EVE Search - Sticky:[Odyssey] Navy Battleships

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)
Andre Vauban Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats 109	Posted - 2013.05.14 00:29:00 - [241] - Quote MeBiatch wrote: MinutemanKirk wrote: Any particular reason why you don't want to make the Dominix have 20 fitting slots like every other Navy BS? Would be kinda nice to have 8 low slots since it's a split weapon platform AND supposed to be armor tanked... drones. apparently drone utility negates a fitting slot for some reason. The Navy Geddon has 125/375 and several other navy BS have 125 bandwidth. This argument really doesn't hold. QCATS is recruiting: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=146180
Maximus Andendare Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 152	Posted - 2013.05.14 00:36:00 - [242] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: MeBiatch wrote: MinutemanKirk wrote: Any particular reason why you don't want to make the Dominix have 20 fitting slots like every other Navy BS? Would be kinda nice to have 8 low slots since it's a split weapon platform AND supposed to be armor tanked... drones. apparently drone utility negates a fitting slot for some reason. Because drones can imitate a target painter, web, jammer, dampener, reps, or dps, so ships that specialize in high drone payloads receive one less slot. But the reality of this is that those ships that are bonused for drone damage will simply NEVER use utility drones when their primary source of damage comes from the drones. Removing a slot is a throwback to when all drone ships were split weapon ones. Now that the game has and is getting more dedicated drone boats, it's time to remove this antiquated restriction.
Tank Talbot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 166	Posted - 2013.05.14 00:36:00 - [243] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: [APOCALYPSE NAVY ISSUE The Apocalypse Navy Issue is a tricky one (just like its tech 1 counterpart). It will go into the attack role, like the tech 1 version, and in turn takes on many of the same changes, including the change of bonus from cap use to tracking. The combination of changes to large energy turrets, a high base cap (relative to other battleships) and increased cap recharge should make up for the former cap use bonus. That, combined with the new tracking bonus along with increased agility and speed will hopefully provide for a very powerful laser platform. Amarr Battleship Skill Bonuses: +7.5% to Large Energy Turret optimal range +7.5% Large Energy Turret tracking speed (replaced large energy turret cap use) Slot layout: 8H, 4M, 8L; 8 turrets , 0 launchers(-2) Fittings: 22000 PWG(+475), 580 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull): 8000(-1316) / 10500(-750) / 10000(+39) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 7000(-500) / 1000s(-154s) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120(+26) / .115(-.021) / 97100000(-2200000) / 15.48s(-3.24s) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 / 100 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 76km(+8.5k) / 120(+1.25) / 7 Sensor strength: 25 Radar Sensor Strength Signature radius: 370(-30) ARMAGEDDON NAVY ISSUE The Armageddon Navy Issue will not follow the new tech 1 Armageddon design. Instead, it will continue to do what it has been doing as an efficient laser brawler. The Navy Geddon is getting plenty of use the way it is now, and we didnGÇÖt see a need to make an GÇÿimprovedGÇÖ version of the new tech 1 Geddon. As a GÇÿcombatGÇÖ ship, it will get some increased hitpoints along with other tweaks to its base stats, but its overall performance shouldnGÇÖt change much. Amarr Battleship Skill Bonuses: +5% Large Energy Turret rate of fire +10% Large Energy Turret cap use Slot layout: 8H, 4M, 8L; 7 turrets , 0 launchers Fittings: 17500 PWG(+175), 560 CPU(+3) Defense (shields / armor / hull): 8500(+296.5) / 11500(+1539) / 10000(+684) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 6000(+687.5) / 1100s(+125s) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 105 / .13(+.002) / 105200000 / 18.96s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 375(+200) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km(+5k) / 110 / 7 Sensor strength: 26 Radar Sensor Strength (+4.75) Signature radius: 440 (+70) I am not daring to look a gift horse in the mouth. The naval Armageddon fills a much needed role somewhat vacated in the tier rebalance and does so impressively. I can't wait to fly it. I love the versatility provided by that drone bay and BW on top of what the guns will be able to do. This thing could be frightening. I am worried over the costs a bit and while I cringe a wee bit at the sig I can live with it . Based on what is being said I am not sure I "get" the Apocalypse at this time in that I am having to look at it as something outside of what was considered its traditional role and the new role of projecting fire at longer ranges against smaller ships "reads sketchy" without seeing if improvements will be made to laser weapon's native tracking ratings in the weapon rebalance. Can it pin hole a HAC in this version or an INT or T3 effectively? It's bigger than just DPS applied. If so the described role looks more worthy of filling to make a BS worth buying in the face of some steep cheaper competition. I'd like to read some thoughts on that from those that have tested it.
