These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tub Chil
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#941 - 2013-04-12 07:42:34 UTC
Armageddon MUST have 8 lows
it is ridiculous that megathron gets 8 low slots and geddon just 7
Gordon Esil
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#942 - 2013-04-12 07:44:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Gordon Esil
Naomi Anthar wrote:
LOL , stop complaining awesome changes. I wasn't playing much as of late, i was very busy but i found some time to check what is new. Well ...... all i can say is stfu. New Augoror Navy issue- no cap usage bonus. CCP +100000000000 points. New Omen Navy Issue - no cap bonus , CCP +45646456456456456456 points. Harbinger Navy Issue - no cap bonus ... This is awesome. Rebalanced Battleships - no cap bonuses. I couldn't believe in this all awesomness. But i do now.

I know Amarr ships are cap hungry and this will make problems even bigger BUT ... but finnaly we don't have bonus that was FORCED onto us. FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME WE CAN DECIDE ... yes we can decide IF AND HOW we can deal with this problem. Some people may want to rig for less cap usage, some may fit cap booster etc. AND SOME MAY ignore it as it is. Yes exactly that's what you hear is absolutely true. Because you know some people did fly Abaddon even tho it got no cap bonuses, some people did fly Slicer- tho it got no cap bonuses. "Fly" - ok i'm liar - those ships were extremly popular. BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY HAD BONUSES.

With all honesty i can say that Amarr is finally getting good treatment. Keep it up CCP.

Did you ever got your pod inside any of the 3 battleships that are about to get killed?

Abaddon DOES get capped out from the GUNS only, you just sit there shoot something no mods/no tank running and you WILL get capped out VERY FAST

Quote:
some may fit cap booster etc.

Correction: EVERY SINGLE ONE WILL BE FORCED TO FIT CAP BOOSTERS AS STATIC REQUIREMENT TO HIS AMARR BATTLESHIP

We were living OK with the ships currently, our Abaddon pilots made the life of the Guardian pilots as hell by whining for them for cap every second, now they will make them commit suicide by whining for cap AND repairs every half a second because of the reduced resists on the ship and not making up for that with an 8th low slot

That goes for the remaining 2 battleships with the bonus change on Apocalypse (basically it is now faster Abaddon from cap pov)
People have been flying Armageddon for 10 years as a DPS ship and it was THE BEST, simply changing that into Neudromissageddon is something not exactly good thing, and you tell us "You are happy that Amarr is finally getting good treatment" but in fact they are getting the Amarr BS line F'ed and I can only imagine who will be happy about that only who have never flown an Amarr BS or a troll (AND IT SEEMS THAT YOU SIR ARE BOTH OF THEM SO GO FLY WHATEVER OTHER RACE YOU ARE FLYING AND KEEP THE GLORY OF THE AMARR SHIPS TO WHO REALLY ADMIRES THEM)

Obviously you are not fully aware of the Amarr BS line and you need to spend sometime with it first then tell us to STFU

Quote:
I know Amarr ships are cap hungry and this will make problems even bigger BUT

So you know but you did not "try" there is an insane difference between "I know" and "I flown Amarr ships and they are cap hungry"
And there is NO "but", there is no adaptation because we are already adapted to this currently, if we are asked to "adapt" more then basically we will not fly Amarr ships at all, and that is no way to happen because we fly Amarr ships because we DO WANT TO fly them not any other race (I don't want to fly yellow Dominix for the geddon case) I hate drones and if I wanted to love drones I would go fly the real greenish Dominix

Someone who flies Armageddon, has ZERO (or low) drones skills (as Amarr are not drones race) suddenly finds himself with a useless ship, and in order to make it useful again he need to spend 2+ weeks training for drones, 1 week training for neuts, 1 week training for missiles
I don't see how this is good for current AMARR battleships pilots

- - - -

Please don't talk about cruisers and specially navy cruisers while we are talking about T1 battleships
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#943 - 2013-04-12 08:14:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Veshta Yoshida
The Marauderification (low count, high bonus) of normal hulls is not really viable unless it is done for all, as it would mean new artwork and trying to explain to a newcomer that the -3 total slot count really doesn't mean anything. Then you have differences in ammo consumption and fitting cost which you just know will be wailed about by nitpickers ..

