Originally by: etgfrogs

---

this might not be much to worth mentioning, but if you also only use half of the normal amount of missles, so you wont have to worry so much about running somewhere to pick up more ammo as often, but....there is always tradeoffs, i would trade off 80 dps for being able to salvage while fighting(thats extra money there unless you cant multitask) as well as having a better tank.

---

Originally by: etgfrogs

---

um...rat's defender missles are % chance based, not per second, but if you have a 2nd account to salvage, why dont you use it for dps instead?

but another thing i thought of, if you fit that gisti shield booster on the golem, i'd guess you would come closer to being able to tank level 5 missions and then you would start seeing level 5 mission runners instead of level 4.

---

Originally by: myspace spacegirl

---

erm isnt there a exp radius bonus anyway?
doesnt that mean your guna hit harder on crusers bc and frigs!
the empty highs can be used for way more usefull things then missile launchers 2
salvagers tractor beams and smart bombs all pop into mind!
Also less ammo may not be an issue in empire but it is in 0.0
if you dont have factory slots or the like near then getting more ammo is a right arse!
i think ether way that CNR and Golems biggest problem is the torp range nerf! unless you use cruse :)

in my eyes the golem is a nice step up from a t1 raven and stronger in places then the CNR

---

Originally by: Razor Jaxx

---

Compare what is comparable.

Is the Golem better than the plain vanilla Raven? Yes.

Is the CNR marginally better than the Golem? Maybe. Remember the Golem has a huge cargo bay, and a tractor beam bonus, so the little time you might lose killing NPCs you will probably more than make up for in cargo space and extra goodies. Also, the Golem's tank might actually be better, too.

And before you label it a 'big fail', perhaps you should, you know, fly it?

---

Originally by: myspace spacegirl

---

but thats because the raven isnt as good as the cnr blately not only because of the damage boost but because of the extra hp etc

ether way the golem is going to be a nice ship and definatly not worth the whine!
its designed for missions and frankly very well designed for it
at the end of the day having 2 diffrent battleships that are both very good at missions but spec in diffrent areas is a VERY GOOD THING!

so you say the golem isnt as good .. .then dont fly it!
all the other mission ships arnt as good as the golem in my opinion! so thank your lucky stars :P

---

Originally by: Hamatitio

---

Marauders will (eventually) be cheaper than a CNR.

Only thing I am worried about are defenders cutting the dps by 25%... seing as how cruise get owned by 1.

---

Originally by: me bored

---

The lower ammo usage and tractor beam bonus will be nice though. Plus a billioni isk ship isn't as appealing for people who run missions out of low sec.

---

Originally by: QwaarJet

---

I own a CNR, I'm hoping it won't be made useless by the Golem.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

Originally by: d026

---

Edited by: d026 on 24/10/2007 00:11:19

Here are the facts:

CNR 4 x dg bcu + dg cms/t1missiles: 609 dps -> Volley Damage 3995 (+100-250 from 420mm gun in spare high)
Golem 4 x dg bcu + dg cms/t1missiles: 522 dps -> Volley Damage 4566

So considering that while HC mission whoring volley damage is way more important than dps overall the Golem still looses in all respects:

To kill a simple cruiser we need 2 volleys from the CNR BUT also 2 volleys from the Golem. So if you switch to the Golem you not only sacrifice dps but also kill time. For a cruiser/bc you need 2-3 volleys a 8.7 seconds from the Golem compared to 2-3 volleys a 6.5 seconds from the CNR.

Imho the Golem is a big fail and i hope you rework it.

---

You're a big fail. Compare the Golem and CNR using Torps, and actually use the TP bonus and take advantage of the explosion velocity bonus for using torps on smaller ships.

---

Originally by: Azuse

---

When you're running lvl 8/9/10 plexes in 0.0 you won't be running around a cnr (mail your location if so) which is where this ship will truly exell, i know it was built for missions and it'll defiantly be better than and standard raven but plexes are we're this ship is going to be in its element.

And if you're so sure you don't need extra tanking go throw your cnr into a lvl 5 mission because everything you've said is that a multi billion isk faction ship marginally outclasses a tii ship damage wise (apparently we don't need a tank), you sir are a genius.

I know it's hard for you but do try and remember there other pilots flying ships like you for different reasons. You're shrugging off al advantages as inconveniences and condemning a ship simply because it doesn't shuit your style of play for which you already have a perfect ship

Twit.

---

Originally by: Skeltek

---

hmm, why does it seem so natural for everyone to assume the Golem is supposed to be a PvE ship?
I quit doing lvl4 missions afk-when they provided no challenge any more at all and turned my eyes on PvP.

---

Originally by: Skeltek

---

true. I still remember when the Nighthawk was made completely useless for PvP. When the anti-frig-bonus was changed into a RoF-bonus, the prizes sky-rocketed which made them completely useless for PvP.


But still, many people use them for mission, even though the damageoutput is by far worse than of other PvE ships.

"Why?" your ask? -simple: I can sit in my Nighthawk semi-afk and just return once in a while to reactivate my launchers(who needs turning on shieldboosters in most missions anyway?).

While PvP is getting (partially unwanted(POSwarfare)) variety and required teamwork to be successfull and fun, PvE is just getting new Uber-tanks and ships to make them even less challenging.

---