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Academy The ROC 162	Posted - 2013.05.14 00:45:00 - [244] - Quote Quote: I'd like to read some thoughts on that from those that have tested it. Likewise. Windows 8 has decided that I don't get to install/run/update/do anything with Sisi, and I am rather skeptical of the real world usefulness of the tracking bonuses in general. So I'd like to hear feedback from someone using the ship on how it performs, and whether it's ability to apply dps stands up to the Abaddon's straight up damage bonus. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á
MinutemanKirk Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats 17	Posted - 2013.05.14 00:52:00 - [245] - Quote Caljiav Ocanon wrote: Maximus Andendare wrote: No. You guys need to get over the "8" number for the turrets. As its been said quite a few times, less turrets = less ammo and more importantly, less cap. As long as the damage is working out the same, then by all means, CCP, cut the amount of turrets for cap-using weapons. Give me a compelling reason to buy a Navy Megathron then. Because right now, there really isn't one. As it stands, more buffer isn't worth ~300m ISK. The extra drone DPS is situational at best. Agreed. In this case, the "8 turrets" intention is not meant to get the same DPS as before, it's to get more DPS than it's T1 counterpart.
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 531	Posted - 2013.05.14 00:54:00 - [246] - Quote Would Navy Versions of the Hyperion, Maelstrom, Abaddon and Rokh be too much to ask for? Navy Rokh 8/8/4 +200 CPU, 11k base shields Same similar bonuses to the Naga and probably the slowest of the battleships. Navy Hyperion +8 Turrets (because) 8/5/7 7.5% damage bonus 7.5% rep bonus Large done and armour hitpoints 75mb drones Fleet Maelstrom 8/7/5 7.5% Damage Bonus 7.5% Fall off bonus Attackship hp/speed stats Navy Abaddon 7.5% Damage bonus Resist bonus 8/4/8 Massive increase to cap pool, armor hp and fittings 75mb drones No idea whether the navy shaders already exist for those hulls - and with 3 weeks left to go... Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
SMT008 SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse 586	Posted - 2013.05.14 00:56:00 - [247] - Quote CCP Rise, you're probably aware of this, but we can't really give feedback on ships if we don't know what's going to happen to weapon systems. I'll go with this and make assumptions that weapon systems are going to get fixed the way I think they're going to get fixed : Navy Apoc : A great ship, but I would still give it more PWG and allow it to fit bigger beams more easely. Navy Armageddon : A great ship, nothing else to say. Navy Raven : Alright, 8 launchers is super cool, always have been, always will be. The problem comes from Torps themselves tbh. I made a thread about large battleship missiles, there are things about torp changes there. Here's a short summary : Torp range buff, Torp volume nerf, slight Torp exploradius reduction on T2 rages. Navy Scorpion : I don't really know how this ship can be considered "too strong". Yes, it tanks. That's about it. To me, it doesn't feel like a special ship, it's just another big drake tbh. Navy Megathron : I think this ship needs to be changed. It really doesn't bring any different flavour than the regular T1 Megathron. Nothing changes except an additionnal highslot (woohoo, less than stellar upgrade tbh) and more armor. See the thing you wanted to do with the old Megathron ? 7-5-6 slot layout ? I think you could do a 7-5-7 layout on the Navy Megathron. Even a 7-5-7 layout with a different secondary bonus like a falloff bonus or a special bonus that I didn't think of. This Navy Megathron really needs a special thingy. Currently, it's just an upgraded Megathron. Not worth the money tbh. Navy Dominix : Ok, it's a ganking machine. I don't really know what to say, it's an okay ship. Fleet Typhoon : I like this one. Apparently CCP still doesnt want to understand that two weapon systems with one bonus for each is still worse than a single weapon system and 2 bonuses that apply to it, but at least they