These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships - Amarr

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
#1821 - 2013-04-24 15:41:57 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Unseen Spectre wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Resistance bonuses are problematic for very clear reasons which Fozzie has done a great job articulating. The ships that field them have a range of power and application and should each be addresses relative to the new changes individually, rather than making oversimplified "amarr is getting weaker" conclusions.

Reply:
While it may be that the resistance bonus may be problematic for the reasons stated (I am not denying this), I think a resistance nerf need to be addressed relto each ship individually including the new changes rather than making an oversimplified blanket nerf.

It is also true that this nerf will mainly hit amarr and caldari ships - hence the conception (for right or wrong) that the Gallente and Minmatar are may be favoured over Amarr and Caldari.

Furthermore, while a reduction of 1 percentage-point per level may seem insignificant it is actually quite significant since this is a 20% reduction of the resistance bonus (a reduction of 1/5), so this is not just a slight nerf - it just is not, no matter how it is presented.

While I am not against a resistance nerf per se, I am against the way it is supposed to be applied because then you assume that all ships can be handled in the same way which I just not think is possible. As I have already stated elsewhere, I think that each ship has to be handled indivudaully when applying this nerf and be (re)balanced accordingly (maybe through some kind of compensation for ships already re-balanced) when the nerf is applied and not long time after.


To be frank... only the moa from the affected ships is not ins STRONG position. Do not know how many woudl really suffer from it...

To be honest, I do not know either - that is why my point is that each affected ship should be examined individually to determine how it may be affected. For some ships the nerf may be ok without further rebalancing while others may need some kind of compensation, but it is difficult to say without at least having considered the impact of the nerf on each ship. I do not think CCP has done this for each ship in relation to the proposed blanket nerf. This is just my opinion though.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1822 - 2013-04-24 15:46:52 UTC
Now, dear Rise, please go on and explain to us why you feel that Amarr being so screwed in regards to cap puts them in a good place? People would rather fit projectiles to our hulls then lasers because of the idiocy of these issues being so glaringly huge. No one uses Beams on our hulls (especially Tachyons, which are our racial equivalent) for cap issues (and PG with Tachyon) when they can instead throw on 1400s and laugh about it.

You Devs have done hardly anything this entire thread but pat us on the head "Yes, we know your there, but as for your concerns and numerous suggestions for possible ways to reasonably address them... here's a tonka toy, go play in the sandbox again, we don't care."

Why not actually address the issues, concerns, and possibly even suggestions we have been posting here for you to go over? Why not go over some details and specifics so we can see where you might possibly think we are so apparently full of ****?

Quite honestly, I'm about to give up, because all you can say is "we know you don't like this, but because we say we do, we know better, bugger off."
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1823 - 2013-04-24 15:50:14 UTC
Geez ! CCP made the same conclusion as I do about amarr in general ! They must be trolling !

And about tachyon : 18% more dps and 40% more tracking at the expense of 10% range versus 425mm railguns is absolutely reasonable edge and deserve only slight increase in PG and cap use regardless of the hull using them...
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1824 - 2013-04-24 15:50:58 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
Now, dear Rise, please go on and explain to us why you feel that Amarr being so screwed in regards to cap puts them in a good place? People would rather fit projectiles to our hulls then lasers because of the idiocy of these issues being so glaringly huge. No one uses Beams on our hulls (especially Tachyons, which are our racial equivalent) for cap issues (and PG with Tachyon) when they can instead throw on 1400s and laugh about it.

You Devs have done hardly anything this entire thread but pat us on the head "Yes, we know your there, but as for your concerns and numerous suggestions for possible ways to reasonably address them... here's a tonka toy, go play in the sandbox again, we don't care."

Why not actually address the issues, concerns, and possibly even suggestions we have been posting here for you to go over? Why not go over some details and specifics so we can see where you might possibly think we are so apparently full of ****?

Quite honestly, I'm about to give up, because all you can say is "we know you don't like this, but because we say we do, we know better, bugger off."



if you throw 1400 on an apoc the one being laughed would be you.... you are throwign away HUGE range and trackign difference and a lot of damage....

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Regolis
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1825 - 2013-04-24 15:53:10 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:

well, once I removed Mega Beams from your list since Tachyon's are the laser equivalent to 425 Rails, you will see that there is still parity, as your Rails still have more Optimal and Falloff, and cost less then 25% for activation cost. I also note that you deliberately left out the CPU and PG statistics, as this would only even more prove that Tachyons are balanced (and in most Laser user's justified opinion, overly so) in regards to 425 rails. Now, if you don't like how your 425 Rails work, then make your own thread for it, don't clutter this thread up which is meant for the Amarr Battleships.



Sorry if you totally misinterpreted the data there Ming. It was meant to show how lasers of Amarr ship classes other than battleship work. IE direct parity with rails. My post was meant to show the how broken beam lasers are across the board. The issue with capacitor isn't just a battleship issue.It goes through all the classes of the Amarr ships because of the insane laser 3x capacitor cost.

Not sure if you guys even caught it but Gallente is the new spoiled child of CCP. All you need to do is look at the last revamp to see it. Amarr cruisers with less cap and less recharge than Gallente ones and still our gun cost more to fire.
Pathogen Ascention
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1826 - 2013-04-24 16:05:43 UTC
I'm not even bothering to quote at this point, and I've started my own little "odyssey" to another class of ships that deal with shields instead. Until something actually goes right with the direction Amarr is going, I guess I'm flying under new colors.

Look, I'm glad you guys from CCP came back to reply to us, but could you enlighten us to why you feel these changes are where you want them? Simply stating that things are where you feel they should be is nice and all, but hard numbers are what we would like for you to back up your statement with. I still feel the Alpha fleets will become even more of an issue thanks to this resist nerf, among other things.

I get that you want to make it more new player friendly, but there has to be something that gives progression while also maintaining balance. Getting into a tier 3 BS was one of the things I strove for as a new player, knowing full well that I wouldn't be worth a damn until ALL of my support skills were up to par as well.

I'm at a loss now for what else I can possibly say, but I'm sure I can come up with something later on today.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1827 - 2013-04-24 16:07:42 UTC
Regolis wrote:
All you need to do is look at the last revamp to see it. Amarr cruisers with less cap and less recharge than Gallente ones and still our gun cost more to fire.

That's completely wrong.

There is ONE gallente ship with more capacitor than amarr ships, and that's the Hyperion. The ship with bonus to armor reper and blasters.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1828 - 2013-04-24 16:09:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagura Nikon
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Regolis wrote:
All you need to do is look at the last revamp to see it. Amarr cruisers with less cap and less recharge than Gallente ones and still our gun cost more to fire.

That's completely wrong.

There is ONE gallente ship with more capacitor than amarr ships, and that's the Hyperion. The ship with bonus to armor reper and blasters.



His point is still valid although.... that is still far less cap usage than 8 tachyons.....

but more and more it seems the hyperion is the absurd ship issue. Too fast, too powerful .. too everything.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#1829 - 2013-04-24 16:15:04 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Closing the gap between new players and old players in some areas is definitely positive. If you notice that EVE gets to a point where you would rather have less ISK and SP let me know, we'll fix it asap..


Armor resistance phasing reduces cycle time of reactive armor hardeners by 10% and reduces their capacitor use by 5%. This will cause that your reactive armor hardener actually spends 25% more cap at skill level V therefor I would like to reset my skill back to level I. This is idiocy and requires change either to this skill or adding of supportive skill that will reduce this capacitor use by 25% at level V.

Please change because I really wish I had not trained this skill over level I.
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#1830 - 2013-04-24 16:25:47 UTC
Meduza13 wrote:

Thank you for your answer. I will never win battle on words with you, you are probably are able to make a fool out of me, no problem (your isk/skills comment). My point is you are closing the gap between new players and old players too much. Ofc augoror has other issues, but it doesnt change a fact that t1 ship shouldnt have any (especially that big) advantages over its t2 equivalent, and armor tanked race shouldnt have less armor slots than others - but sure, it me probably making oversimplified conclusions.


Meduza your view is very narrow. We have huge issue in eve about attracting new players and stick them. Your comparison between repper amount of different ships complete leave out tank, cap lasting, speed.. Auguror has become better yes but those changes has been needed due to t1 logis being utterly useless. And dont forget that capital and t2 balancig hasnt come to pass.

I am not surprised that this comes from anti social person that lives with people that multi box up to 5 accounts. Having no clue what is fair or balanced. Go go pussies.
Regolis
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1831 - 2013-04-24 16:49:15 UTC
You want to see broken hm? Take a look at the Omen and the Thorax ... if you give the Omen the same treatment you just gave battleships (IE remove the -10% cap per level) How broken does that ship become?

This is what I'm talking about ... across the board beam lasers are broken. Yes the guns work. Yes they fit on the ship. No they are not "better".
The balance point looks like this. Beam have slightly less range, 50% more tracking, and higher fitting costs.
All I want to know is does CCP consider 50% more tracking worth 3x the power cost and ships with crippled capacitors.
Because THAT is the real question.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1832 - 2013-04-24 17:28:22 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
CCP Rise wrote:
After our last round of reviews we still feel that Amarr is likely in the best place it can be for Odyssey.

Then the only conclusion I can draw is that you didn't actually read the thread.

We've pointed out in detail in several areas of this thread why we believe there are serious problems with what you're doing, but instead of addressing them you simply come back and say "screw you, we believe we're right anyway."

