| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Cirrius Technologies O X I D E
123
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 15:20:00 -
[31] - Quote
Jack C Hughes wrote:it is not that hard to understand why naga was turned into a railgun ship.
Battleship class Missle + 8 luncher slots + damage bonus means too much damage(10 effective lunchers). Even the Golem hasonly 8 effective lunchers, and that is probably the highest damage a missle ship could have. 25% more than that? it will be over powered.
you might say well okay lets give it 6 lunchers/ range + explosion speed bonus. Those doesn't work. 6 lunchers either means utility highes, or more mid/low. range +explosion bonus means similar damage compaired to other ABCs, but better damage projection.
you can see it is easier to keep missles out of ABC than try to find strange solutions for the problem. But it's ok for a Machariel and Vindicator to have 11+ effective launchers while the vaunted Golem and Navy Raven are gimped to 8? I like the idea that Spugg Galdon put forth, keep the Naga a hybrid platform, but add a Navy version that can fit missiles. Everybody, except for Sato Page and his biases, is now happy. |

Anhenka
Daktaklakpak. Red Coat Conspiracy
486
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 16:01:00 -
[32] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Jack C Hughes wrote:it is not that hard to understand why naga was turned into a railgun ship.
Battleship class Missle + 8 luncher slots + damage bonus means too much damage(10 effective lunchers). Even the Golem hasonly 8 effective lunchers, and that is probably the highest damage a missle ship could have. 25% more than that? it will be over powered.
you might say well okay lets give it 6 lunchers/ range + explosion speed bonus. Those doesn't work. 6 lunchers either means utility highes, or more mid/low. range +explosion bonus means similar damage compaired to other ABCs, but better damage projection.
you can see it is easier to keep missles out of ABC than try to find strange solutions for the problem. But it's ok for a Machariel and Vindicator to have 11+ effective launchers while the vaunted Golem and Navy Raven are gimped to 8? I like the idea that Spugg Galdon put forth, keep the Naga a hybrid platform, but add a Navy version that can fit missiles. Everybody, except for Sato Page and his biases, is now happy.
Except for that small teeny tiny issue where BS class launchers get far far more dps out of each slot when fitting a long range weapon system than guns do. 11+ Effective weapon cruise missile naga? 1400 DPS of 200km missile spewing death. Yeah. Not going to happen.
Though the missile using crowd tends to whine and bemoan how their weapons don't get enough love, the reason there will never be a 1k+ dps cruise missile platform on a 60 mil hull is because it would be broken as ****.
|

Jack C Hughes
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 16:14:00 -
[33] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Jack C Hughes wrote:it is not that hard to understand why naga was turned into a railgun ship.
Battleship class Missle + 8 luncher slots + damage bonus means too much damage(10 effective lunchers). Even the Golem hasonly 8 effective lunchers, and that is probably the highest damage a missle ship could have. 25% more than that? it will be over powered.
you might say well okay lets give it 6 lunchers/ range + explosion speed bonus. Those doesn't work. 6 lunchers either means utility highes, or more mid/low. range +explosion bonus means similar damage compaired to other ABCs, but better damage projection.
you can see it is easier to keep missles out of ABC than try to find strange solutions for the problem. But it's ok for a Machariel and Vindicator to have 11+ effective launchers while the vaunted Golem and Navy Raven are gimped to 8? I like the idea that Spugg Galdon put forth, keep the Naga a hybrid platform, but add a Navy version that can fit missiles. Everybody, except for Sato Page and his biases, is now happy.
I think I didn't make my point clear:
all paladin, Vargur, Koronos has 10 effective turrest, and Golem 8. Also Abaddon, Mealstorm and megathron more than 8, but Raven 8. We don't have a pirate ship with missle as main weapon. This shows that 8 effective launchers is the maximum, and it should be considered as 10 or near to 10 effective turrets.
But if you wish to have a 8 launcher Naga, this makes it more than 8 and reaches 10, which is unfair for other ABCs.. |

Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire
553
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 17:23:00 -
[34] - Quote
Just to recall, at the time of ABC-deployment cruises were yet left untouched and torps didn't have GMP applied yet - so while the naga back then didn't succeed as a decent missileplatform, those things could have greatly changed by now. Eight Cruise Launchers with their massive alpha and flawless application in such a situation, bound to a ship slightly faster than a phoon and significantly cheaper might prove one-sided.
"I honestly thought I was in lowsec"
Moving pictures |

scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Cirrius Technologies O X I D E
123
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 19:59:00 -
[35] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Just to recall, at the time of ABC-deployment cruises were yet left untouched and torps didn't have GMP applied yet - so while the naga back then didn't succeed as a decent missileplatform, those things could have greatly changed by now. Eight Cruise Launchers with their massive alpha and flawless application in such a situation, bound to a ship slightly faster than a phoon and significantly cheaper might prove one-sided.
Cruise missiles are far from flawless application, not too mention the obvious drawbacks to any missile at more than point blank range when compared to turrets. However, let's load up EFT and see what kind of ridiculous damage we can get out of some Marauders just for comparison to see just how unfair it is to the poor widdle turret ships if a big mean missile boat ever had more than 8 launchers, the arbitrary "max" for fairness. I will edit this post with the numbers in a few minutes.
Edit 1: I will keep this to the Marauders and stay out of, for now, the imbalance between a Machariel or Vindicator and a Navy Raven. (The closest missiles will probably get to a decent pirate faction BS.) |

Arthur Aihaken
Arsenite
3149
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 20:45:00 -
[36] - Quote
The Naga should be converted to a missile platform, plain and simple. The only reason it was redesigned as a hybrid because large missiles sucked at the time. Just revise the bonuses as follows:
Battlecruiser Skill bonus per level: 5% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret damage -+ 5% bonus to cruise/torpedo explosion velocity 10% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret optimal range -+ 10% bonus to cruise/torpedo missile velocity I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |

Nariya Kentaya
Phoenix funds
1154
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 21:52:00 -
[37] - Quote
sprototles Ganzo wrote:So we have 4 attack BC 2 hybrid : talos and naga 1 projectile: tornado 1 laser: oracle Well, where is missile attack BC ?
My bonuses: 5% reduction torpedo and cruisers explosion radius 5% increase torpedo and cruisers explosion velocity
p.s. Drone attack BC would be impressive too
Comment and comment again
dont even suggest it because theyll change the oracle to ebing a missile/drone boat, because they hate beautiful lazorz. |

Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1225
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 21:58:00 -
[38] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:The Naga should be converted to a missile platform, plain and simple. The only reason it was redesigned as a hybrid because large missiles sucked at the time. Just revise the bonuses as follows:
Battlecruiser Skill bonus per level: 5% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret damage -+ 5% bonus to cruise/torpedo explosion velocity 10% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret optimal range -+ 10% bonus to cruise/torpedo missile velocity
the naga is a good and popular ship as is. no it should not be converted into a missile boat. the state of missiles at the time was not the only reason it was an unpopular idea. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |

Anhenka
Daktaklakpak. Red Coat Conspiracy
487
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 22:03:00 -
[39] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:The Naga should be converted to a missile platform, plain and simple. The only reason it was redesigned as a hybrid because large missiles sucked at the time. Just revise the bonuses as follows:
Battlecruiser Skill bonus per level: 5% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret damage -+ 5% bonus to cruise/torpedo explosion velocity 10% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret optimal range -+ 10% bonus to cruise/torpedo missile velocity
That's a lovely Naga you have there. Not ridiculously overpowered at all.
Why it can only do a mere 1050k DPS at 250 km with one flight time rig. And a pathetic 1250 dps at 200km with furies.
|

Arthur Aihaken
Arsenite
3149
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 23:33:00 -
[40] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:That's a lovely Naga you have there. Not ridiculously overpowered at all.
Why it can only do a mere 1050k DPS at 250 km with one flight time rig. And a pathetic 1250 dps at 200km with furies.
I especially like the damage application bonus against smaller targets.
Let them eat cake! And carry rocket launchers, and miniguns! And they shall be unto all as a fierce wind, scouring thine enemy before you with as much dps as a gank vindicator, projecting at ranges better than a sniper Rohk, and being highly effective vs all classes of ships!
And let the hull be cheap, and affordable, and quick to train! Let them be agile, quick to align, high scan resolution! Let them have low mass, and massive dps. For nothing is too good for my dear missile users.
TLDR: No. Yeah, with a 20-second flight time... A missile-based Naga wouldn't be any different than the other Attack Battlecruisers. You obviously have no concept of how missiles work if you think even a 25% explosion velocity bonus gives it damage application against smaller targets. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |

Claud Tiberius
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
25
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 23:58:00 -
[41] - Quote
I think the Drake is a perfectly fine missile BC. Ofc, it isn't an Attack BC i.e.: A ship designed to destroy battle ships.
However imo, that's why all of the stealth bombers use missiles. Stealth bombers bridge that gap between BC and BS (and beyond), just not in a way you expect. It is a powerful weapon system.
So with that in mind, I don't see the need for a missile ABC. |

Anhenka
Daktaklakpak. Red Coat Conspiracy
488
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 00:28:00 -
[42] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote: Yeah, with a 20-second flight time... A missile-based Naga wouldn't be any different than the other Attack Battlecruisers. You obviously have no concept of how missiles work if you think even a 25% explosion velocity bonus gives it damage application against smaller targets.
I am perfectly aware that an explosion velocity bonus is a damage application bonus toward moving targets. But by some odd correlation, those also tend to be smaller ships. Imagine that.
I'm fine with a missile Naga if it gets the same DPS with cruise missiles as a sniper fit, or even say 25% more to be nice and compensate a slight bit for missile time.
Let's see, that's 440 dps with a Spike Naga. So about 550 DPS on a missile Naga sounds about right. Especially since a cruise missile naga is not immediately in deep **** once someone gets within a 425 Naga's awful tracking, and can deal effective dps to cruiser hulls with precision ammo. That's 550 dps of fairly well applied dps at super close or super long range, with choice of damage types, can ignore tracking, and switch to precision in order to hit small targets even more effectively.
But wait.... That's less than half of your proposed ships DPS? So either Railgun naga is horrifyingly bad, or your proposal is horrifyingly OP.
And consider about 80% of your posting on this forum seem to be nonstop whining about how bad missiles are, and how bad CCP is for not buffing missiles, I'm kind of leaning towards the later option. |

Arthur Aihaken
Arsenite
3149
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 01:08:00 -
[43] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:I am perfectly aware that an explosion velocity bonus is a damage application bonus toward moving targets. But by some odd correlation, those also tend to be smaller ships. Imagine that. I imagine that you're completely underestimating the damage application of cruise missiles. On paper it may look great; in reality, a frigate could easily scram and kill a missile Naga. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |

Arthur Aihaken
Arsenite
3149
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 01:09:00 -
[44] - Quote
Claud Tiberius wrote:I think the Drake is a perfectly fine missile BC. Ofc, it isn't an Attack BC i.e.: A ship designed to destroy battle ships.
However imo, that's why all of the stealth bombers use missiles. Stealth bombers bridge that gap between BC and BS (and beyond), just not in a way you expect. It is a powerful weapon system.
So with that in mind, I don't see the need for a missile ABC. 1. Drakes suck. Both versions. 2. Bombers use torpedoes. Damage application with torpedoes sucks. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |

Anhenka
Daktaklakpak. Red Coat Conspiracy
488
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 01:58:00 -
[45] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Anhenka wrote:I am perfectly aware that an explosion velocity bonus is a damage application bonus toward moving targets. But by some odd correlation, those also tend to be smaller ships. Imagine that. I imagine that you're completely underestimating the damage application of cruise missiles. On paper it may look great; in reality, a frigate could easily scram and kill a missile Naga.
A t1 frigate can scram and kill every single ABC except a Talos with webs+blasters+drones. And it gets lower gun bonuses than the rest of the ABC's to compensate. Being able to be killed by a frigate is hardly a balancing point for ABC's.
But a cruise missile ABC would deal far better damage to say fleet AHAC's at close range than any of the other long range ABC's can. |

Arthur Aihaken
Arsenite
3149
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 02:26:00 -
[46] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:But a cruise missile ABC would deal far better damage to say fleet AHAC's at close range than any of the other long range ABC's can. No, even against cruisers (and especially AHACs) the damage is minimal. Unless you can scram and dual-web them, even with target painters and rigors you'll be doing about a fraction of your paper dps against an afterburner or microwarpdrive fit cruiser or HAC. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |

Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
271
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 07:54:00 -
[47] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:No, even against cruisers (and especially AHACs) the damage is minimal. Unless you can scram and dual-web them, even with target painters and rigors you'll be doing about a fraction of your paper dps against an afterburner or microwarpdrive fit cruiser or HAC.
Doesn't this hold true for all the other ABC's though? Last I checked, A talos can't really hit a HAC that is in tight and moving at even half speed.... A talos 'slowboating' is capable of moving faster than it's guns can track on it's own. A rail Naga or Oracle can hit them well enough from range, but up close, neither of them can really hit either, IIRC.
I think the point here is that the cruise naga will still DO damage up close, and also from WAY far away, where the others can't.
Could be wrong. It is very late and I'm lack of sleep posting.... The Law is a point of View |

Arthur Aihaken
Arsenite
3149
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 08:50:00 -
[48] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:Doesn't this hold true for all the other ABC's though? Last I checked, A talos can't really hit a HAC that is in tight and moving at even half speed.... A talos 'slowboating' is capable of moving faster than it's guns can track on it's own. A rail Naga or Oracle can hit them well enough from range, but up close, neither of them can really hit either, IIRC.
I think the point here is that the cruise naga will still DO damage up close, and also from WAY far away, where the others can't. It holds true for all ships with large weapons. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |

Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Backwater Aristocrats
110
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 14:33:00 -
[49] - Quote
sprototles Ganzo wrote:So we have 4 attack BC 2 hybrid : talos and naga 1 projectile: tornado 1 laser: oracle Well, where is missile attack BC ?
My bonuses: 5% reduction torpedo and cruisers explosion radius 5% increase torpedo and cruisers explosion velocity
p.s. Drone attack BC would be impressive too
Comment and comment again
Drone Attack BC?! I am all Pro Drone boats... but this would not really be that impressive.. Any of the current Drone boats already maximize on DPS. A Navy Vexor can pump as much as an Ishtar or a Domi in Drone DPS. I think this game has enough drone boats.. Especially since every race now appears to be a drone race... This is almost becoming as Bad as Star Trek Online, Just pick your flavor and fire.. Soon weapon types won't matter... just pick your animation.. Except for missiles... missiles blow.. |

scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Cirrius Technologies O X I D E
130
|
Posted - 2014.04.03 16:24:00 -
[50] - Quote
A missile Naga should come with a second missile module that will affect different aspects of missiles than the Ballistic Control System, the only missile specific module that we have. This would help to balance missiles with turrets in that turrets have multiple modules to choose from to create a more ideal fit, missiles fit gank, then tank, then fill the remaining lows with BCS and it's getting a little old. |

Arthur Aihaken
Arsenite
3180
|
Posted - 2014.04.03 19:23:00 -
[51] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:A missile Naga should come with a second missile module that will affect different aspects of missiles than the Ballistic Control System, the only missile specific module that we have. This would help to balance missiles with turrets in that turrets have multiple modules to choose from to create a more ideal fit, missiles fit gank, then tank, then fill the remaining lows with BCS and it's getting a little old. Now that drones are getting some passive low-slot omnis and navigation modules, maybe we'll finally see a passive ballistic enhancer for missiles... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |

scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Cirrius Technologies O X I D E
151
|
Posted - 2014.04.07 21:20:00 -
[52] - Quote
There are no BC's that can fit a decent amount of CCP's vaunted Rapid Heavies. Why is this? They ran out a new weapon system, told us it was the new best thing, even better than sliced bread, and yet the only ships that can use it are massive and slow moving battleships. A Tornado can fit BS size projectiles, a Talos can fit BS size hybrids, an Oracle can fit BS lazors, and the Naga shares hybrids with the Talos? What sense does this make? |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |