These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#621 - 2013-04-10 13:29:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Tonto Auri
Jack C Hughes wrote:
Tonto Auri wrote:
The only issue so far that I'm concerned with is the buff to native cap regen, that flowing in air. It may make dual-rep tanks very viable. Too much viable.
I'd rather propose a flat role bonus to lasers cap consuption for laser ships, for easier tank balance.


role bonus is not going to work. You are not going to have role bonus to only one race.
What are you going to give to the other 3?
I don't think a race should have no battle ship that could even fit 8 of their largest guns. The other 3 have, not Amarr.
So that is why I support the 6 turret idea, that is a kind of 8 turrets in another way.
Tachs with no cap bonus will eat up cap too fast, compared to others.
And thier pg requirement is just a bit too high.


I'll explain it. Lasers have advantages over other artillery: seemingly endless ammunition, instant ammo swap, relatively short cooldowns. To make up against using lasers on ships not intended to be, their cap consumption is also drastic, partially compensated by the cap consumption bonus. (As it is now, I mean.)
Making a role bonus to work against cap consumption for ship intended to use lasers does not impede other races in any way, but allow for more freedom in balancing other aspects of the ship hulls.
Also, hands off of the 8-turret Apocalypse.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#622 - 2013-04-10 13:32:37 UTC
Tonto Auri wrote:
Jack C Hughes wrote:
Tonto Auri wrote:
The only issue so far that I'm concerned with is the buff to native cap regen, that flowing in air. It may make dual-rep tanks very viable. Too much viable.
I'd rather propose a flat role bonus to lasers cap consuption for laser ships, for easier tank balance.


role bonus is not going to work. You are not going to have role bonus to only one race.
What are you going to give to the other 3?
I don't think a race should have no battle ship that could even fit 8 of their largest guns. The other 3 have, not Amarr.
So that is why I support the 6 turret idea, that is a kind of 8 turrets in another way.
Tachs with no cap bonus will eat up cap too fast, compared to others.
And thier pg requirement is just a bit too high.


I'll explain it. Lasers have advantages over other artillery: seemingly endless ammunition, instant ammo swap, relatively short cooldowns. To make up against using lasers on ships not intended to be, their cap consumption is also drastic, partially compensated by the cap consumption bonus. (As it is now, I mean.)
Making a role bonus to work against cap consumption for ship intended to use lasers does not impede other races in any way, but allow for more freedom in balancing other aspects of the ship hulls.
Also, hands off of the 8-turret Apocalypse.


I am just a bit interested in the last sentence, why must it has 8 turret?
Crash Lander
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#623 - 2013-04-10 13:38:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Crash Lander
CCP Rise wrote:
OP updated for some slight tweaks to the Apocalypse and Armageddon. Cap stability increase for Apoc and a powergrid tweak for the armageddon.



Just give the Apoc its bloody cap bonus back. Who the heck wants tracking bonus when you are shooting pulses at 30-50km. By removing the cap bonus you are nerfing utility slots on this ship for a bonus that will rarely be usable on this ship. I don't want to have to be forced to use a cap booster if I decide to put on a MWD. Again tracking bonus at range with pulse is worthless.
Dentt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#624 - 2013-04-10 13:41:15 UTC
Arline Kley wrote:

Clearly you do not understand the concept of oppressive. It's current abilities are able to be countered successfully. Sticking on Neuts and Drones of Doom will make it Oppressive. Small Fleet fights will be nullified by just a handful of these ships, and larger ones will devolve into "Who can neut the capitals first"

Go back to the drawing board, CCP Rise. You have barely addressed any of the concerns held within this thread and, please do not believe for one minute that you will have that hideous Armageddon getting into the game in the state that you propose.

Or do you want me to actually produce a proper Armageddon design for you?


I also hope that you consider the other issues put into this thread, namely:

- Inability to mount top tier weapons (Tachyon Lasers)
- Reduction of effective capcitor by 50% from the removal of the Laser Cap bonuses
- Removal of the need to have Cap Boosters as a standard fitting (be it actually useful cap sizes or the return of the Laser Cap bonus - Cap regen amount is NOT helpful )
- Removal of the split weapons on the Armageddon

I would post more complaints, but I am currently on my lunch, so my time is limited.


I agree with all of these sentiments. I understand the progression of the drone/neut thing but why push that into BS hulls? makes no sense.
Hulasikaly Wada
DO.IT
I.N.D.E.P.E.N.D.E.N.T
#625 - 2013-04-10 13:41:41 UTC

Amarr ships have to be special with laser

Having ONLY a 5% Xlvl benefit will lead to eresy like a Blaster/Apoc or a Artillery/Abaddon already used past in days


Hula
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#626 - 2013-04-10 13:47:23 UTC
Atomic Option wrote:
After sleeping on it, the simplest statement of the problem with the Apoc change is that:
the new bonus to tracking doesn't synergize well with the optimal bonus.