I have gotten to terms with the drone line (Dragoon-Prophecy-Armageddon), although I would like the Omen to be included there since the NOmen is being taken in a completely different direction .. and well the explanation that it gives a clear progression for new pilots falls flat when you jump from Dessie to BC.

Three problems remaining for me is cap issues which are currently only solved by forced fitting of an injector (mandatory mods = bad!) and the rather more serious transgression of Amarr no longer having the most lows .. Mega can of course keep its god config, but if so then one of the golden ones must be retooled to have the equal number.
Last issue for me is active tanking with +4% falls behind the rep amount bonus (quite quickly on smaller hulls) considering the general slot layouts on hulls involved, which pigeon holes Amarr resist hulls into buffer fits .. forcing decisions is bad (same complaint I have with the NOmen revamp).

All but the low-slot transgression can be solved by introducing racial distinction through bonuses on all ships (needed since they are removed everywhere else!), examples:
Amarr could get double benefit from batteries.
Minmatar could get added effect of everything projected (they do like to swarm after all).
Caldari a cap/range/fitting bonus to all eWar. Not effect/power, that will hopefully remain racially determined but they are the electronics savvy so anything else goes as far as I am concerned.
Gallente can have a static bonus to drones (auto-repair in space perhaps) or a cap/fitting bonus to armour reps as they are now by design apparently to be the sole inhabitants of that niche.

Or CCP can just increase cap on Apoc/Abad to useful levels. Geddon is good as is, should require assis or injector if neuting and has capless weapon option so a non issue for it.

In short: A few kinks to iron out, cap (addresses active option as well) and low-slot primarily, otherwise they look good. Do want something to be done to set the races apart, one should not be able to find the best tool for a job without having to stray outside a given line-up.
Ayla Illat
Doomheim
#944 - 2013-04-12 09:02:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Ayla Illat
You know what? I'm really liking the changes brought forward by the tiericide initiative. Absolutely thrilled to see the changes proposed to the Armageddon and I'll tell you why:

Arrow Armageddon

  • Nearly all Amarr ships follow the same straightforward ship design: thick, durable armor combined with lasers as weapon of choice. As a strictly Amarrian pilot this is generally something I embrace. However, over the years many more ships have been added to the game and Amarr was getting behind in terms of flexibility. I feel the revamped Armageddon brings much needed variety to the table.


  • Use of drones + missile launchers creates the possibility to vary damage types (increasing its usefulness for PvE due to not being limited to EM/thermal damage). It's also a logical step up the ladder from dragoon > arbitrator > prophecy.


  • It makes sense to have multiple ships dedicated to energy draining: capacitor warfare is an Amarrian trademark after all. A neuting amount bonus would be pretty overkill, I feel the Armageddon is perfectly balanced the way it is now. I believe faction ships will be looked at in the near future as well. Perhaps the Bhaalgorn might receive a slight change (minor range increase?) to better reflect its price tag.


  • Also for the people who are sad to see the old Armageddon go: keep in mind faction ships will undergo rebalance as well. It's unlikely the changes will carry over to the navy Geddon seeing as we already have the Bhaalgorn, Curse, Pilgrim and plenty of other drone boats in the Amarr ship line. Who knows, we might see a return of the old Geddon, improved and upgraded to fit the 'faction' label.


Arrow Abaddon

  • Not much to say about this one really, because not much has changed. Numerous people have complained about the lack of an eighth low slot. If anything I'd rather swap out a mid slot than a high in exchange for an extra low. Doubt that's going to happen though, overall I think the Abaddon is fine.