So either you didn't read them or you just don't care about what we have to say anymore, because if you did we'd actually be talking about it. That seems to be impossible at this point.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#1833 - 2013-04-24 17:34:55 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
After our last round of reviews we still feel that Amarr is likely in the best place it can be for Odyssey.

Then the only conclusion I can draw is that you didn't actually read the thread.

We've pointed out in detail in several areas of this thread why we believe there are serious problems with what you're doing, but instead of addressing them you simply come back and say "screw you, we believe we're right anyway."

So either you didn't read them or you just don't care about what we have to say anymore, because if you did we'd actually be talking about it. That seems to be impossible at this point.


Just in, Kill2 is a bad developer.

I guess that's not just in tho, been known for the past few weeks :P
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1834 - 2013-04-24 18:00:18 UTC
Unseen Spectre wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Unseen Spectre wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Resistance bonuses are problematic for very clear reasons which Fozzie has done a great job articulating. The ships that field them have a range of power and application and should each be addresses relative to the new changes individually, rather than making oversimplified "amarr is getting weaker" conclusions.

Reply:
While it may be that the resistance bonus may be problematic for the reasons stated (I am not denying this), I think a resistance nerf need to be addressed relto each ship individually including the new changes rather than making an oversimplified blanket nerf.

It is also true that this nerf will mainly hit amarr and caldari ships - hence the conception (for right or wrong) that the Gallente and Minmatar are may be favoured over Amarr and Caldari.

Furthermore, while a reduction of 1 percentage-point per level may seem insignificant it is actually quite significant since this is a 20% reduction of the resistance bonus (a reduction of 1/5), so this is not just a slight nerf - it just is not, no matter how it is presented.

While I am not against a resistance nerf per se, I am against the way it is supposed to be applied because then you assume that all ships can be handled in the same way which I just not think is possible. As I have already stated elsewhere, I think that each ship has to be handled indivudaully when applying this nerf and be (re)balanced accordingly (maybe through some kind of compensation for ships already re-balanced) when the nerf is applied and not long time after.


To be frank... only the moa from the affected ships is not ins STRONG position. Do not know how many woudl really suffer from it...

To be honest, I do not know either - that is why my point is that each affected ship should be examined individually to determine how it may be affected. For some ships the nerf may be ok without further rebalancing while others may need some kind of compensation, but it is difficult to say without at least having considered the impact of the nerf on each ship. I do not think CCP has done this for each ship in relation to the proposed blanket nerf. This is just my opinion though.

I think you need to re-read his post. One of his main points was that the ships hit by the resistance nerft will need individual tweaks to ensure they remain viable.

The effectiveness of resistance bonuses HAD to have an overall nerf done, across the board... it was too powerful a bonus in it's old (5%) form. Play testing which is underway now will reveal which ships (if any) need tweaks in other area's to keep them in a happy place. Those tweak will not be to their resistance bonus percentage, but in other area's that will enhance their roles.

This is both logical and necessary.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1835 - 2013-04-24 18:01:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Bouh Revetoile
Regolis wrote:
You want to see broken hm? Take a look at the Omen and the Thorax ... if you give the Omen the same treatment you just gave battleships (IE remove the -10% cap per level) How broken does that ship become?

This is what I'm talking about ... across the board beam lasers are broken. Yes the guns work. Yes they fit on the ship. No they are not "better".
The balance point looks like this. Beam have slightly less range, 50% more tracking, and higher fitting costs.
All I want to know is does CCP consider 50% more tracking worth 3x the power cost and ships with crippled capacitors.
Because THAT is the real question.


The real question is what to do with beams vs railguns. Beams are sandwiched between scorch and railguns. That's the origin of the problem.

Though, to solve it, we need an idea about what to do with one or the other. On one hand, making beams a good medium range weapon, as it is with high short range dps and high tracking make them a longer range pulse, and amarr don't really have a use for this, because of scorch. On the other hand, giving this role to railguns would mean remove the orignal taste of railguns : dps at long range. The only idea I see is to give beams even more tracking, despite the scorch problem which could be compensated by the longer potential range of beams. That would make them a highly versatile long range weapon. I don't have any other idea.
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#1836 - 2013-04-24 18:15:52 UTC
It wouldn't be the first time Amarr have had to give up a ship class. You're essentially left with the Abaddon for large fleets with rep and cap transfer support, the Apoc for the odd sniperfun but generally overlooked in action, and now the Geddon will be the non-pirate cross trained powerhouse for small brawls.

A year from now, their metrics will prove the points of it. And instead of fixing the cap regen, or addressing lasers, they'll do something 'interesting' and we'll get another rate of fire bonus, or they'll drop a 'repair cycle time' reduction that hurts us worse.