When do you most need optimal? When you're far away.
When do you most need tracking? When you're closer to an orbiting target.

The cap bonus can synergize with any fit that uses lasers, but the tracking bonus isn't useful in as many situations. If you want to move away from cap bonuses, find something else that synergizes with optimal.

Some alternatives might include damage/level so tachyons at range become as good as pulses have been (since long range pulses are now out and the geddon no longer does high laser dps). A tracking disruption bonus would synergize well for small pvp although in pve it's still not useful. Tracking instead of cap is just a straight nerf to a ship that's not OP.

Actually, from my own experiences flying a Tach fitted Nightmare, that Tracking bonus can come in quite handy. But since we can't realitically fit tachs onto the Apoc, I'll use an example that makes use of Pulse. Both Scorch and Conflag have tracking speed penalties, this bonus will either completely (in the case of Scorch) or mostly (in the case of Conflag) out weigh those so that you can hit targets with too high of an angular velocity.
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#627 - 2013-04-10 13:48:12 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:
Boo to the Armageddon as a drone ship.

I concur.

Quote:
There's too much redundancy here if you make the Arma a drone ship whereas the Dominix is already a drone ship.

There's too much redundancy, if you make 3 laser ships.

Quote:
What would be the point?

There's, as has been said, no stepping stone from Prophecy to Rattlesnake. Missile/Drone boat is ought to happen. But not Armageddon.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#628 - 2013-04-10 13:50:35 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
I just want to say this:

Abaddon - Combat
Apocalypse - Attack
Armageddon - Disruption via Neut/Nos.

However, please actually call the Armageddon a "Disruption" battleship since that's basically what you've got here.

I do agree with this, the new 'Geddon is not an Attack ship, it is, like the Arbitrator, a T1 variant of a Recon ship.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#629 - 2013-04-10 13:52:40 UTC
Kethry Avenger wrote:
So with these changes. Not only will Amarr be the only race that can't use its highest tier tech 2 guns and remain cap stable.

None of these ships can even fit a rack of Tachyons. Which only the Scorpion shares with us, not being able to fit T2 torps.

All other T1 BS can fit the highest tier guns and remain cap stable with the basic high damage ammo, AM, EMP. without any other fittings.

MF makes all the Amarr BS unstable. And we have to use a slot to fix our power grid, and another slot to be able to keep firing.

This is with all level 5 skills btw. Which you know all those new Amarr players get immediately...Roll

The cap instability needs to change at the BS level, either the ammo, guns or hulls. Hopefully without giving us that wasted cap use bonus back.

The powergrid use of the Turrets probably need to be reworked. With all the collective changes to all weapons systems Tachs are not so good that they shouldn't be able to be fit in this age of EVE. ( the only T1 non faction hull that can fit them and other modules, is the Oracle! So a BC can use BS guns but the BS can't fit them?!?!?! )

Eagerly awaiting a constructive reply to this thread by CCP.

^^^^ This, especially the last line.
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#630 - 2013-04-10 13:53:40 UTC
Jack C Hughes wrote:
Also, hands off of the 8-turret Apocalypse.


I am just a bit interested in the last sentence, why must it has 8 turret?[/quote]
Because it is designed to be thatway.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#631 - 2013-04-10 13:54:55 UTC
Asmodai Xodai wrote:
Quote:
One of the excellent mechanics of EVE is that larger ships have damage penalties against smaller ships, dependent on target speed and target signature radius. With energy neutralizers the effect is quite the opposite - not only are absolute neutralization effects the same regardless of target ship, neuts are inordinately effective against targets smaller than yourself.


While I respect your point of view, I have a somewhat different opinion on this than you, and possibly many others.

I was always bothered by strategy games where the player wasn't rewarded for 'teching up.' I would always calculate out the killing efficiency of units, and to my dismay, sometimes game balancers made it so that I was punished for teching up instead of rewarded.

As applied to Eve specifically, I think the balancers may have tilted things too much towards protecting the likes of frigates and cruisers from battleships. I think a battleship *should* be able to swat a frigate or cruiser pretty much as you could swat a fly.

Now, that's not to say that there might not be a penalty or cost for a battleship to attack and destroy a frigate. But I'm not sure the cost should be direct nerfs such as all these targeting and tracking penalties etc. For instance, consider this. What would be the 'overkill cost' for a battleship to blow a frigate out of the sky? I'd say rather high, especially if there are other targets out there where dps could be more efficiently applied (enemy battleships). Another thing is that frigates are almost 'free' when compared to battleships. This amounts to another penalty that battleships incur when attacking frigates - they are essentially wasting time and dps shooting at something that is almost 'free' in cost. There is also a 'swarm' disadvantage. Take any standard battleship, and put it up against it's cost in small frigates. Every time the battleship destroys a frigate, the total dps of the swarm only goes down by a small amount, and it has to kill each and every one. I haven't performed the experiment, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if a battleship's cost in frigates easily takes down the battleship.

