EVE Search - CNR v Golem

All Channels

Ships and Modules

CNR v Golem

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Fence	Posted - 2008.09.09 11:49:00 - [1] I've been messing around in EveMon and EFT and looking at some of the ships I want to graduate into at some point and something occurred. What is the advantage of the Golem over the CNR? Is it just price? Because checking them out in the software I can't see why the Golem is good. I thought it would put out more damage or have a greater EHP, but unless I'm missing something BLINDINGLY obvious (which I might hence posting here) I can't see any reason to train for so long to fly the Golem if I can get my hands on a CNR. For comparison purposes they both had as similar as possible modules given the slots available. I even put a bonus Invul Field II on the Golem to see if it could catch the CNR and it couldn't. So please point out why I'm being thick.
Danirus	Posted - 2008.09.09 11:55:00 - [2] As far as i know the 4 launchers on the Golem do the equivalent damage as 8 launchers, CNR only being able to fit 7, I've not really looked into it so I could be wrong.
Carniflex Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.09.09 11:59:00 - [3] Depends on your missionrunning style. For permatank get Golem, for gank style get CNR. In actual missions their performance is relatively identical (depending on fit and tackiks CNR can be some 1 - 3 minutes faster per mission than golem on average). For more details EVE-search is your friend as there is pretty long threads with that discussion already with relevant opinions and information nuggets present.
Fence	Posted - 2008.09.09 12:00:00 - [4] That's why I'm so confused, because that's what I thought too given the Golem's bonus, but I just can't get it to match the 7 slot CNR never mind beat it. I've fitted the following in EFT CNR 7 x Arbalest Cruise 3 x BCU II Golem 4 x Arbalest Cruise 3 x BCU II The scores on the doors are (DPS) CNR 345 Golem 335 I just don't get it. Plus the CNR is hardier so its defence and offence is better. Unless I'm being a ****wit, or there's a bug in EFT of course.
Crellion Art of War Exalted.	Posted - 2008.09.09 12:01:00 - [5] CNR does more damage with identical launchers and bcus but the Golem has more realistic topr fits (less faction mods needed = less gankage, easier tank and fitting so more slots left for bcuIIs and rig slots for range rigs). If you are willing to put some effort go with Siege Golem while if you cant be arsed go with cruise CNR... Arguably my opinions represent to an extent the opinions of my alliance and in particular circumstances give rise to a valid "casus belli" claim.
Mazzy Star Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.09 12:02:00 - [6] Golem has uber tractors, can easily fit torps, can fit a t2 tank with torps, has less but very similar damage to CNR. The CNR will have 1 tractor at most, and it won't be bonused. The CNR most likely will use cruise missiles because it's hard (and expensive) to fit torps. EHP doesn't matter for missions, but the slight DPS advantage the CNR has is nice. In short, plenty of reasons to get a golem. Which one you use is personal preference. ________________________________________________________
Fence	Posted - 2008.09.09 12:14:00 - [7] Cheers for the replies fellas. I can see how the tractor bonus and cargohold helps get thru missions quicker as there's less need for a salvage run. And the torp interchangeability is also good. I still don't understand how 7 x Cruise of the CNR beats the supposed (4 x Cruise) x 2 of the Golem.
Fence	Posted - 2008.09.09 12:18:00 - [8] Originally by: Mazzy Star EHP doesn't matter for missions What should I be comparing? The relevent resistances?
Spider Silva	Posted - 2008.09.09 12:27:00 - [9] the main benefit for me is it uses half as many faction and javelin missiles so its more economical
Crellion Art of War Exalted.	Posted - 2008.09.09 12:29:00 - [10] Originally by: Fence Cheers for the replies fellas. I can see how the tractor bonus and cargohold helps get thru missions quicker as there's less need for a salvage run. And the torp interchangeability is also good. I still don't understand how 7 x Cruise of the CNR beats the supposed (4 x Cruise) x 2 of the Golem. Becuase the CNR also has a rof bonus... giving it 33% more dps or 0.33x7 more launchers making it have not 7 launchers to the Golems 8 but rahter 7x1.33 launchers to the Golem's 8... or 9.33 launchers...approximately... Arguably my opinions represent to an extent the opinions of my alliance and in particular circumstances give rise to a valid "casus belli" claim.