This is par for the course, believe it or not. Luckily, our battlecruisers are the ****.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
#1837 - 2013-04-24 18:32:07 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Unseen Spectre wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Unseen Spectre wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Resistance bonuses are problematic for very clear reasons which Fozzie has done a great job articulating. The ships that field them have a range of power and application and should each be addresses relative to the new changes individually, rather than making oversimplified "amarr is getting weaker" conclusions.

Reply:
While it may be that the resistance bonus may be problematic for the reasons stated (I am not denying this), I think a resistance nerf need to be addressed relto each ship individually including the new changes rather than making an oversimplified blanket nerf.

It is also true that this nerf will mainly hit amarr and caldari ships - hence the conception (for right or wrong) that the Gallente and Minmatar are may be favoured over Amarr and Caldari.

Furthermore, while a reduction of 1 percentage-point per level may seem insignificant it is actually quite significant since this is a 20% reduction of the resistance bonus (a reduction of 1/5), so this is not just a slight nerf - it just is not, no matter how it is presented.

While I am not against a resistance nerf per se, I am against the way it is supposed to be applied because then you assume that all ships can be handled in the same way which I just not think is possible. As I have already stated elsewhere, I think that each ship has to be handled indivudaully when applying this nerf and be (re)balanced accordingly (maybe through some kind of compensation for ships already re-balanced) when the nerf is applied and not long time after.


To be frank... only the moa from the affected ships is not ins STRONG position. Do not know how many woudl really suffer from it...

To be honest, I do not know either - that is why my point is that each affected ship should be examined individually to determine how it may be affected. For some ships the nerf may be ok without further rebalancing while others may need some kind of compensation, but it is difficult to say without at least having considered the impact of the nerf on each ship. I do not think CCP has done this for each ship in relation to the proposed blanket nerf. This is just my opinion though.

I think you need to re-read his post. One of his main points was that the ships hit by the resistance nerft will need individual tweaks to ensure they remain viable.

The effectiveness of resistance bonuses HAD to have an overall nerf done, across the board... it was too powerful a bonus in it's old (5%) form. Play testing which is underway now will reveal which ships (if any) need tweaks in other area's to keep them in a happy place. Those tweak will not be to their resistance bonus percentage, but in other area's that will enhance their roles.

This is both logical and necessary.


I may easily have missed something since the thread is rather long. If they are balancing the ships hit by the resistance nerf then I think it is going in the right direction - that was just not the way I understood it.

However, this still makes me think that they did not make the rebalancing of the already rebalanced ships properly in the first place then, because if the rebalancing was done properly in the first place there would be no need to rebalance them again now. But anyway, that is just my opinion - we must wait and see what they come up with and live with it.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1838 - 2013-04-24 19:21:01 UTC
Well, I get the impression when the balancing initiative started they were a little bit on the fence about how to handle the resistance bonus. Now that they are set on a course of action a polishing pass (which we have seen done) for any necessary minor tweaking that will need to be done as a result should not be a huge deal (possibly in a point release).

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
#1839 - 2013-04-24 19:37:03 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Well, I get the impression when the balancing initiative started they were a little bit on the fence about how to handle the resistance bonus. Now that they are set on a course of action a polishing pass (which we have seen done) for any necessary minor tweaking that will need to be done as a result should not be a huge deal (possibly in a point release).


Well, you may be right. However, in all fairness , I think that changes to the resistance and possible tweaks to the individual ships should take place at the same time, rather than doing the nerfs first and the tweaks in a later expansion. I would rather see the job done the first time rather than have to wait for yet another rebalancing pass - get the problem solved now rather than later. Then they can focus on another group of ships.
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#1840 - 2013-04-24 19:42:36 UTC
Unseen Spectre wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Well, I get the impression when the balancing initiative started they were a little bit on the fence about how to handle the resistance bonus. Now that they are set on a course of action a polishing pass (which we have seen done) for any necessary minor tweaking that will need to be done as a result should not be a huge deal (possibly in a point release).


Well, you may be right. However, in all fairness , I think that changes to the resistance and possible tweaks to the individual ships should take place at the same time, rather than doing the nerfs first and the tweaks in a later expansion. I would rather see the job done the first time rather than have to wait for yet another rebalancing pass - get the problem solved now rather than later. Then they can focus on another group of ships.


I hate defending devs, but this is one of those things that just doesn't work. We'd love to see them rebalance and tweak all at once. And no doubt some tweaking will be done.

But from a developer standpoint, especially when they have to rely so hard on either their own limited personal experience (this is a full-time job, that is) or metrics, it's smarter to wait until it can be really tested.

And 100 peeps who are looking for a way to make their own ships better isn't the testing they need. They need to see that the ship didn't win a single pvp bout in over three months. They need to see that the ship is being deployed in every engagement in droves. They need to see what people aren't saying, because lets face it ...

We're EvE players. Lying is part of why we're here.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?