understood that two weapon systems mean 6 turrets AND 6 launchers, not 4/4 and a forced mix of the twos. I'm alright with the current proposed Fleet Typhoon, but I still think it would add a special thing to make it 8-6-6. That would make it different from the T1 Typhoon, that would allow it to be a shield ship while the Fleet Tempest stays the main armor ship. Notice how the Fleet Tempest already has a 8-5-7 slot layout ? Right, that's why I would like the Fleet Typhoon to switch to something different like 8-6-6. Fleet Tempest : Yeah, 7th turret wouldn't hurt. Seriously tho. Think about it, the current Fleet Tempest has the same number of turrets the regular Tempest has, same number than the fleet typhoon. It doesn't really have anything special about it. Just a better-armor-tanked Tempest. And not really all that better anyway.
Jerick Ludhowe JLT corp 448	Posted - 2013.05.14 00:57:00 - [248] - Quote I strongly suggest swapping the "roles" of the navy domi and navy mega. The navy domi has a far better slot layout to take advantage of the "attack" role, the nevy mega, not so much. I'd go ahead and swap the hp and mobility values.
Tek Handle Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 32	Posted - 2013.05.14 01:04:00 - [249] - Quote Why would you trade off a Low Slot for another Med Slot on the Typhoon FI?
Grunnax Aurelius luna Oscura Clandestina Armada The Nightingales of Hades 109	Posted - 2013.05.14 01:05:00 - [250] - Quote Pattern Clarc wrote: Would Navy Versions of the Hyperion, Maelstrom, Abaddon and Rokh be too much to ask for? Navy Rokh 8/8/4 +200 CPU, 11k base shields Same similar bonuses to the Naga and probably the slowest of the battleships. Navy Hyperion +8 Turrets (because) 8/5/7 7.5% damage bonus 7.5% rep bonus Large done and armour hitpoints 75mb drones Fleet Maelstrom 8/7/5 7.5% Damage Bonus 7.5% Fall off bonus Attackship hp/speed stats Navy Abaddon 7.5% Damage bonus Resist bonus 8/4/8 Massive increase to cap pool, armor hp and fittings 75mb drones No idea whether the navy shaders already exist for those hulls - and with 3 weeks left to go... Rokh Nvay Issue Caldari Battleship Ship Bonuses: 5% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret damage 10% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret optimal range 8/8/4 +200 CPU, 11k base shields 125m3/125MBit Drones for sentries (maybe, could be a little too much) Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread
Johnson Oramara Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 44	Posted - 2013.05.14 01:06:00 - [251] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: Malcanis wrote: Smoking Blunts wrote: the cnr having the same base dps as the raven isn't a good thing imo, ok I know it will be better applied in this version but forcing it to use 8 launchers instead of the 6 of the raven to get the same result is painful. It's not the same result, though: it's qualitatively superior in damage application and alpha. They'll both be equally good for shooting structures and capitals, I suppose. For anything else, the CNR will be a quantum step ahead. I dunno man. Stop and think about it this way. The damage application on the CNR is already good enough that people weren't clamoring to use Cruise Golems despite the dramatically superior damage application. The new bonus is extremely underwhelming and an outright nerf to the CNR. -Liang Can you propose a scenario where the CNR will be worse on June 5th than it is right now? I'm using torp CNR fitting with 1588 dps dual tp's for certain guristas missions like guristas extravaganza, this ship will just cut through battleships like butter 2-3 volleying them. It also is buffer tanked but nothing manages to survive long enough to really pose a threat. With the new nerfed CNR the dps numbers would be 1418 and although i could then drop the other tp for free med slot it would get used by tanking slot to cover the nerfed ehp. Oh and don't get me started how it will eat even more torpedoes for more cost and with torpedoes taking so much space as they do now.... Also having no utility highs just reduce the fitting options even more...
Tim Ryder Flippin DaBird Corporation 2 1	Posted - 2013.05.14 01:10:00 - [252] - Quote Johnson Oramara wrote: Malcanis wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: Malcanis wrote: Smoking Blunts wrote: the cnr having the same base dps as the raven isn't a good thing imo, ok I know it will be better applied in this version but forcing it to use 8 launchers instead of the 6 of the raven to get the same result is painful. It's not the same result, though: it's qualitatively superior in damage application and alpha. They'll both be equally good for shooting structures and capitals, I suppose. For anything else, the CNR will be a quantum step ahead. I dunno man. Stop and think about it this way. The damage application on the CNR is already good enough that people weren't clamoring to use Cruise Golems despite the dramatically superior damage application. The new bonus is extremely underwhelming and an outright nerf to the CNR. -Liang Can you propose a scenario where the CNR will be worse on June 5th than it is right now? I'm using torp CNR fitting with 1588 dps dual tp's for certain guristas missions like guristas extravaganza, this ship will just cut through battleships like butter 2-3 volleying them. It also is buffer tanked but nothing manages to survive long enough to really pose a threat. With the new nerfed CNR the dps numbers would be 1418 and although i could then drop the other tp for free med slot it would get used by tanking slot to cover the nerfed ehp. Oh and don't get me started how it will eat even more torpedoes for more cost and with torpedoes taking so much space as they do now.... Also having no utility highs just reduce the fitting options even more... Yes, giving an additional 45 tf for a launcher that eats a lot more is... sad.
Jenn aSide STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries 1810	Posted - 2013.05.14 01:50:00 - [253] - Quote IrJosy wrote: I don't use my navy domi with guns can you please change it to be like the regular domi with the drone optimal/tracking bonus? THIS!
Octoven Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming 125	Posted - 2013.05.14 01:53:00 - [254] - Quote Jonas Sukarala wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Quote: This list. I don't suppose we can get any sneak peeks at what's in store for rebalance in the near future? Not in any order, obviously, but just to see what's on the menu. Of course, no promises in terms of order or anything - but the short list includes things like medium rails, hacs, eafs, beams, some other t2 classes like inties/maurders, and some other mods which i don't want to name atm incase they get pushed back awhile. =) please tell me TD's with missiles are on there and command links /T3 nerf and command ships I would like to point out that I am not completely in disagreement with TDs on missiles; however, I would prefer a new module to do it rather then using the standard gunny one. You could even name it 'Guidance Disruption' I would support that as long as it required a new mod though. As for the other changes, I literally just got through selling my CNR because I thought the changes would kill it XP guess I must now re-acquire it CCP Rise and CCP Fozzie, you both are doing great work with keeping the community informed of the changes and your team(s) are doing fantastic changes. I am very happy with the raven, geddon, and scorpion. I can't say much to the rest since I never fly them, but that navy apoc looks like a beast too Look forward to seeing what you will do to Marauders and hopefully black ops
Grash Depran Binary Capital Group 4	Posted - 2013.05.14 01:55:00 - [255] - Quote I don't really understand this either.. They give a CPU increase, and an extra launcher, but not enough CPU for a T2 launcher. FWIW, I'm at AWU IV, and an 'Arbalest' CL takes up ~45.6.. so maybe they want us to go meta..
Tim Ryder Flippin DaBird Corporation 2 1	Posted - 2013.05.14 01:58:00 - [256] - Quote Grash Depran wrote: I don't really understand this either.. They give a CPU increase, and an extra launcher, but not enough CPU for a T2 launcher. FWIW, I'm at AWU IV, and an 'Arbalest' CL takes up ~45.6.. so maybe they want us to go meta.. AWU gives powergrid, not CPU. And you also forget that extra midslot we're getting negative CPU to use.
Garviel Tarrant Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 842	Posted - 2013.05.14 02:00:00 - [257] - Quote Also i demand you stop releasing new stuff until you fix links <.< BYDI (Shadow cartel) Recruitment open!
JAF Anders Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats 96	Posted - 2013.05.14 02:02:00 - [258] - Quote Quote: The Tempest, as always, wants to occupy a space between attack and combat, and therefore has unusually high speed and unusually low sig for its role. Let no man say I didn't thoroughly inspect the content of this post!
Klingon Admiral Black Hole Cluster 19	Posted - 2013.05.14 02:04:00 - [259] - Quote Haven't run any exact calculations yet, but it seems the CNR just brutally murdered the Golem.
Tim Ryder Flippin DaBird Corporation 2 1	Posted - 2013.05.14 02:05:00 - [260] - Quote Klingon Admiral wrote: Haven't run any exact calculations yet, but it seems the CNR just brutally murdered the Golem. How do you figure that? The CNR got nerfed, effectively, probably because it'd've been too good with the new cruise missiles.
mynnna GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1116	Posted - 2013.05.14 02:06:00 - [261] - Quote Earlier in the day I told someone - I'm afraid I don't remember who - that I was pretty sure that the Torp CNR would outdamage the Torp Typhoon (at least as far as missiles went) in most situations. So here's the math on that. Each ship is modeled with max skills, Tech II launchers and (despite the fact that the TyFI will probably not do this very often given the armor tank) three BCS II. Any Dreadnaught Faction Torps CNR: 948 DPS TyFI: 1098 DPS Rage Torps CNR: 1115 DPS TyFI: 1149 DPS Basically the max damage scenario. Target: Alphafleet Maelstrom, 547m sig radius, 118m/s Faction Torps CNR: 948 DPS TyFI: 1098 DPS Rage Torps CNR: 948 DPS TyFI: 724 DPS The max damage scenario still applies here for faction torps, however with rage torps the CNR deals full DPS, while the TyFI loses 26% of its damage. It's similar against armor tanking combat BS, which have a smaller sig but are slower. The Abaddon tanks full damage from either with faction missiles, full damage from a Rage torp CNR, but only 76% damage (872 DPS) from a Rage TyFI. With a Tech II target painter, both ships do full damage in all scenarios. Target: Tempest. 340m sig, 150m/s Faction Torps CNR: 920 DPS TyFI: 712 DPS Rage Torps CNR: 630 DPS TyFI: 422 DPS Raven's dealing very nearly full damage with the faction missiles and 56% of its max with rage. The Typhoon only gets 73% and a mere 37%, respectively. With a Tech II target painter, both ships do full damage with faction missiles. The CNR deals 77% of its damage with rage torps, while the TyFI is up to 50%. Even in that case, though, you're still better off shooting the normal torps. Kinda goes to show how bad (or at least niche) Rage torps really are. Target: Naga, 1x LSE II. 240m sig, 244m/s Faction Torps CNR: 920 DPS TyFI: 712 DPS Rage Torps CNR: 630 DPS TyFI: 422 DPS DPS on both ships drops way off here, to 43% for the CNR and 32.5% for the TyFI with faction missiles. Shooting rage, it's 25% and 16% respectively. With a target painter, that's 59%, 44%, 35% and 23%, respectively. Numbers drop from there as you'd expect. Of course, this is just with one painter at most. Start throwing in more support (and thus more painters and webs) and the TyFI pulls ahead, but by no more than 3%. That goes up when you factor in the drones, of