The bottom line here is, I consider a BS being able to easily neut out a frigate to be just fine, and this should be 'working as intended.' I also encourage CCP to focus less on artificial nerfs such as tracking and target size, and just let battleships be battleships in all their splendor and glory, and let frigates be frigates.

Actually, assuming no outside intervention, typically it only takes 3 T1 frigs to kill a BS. (used to take a minimum of 5, but all those damage buffs on the hull helped)
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#632 - 2013-04-10 13:56:51 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Neuts are not weapons unless you consider ECM modules, TDs, Sensor Dampeners, Scrams and Webs to be weapons as well.

If you do consider those to be weapons, then I'm just not sure what to say. Weapons are defined as something that directly damages the target. That means reducing HP. Neuts don't do that, they simply disable the tank which then allows your weapons to more effectively reduce HP.

Nobody in EVE was ever killed by just a neut, just a TD, just an ECM module. There was always a turret or launcher or drone involved.

Just to be an ******* and defend CCP Rise's statement that only the Caldari will have an EW T1 BS, Nuet's have to count as a weapon. :)
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#633 - 2013-04-10 13:58:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tonto Auri
Pelea Ming wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
I just want to say this:

Abaddon - Combat
Apocalypse - Attack
Armageddon - Disruption via Neut/Nos.

However, please actually call the Armageddon a "Disruption" battleship since that's basically what you've got here.

I do agree with this, the new 'Geddon is not an Attack ship, it is, like the Arbitrator, a T1 variant of a Recon ship.

Armageddon is a good example of attack ship as it is currently. It just need a few tweaks to be perfect. Move one low to mid, add tracking bonus, resolve cap issues - there, you have it.
Same goes to Apocalypse in combat role. Just a few tweaks here and there, and you get a ship, that is equally feasible for sniping (beams) and mid-range (pulses) combat (similar to Rokh).

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Sparkus Volundar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#634 - 2013-04-10 13:59:17 UTC
CCP Rise (in Gallente BS thread) wrote:

Personally, I think the strength of the [Armageddon] neut bonus is being overestimated somewhat.


Dear CCP Rise,

The problem/peculiarity with adding a Neut range bonus to a T1 BS hull is that it crosses the line between what you could call Tier 1 and Tier 2 E-War. By which I mean, it will grant a T1 ship a bonus that has been the preserve of T2 Recons (well, I could probably say all ships since until EAS are balanced, the Dragoon isn't really directly competing something in the field).

Tier 1 E-War (strength bonuses on T1 and T2 ships to make a ship better in a role):
Amarr: TDs
Caldari: ECM
Gallente: SDs
Minmatar: TPs

Tier 2 E-War (range bonuses on T2/pirate faction ships granting a different role):
Amarr: Neut range
Caldari: (the odd one out although some hulls have ECM range bonuses)
Gallente: Point/Scram range
Minmatar: Web range

The addition of a "Tier 2" E-War to a BS, granting it the Recon-like effect of 38km Neuts, diminishes the value of the related Recon. It also begs the question why other races could not have T1 hulls with their racial Tier 2 E-War (which I think would be a bad idea but crossing a line today makes similar things less unlikely tomorrow).

38 km range is, in particular, rather useful since it should be ample to hamper Logistics (a Guardian with 1 bonused SD on it has a lock range of 37 km)). And in larger fights where a Curse at 38 km may be quite vulnerable, a 38km Neuting BS may be more desirable.

In summary, my personal view is that this is a type of tiercide that shouldn't be started. Now that all T1 ships are becoming useful, T2 need things like special abilities to help them and the value of specialisation stand out. I appreciate that this very good series of rebalancing hasn't reached Recons yet (perhaps the Curse is slated for a greater range bonus)

Suggestions:
1) Dropping the idea of T1 BSs with range-bonused Neuts.
2) Perhaps changing the bonus to a Khanid-style missile ROF or Drone MWD speed bonus.
3) If a Neut range bonus remains popular in CCP, perhaps a softer range bonus and cap use bonus.

Regards,
Sparks

.
Afandi
Otbor Chereshka
#635 - 2013-04-10 14:04:35 UTC
Sparkus Volundar wrote:
CCP Rise (in Gallente BS thread) wrote:

Personally, I think the strength of the [Armageddon] neut bonus is being overestimated somewhat.