LadyLubU2 Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.09.09 12:37:00 - [11] Originally by: Fence I still don't understand how 7 x Cruise of the CNR beats the supposed (4 x Cruise) x 2 of the Golem. CNR 7x Launcher 5% rof per level = 25% at lvl 5 7x1,25=8,75 effective launcher Golem 4x Launcher 100% damage bonus 4x2=8 effective launcher Amirite?
knobber Jobbler	Posted - 2008.09.09 12:44:00 - [12] Originally by: Fence What is the advantage of the Golem over the CNR? Is it just price? Theres a couple of very good reasons for using the Golem: Using torps you do horrific damage and can use faction ammo for a similar cost to using normal ammo on a CNR. Its also cheaper to faction fit a Golem than a CNR. If you fit heavy drones that can web you can effectly target a ship, shut its engines down, target paint it and then after 3 volleys any ship will die. You get a free shield boost amplifier as a bonus so it frees up a slot normally taken up on a CNR for shield boost amplifier. Added to this you get one more mid slot over the CNR. Think of the other toys you can fit. Target painter bonus so torps can be used against Frigates more effectivly than a CNR with Torps and target painter. A Golem can take an afterburner or MWD without compromise. On a CNR adding one of those is a compromise to its tank. 10 targets can be locked. Its faster. Has better shield resistances. Higher max targetting range. Its the ultimate l00t hover. Nothing can loot and salvage as fast. 750m for a loot hoover is expensive but if your in a gang and your just using tractors with another salvaging you'll clear up a pocket in under 5 minutes. My only problem with it is the lack of sensor strength and loss of a high slot. Altogether though if you have the skills to fly one and all the supporting skills at 4 or 5 the Golem is slightly better ship than the CNR.
Tanith YarnDemon	Posted - 2008.09.09 12:45:00 - [13] The entire reason the Golem is so great, is the fact that it has grid enough to fit 8 torp launchers. Even if the CNR in theory could get them all on, they would be crippled when they do, and the Golem would still come out on top. But yes, the CNR is a great stepping stone for the Golem.
whisk Gallente The Movement	Posted - 2008.09.09 12:47:00 - [14] painter bonus, more tank, teh tractor beam! Adapt or Die
Fence	Posted - 2008.09.09 12:57:00 - [15] Great answers. Thanks very much. 50% price of ammo - good point RoF raven bonus I think it what was ****ing up my neanderthal calculations. And the torp option. I guess the tractor is also great, the number of times I see a can at 21k... Thanks guys.
Gartel Reiman Civis Romanus Sum	Posted - 2008.09.09 13:03:00 - [16] Originally by: LadyLubU2 CNR 7x Launcher 5% rof per level = 25% at lvl 5 7x1,25=8,75 effective launcher ... Amirite? No - the RoF bonus is a reduction in the cycle time, and so at level 5 you get a 25% reduction. Thus instead of 7 x 1.25, you should be doing 7 / 0.75 = 9.33 launchers, as was pointed out above.
Kurt Gergard Caldari Custodes Mandati Imperii	Posted - 2008.09.09 13:36:00 - [17] Hmm i find the golem a waste of skill time tbh. I proven in one topic months ago that the cnr gets a smaller reduction in dmg from defenders than a golem (yes i know that is chanced baced upon every launched missile) it is cheaper (cnr-400-450 mil and golem 750mil). I like having 5 low slots it opens more fitting options and 7 med slots for a mission ship is just useless overkill you don't need that much of a tank. Even the tracktor beam bonus isn't as usefull as you think. You're still better off with a designated salvage ship with rigs and so on. "No plan has ever survived the contact with the enemy" von Moltke
Ruban Spangler Caldari Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse The ENTITY.	Posted - 2008.09.09 14:26:00 - [18] Just in the interests of causing trouble have you also considered the Rattlesnake?