course, though not by much; in the max damage scenario, a flight of Ogres for the Typhoon only puts it up by about 80 DPS (~7%) over the CNR with a flight of Hammerheads. And then there's more reality. Both ships are difficult to fit as torpedo ships, and the Typhoon especially requires extensive compromises. Expect to make extensive use of Meta 4 and/or faction equipment to get it to fit. A buffer tanked Typhoon fields a smaller tank than a fully buffer tanked Raven, though to compensate it has the edge in sig radius. I comes down to the Typhoon uses neuts and its drone bay to fight off smaller ships, while the CNR is capable of taking the more direct route. Overall, I feel like they're very balanced ships. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Grash Depran Binary Capital Group 5	Posted - 2013.05.14 02:19:00 - [262] - Quote Tim Ryder wrote: Grash Depran wrote: I don't really understand this either.. They give a CPU increase, and an extra launcher, but not enough CPU for a T2 launcher. FWIW, I'm at AWU IV, and an 'Arbalest' CL takes up ~45.6.. so maybe they want us to go meta.. AWU gives powergrid, not CPU. And you also forget that extra midslot we're getting negative CPU to use. Woops... then WU V.. :) Another good point.. so we can't fit a launcher, so we have an empty launcher.. and a mid-slot that has to be less than 45 tf.. I'm feeling a little jaded now. :(
Klingon Admiral Black Hole Cluster 19	Posted - 2013.05.14 02:54:00 - [263] - Quote If my calculations aren't complety wrong (which they, sadly, tand to be, one should be able to fit this CNR fitting: [Raven Navy Issue, do it with style] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Co-Processor II X-Large Shield Booster II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Shield Boost Amplifier II Phased Weapon Navigation Generation Extron Phased Weapon Navigation Generation Extron Experimental 100MN Afterburner Cap Recharger II Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Cruise Missile With 3 missile rigs and 51.83 CPU to spare. As usual, shiny stuff will greatly improve this ships fitting capabilities. T2 Bay Loading Accelerator + 2x Flare I will be pretty interesting to watch, as the CNR practically gets about the damage application of a Golem with this setup (slightly more against a Golem without Rigor/Flare, slightly less against a Golem with Rigor/Flare) Sure, a Golem can salvage and everything, but you will need to salvage a long time to get a break even.
Octoven Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming 126	Posted - 2013.05.14 02:57:00 - [264] - Quote Tim Ryder wrote: Klingon Admiral wrote: Haven't run any exact calculations yet, but it seems the CNR just brutally murdered the Golem. How do you figure that? The CNR got nerfed, effectively, probably because it'd've been too good with the new cruise missiles. I dont call 8 launchers a nerf >.>
Garviel Tarrant Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 843	Posted - 2013.05.14 02:59:00 - [265] - Quote Octoven wrote: Tim Ryder wrote: Klingon Admiral wrote: Haven't run any exact calculations yet, but it seems the CNR just brutally murdered the Golem. How do you figure that? The CNR got nerfed, effectively, probably because it'd've been too good with the new cruise missiles. I dont call 8 launchers a nerf >.> Basically ccp decided the Raven should have 3 bonuses. BYDI (Shadow cartel) Recruitment open!
Klingon Admiral Black Hole Cluster 19	Posted - 2013.05.14 02:59:00 - [266] - Quote Octoven wrote: Tim Ryder wrote: Klingon Admiral wrote: Haven't run any exact calculations yet, but it seems the CNR just brutally murdered the Golem. How do you figure that? The CNR got nerfed, effectively, probably because it'd've been too good with the new cruise missiles. I dont call 8 launchers a nerf >.> It is a slight nerf in raw DPS, but damage application is always awesome.