Arrow Apocalypse

*snip* Oh well, looks like I'll be waiting till public testing goes live to see how this one turns out. Let's see what can be done with the increased powergrid and tracking bonus. Twisted


Hope you and CCP Fozzie are still reading through the comments from the player base. You guys have done a great job so far and I'm very much looking forward to the Odyssey expansion!
Ayla Crenshaw
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#945 - 2013-04-12 09:08:07 UTC
Gordon Esil wrote:
Mr Hyde113 wrote:

Amarr?

Initial post is the worst of all proposed changes

25 Pages of complaints (mostly)

CCP Rise posts that he is reading them, but isn't changing anything.

He REDUCES the REDUCTION of the Apocs cap to 'solve' our complaint of the Apoc's cap Roll

45 pages....still nothing substantial, especially concerning the Geddon.

I'm just going to keep posting until we get actual revisions. Evil

+100000
Me neither I cannot get how revising/taking community input works
NONE OF THE ADDRESSED CONCERNS WERE EVEN TOUCHED IN THE LAST MESS UP (aka: revision)


Amarr pilots are an abused minority, we couldn't even get enough clamor up like the Gallente to catch the devs' attantion.

To be honest I'd rather have no reply at all from CCP Rise at all instead of what he did - then I could delude myslef into thinking they are still debating what to do.

Naomi Anthar wrote:
LOL , stop complaining awesome changes. I wasn't playing much as of late, i was very busy but i found some time to check what is new. Well ...... all i can say is stfu. New Augoror Navy issue- no cap usage bonus. CCP +100000000000 points. New Omen Navy Issue - no cap bonus , CCP +45646456456456456456 points. Harbinger Navy Issue - no cap bonus ... This is awesome. Rebalanced Battleships - no cap bonuses. I couldn't believe in this all awesomness. But i do now.

I know Amarr ships are cap hungry and this will make problems even bigger BUT ... but finnaly we don't have bonus that was FORCED onto us. FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME WE CAN DECIDE ... yes we can decide IF AND HOW we can deal with this problem. Some people may want to rig for less cap usage, some may fit cap booster etc. AND SOME MAY ignore it as it is. Yes exactly that's what you hear is absolutely true. Because you know some people did fly Abaddon even tho it got no cap bonuses, some people did fly Slicer- tho it got no cap bonuses. "Fly" - ok i'm liar - those ships were extremly popular. BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY HAD BONUSES.

With all honesty i can say that Amarr is finally getting good treatment. Keep it up CCP.


And here's a prime example of what I was talking about. A troll that probably never flown an Amarr ship in their life.

If he did, he'd know how serious cap issues are for most Amarr ships.

The cap use bonus should be as powerful as a normal bonus on any other weapons system - that is, lasers as a weapon group should be that much more powerful than other systems. Whether they are or not is a discussion for another topic though; the basic here is that Amarr ships need it to even fire their guns properly with how things stand.
Ryan Easte
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#946 - 2013-04-12 09:12:46 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
@ CCP Rise

"Ok, I've been giving a lot of thought lately to the issues quite a few people have expressed about lower skilled / newer players not having a good BS for them to get into without some rather intensive training... as well as my general agreement with I rather don't like that the Amarr do not currently have a T1 8 L slot BS.

So, I would like to suggest this idea, instead. On the Abaddon, remove 2 high slots (yes, remove 2 turrets, and do not give it any utility slots), raise it's damage bonus from 5% to 10% per level, and slap on that 8th low slot. This would allow it to keep the same base DPS, yet give it a means of reducing cap draw that would fit changes done to previous hulls, and allow it an extra slot to work with when fitting tank to help it stay the tankiest of armor ships yet not be something so noticeably powerful in PvP as the old resist boost."