Mazzy Star Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.09 14:36:00 - [19] Originally by: Tanith YarnDemon The entire reason the Golem is so great, is the fact that it has grid enough to fit 8 torp launchers. Even if the CNR in theory could get them all on, they would be crippled when they do, and the Golem would still come out on top. But yes, the CNR is a great stepping stone for the Golem. This isn't true. The CNR isn't crippled with torps, as it can both hit longer ranges than the golem can and deal more DPS. The torp CNR isn't crippled, it is expensive. You will need a decent amount of faction gear to fit those t2 torps on your CNR with 3xrange rigs while still fitting a tank. Things get even trickier if you want to try cramming an afterburner on there. Still, for pure DPS (and less training), the CNR wins out. For flexibility (easier to fit tank, can fit AB easily, supertractors), the Golem wins out. Neither ship is crippled by torps, and which is the right ship just depends on personal preference. ________________________________________________________
Tanith YarnDemon	Posted - 2008.09.09 14:40:00 - [20] Edited by: Tanith YarnDemon on 09/09/2008 14:43:02 Edited by: Tanith YarnDemon on 09/09/2008 14:41:32 Originally by: Kurt Gergard Hmm i find the golem a waste of skill time tbh. I proven in one topic months ago that the cnr gets a smaller reduction in dmg from defenders than a golem (yes i know that is chanced baced upon every launched missile) it is cheaper (cnr-400-450 mil and golem 750mil). I like having 5 low slots it opens more fitting options and 7 med slots for a mission ship is just useless overkill you don't need that much of a tank. Even the tracktor beam bonus isn't as usefull as you think. You're still better off with a designated salvage ship with rigs and so on. Would you mind sharing your CNR setup then? Personally I have a number of fixed ideas that I want to apply to my setups and they define how good the ship is. Another great thing about the golem is the fact that you can quite severly cut down your equipement costs. Flying the CNR right now, it's soon getting standard to have 7 CN launchers and 4-5 CN BCU's, which in itself doubles the cost. Since that third rig slot almost always is tech 1 - rigcosts are about the same. However on the golem, you will be using t2 launchers due to torps. This means you save some 350 mil in just launchers. This means the only thing where you have any kind of interest in spending more than about a mil a mod would be smartbomb(applies to both) and BCUs. This means that anyone interested in suicide ganking you would have to get below say 100mil in replacement costs for their entire assault. Compare this to the 4-500 mil not rarely seen on CNRs and combine it with the Golems common better tank. Personally, I only salvage a fraction of the ships. Yes, if you want to salvage everything and run Gurista missions, you'll be better off using a designated ship(ironicly a marauder is often your best bet here anyway), but if either of those criterias fail, salvaging as you go is a great alternative. As for the slots, I consider the fifth low pretty wasted on the CNR. A fifth BCU only gives so much, and there's not really anything else to put in there(PDU, Signal Amplifier and Damage Controls being the alternatives - all three pretty useless in most cases, only reason to use the PDU in my case is to get the last bit of grid for a SB). While all extra mids can go to Target Painters - making you make your isk faster. I'd love to see your proof about defenders, because I most certainly can't get my head around it. Do you statistical data to go with it? Originally by: Ruban Spangler Just in the interests of causing trouble have you also considered the Rattlesnake? Yes, but I honestly can't find a single reason to ever use it for missions. Originally by: Mazzy Star This isn't true. The CNR isn't crippled with torps, as it can both hit longer ranges than the golem can and deal more DPS. The torp CNR isn't crippled, it is expensive. You will need a decent amount of faction gear to fit those t2 torps on your CNR with 3xrange rigs while still fitting a tank. Things get even trickier if you want to try cramming an afterburner on there. Still, for pure DPS (and less training), the CNR wins out. For flexibility (easier to fit tank, can fit AB easily, supertractors), the Golem wins out. Neither ship is crippled by torps, and which is the right ship just depends on personal preference. Actually, I define the very fact that you're forced to resort to faction gear a form of crippling. But by all means please share an actual setup that uses torps and is on par with the golem. I tend to have issues with it personally, there's always something I have to let out.
Arthur Frayn V.O.F.L IRON CORE H E L I C O N	Posted - 2008.09.09 14:43:00 - [21] Originally by: Ruban Spangler Just in the interests of causing trouble have you also considered the Rattlesnake? The Rattlesnake is pretty much a Raven with double the hitpoints and an extra lowslot. Waste of time imo, unless you fit two guns in the remaining highslots. And then you'll run into the split weapon system issue where both will be generally weaker if you split the damage mods. Rattlesnake is a white elephant. CCP should change it into a railboat with six gun hardpoints and change the missile velocity bonus to a hybrid tracking bonus. It's a hybrid of Caldari and Gallente anyway. -- Eventus stultorum magister.