Dear CCP Rise,

The problem/peculiarity with adding a Neut range bonus to a T1 BS hull is that it crosses the line between what you could call Tier 1 and Tier 2 E-War. By which I mean, it will grant a T1 ship a bonus that has been the preserve of T2 Recons (well, I could probably say all ships since until EAS are balanced, the Dragoon isn't really directly competing something in the field).

Tier 1 E-War (strength bonuses on T1 and T2 ships to make a ship better in a role):
Amarr: TDs
Caldari: ECM
Gallente: SDs
Minmatar: TPs

Tier 2 E-War (range bonuses on T2/pirate faction ships granting a different role):
Amarr: Neut range
Caldari: (the odd one out although some hulls have ECM range bonuses)
Gallente: Point/Scram range
Minmatar: Web range

The addition of a "Tier 2" E-War to a BS, granting it the Recon-like effect of 38km Neuts, diminishes the value of the related Recon. It also begs the question why other races could not have T1 hulls with their racial Tier 2 E-War (which I think would be a bad idea but crossing a line today makes similar things less unlikely tomorrow).

38 km range is, in particular, rather useful since it should be ample to hamper Logistics (a Guardian with 1 bonused SD on it has a lock range of 37 km)). And in larger fights where a Curse at 38 km may be quite vulnerable, a 38km Neuting BS may be more desirable.

In summary, my personal view is that this is a type of tiercide that shouldn't be started. Now that all T1 ships are becoming useful, T2 need things like special abilities to help them and the value of specialisation stand out. I appreciate that this very good series of rebalancing hasn't reached Recons yet (perhaps the Curse is slated for a greater range bonus)

Suggestions:
1) Dropping the idea of T1 BSs with range-bonused Neuts.
2) Perhaps changing the bonus to a Khanid-style missile ROF or Drone MWD speed bonus.
3) If a Neut range bonus remains popular in CCP, perhaps a softer range bonus and cap use bonus.

Regards,
Sparks


QFT. +2
Crash Lander
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#636 - 2013-04-10 14:08:02 UTC
Atomic Option wrote:
After sleeping on it, the simplest statement of the problem with the Apoc change is that:
the new bonus to tracking doesn't synergize well with the optimal bonus.

When do you most need optimal? When you're far away.
When do you most need tracking? When you're closer to an orbiting target.

The cap bonus can synergize with any fit that uses lasers, but the tracking bonus isn't useful in as many situations. If you want to move away from cap bonuses, find something else that synergizes with optimal.


QFT.
Galmas
United System's Commonwealth
#637 - 2013-04-10 14:08:48 UTC
slept over the armageddon... PLEASE DO NOT DO THAT!!!

this ship will be totally overpowered, a bs that can neut everything dry in no time at 40km range and even shoot at the same range with pretty good sentry dps is insane.

I dont know what scenarios you looked at in regards to such a ship. I think there are already enough tools available to deal with e.g. logistics. You can force them to come close so you can grab them with normal range neuts or you can jam em...


This will be game breaking. Reminds me of area of effect doomsdays.
Rynnik
Evasion Gaming
The Ancients.
#638 - 2013-04-10 14:09:03 UTC
Tonto Auri wrote:
Rynnik wrote:
Amarr Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+7.5% to Large Energy Turret damage and optimal range
+7.5% Large Energy Turret tracking speed (replaced large energy turret cap use)

Fixed the bonuses for a 6 turret Apoc. It brings it in just above the current 8 effective turrets at level 5.

1. It makes the ship 3-bonused. Which is unlikely to happen.
2. Please leave 8-turret Apocalypse alone. It is designed to work that way.


Only if you accept that the Domi is going to be 4-bonused. Which there is a very good reason for based on drones etc and that CCP seems perfectly happy with. So really that isn't an issue

I am not saying this is the best or only solution but at least it is SOME attempt to consolidate the issues of slot repetition for all 3 ships, cap usage, Tach fitting while achieving their tracking/optimal bonused platform intent.
Suicide Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#639 - 2013-04-10 14:09:50 UTC
I think the changes are great, and people complaining over it crossing the line into T2, need to remember T2 ships will be re-balanced themselves in the future.. Let them finish the Tech1 Hulls then when they are onto T2 you can ask for a better balance.
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#640 - 2013-04-10 14:10:22 UTC
Crash Lander wrote:
Atomic Option wrote:
After sleeping on it, the simplest statement of the problem with the Apoc change is that:
the new bonus to tracking doesn't synergize well with the optimal bonus.

When do you most need optimal? When you're far away.
When do you most need tracking? When you're closer to an orbiting target.

The cap bonus can synergize with any fit that uses lasers, but the tracking bonus isn't useful in as many situations. If you want to move away from cap bonuses, find something else that synergizes with optimal.


QFT.

How the hell I missed this post? Care to provide a link? That person deserve a "like".

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison