These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1081 - 2013-04-12 15:36:17 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
...Despite the fact that clearly there are people who were happy with the Amarr battleships in their former state, overall there was a significant gap in use between apoc/geddon and most other battleships (the only BS used less was the hyperion)....

Alpha/Projectiles is king so Maels and Pests are obvious, Phoon excels in that ever narrowings niche called small scale fighting .. Minmatar are obvious.
Dominix rebounded from nos nerf change and ECM nerf change both due to to the inherent power of the platform, Megathron is just plain cool even when on the receiving end of said coolness .. Hype is/was extraordinarily 'meh'.
Raven is Raven and nothing comes close when it comes to easy handling in PvE, Rokh just got boosted by way of blaster changes and ASB's and the Scorp is ECM.
Amarr's Abaddon is blob warfare refined, nothing compares to a properly run Bad-Blob. Apoc has only been fielded by the clueless mission runners and as a massive battery used to neut stuff .. Geddon suffered from mid slot deficiency.

So you are partially right, but the ships were not used because they were inherently bad but because they had fallen behind. No revision, major or otherwise, has been made to Amarr and its weapons for a long (read: longest) time .. and in Eve we min/max like champs!

Don't worry overly much about the cap issue, it can always be sorted down the road when you handle the cap eating monsters called 'lasers' .. I for one can live with a year of forced use of an injector if I know that relief is to be found Soon™.

As for slots:
To me the current Abaddon has proven its mettle with "only" the slots it has, you might want to compensate it a bit for the sudden loss of the 5% unstacked omni-resists by increasing armour slightly but otherwise good as is.

Same goes for the Apoc, has proven itself to be quite versatile although it could do with a couple of launcher slots .. with no damage bonus it can't afford to lose a high and three mids on a BS is just FUBAR (why you let the Geddon live with that stigma for so long only Goddess knows!).

Which leaves the new Armageddon. A ship whose power lies in laying waste to an enemy cap from afar and using drones to murderize him. We might see some autocannon/missile (laser = cap = big nono) fits but I think it will mostly be gimmicks with all neuts being the norm .. but it doesn't have cap to run those neuts which it doesn't have, so be extension it doesn't need all those highs .. make it 6/4/8 or 6/5/7 .. sets it apart with both potentially solving any lingering issues (latter with better effect through injection or fight control mods (eWar/tackle)).
Personally (as Amarr only pilot) partial to letting Gallente having the 8 lowslot monopoly if I get to fly a non recon ship with more than 4 mids .. the mere thought of the wondrous opportunities that 5th would bring makes my heart all aflutter.
PS: Besides, it is one thing that all BS have same slot layout, but for the drone boat to mimic that of its smaller cousin (Prophecy) is just outrageous Big smile

High to mid on Geddon and internal debate on laser module cap reduction. Now lets move on, we need to figure out how the hell you are to make the T2 hulls fit into this new muddled paradigm of yours.
Sturmwolke
#1082 - 2013-04-12 15:39:59 UTC
Abaddon
5% resist (@L5) nerf isn't minor. It's the equivalent of dropping a Centum-C Type for a T2 EANM. The loss isn't slight, it's significant.
Compound in the natural cap handicap with a T2 full fit, it doesn't look attractive as you lose slots to compensate for the cap issue.
Bottomline, more amends need to be made for the 5% resist loss. Look at some cap improvements.

Apocalypse
This "tiericide" initiative is a misnomer really. The typical shield/armor/hull and various other values still follow a certain level progression.
Arbitrary example, a RL sniper that can shoot at targets > 3km is emasculated when all he has for scope is a 1X. This ship needs 2x Sensor Boosters to effectively project its damage > 150km.
Why not make all long range sniper ships (not Amarr only) have longer targeting range than normal?

