These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#1781 - 2013-04-23 23:39:46 UTC
Madbuster73 wrote:
I JUST LOVE ALL THE CHANGES!


THANKS CCP!! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!

Obvious troll is obvious.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1782 - 2013-04-23 23:41:06 UTC
Tonto Auri wrote:
Madbuster73 wrote:
I JUST LOVE ALL THE CHANGES!


THANKS CCP!! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!

Obvious troll is obvious.

Far worse they actually might take him seriously...
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#1783 - 2013-04-24 00:11:50 UTC
I just took a look at the thread statistics. I should probably write a short recap so new readers can get a full picture.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Regolis
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1784 - 2013-04-24 02:15:05 UTC
This is a comparison of the lasers and railguns. As you can see from this the Tachyon doesn't equate to anything on the list.
I am all for balancing lasers so it would appear one of two things needs to happen first.
Either get rid of the tachyon and balance lasers or add the equivalent tachyon sized gun to all the laser class beams.
People have been blowing smoke about balance and how unfair it would be to reduce power costs of lasers.
This is the current balance on Live servers.


Small

Small Focused Beam Laser I
10 km range
4 km falloff
7.22 activation GJ
4.00 rate of fire
3.0 damage modifier
0.1 rad/sec tracking

150mm Railgun I
12 km range
6 km falloff
2.34 activation GJ
4.25 rate of fire
3.025 damage modifier
0.0735 rad/sec tracking

Medium

Heavy Beam I
20 km range
8 falloff
21.67 activation GJ
6.00 rate of fire
3.0 damage modifier
0.033 rad/sec tracking

250mm Railgun I
24 km range
12 falloff
7.0 activation GJ
6.375 rate of fire
3.025 damage modifier
0.02415 rad/sec tracking

Large

Mega Beam Laser I
40 km range
16 falloff
65 activation GJ
9.00 rate of fire
3.0 damage modifier
0.0153125 rad/sec tracking

425mm Railgun I
48 km range
24 km falloff
21 activation GJ
9.56 rate of fire
3.025 damage modifier
0.01010625 rad/sec tracking


Tachyon Beam Laser I
44 km range
20 km falloff
95 activation GJ
12.5 rate of fire
4.5 damage modifier
0.01392 rad/sec tracking

TLDR: Until you get to battleship sized turrets there is parity between Beams and Railguns except for the abusive power costs.

Dropping this into here since you guys stopped talking in the Large Energy Turret thread
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#1785 - 2013-04-24 06:34:23 UTC
Madbuster73 wrote:
I JUST LOVE ALL THE CHANGES!


THANKS CCP!! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!

By seeing this from drunk 'n disorderly member. I see your gank roams almost daily in amarr low sec that makes me wonder if this thumb up comes from that certain ship are now easier to be blown up or if you are celebrating new ewar hull that makes your cowardly gate camps even more powerful..
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#1786 - 2013-04-24 06:46:57 UTC
Regolis wrote:
This is a comparison of the lasers and railguns. As you can see from this the Tachyon doesn't equate to anything on the list.
I am all for balancing lasers so it would appear one of two things needs to happen first.
Either get rid of the tachyon and balance lasers or add the equivalent tachyon sized gun to all the laser class beams.
People have been blowing smoke about balance and how unfair it would be to reduce power costs of lasers.
This is the current balance on Live servers.

TLDR: Until you get to battleship sized turrets there is parity between Beams and Railguns except for the abusive power costs.

Dropping this into here since you guys stopped talking in the Large Energy Turret thread


I think that weapon system energy cost should balanced between the racial weapon system however. My view would be that CCP should perhaps increase blaster energy consumption. I also oppose the fact that there are completely energy free high slot energy systems. At least reloading if not refiring missile battery or projectile gun should take energy (1gj) this would balance the cap importance between different tanking types and make half of the eves weapon system also more vulnerable for ewar.
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#1787 - 2013-04-24 09:13:56 UTC
Greetings,

I'm mainly concerned about minmatar Battleships, but wanted to see what people in other threads are talking about.

As in other BS balance threads people have complaints. Since all threads have become huge threadnoughts, I would like to make a short list of these complaints.

From what I understand most pressing concerns about Amarr BS line are like this:

General:
Cap Usage => Using energy weapons should be a right, not a burden.
Fitting => Although Amarr ships have decent PG, module PG costs are even higher so fitting them is a nightmare.

I couldn't find any ship specific concerns. They were ultimately connected to energy weapon problems.

So please add any obvious concerns that I've missed.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#1788 - 2013-04-24 10:10:16 UTC
Since I imagine CCP is still somehow watching this massive threadnaught, I figured I might add in something I thought of just a moment ago.

Rather than giving the Armageddon a bonus to nos/neuting like the Dragoon has and probably stepping on the Bhaalgorn's toes in the process, why not give it the Arbitrator's bonus to tracking disruption?
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1789 - 2013-04-24 10:11:39 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Since I imagine CCP is still somehow watching this massive threadnaught, I figured I might add in something I thought of just a moment ago.

Rather than giving the Armageddon a bonus to nos/neuting like the Dragoon has and probably stepping on the Bhaalgorn's toes in the process, why not give it the Arbitrator's bonus to tracking disruption?



No they are not watchign anymore.. they already passed that stage. They closed themselves inside that happy world inside their immagination where they can beleive most people loved what they have proposed to the battleships and where battleships completely supriro to others in every aspect are balanced between themselves...

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1790 - 2013-04-24 10:51:54 UTC
Quote:
No they are not watchign anymore


Blink

@ccp_rise
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1791 - 2013-04-24 10:57:53 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
No they are not watchign anymore


Blink



You must grant that that was the most efficient way to make you post ...../

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#1792 - 2013-04-24 11:01:48 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
No they are not watchign anymore


Blink



You must grant that that was the most efficient way to make you post ...../

People post this every 3 or 4 pages. Stating in the OP that they are continually watching the thread is apparently not enough, and people actually use "they abandoned the thread guise!!11" to promote their own argument.

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1793 - 2013-04-24 11:07:14 UTC
Yeah, I guess part of the drawback to so much active participation in the thread earlier is that now people worry we are gone.

We aren't gone. Fozzie and Ytterbium and I have been talking about the battleships almost every day still. After our last round of reviews we still feel that Amarr is likely in the best place it can be for Odyssey. We will keep watching closely as everything heads to sisi and if more adjustments are needed we will make them.

@ccp_rise
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
#1794 - 2013-04-24 11:28:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Seishi Maru
CCP Rise wrote:
Yeah, I guess part of the drawback to so much active participation in the thread earlier is that now people worry we are gone.

We aren't gone. Fozzie and Ytterbium and I have been talking about the battleships almost every day still. After our last round of reviews we still feel that Amarr is likely in the best place it can be for Odyssey. We will keep watching closely as everything heads to sisi and if more adjustments are needed we will make them.



What you guys could do is make a weekly post with your general views and feelings on each of the 4 races threads.

People will obviously think you guys are gone. because on several threads peopel basically prooved there are thigns wrong and nonsense (like all that tempest vs hyperion in other threads) and for I think, 2 weeks, there is no feedback on that...
Meduza13
Silver Octopus
Infernal Octopus
#1795 - 2013-04-24 11:37:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Meduza13
CCP Rise wrote:
Yeah, I guess part of the drawback to so much active participation in the thread earlier is that now people worry we are gone.

We aren't gone. Fozzie and Ytterbium and I have been talking about the battleships almost every day still. After our last round of reviews we still feel that Amarr is likely in the best place it can be for Odyssey. We will keep watching closely as everything heads to sisi and if more adjustments are needed we will make them.



Im glad you are still watching, but I do not think amarr going to right direction. You are making them weaker, by reducing efficiency of armor tank (resistance bonuses) and boosting other races (8low slots on gallente) and taking away 50% bonus on capacitor and giving 10% instead. But my biggest concern is direction where EVE seems to be going - more and more benefits for new young players, and taking away advantages from older players with more skills and bigger budgets. Soon 10 t1 cruiser will be taking on triage archon, so new players are happy they killed capital ship with their 5 mil isk cruisers and 4 weeks skills. In 2 years everyone will be flying t1 cruisers and other rubbish, because flying expensive and big ships will not make any sence as "gain versus price+skills required' ratio will be so low.
example

augoror - 88 km rep range 598hp repaired / 5sec
guardian - 68km rep range 384 hp repaired /5sec - guardian costs many times more and requires a lot more skills ofc
archon - 52 km rep range 1500hp repaired / 5sec- and we talking here about capital ship with 1 capital module costing more than whole fitted augoror and requiring tons of skillpoints

Interesting isnt it?
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1796 - 2013-04-24 11:39:22 UTC
I don't mind the idea of some kind of regular balance check-in. That seems kind of cool. I'll talk with people here about it.

As far as "proving things wrong" I think that fortunately EVE is rarely so straight forward or absolute. The Tempest comments point to some possible issues, but they also exaggerate some things and great oversimplify. Not to mention how much more complicated it is to solve problems than to find them. Those Tempest comments you're talking about seemed to assume that the correct course of action was to make big changes to the Tempest rather than making small ones to the Hyperion and there was no sensible comparison between those options, or any others.

@ccp_rise
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1797 - 2013-04-24 11:46:15 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Rise
Quote:
Im glad you are still watching, but I do not think amarr going to right direction. You are making them weaker, by reducing efficiency of armor tank (resistance bonuses) and boosting other races (8low slots on gallente) and taking away 50% bonus on capacitor and giving 10% instead. But my biggest concern is direction where EVE seems to be going - more and more benefits for new young players, and taking away advantages from older players with more skills and bigger budgets. Soon 10 t1 cruiser will be taking on triage archon, so new players are happy they killed capital ship with their 5 mil isk cruisers and 4 weeks skills. In 2 years everyone will be flying t1 cruisers and other rubbish, because flying expensive and big ships will not make any sence as "gain versus price+skills required' ratio will be so low.
example

augoror - 92 km rep range 598hp repaired / 5sec
guardian - 68km rep range 384 hp repaired /5sec - guardian costs many times more and requires a lot more skills ofc
archon - 52 km rep range 1500hp repaired / 5sec- and we talking here about capital ship with 1 capital module costing more than whole fitted augoror and requiring tons of skillpoints


Resistance bonuses are problematic for very clear reasons which Fozzie has done a great job articulating. The ships that field them have a range of power and application and should each be addresses relative to the new changes individually, rather than making oversimplified "amarr is getting weaker" conclusions.

There is virtually no power based conclusions you can make about the relationship between 8 low mega and amarr as an overall race design. You need to be much more specific on how that is a problem.

Closing the gap between new players and old players in some areas is definitely positive. If you notice that EVE gets to a point where you would rather have less ISK and SP let me know, we'll fix it asap.

I'm curious about your augoror vs guardian comparison - I'm guessing your aurgoror has some other issues that you are leaving out.

@ccp_rise
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
#1798 - 2013-04-24 11:47:08 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I don't mind the idea of some kind of regular balance check-in. That seems kind of cool. I'll talk with people here about it.

As far as "proving things wrong" I think that fortunately EVE is rarely so straight forward or absolute. The Tempest comments point to some possible issues, but they also exaggerate some things and great oversimplify. Not to mention how much more complicated it is to solve problems than to find them. Those Tempest comments you're talking about seemed to assume that the correct course of action was to make big changes to the Tempest rather than making small ones to the Hyperion and there was no sensible comparison between those options, or any others.



Well , I think that is kind of expected. People are much more likely to propose buffs to a ship than to propose nerfs to another.

And no one said your job of balancing was as easy as finding the problems. If it was, you would not have been hired to do it :P
Meduza13
Silver Octopus
Infernal Octopus
#1799 - 2013-04-24 11:54:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Meduza13
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
Im glad you are still watching, but I do not think amarr going to right direction. You are making them weaker, by reducing efficiency of armor tank (resistance bonuses) and boosting other races (8low slots on gallente) and taking away 50% bonus on capacitor and giving 10% instead. But my biggest concern is direction where EVE seems to be going - more and more benefits for new young players, and taking away advantages from older players with more skills and bigger budgets. Soon 10 t1 cruiser will be taking on triage archon, so new players are happy they killed capital ship with their 5 mil isk cruisers and 4 weeks skills. In 2 years everyone will be flying t1 cruisers and other rubbish, because flying expensive and big ships will not make any sence as "gain versus price+skills required' ratio will be so low.
example

augoror - 92 km rep range 598hp repaired / 5sec
guardian - 68km rep range 384 hp repaired /5sec - guardian costs many times more and requires a lot more skills ofc
archon - 52 km rep range 1500hp repaired / 5sec- and we talking here about capital ship with 1 capital module costing more than whole fitted augoror and requiring tons of skillpoints


Resistance bonuses are problematic for very clear reasons which Fozzie has done a great job articulating. The ships that field them have a range of power and application and should each be addresses relative to the new changes individually, rather than making oversimplified "amarr is getting weaker" conclusions.

There is virtually no power based conclusions you can make about the relationship between 8 low mega and amarr as an overall race design. You need to be much more specific on how that is a problem.

Closing the gap between new players and old players in some areas is definitely positive. If you notice that EVE gets to a point where you would rather have less ISK and SP let me know, we'll fix it asap.

I'm curious about your augoror vs guardian comparison - I'm guessing your aurgoror has some other issues that you are leaving out.


Thank you for your answer. I will never win battle on words with you, you are probably are able to make a fool out of me, no problem (your isk/skills comment). My point is you are closing the gap between new players and old players too much. Ofc augoror has other issues, but it doesnt change a fact that t1 ship shouldnt have any (especially that big) advantages over its t2 equivalent, and armor tanked race shouldnt have less armor slots than others - but sure, it me probably making oversimplified conclusions.
LuisWu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1800 - 2013-04-24 11:56:57 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

We aren't gone. Fozzie and Ytterbium and I have been talking about the battleships almost every day still. After our last round of reviews we still feel that Amarr is likely in the best place it can be for Odyssey. We will keep watching closely as everything heads to sisi and if more adjustments are needed we will make them.


Yes, because cap problems and fitting problems are solved, the new armageddon has stolen the hearts of the community, and this thread is full of happiness and love.

F*** This Game