These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1001 - 2013-04-12 11:21:48 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.


Khanid are T2 manufacturers though ...... just like gallente have Roden shipyards do they have missiles on their droneboats?

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

Shingorash
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1002 - 2013-04-12 11:21:59 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.


Damnation and Sac as other examples.
Gordon Esil
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1003 - 2013-04-12 11:22:01 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.

The thing about Khanid is they are not the main Amarr ship lines, they are T2 ships
The point as I see it, is: Amarr are leser/armor race, but they do offer missiles (aka Caldari weapons) on their Khanid (T2) ships, which is very awesome mechanics
But why bringing Gallente weapons on their main T1 battleships hulls? can't that be on a T2 hull?
Why reducing the tank of the most used battleship and making it more cap problematic
Why making more cap problems on the Amarr T1 battleship hulls other than fixing that?
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#1004 - 2013-04-12 11:23:58 UTC
CCP Rise are there any plans to add new disruption ships to battleship lineup in due time of course?

And if there are, will amarr battleship lineup have not 1, but 2 drone boats then. New GedDomi and New disruption battleship.
Shingorash
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1005 - 2013-04-12 11:25:12 UTC
It would be good to see the Geddon get a Tracking Disruptor bonus. That would kick ass.
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1006 - 2013-04-12 11:25:46 UTC
Quote:
They'd be much happier about getting that drone/neut boat in a new hull instead of changing what they know and love.


Yeah I mean I would love if we could have new art for every rebalance so that "legacy" ships like the Armageddon could stay the way they always have been. Its easy to see why this would be impossible though, right? Resource drain on art teams here would be immense, but more importantly, the game would quickly become an impossible maze of ships. If we want to be serious about refining the quality of balance in Eve, we would quickly have tens of ships in each class as we iterated through them.

Fun for some I'm sure, but probably not good for the game overall =P

@ccp_rise
Meduza13
Silver Octopus
Infernal Octopus
#1007 - 2013-04-12 11:26:18 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

We really have looked at them.

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


Despite answers (finally) from CCP Rise im still not impressed. gallente with 8 slots and amarr with 7 becouse its "healthiest" ? And unless im mistaken CCP Rise said they have already" looked at changes", and not they ' going to look further at changes"

I dont mind changing Armageddon into something different personally - go for it CCP, something different is cool.

Im totally against not changing abadon for better, and I totally hate idea of nerfing it "becouse its too powerfull" and also hate not having 8 lows on any amarr battleship, when gallente has, becouse they cry a lot.

And to people who say logistics its too strong compared to local tank - ofc it is strong, becouse you have dedicated ships repping other ships, not just 1-2 local reppers. Thats the whole idea of logistics, isnt it?
Rynnik
Evasion Gaming
The Ancients.
#1008 - 2013-04-12 11:27:59 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.


Dude, I am seriously sorry to be pushing this so hard, but did you read: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2871743#post2871743

Are you totally unwilling to pull a domi on your desired bonuses for this hull and leave some room for the damage bonus required to bring it back to nearly (or exactly) 8 turrets effective overall? I think the 8 lows is achievable on this hull in an interesting and not overly complex way. And I also think it is the only way I would ever pick one up in the face of the 8 low monstrosity you turned the Mega into. The other two attack BS are impossible to scope until the missile changes happen, but pound for pound you have left the Apoc way behind the Mega as a attack gun BS and I think both things can be addressed pretty easily.
Gordon Esil
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1009 - 2013-04-12 11:28:29 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
They'd be much happier about getting that drone/neut boat in a new hull instead of changing what they know and love.


Yeah I mean I would love if we could have new art for every rebalance so that "legacy" ships like the Armageddon could stay the way they always have been. Its easy to see why this would be impossible though, right? Resource drain on art teams here would be immense, but more importantly, the game would quickly become an impossible maze of ships. If we want to be serious about refining the quality of balance in Eve, we would quickly have tens of ships in each class as we iterated through them.

Fun for some I'm sure, but probably not good for the game overall =P

If we end up getting "fed" these new "not good" changes, you still have a chance...
DO NOT even dare to come any close near the Navy Armageddon and Navy Apocalypse... Twisted
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1010 - 2013-04-12 11:29:17 UTC
Quote:
CCP Rise are there any plans to add new disruption ships to battleship lineup in due time of course?


I think its likely that somewhere down the line there will be a battleship sized disruption option for each race. We've talked about this a little in relation to these changes, but I think its possible that it will be part of a different pass later on. Whether that means new t1 hulls, new t2 hulls, or using something that already exists, I have no idea.

Its on our minds though!

@ccp_rise
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1011 - 2013-04-12 11:30:11 UTC
Quote:
DO NOT even dare to come any close near the Navy Armageddon and Navy Apocalypse...


Oh I'll be coming near them pretty soon alright =)

I think you'll be happy though.

@ccp_rise
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1012 - 2013-04-12 11:31:58 UTC
Where are my beam lasers CCP? They have better visuals than pulses by far.
Arline Kley
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1013 - 2013-04-12 11:32:37 UTC
CCP Rise - can you stop relying so much on the much vaunted "metrics" for ship balancing? By claiming of their accuracy, you are claiming the impossible. Data is only accurate at point of capture, after which regardless of how often it is looked at, it starts becoming more and more inaccurate - especially in a game like EVE.

And please pray tell, how many players here have actually said they like the changes wholehartedly? I have been checking this thread daily, and I have seen very few accept the changes as are, and a few that have gone "I like the changes you've made, however XXX needs to be altered"

Using the voice of the silent majority as an indicator of acceptance is dangerous - I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but I am absolutely and utterly PETRIFIED at what is happening to EVE's most iconic race.


I am utterly utterly hoping that you re-consider the changes you are wishing to implement on the Armageddon. They are completely at odds with the race as a whole, inconsiderate to the background of the ship itsself, and utterly ruining two other ships.

I admit I am no game developer, and that you don't have it easy, especially with the Odyssey deadline looming somewhat close - but even I can see the Armageddon, released now, with its stats as is, would be MASSIVELY overpowering, confusing to the pilots flying them, and generally getting underused in PvE as it would have no physical use in it.

"For it was said they had become like those peculiar demons, which dwell in matter but in whom no light may be found." - Father Grigori, Ravens 3:57
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1014 - 2013-04-12 11:32:52 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
CCP Rise are there any plans to add new disruption ships to battleship lineup in due time of course?


I think its likely that somewhere down the line there will be a battleship sized disruption option for each race. We've talked about this a little in relation to these changes, but I think its possible that it will be part of a different pass later on. Whether that means new t1 hulls, new t2 hulls, or using something that already exists, I have no idea.

Its on our minds though!


disruption battleships i don't think people really want them we want battleships with more tank than navy bc's though how about doing that instead?

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1015 - 2013-04-12 11:33:49 UTC
Been nice talking to you guys this morning, but its time for me to go to some meetings and eat some food.

One more time - we'll be watching these (along with the other race's battleships) closely all the way through to deployment. I hope you stay with us the whole way and continue helping us with developing them.

Have a good day!

@ccp_rise
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
#1016 - 2013-04-12 11:34:23 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
DO NOT even dare to come any close near the Navy Armageddon and Navy Apocalypse...


Oh I'll be coming near them pretty soon alright =)

I think you'll be happy though.



You can make the extremists happy by makign the typhoon to have huge drone bay 3 turrets 3 laucnhers 8 highs. Gets a bonus to all weapons ROF IF you are fitting a lasers, a projectile gun, a hybrid gun, a siege lanucher a cruise launcher, a and a smartbomb.
Gordon Esil
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1017 - 2013-04-12 11:36:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Gordon Esil
@CCP Rise
Also you did not give us clear stuff about the 8th low slot on the Abaddon? we need that!!

CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
DO NOT even dare to come any close near the Navy Armageddon and Navy Apocalypse...


Oh I'll be coming near them pretty soon alright =)

I think you'll be happy though.

I really do hope I'll get happy at that time Smile
Meduza13
Silver Octopus
Infernal Octopus
#1018 - 2013-04-12 11:37:37 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
DO NOT even dare to come any close near the Navy Armageddon and Navy Apocalypse...


Oh I'll be coming near them pretty soon alright =)

I think you'll be happy though.


On the day when you go into same directions with navy apoc as you went with abaddon - trying to ruin best armor tank in Eve, it will be a very sad day.
Arline Kley
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1019 - 2013-04-12 11:40:05 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
DO NOT even dare to come any close near the Navy Armageddon and Navy Apocalypse...


Oh I'll be coming near them pretty soon alright =)

I think you'll be happy though.



Try me.

"For it was said they had become like those peculiar demons, which dwell in matter but in whom no light may be found." - Father Grigori, Ravens 3:57
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#1020 - 2013-04-12 11:41:39 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. 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.



What about old consistency?

Punisher > Maller>Abaddon

Executioner (yeah that is a bit far-fetched) > Omen > Armageddon

Crucifier > Dragoon > Arbitrator > New disruption battleship?