^ I agree with Pelea, This sounds like a balanced and reasonable solution for this ship, please please consider it!
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#947 - 2013-04-12 09:19:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
Tub Chil wrote:
Armageddon MUST have 8 lows
it is ridiculous that megathron gets 8 low slots and geddon just 7
I think it should, but as a pure laser gunboat.

'gankageddon'

THAT is the pedigree, or flavour as CCP Rise puts it, that has been built up over the last 10 years, not some basterdised version of the Dominix.


Edit:

The more I think about it, the more I'd still like to see the rationale for going from, only 5 months back in Ytterbium's blog:

"Battleships are mostly fine, Hyperion and Raven need some work, Typhoon is going to be a missile boat, Megathron is going to be a bit faster but still flexible"

to

"Lets rip up the paper and start over"

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Ayla Crenshaw
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#948 - 2013-04-12 09:41:23 UTC
Ryan Easte wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
@ CCP Rise

"Ok, I've been giving a lot of thought lately to the issues quite a few people have expressed about lower skilled / newer players not having a good BS for them to get into without some rather intensive training... as well as my general agreement with I rather don't like that the Amarr do not currently have a T1 8 L slot BS.

So, I would like to suggest this idea, instead. On the Abaddon, remove 2 high slots (yes, remove 2 turrets, and do not give it any utility slots), raise it's damage bonus from 5% to 10% per level, and slap on that 8th low slot. This would allow it to keep the same base DPS, yet give it a means of reducing cap draw that would fit changes done to previous hulls, and allow it an extra slot to work with when fitting tank to help it stay the tankiest of armor ships yet not be something so noticeably powerful in PvP as the old resist boost."




^ I agree with Pelea, This sounds like a balanced and reasonable solution for this ship, please please consider it!


Loss of one effective turret from this change is balanced out by a lowslot, reduction in cap use and fitting requirements. It might even fit tachyons without half a dozen fitting mods and rigs!

As an added bonus, hacking off 2 turrets from abaddon can be done without murdering it's model too much - just take one off from each end of the row of 8)
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#949 - 2013-04-12 09:44:52 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
Tub Chil wrote:
Armageddon MUST have 8 lows
it is ridiculous that megathron gets 8 low slots and geddon just 7
I think it should, but as a pure laser gunboat.

'gankageddon'

THAT is the pedigree, or flavour as CCP Rise puts it, that has been built up over the last 10 years, not some basterdised version of the Dominix.

NOmen differs considerably from the Omen so it stands to reason that the NArma will differ greatly from the Arma.

Further reasoning:
The removal of laser cap bonus on so many hulls indicates that a vision/change of lasers has already been decided upon.
The addition of tracking to an Amarr hull (Dessies has uniform bonuses so excluded), non-eWar platform drone hulls and Gallente having more lows indicates that the paradigms of old have been discarded.

Conclusion: NArmageddon will have +5% damage/level and +7.5% tracking/level with a full 125m3 worth of drones with 50-75m3 spare with either 5 mids (hope springs eternal!) or the full 8 lows .. there is your gankageddon.

Still miffed about the minute pigeon hole they stuffed my poor NOmen into, but I can live with it .. where there is a will.
Kraschyn Thek'athor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#950 - 2013-04-12 09:51:17 UTC
Has someone calculated how long the new Armageddon could use one and two Large Neutralizer?
Also how long one Neut with Cap Transferchain to an other Geddon.

If this numbers don't work out, the change is redundant.
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#951 - 2013-04-12 09:58:39 UTC
Hi guys

So I've been catching up on the thread a little this morning. I think you all deserve some comment at least, so here you go!

For those of you still concerned about the cap issues that Amarr will now face with both of its turret based options: we hear you. We are really caught here because a significant number of players find the cap bonus less exciting than a bonus like tracking. That said, its a really important bonus because of what it allows laser ships to do. We've been talking with the CSM, watching this thread, and doing experimenting of our own with the new ships internally to try and figure out how much of a problem it is. So far, we remain convinced that you will enjoy the Apoc more, on average, without the cap bonus. We want to let it go to public testing this way and then adjust off feedback at that point if there's major problems.

For those of you concerned about the idea that Gallente got revisions because they asked, and Amarr are not, I urge you to see the two as in completely different situations. The first set of Gallente ships were not just controversial or "off race", they were a broad disappointment. Once people began to point out that they simply fell short, we looked at them and tended to agree, so we were happy to go back and work on them some more. Amarr is in a different place where its not that they are simple "bad" ships, more that there is a lot of disagreement about how this race line should be structured. Thats understandable. We are in a really difficult position of wanting to offer new options for Amarr pilots, despite them having 2 iconic ships and one fleet staple. That means no matter where we go (for instance if the Apoc had become the drone ship) someone is going to be unhappy.

We, along with many players, feel that this an exciting direction for Amarr. I would ask that you guys accept this draft as more or less set, and then help us out with testing once these go to a public server.

I do appreciate your feedback and promise that its not falling on deaf ears.

@ccp_rise
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#952 - 2013-04-12 10:02:49 UTC
Hi Rise,

With the upsurge in neuts this is going to bring are you guys planning on releasing XL cap batteries anytime soon?

http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/item.php?type_id=3472

Been hidden away in the background for years (as long as I can remember in fact) but never made it into game.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Hulasikaly Wada
DO.IT
I.N.D.E.P.E.N.D.E.N.T
#953 - 2013-04-12 10:18:38 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hi guys

So I've been catching up on the thread a little this morning. I think you all deserve some comment at least, so here you go!

For those of you still concerned about the cap issues that Amarr will now face with both of its turret based options: we hear you. We are really caught here because a significant number of players find the cap bonus less exciting than a bonus like tracking. That said, its a really important bonus because of what it allows laser ships to do. We've been talking with the CSM, watching this thread, and doing experimenting of our own with the new ships internally to try and figure out how much of a problem it is. So far, we remain convinced that you will enjoy the Apoc more, on average, without the cap bonus. We want to let it go to public testing this way and then adjust off feedback at that point if there's major problems.

For those of you concerned about the idea that Gallente got revisions because they asked, and Amarr are not, I urge you to see the two as in completely different situations. The first set of Gallente ships were not just controversial or "off race", they were a broad disappointment. Once people began to point out that they simply fell short, we looked at them and tended to agree, so we were happy to go back and work on them some more. Amarr is in a different place where its not that they are simple "bad" ships, more that there is a lot of disagreement about how this race line should be structured. Thats understandable. We are in a really difficult position of wanting to offer new options for Amarr pilots, despite them having 2 iconic ships and one fleet staple. That means no matter where we go (for instance if the Apoc had become the drone ship) someone is going to be unhappy.

We, along with many players, feel that this an exciting direction for Amarr. I would ask that you guys accept this draft as more or less set, and then help us out with testing once these go to a public server.

I do appreciate your feedback and promise that its not falling on deaf ears.


Basically.. as Gallente was before those suggestions ... if you want to pvE go train drones ... telling this to an Amarr


Hula
Jezza McWaffle
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#954 - 2013-04-12 10:21:22 UTC
So your ignoring the cap issue? Great.

Wormholes worst badass | Checkout my Wormhole blog
Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#955 - 2013-04-12 10:22:13 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hi guys

So I've been catching up on the thread a little this morning. I think you all deserve some comment at least, so here you go!

For those of you still concerned about the cap issues that Amarr will now face with both of its turret based options: we hear you. We are really caught here because a significant number of players find the cap bonus less exciting than a bonus like tracking. That said, its a really important bonus because of what it allows laser ships to do. We've been talking with the CSM, watching this thread, and doing experimenting of our own with the new ships internally to try and figure out how much of a problem it is. So far, we remain convinced that you will enjoy the Apoc more, on average, without the cap bonus. We want to let it go to public testing this way and then adjust off feedback at that point if there's major problems.

For those of you concerned about the idea that Gallente got revisions because they asked, and Amarr are not, I urge you to see the two as in completely different situations. The first set of Gallente ships were not just controversial or "off race", they were a broad disappointment. Once people began to point out that they simply fell short, we looked at them and tended to agree, so we were happy to go back and work on them some more. Amarr is in a different place where its not that they are simple "bad" ships, more that there is a lot of disagreement about how this race line should be structured. Thats understandable. We are in a really difficult position of wanting to offer new options for Amarr pilots, despite them having 2 iconic ships and one fleet staple. That means no matter where we go (for instance if the Apoc had become the drone ship) someone is going to be unhappy.

We, along with many players, feel that this an exciting direction for Amarr. I would ask that you guys accept this draft as more or less set, and then help us out with testing once these go to a public server.

I do appreciate your feedback and promise that its not falling on deaf ears.


Thank you for your work CCP Rise!
May I know what do you think of the 6 turret + 7.5/level damage plan, for Abaddon or Apoc?
Gordon Esil
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#956 - 2013-04-12 10:32:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Gordon Esil
CCP Rise wrote:
Hi guys

So I've been catching up on the thread a little this morning. I think you all deserve some comment at least, so here you go!

For those of you still concerned about the cap issues that Amarr will now face with both of its turret based options: we hear you. We are really caught here because a significant number of players find the cap bonus less exciting than a bonus like tracking. That said, its a really important bonus because of what it allows laser ships to do. We've been talking with the CSM, watching this thread, and doing experimenting of our own with the new ships internally to try and figure out how much of a problem it is. So far, we remain convinced that you will enjoy the Apoc more, on average, without the cap bonus. We want to let it go to public testing this way and then adjust off feedback at that point if there's major problems.

For those of you concerned about the idea that Gallente got revisions because they asked, and Amarr are not, I urge you to see the two as in completely different situations. The first set of Gallente ships were not just controversial or "off race", they were a broad disappointment. Once people began to point out that they simply fell short, we looked at them and tended to agree, so we were happy to go back and work on them some more. Amarr is in a different place where its not that they are simple "bad" ships, more that there is a lot of disagreement about how this race line should be structured. Thats understandable. We are in a really difficult position of wanting to offer new options for Amarr pilots, despite them having 2 iconic ships and one fleet staple. That means no matter where we go (for instance if the Apoc had become the drone ship) someone is going to be unhappy.

We, along with many players, feel that this an exciting direction for Amarr. I would ask that you guys accept this draft as more or less set, and then help us out with testing once these go to a public server.

I do appreciate your feedback and promise that its not falling on deaf ears.

So basically what I understood is you are telling us to STFU and watch Amarr race ships get nerfed one by one because the nerfs will be done are "not off race" and you want to "structure" a laser race on drones and less cap ships

Correct me if I'm wrong

What we are asking is not different from what people asked for Gallente ships, which is keep the race ships on its base track philosophy and don't screw up the Amarr philosophy of armor tank/laser platforms
This will lead me to another point you said, the exciting direction to Amarr ships will be "exciting" when we see the ships maintain their role, nerfing their ability to armor tank or to be able to fire their guns because they got capped out or completely changing a ship's role is not something exciting for the Amarr ships

If you want to get some satisfaction from the people who complain here, then DO something at least for the real problems they addressed, get a low slot on the Abaddon, get rid of that useless tracking bonus on the Apocalypse, and leave that Armageddon alone (or keep it a drone boat while bonusing the lasers with cap and damage)
Ayla Crenshaw
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#957 - 2013-04-12 10:32:28 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hi guys

So I've been catching up on the thread a little this morning. I think you all deserve some comment at least, so here you go!