Trifle Donier Sham Rocks Incorporated 1	Posted - 2013.05.14 03:02:00 - [267] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: MeBiatch wrote: MinutemanKirk wrote: Any particular reason why you don't want to make the Dominix have 20 fitting slots like every other Navy BS? Would be kinda nice to have 8 low slots since it's a split weapon platform AND supposed to be armor tanked... drones. apparently drone utility negates a fitting slot for some reason. Because drones can imitate a target painter, web, jammer, dampener, reps, or dps, so ships that specialize in high drone payloads receive one less slot. Isn't this an argument for non-drone ships to get 1 less slot than drone ships though ?? A Navy Geddon has 375 drone bay, and isn't a drone ship, so while its doing most of its dps with turrets it can launch some repairers, webbers, jammers, salvagers or whatever. Same with certain other battleships, but a bit more limited due to smaller bay... most battleships still have enough for decent options though. Whereas a droneboat can't use utility drones, because its busy doing dps with its drones. It has LESS flexibility, and also receives 1 less slot. How does this make any sense ?! If they do try to use ewar drones or what have you, they don't even perform better than a non-drone ship, because the drone bonus only applies to damage.
Alexander Renoir State War Academy Caldari State 55	Posted - 2013.05.14 03:27:00 - [268] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: The GÇÿstandardGÇÖ upgrade package for Navy BS is an extra slot (along with appropriate fitting adjustment) as well as approximately 50% more hitpoints. Some of these rebalanced versions will follow that pattern very closely, while others will diverge more significantly to completely new bonuses and roles. .... We are giving the CNR an 8th launcher to make up for the loss of the rate of fire bonus, and replacing rate of fire with a bonus to explosion radius. Along with the incoming buff to cruise missiles, this ship is going to be an animal. Caldari Battleship Skill Bonuses: +5% bonus to Torpedo and Cruise Missile explosion radius +10% bonus to Cruise Missile Torpedo Velocity Slot layout: 8H, 7M(+1), 5L; 0 turrets , 8 launchers(+1) Defense (shields / armor / hull): 10500(-750) / 8000(-1961) / 9500(-461) WHY Do you want to nerf my CNR? I fly my ship with ALL LEVEL 5 Skills and if I calculate with the Rate Of Fire Bonus, I would have 8,75 Launcher (+25% from 7 launcher = +1,75) now. Even with Battle Ship-Skill Level 3 this would be still 8.05 Launchers! 8.05 Launchers which I would have NOW! And now you come to me and say you will buff the CNR? No Sir, you effectively nerf it! The end of your "adjustment" is, that I have to use more ammunition, have less damage and lose my Tractor Beam from an high Slot! You want to rebuild my CNR into a ship for rookies? Your modification is better for some one with Battle Ship Skill Level 2. But if you have L3 or L5 (like me) you absolutely lose firepower and a high-Slot for a tractor beam. Additionaly you do not give MORE hitpoints to my ship, you want to take some hitpoints away! Keep the Rate Of Firebonus. Keep the tractor beam. The Med-slot is nice but not necessary. I came back after a break from EVE. Now I see that this was a mistake. I am dissapointed that you try to bring a nerf but want to sell it as an buff! I will cancel my subscription again.
Cage Man 211	Posted - 2013.05.14 03:41:00 - [269] - Quote Just curious why the velocity bonus on the CNR is only for cruise missile's? I often use torps on mine. Oh PLEASE!!! CCP Fozzie Can I haz a Navy moa.......
Gimme more Cynos Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 25	Posted - 2013.05.14 03:46:00 - [270] - Quote wtf are you doing to the CNR.. Seriously.. Nerf Caldari missile boats even more, thats the way we like it.. not. Oh and for those who didn't got it yet.. 8 launchers without ROF-Bonus is a NERF, especially cause the new explosion-velocity bonus is a piece of crap which does nothing (yeah, you gain 25 m/s of explosion velocity, that's not going to cut it.) /went's out to train large projectiles 5.

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.