Armageddon
Bhaalgorn prices will drop like a rock with the proposed Armageddon change - making it a cheap T1 heavy neutralizer ship.
Mixed bag. The current Armageddon's fairly good by itself, the change will curtail its role to PVP actions.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1083 - 2013-04-12 15:40:20 UTC
Meduza13 wrote:
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?

The point being that when logistics are involved resistance bonuses are tremendously more powerful than local repair bonuses, it scales very badly and ensure that only resistance bonuses ships are used for fleet work. So an effort is being made to bring resistance bonused ship down a bit, and we'll see local rep bonus ships being buffed... possibly by making the repair bonus also affect incoming remote repair amount (we'll have to see).

I'd still like it if the option were explored to make ship bonuses either repair amount or raw armor/shield amount (like the Augoror)... reserving resistance bonuses for T2 boats. I think this would be much easier to balance over all.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1084 - 2013-04-12 15:40:29 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
And why, pray tell, is that new "exciting" direction to Amarr even necessary?


Such a tone!

Despite the fact that clearly there are people who were happy with the Amarr battleships in their former state, overall there was a significant gap in use between apoc/geddon and most other battleships (the only BS used less was the hyperion).

I looked across as many different environments/metrics as possible and this was a consistent theme.

Hope that helps!



Well its more of a case taht battleships were almost not used at all for PVP outside huge fleet fights. And I think we neede dsome work to change THAT.. more than finding new strange sub roles. Grnated the geddon will find its usage in low scale PVP because its very powerful But a lot of the other battleships cannot hope to get used more.

He was comparing BS use, not BS use to other ship classes.



I know.. and I was jsut statign that the between class usage is even more important. It doe s not matter what is the least NOT USED battleship. We still need them to be more powerful and desireble overall.

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

Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1085 - 2013-04-12 15:53:36 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
I'd still like it if the option were explored to make ship bonuses either repair amount or raw armor/shield amount (like the Augoror)... reserving resistance bonuses for T2 boats. I think this would be much easier to balance over all.

Why stuff more ships into that atrocious pigeon hole called "buffer for the WIN!"? Once you slap that bonus on it you know that it will never be undocked without 3+ 1600s and a cyno for the alt triage .. hate the raw armour bonus so much that I think said hate surpases even that of Gallente's towards the rep bonus.

Abaddon has no noticeable cap issues currently and with no changes to that aspect, it won't in the future. With no drones to speak of and that lovely low tracking it will never be a solo boat --> perfect for its intended use = gangs/fleets/jack-hammer.
PS: Besides, it loses tank not cap by the resist reduction so illogical to even consider using it as reason for cap increase .. would apply if it was regularly fielded with active tank but ... Smile
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1086 - 2013-04-12 16:02:43 UTC
Arline Kley wrote:
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.


This is why the use of metrics is to ancedotal evidence is superior in a situation like this... as what you have "observed" may be a very different thing from overall game usage.

Also, as has been pointed out repeatedly, your opinion that the Armageddon does not fit with the Amarr racial theme is not substanciated by simply looking at the rest of the Amarr ship line. If anything opinion is wildly devided between complete joy, the belief that the ship will be useless, and the belief that the ship will be overpowered... which actually means they are very much on the right track. Smile

Just relax and join us in testing, where we can iron out any necessary tweaks. It's very doubtful that the broad strokes of the focus of these ships is going to change, and the reasons why have been well justified, so focus on what you can influence.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1087 - 2013-04-12 16:10:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Pelea Ming
Nolove Trader wrote:
8 low Abaddon? While keeping the resistance bonus? You are insane. Some estimates where this stats would put an Abba with Slaves and Damnation?

You have to remember, my proposed changes at max skills assume the resist change is kept (ie, 4% per level) as well as nerfing the total effective turrets at max skills from 10 down to 9, and not giving it any utility slots to in total balance out that 8th low slot (which can be used for more then just tank, it could be an HS for abit more damage, a TE for abit better range/tracking, ****** skilled pilots could use it as a cap mod, etc etc, while better skilled pilots even for pvp get the same options)
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1088 - 2013-04-12 16:11:57 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
I'd still like it if the option were explored to make ship bonuses either repair amount or raw armor/shield amount (like the Augoror)... reserving resistance bonuses for T2 boats. I think this would be much easier to balance over all.