For those of you still concerned about the cap issues that Amarr will now face with both of its turret based options: we hear you. We are really caught here because a significant number of players find the cap bonus less exciting than a bonus like tracking. That said, its a really important bonus because of what it allows laser ships to do. We've been talking with the CSM, watching this thread, and doing experimenting of our own with the new ships internally to try and figure out how much of a problem it is. So far, we remain convinced that you will enjoy the Apoc more, on average, without the cap bonus. We want to let it go to public testing this way and then adjust off feedback at that point if there's major problems.

For those of you concerned about the idea that Gallente got revisions because they asked, and Amarr are not, I urge you to see the two as in completely different situations. The first set of Gallente ships were not just controversial or "off race", they were a broad disappointment. Once people began to point out that they simply fell short, we looked at them and tended to agree, so we were happy to go back and work on them some more. Amarr is in a different place where its not that they are simple "bad" ships, more that there is a lot of disagreement about how this race line should be structured. Thats understandable. We are in a really difficult position of wanting to offer new options for Amarr pilots, despite them having 2 iconic ships and one fleet staple. That means no matter where we go (for instance if the Apoc had become the drone ship) someone is going to be unhappy.

We, along with many players, feel that this an exciting direction for Amarr. I would ask that you guys accept this draft as more or less set, and then help us out with testing once these go to a public server.

I do appreciate your feedback and promise that its not falling on deaf ears.


And why, pray tell, is that new "exciting" direction to Amarr even necessary? Why are you making people unhappy at all? Why are you fixing things that work well as they are now? It's not like anything from the Amarr lineup was underutilized (Apoc had it's well deserved place as starter ship for new pilots) or seriously overpowered (Abaddon resists are debatable).

As for the Apoc change. I don't enjoy flying any ship where I have to fit cap boosters to fire my guns without capping out, no matter the hull bonuses. I smell Incarna all over again from your line of argumentation - it's not "EXCITING" now, is it?

Prophecy chage was welcome since nobody used the damn Space Turkey for anything else than bait. It wasn't even a good bait becuase of that! Armageddon was and is heavily used in it's current incarnation - you're basically forcing change for the sake of change to "iconic" and "staple" ships. A brutal, fundamental change, not the tweaks other races received.
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#958 - 2013-04-12 10:33:23 UTC
Quote:
Thank you for your work CCP Rise!
May I know what do you think of the 6 turret + 7.5/level damage plan, for Abaddon or Apoc?


I think the problem with it is that the Abaddon is strong enough already (as proven on TQ) that giving it extra turrets right now would be difficult to justify, and the Apoc doesn't have a damage bonus to use - so doing this for the Apoc would mean reworking it completely around a new damage bonus.

@ccp_rise
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#959 - 2013-04-12 10:35:01 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
Thank you for your work CCP Rise!
May I know what do you think of the 6 turret + 7.5/level damage plan, for Abaddon or Apoc?


I think the problem with it is that the Abaddon is strong enough already (as proven on TQ) that giving it extra turrets right now would be difficult to justify, and the Apoc doesn't have a damage bonus to use - so doing this for the Apoc would mean reworking it completely around a new damage bonus.




damm.. then you can compensate that by giving all those bonuses to tempest :P

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Naomi Anthar
#960 - 2013-04-12 10:37:09 UTC
Problem is fly Amarr ships and only Amarr ships alone. So saying to me that i probably was never flying Amarr ship before means i never flown any ship at all... or maybe just egg. Now let me tell you what i think once again : I think it's good change. That's my oppinion . You are free to to think it's not cool and fight for your cause.

BUT I DO FLY AMARR SHIPS and I DO LIKE THOSE CHANGES.

You may have diffrent oppinion. I said stfu , because you are not talking for everyone. Just like i cannot speak for everyone too. There are people who like those changes. And i'm not the only one.

Maybe you think it;s cool that 99,99% of ships have always same bonus named cap usage - but trust me there enough that don't want this bonus on every ship.