These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#1261 - 2013-04-14 20:50:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmy Zeta
After further consideration, I am starting to question if the whole "tiericide" idea for battleships is a good idea in general.
Of course, we are all acting as if we were incredibly spacerich and sneeze out technetium every few seconds, but fact is that for many players price is still a factor as far as battleships are concerned. (It surely is a factor for me)
The tiericide was incredibly helpful for the frigates and cruisers, both being so cheap already that cost was never a factor so only combat performance had to be matched.
But with battleships, cost becomes a relevant factor. For the cost of one Abaddon (around 240M) you could get about 3 Geddons (around 80 M).
Being cheap is a relevant niche and role of it's own.
I fear that with the upcoming adjustments to mineral costs, all battleship hulls will cost maybe around 150M isk, totally eliminating the option to go cheap and pushing those pilots into the already loathed tier 3 battlecruisers as the only remaining alternative.

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1262 - 2013-04-14 20:55:02 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
After further consideration, I am starting to question if the whole "tiericide" idea for battleships is a good idea in general.
Of course, we are all acting as we were incredibly spacerich and sneeze out technetium every few seconds, but fact is that for many players price is still a factor as far as battleships are concerned. (It surely is a factor for me)
The tiericide was incredibly helpful for the frigates and cruisers, both being so cheap already that cost was never a factor so only combat performance had to be matched.
But with battleships, cost becomes a relevant factor. For the cost of one Abaddon (around 240M) you could get about 3 Geddons (around 80 M).
Being cheap is a relevant niche and role of it's own.
I fear that with the upcoming adjustments to mineral costs, all battleship hulls will cost maybe around 150M isk, totally eliminating the option to go cheap and pushing those pilots into the already loathed tier 3 battlecruisers as the only remaining alternative.


I think the navy bc's will be a reason why people won't fly many of the battleships and the other is the remarkably unerfed ABC's

'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

Naso Aya
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1263 - 2013-04-14 20:57:28 UTC
Tonto Auri wrote:
My argument didn't changed, but I see no reason to repeat it 10 times in a row. Especially since we got so much developer attention to our plea. (I say "we", because, apparently, I have support from at least 3 other people in this topic. And one more asked, if we share similar ground, but in the end, we came to conclusion to agree to disagree.)

Perhaps, previous posts wasn't clear, let me make a short recap.
My personal issues with proposed chages, in no particular order:
* Assigning scapegoats just because you don't understand the problem, which tiericide supposed to not turn into a different problem, but actually fix, is stupid.
* Throwing ten years of backstory, lore, novels out of the window will lead to community disappointment at the very least.
* We already have T1 sucker ship in the battleship line. That's an argument separate from lore perspective.
* The current +RoF main bonus of Armageddon is more appropriate for Attack BS, than the Abaddon's +Dmg - it is better balanced with leveling, doesn't change your damage, only shift it towards initial burst. Which, I believe, creates an interesting diversity in ship fittings throughout the path from Amarr BS I to Amarr BS V. While flat +Dmg bonus is just a boring power creep, which CCP is proclaimed to be against. Not seems like they are holding their word very tight.
* Apocalypse can be debated back and forth, as long as it's range bonus is there. I'll just mention it here for completeness.
* Abaddon doesn't even LOOK like it can swoop around, on MWD or angel's wings - it's just a gold(not even gold anymore, since they changed to these "shaders", it's just bland sandstone color) brick. For it's defence, I can only say that it, apparently, have launch bays, which other Amarr BS seems to be lacking. Also, overall "fat" look suggests enough internal space to store vast amount of drones.

As you can see, I disagree from many points of view, and lore have no less weight, than any other. Just because you want changes for the sake of changes, doesn't mean, that other people may not have their own reasons to disagree with you.
I'm fine with most of the proposed changes. In spirit.
The problem is the choice of hulls, fist, and assignment of the bonuses, second.


See, you didn't even have to insult something/someone to get all those points across. I'll even quote this because I agree with those points. +1
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#1264 - 2013-04-14 21:00:45 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
After further consideration, I am starting to question if the whole "tiericide" idea for battleships is a good idea in general.

Actually, it is, because many hulls actually SUFFER from being cheap. But I see, what is concerning you.

Quote:
Of course, we are all acting as we were incredibly spacerich and sneeze out technetium every few seconds, but fact is that for many players price is still a factor as far as battleships are concerned. (It surely is a factor for me)

Very few people can say, that price isn't a factor, and being "rich" has little relation to this issue.

Quote:
The tiericide was incredibly helpful for the frigates and cruisers, both being so cheap already that cost was never a factor so only combat performance had to be matched.
But with battleships, cost becomes a relevant factor. For the cost of one Abaddon (around 240M) you could get about 3 Geddons (around 80 M).

The price disbalance, ans you already (albeit indirectly) pointed out, is in part affected by market demand for "better" ship. If all 3 would manage to get out of this process roughly equally "good", the price would shift to be more even. I think, your prediction below is about correct.

Quote:
Being cheap is a relevant niche and role of it's own.
I fear that with the upcoming adjustments to mineral costs, all battleship hulls will cost maybe around 150M isk, totally eliminating the option to go cheap and pushing those pilots into the already loathed tier 3 battlecruisers as the only remaining alternative.

Which sounds kinda logical for me. Though, the fitting options are way fewer for the same niche.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1265 - 2013-04-14 21:04:03 UTC
The only battleships i think worth using based on the EHP role and what the ABC's and navy bc's will obsolete are....
Rokh - cos its a brick good fleet ship /projection
Abbadon - cos its a brick good fleet ship
Geddon - neuts and drones/ utility highs
Dominix - premier sentry drone ship / heavies
Maelstrom - Arties and XL-ASB's
Phoon - armour torp boat

The rest of the battleships can be outclassed or done for cheaper by ABC's or navy bc's.

'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

Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#1266 - 2013-04-14 21:06:27 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
I think the navy bc's will be a reason why people won't fly many of the battleships and the other is the remarkably unerfed ABC's

The pricetag on navy BC will be around the same 150mil (I think.)
And again, fitting options. Battleships so far is the only hull that have access to MJD, which is the most viable option for effective PvE sniping.

@Naso Aya, not to search for excuses, but to make the statement: I love Amarr battleships. And I don't want to see them screwed by some newcomer, who care less about lore and history, and only eager for frags and celebrations.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Zepheros Naeonis
TinklePee
#1267 - 2013-04-14 22:44:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Zepheros Naeonis
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.

For the love of everything good please utilize the Imperial version for these "changes". The Navy arm is great as it is, imo. Don't you dare nuke my Tachyon fit. :(
Naso Aya
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1268 - 2013-04-14 22:46:14 UTC
Tonto Auri wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
I think the navy bc's will be a reason why people won't fly many of the battleships and the other is the remarkably unerfed ABC's

The pricetag on navy BC will be around the same 150mil (I think.)
And again, fitting options. Battleships so far is the only hull that have access to MJD, which is the most viable option for effective PvE sniping.

@Naso Aya, not to search for excuses, but to make the statement: I love Amarr battleships. And I don't want to see them screwed by some newcomer, who care less about lore and history, and only eager for frags and celebrations.


No problem, I was upset the first few days too. Now I'm just trying to find something more... appropriate? Better? For the Amarr. I would like to point out, I think the prices will be closer to the tier 3s than the tier 2s, most of the tier 2s-1s are getting nerfs/changes, while the tier 3s are remaining very static.
Katsuo Nuruodo
Suddenly Dreadnoughts
#1269 - 2013-04-14 22:50:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Katsuo Nuruodo
Some time ago CCP rebalanced the battlecruisers, which included large nerfs to the drake(the ship and its weapon systems). My corp, a wormhole corp, along with many other wormhole corps, used drakes for making isk in c3 and lower class wormhole systems.

So, when we saw the planned changes announced, our corp spent time looking at other ships and fits to replace it. In the end, we settled upon the Armageddon (spider tanked). We chose this because it was a good fit for the job, in fact better than the drake ever was, it was inexpensive for a battleship, and CCP stated(in regards to the upcoming battleship tiericide) "Armageddon: this ship is performing well at the time being, and thus we have little reason to alter it." ( http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/73530 ). Since we had a ship that CCP indicated would not be changing soon, we all trained up for it, and started using it to run the anoms, right around the time the drake changes were coming out.

Now it seems you're planning to change it entirely, which makes it completely unsuited for what we've been using it for. Neither the apocalypse nor the abaddon fit this role well, certainly not as well as the current armageddon. The armageddon has a rate of fire bonus and a cap bonus, 7 turret slots, a utility high slot, and a large(125m3) drone bay, making it a perfect choice for small gang pve. Once this change happens no amarr battleship will have this feature set.

The Apoc ship is used much less throughout EVE than either armageddons and abaddons, and it seems like it would have been a much better choice to re-purpose. Why are you planning to take a popular ship, which was used commonly despite being a lower tier ship and that CCP stated earlier would stay the same through the tiericide, and completely change it, with no replacement for its feature set?

Wouldn't it be better to just release an additional battleship for each race, so that you can give gallente, amarr, and Minmatar an Ewar Battleship, without completely changing ships which are already well liked and well used?
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#1270 - 2013-04-15 00:16:31 UTC
I think, I've found something, that MAY work.

Armageddon
Attack BS, 7/4/8, 6T, 50/75 (50/100 ?) drones
7% RoF increase
5% MWD cap penalty reduction
Should both help mobility, help capacitor just a bit, and to not work as power creep.
You hardly do more damage with increased RoF, more DPS - yes, but you'll have to sacrifice mobility and/or tank to consistently provide that much DPS. Which, IMO, balancing one against another.
Why 7%, and not 7.5%? 7.5% seems WAY too much for me, though you get more capacitor spent with each 0.1% RoF increase, which could balance it roughly equal.
With drones - the idea is to have ability to sport a flight of meds, while having at least some backup/variety up her sleeve, to help with the brawl.
Some tech porn: http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/3876/armageddon2013.png (Lasers cap usage changes taken into account)
Notice, how boring the damage bonus looks.

Apocalypse
Combat BS, 8/3/7, 8T
10% optimal bonus
5% damage bonus
Balance PG around 6 tachyons or full rack of megabeams.
Then 7 lows will go for the preferered mix of tank, gank, and stat mods.
Though, Scorch issue needs to be resolved first. It's a shame, that pulse crystal takes on the work of beams in sniping.

Abaddon
Combat BS, 8/4/6, 8T, 6L, 125/XXX drones
Slightly better capacitor regen, than of the previous two.
+10% to drone damage, hit points and mining yield per level
+4% to armor resistances per level
I think, this one speaks for herself. But just in case you didn't noticed, you may still use lasers (though, unbonused), or you may prefer to fit launchers and have a few utility slots for cap games. Yes, indirectly, it is the same cap warfare, that has been proposed for Armageddon before, but it doesn't step on Bhallgorn toes, and maintain the general Amarr line in spirit.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#1271 - 2013-04-15 00:21:42 UTC
P.S.
On the image, the capacitor/minute is in thousands of GJ. In simple terms, you'll be spewing out half the capacitor every minute. Before accounting for other modules' usage.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Avald Midular
Doomheim
#1272 - 2013-04-15 04:48:49 UTC
This came up in the Large Energy Turret thread. Let's ignore for a second the sad fact that the other 8T BS, the Maelstrom, has the same powergrid as the Abaddon when the Abaddon's supposed to use higher PG fit weapons and supposedly fit an armor tank somewhere in there, while the Mael receives more CPU to support it's shield tank.

Why does the Mael receive the SAME cap recharge rate and only 5% less cap total when the Abaddon is supposed to support 8 Scorches (lets just use this terminology from now on, there's no point in saying lasers even with the latest slight energy adjustments). The Mael's weapons use ZERO cap but get the same cap recharge?

How does this remotely resemble balance?
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1273 - 2013-04-15 07:23:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
I'm really excited about the Armageddon changes! It's almost like another disruption battleship! It's like a big arbitrator! But I'm sad that nothing has 8 low slots now. I wish at least 1 battleship could have 8 low slots. And I do feel that the Armageddon and Apocalypse both have much use for those 4 mid slots. So howabout the Abaddon? It needs to be able to fit those heat sinks and tracking enhancers and still have a lot of tank in order to be on par with the Rokh. I don't think an 8/3/8 setup is a bad idea. On the contrary, I think people would love it.

In response to the post above mine, I'd like to say that I feel the Abaddon's capacitor and powergrid is alright, though it could use a bit of "upward adjustment" (AKA a buff). The Maelstrom, on the other hand, has altogether way too much powergrid. Its capacitor is nice for shield tanking, but it wouldn't hurt to take some away, especially since it's mostly used in PVP with buffer tanks anyway. And PVE Maelstroms use autocannons and end up with so much leftover powergrid and CPU that they can just throw capacitor batteries on, except that they have no mid slots to give up without pushing out the space for hardeners.
Given that the Tachyon Beam Laser requires 3750 MW powergrid and the 1400mm Artillery requires 3250 MW powergrid (86.667%), I suggest lowering the Maelstrom's powergrid to 86.667% of its current value, down to 18,200 MW.

-edit-Apparently large beam lasers have their powergrid cost being reduced by 10%. link This means the Tachyon Beam Laser will cost only slightly more than the 1400mm Artillery. I think, then, that the best solution for this problem (having too much left over powergrid) is to add 3200mm armor plates to the game. Also X-Large shield extenders.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1274 - 2013-04-15 08:37:52 UTC
Avald Midular wrote:
...How does this remotely resemble balance?

Maelstrom is an active tanker and thus must be afforded extra cap .. whether it actually uses active tanking is besides the point Smile
Jezza McWaffle
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#1275 - 2013-04-15 08:43:24 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Avald Midular wrote:
...How does this remotely resemble balance?

Maelstrom is an active tanker and thus must be afforded extra cap .. whether it actually uses active tanking is besides the point Smile


Why does the Hyperion then which is also an active tanker have the same recharge rate as a Mael? Considering Maels can run dual xlarge ASB's which use no cap while all the amour active modules do use cap.

Wormholes worst badass | Checkout my Wormhole blog
Ayla Crenshaw
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1276 - 2013-04-15 08:46:00 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Avald Midular wrote:
...How does this remotely resemble balance?

Maelstrom is an active tanker and thus must be afforded extra cap .. whether it actually uses active tanking is besides the point Smile


And that takes into account that Abaddons might want to active tank too in some settings and it's weapon systems use infinitely more cap than Mael's?

Sarcasm aside, we need those changes on SiSi. And we need to scream a lot afterwards. About as much as Gallente pilots did, I think, that's a good benchmark for causing whine-induced balance tweaks.

Whether the whine is justified or not is besides the point here. I personally think it is, even with much welcome changes to beam lasers...
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1277 - 2013-04-15 09:22:54 UTC
Jezza McWaffle wrote:
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Avald Midular wrote:
...How does this remotely resemble balance?

Maelstrom is an active tanker and thus must be afforded extra cap .. whether it actually uses active tanking is besides the point Smile


Why does the Hyperion then which is also an active tanker have the same recharge rate as a Mael? Considering Maels can run dual xlarge ASB's which use no cap while all the amour active modules do use cap.

Because ASB's are broken? CCP has said as much, or rather they regret making them .. but they don't have the first clue as to how to put the cat back in the bag Smile
Ayla Crenshaw wrote:
[And that takes into account that Abaddons might want to active tank too in some settings and it's weapon systems use infinitely more cap than Mael's?...

That is the nail you just hit, ship designs of newer origins have a tendency to be pigeon-holed from the factory, Abaddon was not designed for small scale. Wish they were not, but it is the logical way if aim is to add more hulls over time, less overlap and redundancy if each hull has a narrow and specific niche to occupy.
Sturmwolke
#1278 - 2013-04-15 09:24:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Sturmwolke
Tonto Auri wrote:

Armageddon
Attack BS, 7/4/8, 6T, 50/75 (50/100 ?) drones
7% RoF increase
5% MWD cap penalty reduction


Not sustainable and more than likely you'll have to sacrifice a slot to compensate for the cap handicap ... just like the current Abaddon.
The idea of MWD bonus on a laser boat makes little sense.

Tonto Auri wrote:

Apocalypse
Combat BS, 8/3/7, 8T
10% optimal bonus
5% damage bonus


I like this one. The optimal + damage bonus combo synergizes well and is something which any Amarr BS could use well ... on any hull.
This will give them the proper punch to be competitive.

Tonto Auri wrote:

Abaddon
Combat BS, 8/4/6, 8T, 6L, 125/XXX drones
Slightly better capacitor regen, than of the previous two.
+10% to drone damage, hit points and mining yield per level
+4% to armor resistances per level


No. Just no. The Abaddon is NOT a drone boat. Period. You like your strawberry, I prefer chocolates.
6 lows is total blasphemy for an Amarr ship of the line. Minimum 7 lows for any decent mix of tank and firepower for armor boats (disregarding hull bonus).


When you look at the BS lineup for all 4 races, there is a pattern.

Caldari + Amarr = specialised EW capability, moderate-low damage, good tank.
Minmatar + Gallente = no EW, high damage, decent-low tank.

Nothing wrong per se, however, FW and worldshaping throws a spanner into the concepts by grouping Caldari/Amarr vs Minmatar/Gallente. See the nail that sticks out?
To balance out the virtual disparity, the EW role change should go towards the Gallente rather than Amarr (yes, that means a Gallente boat that neuts Smile)
The racial leanings towards ECM, TD, Painter and Neut all forms of EW need to be rethought.

On another tack, putting diversity at risk (i.e increasing homegeneity) having EW, DPS and Utility roles for each empire may be worth exploring.
To minimize or prevent overlap, you can shuffle the various bonus combinations or create new unique ones.
Ayla Crenshaw
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1279 - 2013-04-15 09:40:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Ayla Crenshaw
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Ayla Crenshaw wrote:
[And that takes into account that Abaddons might want to active tank too in some settings and it's weapon systems use infinitely more cap than Mael's?...

That is the nail you just hit, ship designs of newer origins have a tendency to be pigeon-holed from the factory, Abaddon was not designed for small scale. Wish they were not, but it is the logical way if aim is to add more hulls over time, less overlap and redundancy if each hull has a narrow and specific niche to occupy.


Mael should have something nerfed to be not viable for large scale then, going by your logic.
Apostrof Ahashion
Doomheim
#1280 - 2013-04-15 10:24:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Apostrof Ahashion
Abaddon
I dont like the changes at all. Since this is supposed to be a balancing patch i was really hoping that amarr capacitor is gonna get buffed. Compare Abaddon to the Rokh, ~6% more capacitor and more than 3x the cap use of guns. The only ship in game with just one viable fit. And that fit has a cap booster and 2x energy discharge rigs.

Apocalypse
Was the only kinda ok-ish pve mission ship amarr had. Now it is another amarr ship you need to fit wih cap booster and 2x energy discharge rigs. The capacitor nerf was really not needed.

Armageddon
I just dont like this at all. 100% subjective since this was my first battleship in the game and to this day the ship i like the most. I just dont like anything about it, from the drones to the strange launcher hardpoints. Can you please just remove the launcher hardpoints, please?

And really why change it? Not like it does not have its uses already and its one of the most iconic and loved ships in the game. Because amarr only have laser battleships? I doubt there are players who have problems with that. If you want to add some diversity to amarr battleship lineup fix the capacitor issues and give us some fitting options.