity and explosion radius. I don't think that "overwhelm" is the appropriate verb for doing 33/32 = 3.12% more raw DPS. In fact I'm going to go right ahead and say that the CNR (and ipso facto the Golem) is a significantly superior missile platform to the Fleet Phoon. You would think so... and you'd be wrong. There's a reason Stoicfaux and I are both like hurrrrrr phoon fleet. The Phoon Fleet has, not even kidding, 30% more applied DPS than the CNR. -Liang Ed: And yes, this is with realistic fits in both PVP and PVE. Exactly, this shows up in eft over and over again. Add 2 target painters to the TFI and they help drones and projectiles too resulting in more applied damage than the CNR can do. Knowing the range limitations of tp's however the CNR can deal it's dps to 158km with damage application bonus but is there any usage scenarios for it?



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

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.