These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#981 - 2013-04-12 10:57:54 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
I do hope you take another (deep) look at the cap issues though. There are a lot of ways to solve them.


We really have looked at them. Fozzie was running level 4s yesterday easily in a pulse Apoc without sacrificing many slots. Not only can you run them, but you gain a lot of offensive capability because of the tracking bonus and the increased speed and agility.

I think you will find its not a very painful shift - but again, public testing will give us a better idea.



I think people are more worried about tachyons on PVP.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#982 - 2013-04-12 10:59:09 UTC
Quote:
Can you comment on Amarr slot homogenization and why you don't feel the need to break out of 4 mids 7 lows or or make a single one of the platforms have 8 lows?


This is actually the thing I'm personally most unsatisfied with. Part of my goals through the rebalance was to create more slot variation overall in battleships, and one of the best previous examples of this was the 8/3/8 Geddon. We had some versions of the Apoc with 8 lows, but in the end this layout seemed to fit best with the bonuses we wanted to go with. I'm convinced that the current lineup looks the healthiest of all the options we considered, and I expect the Navy BS to fill some of the gaps that still exist.

@ccp_rise

Aurora Fatalis
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#983 - 2013-04-12 11:00:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Aurora Fatalis
CCP Rise wrote:
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.

I like the new Armageddon, but I also liked the old Armageddon. It really was iconic in its old role (just look at its lore!), and while I like the new Armageddon and understand why a dragoon-style ship was in the works, I think it should've been a new ship, not a replacement. That's how you offer new options - not by removing the old ones that worked fine. The reason you remade the Prophecy in this way was, after all, because it was underused and not really an option. This really doesn't apply to the Armageddon.

If Chribba told you not to trust him, would you?

Ayla Crenshaw
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#984 - 2013-04-12 11:01:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Ayla Crenshaw
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
I do hope you take another (deep) look at the cap issues though. There are a lot of ways to solve them.


We really have looked at them. Fozzie was running level 4s yesterday easily in a pulse Apoc without sacrificing many slots. Not only can you run them, but you gain a lot of offensive capability because of the tracking bonus and the increased speed and agility.

I think you will find its not a very painful shift - but again, public testing will give us a better idea.


That's reassuring, thanks for adressing at least some worries we have. Eagerly awaiting further development and results of more extensive live testing of these changes then. Don't lose focus!

Edit: Some more discussion on the total role revamp for Armageddon would be much appreciated too. Some people seemed really riled up about that (I'm not one of them but I still have a stake in that as an Amarr pilot).
Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#985 - 2013-04-12 11:02:12 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Jack C Hughes wrote:
Pattern Clarc wrote:
ugh, the abaddon shouldn't be changed to be the cap stable mission running ship that the apoc and geddon would already conformably fill with the current set of stats.

Nor does it need an 8th low "just because". Focus on fixing the apoc instead of turning another into something it's not.


Well then give me back my cap stabled apoc.

Well, I would if I could, but I don't think the New Apoc is THAT far away from being great.

It would be interesting if they give the Apoc a massive cap pool, perhaps 3-4 times larger than most battleships, but it regenerated quite slowly. With CPR's it might be a bit too high... but then again that could provide some interesting options within the games current PVP meta.


Yes I did consider that, giving Apoc a large cap and slower regeneration. But finally I gave up
Massive cap will change alot of things, not just for turret but others.

Here are just some examples:

As cap boosters are fixed sized: 800 400 200 etc, a larger cap pool will mean that when it used cap booster it is just not significant. you never want to eat up 4*800 boosters and gaining only 1/10 of your total cap. That is disapointing.

If by saying low regeneration you mean the speed of regeneration, it is not acceptable. That means the Apoc will not be capstable, as the turrests are consuming twice cap as before

If you mean regenration time, and the overall performence will be improved, that is not acceptable too. That will make it a massive elecricity producer.. or power plant, and could easily fit 8*smartbombs or remote reps or nuet as these things' cap usage are not increased, bringing more advantage.
monkfish2345
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#986 - 2013-04-12 11:02:34 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

I think you will find its not a very painful shift - but again, public testing will give us a better idea.


are you able to give us any indication on when we can expect to see these land on SiSi? By the sounds of it your at a point where you are fairly happy with the changes.


Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#987 - 2013-04-12 11:03:49 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Jack C Hughes wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:



because people would likely fit yet another plate instead :P


well if you fit a plate instead, the dps will be decreased by 17.5%, that is a trade off.
The repping power will not be increased by anywhere near 17.5% I believe.



read my whoel post damm. i am not against. I am just saying why CCP think itsa powerful You do not have to conveince me.

I thin ALL battleships need some sort of buff.


Sorry if my word made you any where near angry^-^
I am just a little bit too sensitive and trying to make my points.
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
#988 - 2013-04-12 11:05:49 UTC
Jack C Hughes wrote:
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Jack C Hughes wrote:
Pattern Clarc wrote:
ugh, the abaddon shouldn't be changed to be the cap stable mission running ship that the apoc and geddon would already conformably fill with the current set of stats.

Nor does it need an 8th low "just because". Focus on fixing the apoc instead of turning another into something it's not.


Well then give me back my cap stabled apoc.

Well, I would if I could, but I don't think the New Apoc is THAT far away from being great.

It would be interesting if they give the Apoc a massive cap pool, perhaps 3-4 times larger than most battleships, but it regenerated quite slowly. With CPR's it might be a bit too high... but then again that could provide some interesting options within the games current PVP meta.


Yes I did consider that, giving Apoc a large cap and slower regeneration. But finally I gave up
Massive cap will change alot of things, not just for turret but others.

Here are just some examples:

As cap boosters are fixed sized: 800 400 200 etc, a larger cap pool will mean that when it used cap booster it is just not significant. you never want to eat up 4*800 boosters and gaining only 1/10 of your total cap. That is disapointing.

If by saying low regeneration you mean the speed of regeneration, it is not acceptable. That means the Apoc will not be capstable, as the turrests are consuming twice cap as before

If you mean regenration time, and the overall performence will be improved, that is not acceptable too. That will make it a massive elecricity producer.. or power plant, and could easily fit 8*smartbombs or remote reps or nuet as these things' cap usage are not increased, bringing more advantage.


Cap stability is not an important issue as a PURE issue. Remember apoc will hit more so it will be more efficient per shot made. Therefore the overall reduction on capacitor efficiency should not be even close to the 50%.

CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#989 - 2013-04-12 11:06:49 UTC
Quote:
are you able to give us any indication on when we can expect to see these land on SiSi? By the sounds of it your at a point where you are fairly happy with the changes.


I'm not sure, but it can't be too long - Odyssey will be upon us soon!

@ccp_rise

Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#990 - 2013-04-12 11:07:21 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
I do hope you take another (deep) look at the cap issues though. There are a lot of ways to solve them.


We really have looked at them. Fozzie was running level 4s yesterday easily in a pulse Apoc without sacrificing many slots. Not only can you run them, but you gain a lot of offensive capability because of the tracking bonus and the increased speed and agility.

I think you will find its not a very painful shift - but again, public testing will give us a better idea.


Are you running lvl4 missions with an all lvl 5 skill charactor...?
new players does not have any skill near that..
The problem is the turrets are consuming twice as much cap as before..
and the new regeneration is just a little higher..
Yes Pulse are good but I believe you have to have T2 with Scorch to actually use it.
And before that you might have to use meta lvl 4 mega beam.. which consume more cap than mega pulse.
Tessle Aesis
Leones Aesis
#991 - 2013-04-12 11:08:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Tessle Aesis
Gordon Esil wrote:
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


i totally agree with you!
But the "real" problem is: CCP are Gallenteans!

each race should maintain their diversity, having a amarr missile ship and or an amarr drone ship is hilarious, specially when we know all the cap problems with the our beloved laser turrets when we fly laser ships, but we love them anyway.

the races are four:
Amarr LASER, ARMOUR
Gallente HYBRID + DRONES, ARMOUR
Caldari MISSILE + HYBRID, SHIELD
Minmatar PROJECTILE + MISSILE + DRONES, SHIELD (speed+agility)

it is non-sense to change this: if someone wants diversity can train minmatar tree and they have all, also powerful turrets... if some1 wants to play Amarr should know he needs laser, armour and cap trouble, and viceversa, that's all.

CCP my think is "you are going to change too things too much, lastly... Relax!"

EDIT: P.S.: keep in mind I FLY ALL: http://eveboard.com/pilot/Tessle_Aesis/ships with T2 fit
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
#992 - 2013-04-12 11:10:54 UTC
Jack C Hughes wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
I do hope you take another (deep) look at the cap issues though. There are a lot of ways to solve them.


We really have looked at them. Fozzie was running level 4s yesterday easily in a pulse Apoc without sacrificing many slots. Not only can you run them, but you gain a lot of offensive capability because of the tracking bonus and the increased speed and agility.

I think you will find its not a very painful shift - but again, public testing will give us a better idea.


Are you running lvl4 missions with an all lvl 5 skill charactor...?
new players does not have any skill near that..
The problem is the turrets are consuming twice as much cap as before..
and the new regeneration is just a little higher..
Yes Pulse are good but I believe you have to have T2 with Scorch to actually use it.
And before that you might have to use meta lvl 4 mega beam.. which consume more cap than mega pulse.



Unfortunately ships must be balanced by level 5 characters. OTherwise you will ahv eproblems.
Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#993 - 2013-04-12 11:11:24 UTC
Seishi Maru wrote:
Jack C Hughes wrote:
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Jack C Hughes wrote:
Pattern Clarc wrote:
ugh, the abaddon shouldn't be changed to be the cap stable mission running ship that the apoc and geddon would already conformably fill with the current set of stats.

Nor does it need an 8th low "just because". Focus on fixing the apoc instead of turning another into something it's not.


Well then give me back my cap stabled apoc.

Well, I would if I could, but I don't think the New Apoc is THAT far away from being great.

It would be interesting if they give the Apoc a massive cap pool, perhaps 3-4 times larger than most battleships, but it regenerated quite slowly. With CPR's it might be a bit too high... but then again that could provide some interesting options within the games current PVP meta.


Yes I did consider that, giving Apoc a large cap and slower regeneration. But finally I gave up
Massive cap will change alot of things, not just for turret but others.

Here are just some examples:

As cap boosters are fixed sized: 800 400 200 etc, a larger cap pool will mean that when it used cap booster it is just not significant. you never want to eat up 4*800 boosters and gaining only 1/10 of your total cap. That is disapointing.

If by saying low regeneration you mean the speed of regeneration, it is not acceptable. That means the Apoc will not be capstable, as the turrests are consuming twice cap as before

If you mean regenration time, and the overall performence will be improved, that is not acceptable too. That will make it a massive elecricity producer.. or power plant, and could easily fit 8*smartbombs or remote reps or nuet as these things' cap usage are not increased, bringing more advantage.


Cap stability is not an important issue as a PURE issue. Remember apoc will hit more so it will be more efficient per shot made. Therefore the overall reduction on capacitor efficiency should not be even close to the 50%.



giving a 37.5% tracking will not increase your efficency by that much. if you are talking about mega pulse, it tracks battleships and battle crusers perfectly and for frigs you are supposed to use your drons.
So the diffences is mainly on elight crusers and crusers.
Are there sooooo many of them in the missions that will make the tracking bonus that significant?
Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#994 - 2013-04-12 11:14:05 UTC
Seishi Maru wrote:
Jack C Hughes wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
I do hope you take another (deep) look at the cap issues though. There are a lot of ways to solve them.


We really have looked at them. Fozzie was running level 4s yesterday easily in a pulse Apoc without sacrificing many slots. Not only can you run them, but you gain a lot of offensive capability because of the tracking bonus and the increased speed and agility.

I think you will find its not a very painful shift - but again, public testing will give us a better idea.


Are you running lvl4 missions with an all lvl 5 skill charactor...?
new players does not have any skill near that..
The problem is the turrets are consuming twice as much cap as before..
and the new regeneration is just a little higher..
Yes Pulse are good but I believe you have to have T2 with Scorch to actually use it.
And before that you might have to use meta lvl 4 mega beam.. which consume more cap than mega pulse.



Unfortunately ships must be balanced by level 5 characters. OTherwise you will ahv eproblems.


In eve there is no such new players with lvl 5 skills from the begining.
And
I did not see any over powering from the lvl5 version of 6 turret + 7.5% damage.
You go balance ship with lvl5 charactors, that is fine.
But when considering lvl4 missions, and for the god sake of new players, please consider the usability with low skills!
NinjaStyle
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#995 - 2013-04-12 11:14:09 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
Can you comment on Amarr slot homogenization and why you don't feel the need to break out of 4 mids 7 lows or or make a single one of the platforms have 8 lows?


This is actually the thing I'm personally most unsatisfied with. Part of my goals through the rebalance was to create more slot variation overall in battleships, and one of the best previous examples of this was the 8/3/8 Geddon. We had some versions of the Apoc with 8 lows, but in the end this layout seemed to fit best with the bonuses we wanted to go with. I'm convinced that the current lineup looks the healthiest of all the options we considered, and I expect the Navy BS to fill some of the gaps that still exist.


Rise what about Tachyons? are they simply not surposed to be fittable?
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#996 - 2013-04-12 11:15:36 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Rise
Being called Gallentean right after Gallente were saying we hate Gallente is pretty awesome.

You're right about the primary racial roles, but Amarr has been establishing a stronger drone representation throughout tiericide. Tormentor -> Dragoon -> Arbitrator -> Prophecy. And Khanid has always existed as a missile focused division of Amarr. I don't think we are straying far at all from Amarr offensive system organization with this battleship line.

@ccp_rise

monkfish2345
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#997 - 2013-04-12 11:16:42 UTC
Jack C Hughes wrote:
Seishi Maru wrote:
Jack C Hughes wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
I do hope you take another (deep) look at the cap issues though. There are a lot of ways to solve them.


We really have looked at them. Fozzie was running level 4s yesterday easily in a pulse Apoc without sacrificing many slots. Not only can you run them, but you gain a lot of offensive capability because of the tracking bonus and the increased speed and agility.

I think you will find its not a very painful shift - but again, public testing will give us a better idea.


Are you running lvl4 missions with an all lvl 5 skill charactor...?
new players does not have any skill near that..
The problem is the turrets are consuming twice as much cap as before..
and the new regeneration is just a little higher..
Yes Pulse are good but I believe you have to have T2 with Scorch to actually use it.
And before that you might have to use meta lvl 4 mega beam.. which consume more cap than mega pulse.



Unfortunately ships must be balanced by level 5 characters. OTherwise you will ahv eproblems.


In eve there is no such new players with lvl 5 skills from the begining.
And
I did not see any over powering from the lvl5 version of 6 turret + 7.5% damage.
You go balance ship with lvl5 charactors, that is fine.
But when considering lvl4 missions, and for the god sake of new players, please consider the usability with low skills!


see you could just that consider if you don;t have the skills to fly it effectively you could use a smaller ship? a new player should not be finding life easy in a BS. they simply lack the skills to fly it.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#998 - 2013-04-12 11:18:08 UTC
Props to CCP Rise for the communication. This is way better than the bad old days...


Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Ayla Crenshaw
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#999 - 2013-04-12 11:19:39 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Being called Gallentean right after Gallente were saying we hate Gallente is pretty awesome.

You're right about the primary racial roles, but Amarr has been establishing a stronger drone representation throughout tiericide. Dragoon -> Arbitrator -> Prophecy. And Khanid has always existed as a missile focused division of Amarr. I don't think we are straying far at all from Amarr offensive system organization with this battleship line.


I think the vets here remember that Dragoon is a fresh addition, Arbitrator was odd one out and Prophecy needed that revamp due to being useless.

They'd be much happier about getting that drone/neut boat in a new hull instead of changing what they know and love.
Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1000 - 2013-04-12 11:21:34 UTC
monkfish2345 wrote:

see you could just that consider if you don;t have the skills to fly it effectively you could use a smaller ship? a new player should not be finding life easy in a BS. they simply lack the skills to fly it.


lol
Apoc was alright before.
with lvl4 cap regeneration skill and 3 on reducing cap consumption of turrets, it could pretty much do lvl4 missions with desent cap.
But now it will need both 5.
That is what i am arguing for.