Mazzy Star Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.09 14:59:00 - [22] Quote: Actually, I define the very fact that you're forced to resort to faction gear a form of crippling. But by all means please share an actual setup that uses torps and is on par with the golem. I tend to have issues with it personally, there's always something I have to let out. Didn't CCP just implement changes intended to curtail suicide ganking? I at least remember seeing them announced, heh. And it's not like we're talking Gist XL fits or anything here. Lots of people fly with CN cruise, CN BCU's, etc. and for about that same cost, you can fit a sufficient tank on a torp CNR. The golem can fit a stronger tank, sure, but stronger tanks won't get your through missions any faster, and so I never really saw the point. Still, it's more costly to fit a CNR this way than it is to throw a full t2 fit on a Golem, although the cost is not all that bad. ________________________________________________________
Tanith YarnDemon	Posted - 2008.09.09 15:39:00 - [23] Originally by: Mazzy Star Didn't CCP just implement changes intended to curtail suicide ganking? I at least remember seeing them announced, heh. And it's not like we're talking Gist XL fits or anything here. Lots of people fly with CN cruise, CN BCU's, etc. and for about that same cost, you can fit a sufficient tank on a torp CNR. The golem can fit a stronger tank, sure, but stronger tanks won't get your through missions any faster, and so I never really saw the point. Still, it's more costly to fit a CNR this way than it is to throw a full t2 fit on a Golem, although the cost is not all that bad. They have announced their interest in doing something about it, which most likely will end up in no insurance from it. Which will up the ante, but the difference will sitll be there. But yes, I agree entirely, I'm using a tech 1 named booster as it stands right now, and no intentions of changing that. But as I mentioned, ALL slots can make you do your missions faster, one way or another. Not just the hardpoints, even if they are the most significant. I still have issues getting a CNR build that is as good as the golems, but... then again if you need Energy Grid upgrades 5, AWU 5 and so on to fit the CNR in the first place, why not just try them both out and make up your own personal mind. =)
Kurt Gergard Caldari Custodes Mandati Imperii	Posted - 2008.09.09 16:07:00 - [24] Tanith as far as missioning you slap in isk to get better efficiency. So if you don't use faction bcu's and complex shield boosters for high sec lvl 4 you're cripling yourself cause you loose efficency. As for the torps on golem vs torps on cnr are conserned you just slap a rcu on the cnr (since you have the additional low slot) and can field all the 7 siege launchers t2 x-large shield boosters and other fancy stuff. I realy find slaping some isk and puting on a fitting module better than learning marauders to lvl 5 which is useless outside missioning. Now for the proof about loosing dps. Since the CNR fires more missiles than the golem there is a higher chance that more missiles will be shot down when using the golem than a CNR. Example: the chance to have all the missiles shot down in a golem is 0.25^4 while on a CNR 0.25^7 and that is without factoring the rate of fire. "No plan has ever survived the contact with the enemy" von Moltke
Ruban Spangler Caldari Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse The ENTITY.	Posted - 2008.09.09 16:40:00 - [25] Originally by: Arthur Frayn Originally by: Ruban Spangler Just in the interests of causing trouble have you also considered the Rattlesnake? The Rattlesnake is pretty much a Raven with double the hitpoints and an extra lowslot. Waste of time imo, unless you fit two guns in the remaining highslots. And then you'll run into the split weapon system issue where both will be generally weaker if you split the damage mods. Rattlesnake is a white elephant. CCP should change it into a railboat with six gun hardpoints and change the missile velocity bonus to a hybrid tracking bonus. It's a hybrid of Caldari and Gallente anyway. I don't disagree, but for anyone wanting to passively tank level 4's itÆs a much better (and better looking) proposition than a drake.
Tanith YarnDemon	Posted - 2008.09.09 16:42:00 - [26] Edited by: Tanith YarnDemon on 09/09/2008 16:45:00 Originally by: Kurt Gergard Edited by: Kurt Gergard on 09/09/2008 16:26:41 Tanith as far as missioning you slap in isk to get better efficiency. So if you don't use faction bcu's and complex shield boosters for high sec lvl 4 you're cripling yourself cause you loose efficency. As for the torps on golem vs torps on cnr are conserned you just slap a rcu on the cnr (since you have the additional low slot) and can field all the 7 siege launchers t2 x-large shield boosters and other fancy stuff. I realy find slaping some isk and puting on a fitting module better than learning marauders to lvl 5 which is useless outside missioning. Now for the proof about loosing dps. Since the CNR fires more missiles than the golem there is a higher chance that more missiles will be shot down when using the golem than a CNR. Example: the chance to have all the missiles shot down in a golem is 0.25^4 while on a CNR 0.25^7 and that is without factoring the rate of fire. EDIT: adding a setup: LOW: 3* CN BCU 1* True Sansha PDU 1* True Sansha Capacitor Power Realy MED: 2* Caldari Invu Field 1* Top Named TP 1* Gist B-type X-large Shield Booster 1* CN Shield Boost Amp 1* True Sansha Cap Recharger HIGH: 7* Siege Missle Launchers RIGS: 2* CCC 1* CCC II With hammerheads this setup does 1380 dps with rage torps and tanks for 10 minutes 654 dps which is more than enough with this fire power to blizz every mission. And as you see it is even not that expensive. Actually, a shield booster won't make your missions any faster. Nor will harderners or any other part of the tank - as long as it can hold for all missions without ever stoppign or warping out. This can be done with less modules than you use, and of worse quality. As mentioned above, I'm personally using named modules mostly, and only 6 modules total devoted to cap and tank(and this is with the 500 dps a cruise setup offers with poor skills). As for the idea of having all missiles shot down being an argument of them being less vulnerable, it's once again incorrect, mostly because you're on one hand factoring in RoF as being the factor that tips the scale in favour of CNR, but when comparing it for defenders you ignore it. If you flip the coin: Chance of all missiles surviving 0.75^4 for the golem and 0.75^7 for the CNR, then add the added RoF, 0.75^8. So according to this, the CNR is MUCH MUCH more vulnerable than the golem. They're both just statisics and both are horribly poor. Besides, it's not much of an issue when using torps. Oh and about the setup. Yes, it IS that expensive. Not because the initial investment is huge, but because it's expensive enough to attract suiciders. If you read my previous post this is one of the key pros for the Golem, imho.
Kenji Kikuta	Posted - 2008.09.09 16:48:00 - [27] Originally by: Kurt Gergard ... Since the CNR fires more missiles than the golem there is a higher chance that more missiles will be shot down when using the golem than a CNR. Example: the chance to have all the missiles shot down in a golem is 0.25^4 while on a CNR 0.25^7 and that is without factoring the rate of fire. ... I'm more inclined of thinking that npc defender missiles have a RoF in the same way npcs fire other kind of missiles. Thus, if a player can increase his RoF as much as possible it means that on average fewer missiles per cycle will be shot down by defenders. However, since I dont have any proof I cant say this is how it works. But to me this seems as the only logical explanation.
Tanith YarnDemon	Posted - 2008.09.09 16:50:00 - [28] Originally by: Kenji Kikuta Originally by: Kurt Gergard ... Since the CNR fires more missiles than the golem there is a higher chance that more missiles will be shot down when using the golem than a CNR. Example: the chance to have all the missiles shot down in a golem is 0.25^4 while on a CNR 0.25^7 and that is without factoring the rate of fire. ... I'm more inclined of thinking that npc defender missiles have a RoF in the same way npcs fire other kind of missiles. Thus, if a player can increase his RoF as much as possible it means that on average fewer missiles per cycle will be shot down by defenders. However, since I dont have any proof I cant say this is how it works. But to me this seems as the only logical explanation. I'm sorry to say, this is one of those moments where logic has nothign to do with it. You can gather 200 friends all firing missiles on a single NPC, and there will be defenders everywhere. The chance of a defender launching is a static precentage defined in the npc-database, no matter how many missiles are fired.
Kurt Gergard Caldari Custodes Mandati Imperii	Posted - 2008.09.09 17:28:00 - [29] Edited by: Kurt Gergard on 09/09/2008 17:28:33 Originally by: Kenji Kikuta Originally by: Tanith YarnDemon ... The chance of a defender launching is a static precentage defined in the npc-database, no matter how many missiles are fired. ... I am not convicend. Yes, a npc may view each player independetly and thus if many players engage same npc many defender missiles may be fired from the npc. However, I have not observed this nor has anyone showed me any data that this is the case. More importantly, I seriously doubt the npc defender launcher RoF depends on a single player's missile launcher RoF. Ther is a flat chance of 25% that a defender will be launched by NPC for every incoming missile. "No plan has ever survived the contact with the enemy" von Moltke
Azuse Brotherhood of Suicidal Priests Pure.	Posted - 2008.09.09 17:31:00 - [30] Ignore the rails, it's the best ship to mission in if you don't want to pay too much attention simply because it can passive tank any lvl 4, the phone rings or someone turns up at the door you're ship will be fine. On the other hand, it's not that difficult to make a cnr perma boost, about the same cost as the rattle snake if i remember right, so not much point in it really. -------------------------

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.