Why stuff more ships into that atrocious pigeon hole called "buffer for the WIN!"? Once you slap that bonus on it you know that it will never be undocked without 3+ 1600s and a cyno for the alt triage .. hate the raw armour bonus so much that I think said hate surpases even that of Gallente's towards the rep bonus.

Abaddon has no noticeable cap issues currently and with no changes to that aspect, it won't in the future. With no drones to speak of and that lovely low tracking it will never be a solo boat --> perfect for its intended use = gangs/fleets/jack-hammer.
PS: Besides, it loses tank not cap by the resist reduction so illogical to even consider using it as reason for cap increase .. would apply if it was regularly fielded with active tank but ... Smile

I'm not sure where you got this as justification for a cap change... totally different issue.

Amarr, traditionally, have been a buffer tanking race. You know this.

An armor increase bonus is a less powerful bonus that a resistance bonus... that rather the whole point.

By the way, and armor bonus actually ends up being a fairly flexible bonus. I've flown the Auguror and it's variants a great deal in the past (and Amarr ships in general since beta). Yes, you'd have people trying to simply slap on as many plates as possible at first... then once they figured out the drawbacks of that they would figure out how to properly leverage that bonus (and it doesn't involve throwing as many plates as possible on it and calling it a day). Blink

A bit too much theory crafting in play here.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Loki Vice
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1089 - 2013-04-12 16:48:52 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.


I swear to god if you turn the navy geddon into another ****** baahlgorn....
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1090 - 2013-04-12 16:50:11 UTC
Hey again Amarr fans!

After watching the thread, and having a nice talk with you guys this morning, the balance team here in Reykjavik devoted some time to carefully considering this issue of cap use for Amarr battleships. The resulting change is detailed in a post that should be stickied by now. Please go check it out!

Look forward to hearing your feedback

@ccp_rise

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1091 - 2013-04-12 16:51:35 UTC  |  Edited by: TrouserDeagle
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey again Amarr fans!

After watching the thread, and having a nice talk with you guys this morning, the balance team here in Reykjavik devoted some time to carefully considering this issue of cap use for Amarr battleships. The resulting change is detailed in a post that should be stickied by now. Please go check it out!

Look forward to hearing your feedback



beam lasers

edit: oh god
Arline Kley
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1092 - 2013-04-12 17:03:08 UTC
Already replied to that thread.

Its still not enough of a reduction cap wise, or powergrid wise.

"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

Regolis
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1093 - 2013-04-12 17:03:31 UTC
Ok so maybe my ability at math is broken...

Mega Beam Laser 1
40 km range
16 falloff
65 GJ power usage
9.00 rate of fire
3.0 damage modifier
tracking 0.0153125 rad/sec
FITTING
55 CPU
3250 Powergrid



425mm Railgun 1
48 km range
24 km falloff
21 GJ power usage
9.56 rate of fire
3.025 damage modifier
0.01010625 rad/sec
FITTING
67 CPU
2200 Powergrid


ok so for 0.56 rate of fire and better tracking .. the Mega beam has 50% more fitting cost and 3x
the power cost to fire...
so lets reduce the capacitor on Amarr ships....

20% reduction in power use and 10% in grid is a joke .. took me less than 5 minutes to type this in even less to actually look at the data ... maybe you guys should
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#1094 - 2013-04-12 17:11:50 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
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

You won't find enough morons here to get off with this idea. Leave Armageddon abd Apocalypse as laser boats.

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

Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1095 - 2013-04-12 17:26:39 UTC
Tonto Auri wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
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

You won't find enough morons here to get off with this idea. Leave Armageddon abd Apocalypse as laser boats.

At this point, i'd deal with amarr ships being untouched and subpar for aother year or two if it means avoiding these changes.

armageddon is th only amarr BS i like to fly, heck, my old corp did geddon-gangs, we liked them. with these new changes there wont be an amarrian ship ill be able to rbing myself to fly, prolly just start fyng nightmares or switch to minmatar.

it makes me sad how the feedback from rise has just been mroe or less "we like these changes, your opinion is irrelevant". if any ship shoul have been the droneboat, if i reall the abaddon already had little built-in hangars and looks like a battlestar anyways.
Joelleaveek
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1096 - 2013-04-12 17:49:35 UTC
I think i said it already in this thread, but i just don't understand why one of the Amarr 'combat' battleships HAS to become a drone ship. Since if you follow the concept of ship line you guys were talking about last year then Amarr drone ships should be EW focused. This says to me that the Amarr drone battleships should be a new hull with a drone damage bonus and a tracking disruptor bonus. I realize that the Dragoon and Prophecy don't follow this trend, but they had to do something to avoid overlap in the small and medium sizes.

I though the idea of 'ship lines' was so new players could have a visible upgrade path to larger ships, doesn't work so well when you start swapping bonus around. Now its not such a problem in the Amarr, Gallente, or Caldari battleship lineups, but it goes completely out the window in the Minmatar battleship lineup.

But i saw either tracking disruptor bonuses instead of Neuts for the Armageddon, or save the role for a new hull in the future and keep lasers on the Armageddon.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#1097 - 2013-04-12 18:26:18 UTC
Fozzie, Rise, one question: with Geddon becoming a full drone boat, the same thing will happen that happened to smaller amarr drone ships - when choosing the weapon type for highs, people will choose a weapon without cap use (projectiles or missiles). In my opinion, the old Geddon with lasers and drones was a lot more distinctively Amarr boat as opposed to current "mini Baalgorn". Is there any thought on encouraging Amarr players to use lasers even on unbonused hulls such as what the Geddon is becoming?
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#1098 - 2013-04-12 18:37:49 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I looked across as many different environments/metrics as possible and this was a consistent theme.

I'm not afraid to tell you, what you can do with your environments and metrics, I just don't want to go through issues with ISD crew. I highly appreciate their time and work, but you are getting on my nerves.
Said that, you're looking into wrong direction. Amarr Empire IS NOT a Blood Raiders covenant. Until you digest this consideration, please don't come back and don't touch Amarr battleships.
And when you are ready to get back, keep in mind, that Armageddon and Apocalypse each have more backstory behind them, than any other BS (except Jove) can say for themselves. Speaking of Abaddon, it was added "just because of the tier", and in no position to compete.

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

Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#1099 - 2013-04-12 19:28:55 UTC
I personally would rather see Abaddon take this new Drone/Neut role and remake the classics into attack/combat or w.e you call them, but I guess there would be many others who would go up in arms because of that. I guess you can't please everyone... but you can please me by doing the above! P
Seriously, classic... cmon! Don't take Mozart and turn into some punk rock music.

Looking forward to these changes coming to SiSi so we can actually test them with fire rather than play guessing games.

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!

Kurron
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1100 - 2013-04-12 19:40:30 UTC
Mr Hyde113 wrote:

I, along with most dedicated Amarr pilots, DID NOT WANT A 'NEW EXCITING (aka terribad) DIRECTION' FOR OUR RACE. Our direction (Lasers & Armour supplemented by drones) WAS FINE. We just wanted you to do some quality of life changes to let the ships fully complete their existing roles, not decide that Amarr is no longer Amarr.


Loudly proclaiming to be representing the majority doesn't make it so. The only concerns that I have with this re-balance center around lasers themselves needing to be changed - I suspect CCP's going to need to lower the cap use on them just a bit in general, now that they're no longer baking in a cap use reduction to every Amarr hull.

I'm greatly looking forward to taking my old Apoc and Geddon hulls out for a spin with these changes.