These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#1801 - 2013-04-24 12:25:18 UTC
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.

We don't worry that you are gone. We are sure you are long gone insane.
You don't even understand the problem you were called to solve.
Just a few examples:
Armageddon is already a good brawler. It's problem was not because it's bad brawler, but because of the tiers. Tier 1 ship is bound to be underperforming due to lack of powergrid and CPU to fit even most basic set of modules. Sane mind would see it and first put the ship on an equal terms with other to compare. But you're insane. You picked the worst possible solution - "LET'S SCREW IT! Really, why not? Noone will notice - noone using this ****!"
Abaddon's ONLY argument to keep it [mostly] untouched was that, again, "it is most used". Tier 3 ship is bound to be most used. But you presented your argument like it have every possible credibility in the universe. Obvious troll is obvious.
And by ensuring, that Amarr ships are no longer Amarr, you somehow decided, that they are "in better shape".
What the hell you were using, to pick hulls and assign roles? Coin flipping? Don't start to tell me about "statistics" - you don't know how to interpret it, first, and don't know, where to look for real, representative numbers, last. Killboard stats don't tell anything for ship balance, because they are bound by combat doctrines employed over people using the ships. If a shield tank is demed more viable by the community, you won't see many Amarr ships around, because they can't efficiently shield tank.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Meduza13
Silver Octopus
Infernal Octopus
#1802 - 2013-04-24 12:27:46 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:


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.



And instead of trying to be a comedian, I suggest fix "asap" issues than people actually 'let you know" about.
regards
Zangorus
Lightning Squad
Snuffed Out
#1803 - 2013-04-24 12:34:10 UTC
So geddon is turned into a cheap bhaalgorn?

Like my comment and recieve 1 million isk ingame!
Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#1804 - 2013-04-24 12:34:42 UTC
Even as a non amarr pilot I can see that the apocalypse needs a crazy amount more pg so it can actually fill a sniping role with tachyons.

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#1805 - 2013-04-24 12:40:15 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Tempest comments point to some possible issues, but they also exaggerate some things and great oversimplify.

Yes? Yes? I mean, yes? You don't even DARE to think, that other players MAY know this game better, than you?
Also, what Meduza13 said. Instead of trying to smile heavenly upon us, please answer a few questions.
They won't take much time, I promise.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1806 - 2013-04-24 12:52:37 UTC
LuisWu wrote:
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.


CCP RISE
Yes im sure people would love to know why amarr ships are going to stay so handicapped
- cap regen is far too low for guns too run for longer than a couple of minutes
-as a result they have to use more slots for cap mods. is this acceptable for CCP? no other race needs to do this.
-The apoc will still be slow when dual plated.
-beams are still impossible to fit on many of the battleships and again lots of mods to fit it if you can and for cap.
-the changes for laser turrets aren't enough any response to this?

Also any ideas on perhaps changing slot layouts on any of these ships?
How about abbadon trades a turret for a utility high? and maybe lose a high for a low.
you could compensate dps with stronger damage bonus.

'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

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1807 - 2013-04-24 12:55:35 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.


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


Taking the Larges only here. Though the Mediums & Smalls need similar & larger reductions, same as the large turrets do.
Mega. 3.0 Multipler / 9.0 Sec rate of fire. 1/3rd* per second.
Rail. 3.025/9.56. 0.316* per second.
Tachyon. 4.5/12. 0.375* per second.
When you take the ROF into account, they come out much closer together, with the Rail having the longest range of them all. And requiring less than 25% of the Cap of the Tachyon. (I'm not sure how the Lasers requiring tripple the cap of the Rails is 'Parity' btw.... have I failed at maths.)
Additionally the Tachyon requires crazy amounts more fitting than the rails. For..... (0.375/0.316) 18% more. It's a nice 18% more sure. That might need a little tweak so that Tachyons are laser alpha while mega's are fast firing for their DPS.

But the current (After Odyssey) stats do not balance at all with these numbers.
Arline Kley
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1808 - 2013-04-24 13:32:37 UTC
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.


You make it sound like its automatically a bad thing to try and talk to the player base.

We worry when we don't receieve any notion AT ALL that the issues we have been raising are actually being properly looked into. You mentioned the concerns that people raised about the Tempset and then in the same sentence, stated they overinflated and oversimplified the issues: Its difficult to get the developers attention to physical flaws in their redesigns when you do such, to which I can understand your personal frustation at times, but we don't see the raw data that you guys do. We don't have access to the tables of ship data, or the golden idol of CCP Guard, so we have to make do with what we get.


CCP Rise wrote:
After our last round of reviews we still feel that Amarr is likely in the best place it can be for Odyssey.


Wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong.

They are much worse off than they are before - with the puny reduction in cap/powergrid useage that you guys have so magically graced us with, our capacitor drain is still far and above the other races. Flavour is one thing; Physical gimping to promote an ideal that has no place in EVE is utterly insulting.


CCP Rise wrote:
We will keep watching closely as everything heads to sisi and if more adjustments are needed we will make them.


I'm highlighting that particular word to show how vague a statement like that is. "If" determines that you must agree that these changes are infact wrong and that the current incarnations are actually perfectly fine. However, that same conditional also gives you the power to claim utter superiority to the playerbase who have made it consistantly and publicly known (i.e this thread) that these changes will have a negative impact on the race, and ignore them. Changing that to a "when" still gives you a conditional that if the initial changes are stable, they will remain in place, but also determining that you are not going to ignore the evidence that is presented before you that when shown that these changes are infact the hinderance as we have made known to you, that they will be either reverted (a dream, so highy unlikely) or altered to make them viable.

Alas, I feel that the former is going to be used here.

"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
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1809 - 2013-04-24 13:34:42 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
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.


There is a area where having more SP is just bad after certain level. I'm talking about Interceptors and Interdictors that, after perfecting all skills they are benefit from, just become to expensive to fly because of high clone cost for older characters.
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
#1810 - 2013-04-24 13:37:53 UTC
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
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.


There is a area where having more SP is just bad after certain level. I'm talking about Interceptors and Interdictors that, after perfecting all skills they are benefit from, just become to expensive to fly because of high clone cost for older characters.



He Kind of got you there. There is indeed a poitn where high SP becomes more of a hassle than a help :P I woudl love if cloen costs woudl have a max cost around 20 Mil isk.
Regolis
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1811 - 2013-04-24 14:34:58 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:


Taking the Larges only here. Though the Mediums & Smalls need similar & larger reductions, same as the large turrets do.
Mega. 3.0 Multipler / 9.0 Sec rate of fire. 1/3rd* per second.
Rail. 3.025/9.56. 0.316* per second.
Tachyon. 4.5/12. 0.375* per second.
When you take the ROF into account, they come out much closer together, with the Rail having the longest range of them all. And requiring less than 25% of the Cap of the Tachyon. (I'm not sure how the Lasers requiring tripple the cap of the Rails is 'Parity' btw.... have I failed at maths.)
Additionally the Tachyon requires crazy amounts more fitting than the rails. For..... (0.375/0.316) 18% more. It's a nice 18% more sure. That might need a little tweak so that Tachyons are laser alpha while mega's are fast firing for their DPS.

But the current (After Odyssey) stats do not balance at all with these numbers.


The parity I was talking about is the how the weapons have similar DPS and range. I have been fighting for awhile now to try to get people to recognize that the Tachyon needs to be balanced separately from the rest of the beam lasers.
On every tier of weapons,beams have near identical range and DPS except the insane power costs.
Megabeam = 425mm Rail not = Tachyon
If we get some balance between the fitting and power costs of the Megabeam the devs can then bring the Tachyon in line with that.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1812 - 2013-04-24 14:46:10 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.


Well, that's it, I'm done. Dear ears and all that.

Yours truly,

The Once and Future Redheaded Stepchild (Amarr).

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Korgan Nailo
5ER3NITY INC
The Gorram Shiney Alliance
#1813 - 2013-04-24 14:49:16 UTC
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.

Glad to see you're still following the thread, but kind of saddened to read that you believe there is no problem.

If I may, would you share your thoughts about why the Abaddon is the only ship that has no cap bonus of any sort (less turrets, cap regen, cap bonus itself)? How does the design team envision this ship's purpose?

--== EvE Online Quick Reference Sheet: E-Uni Forums Link / EvE Forums Link ==--
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1814 - 2013-04-24 14:53:27 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

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'd like to not pay 50m for a new clone. Can you help with that?
I don't want to live in a level 5 FW station forever.
Gosti Kahanid
Red Sky Morning
The Amarr Militia.
#1815 - 2013-04-24 15:11:13 UTC
The ships itself are alright in my oppinion. The real Problem ist only the Weapon-System. Without a Capusage-Bonus, Lasers use over four times the cap as Hybrid-Weapons. This is way to much. With the changes you may reduce the Capusage by 10% and 20% but this is still to less. Reduce them to a point where the use twice as much cap as Hybrid-Weapons, then everything would be fine.

To increase teh cap-recharge of the ships would be the wrong way. (My oppinion)

Sorry for my bad english
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
#1816 - 2013-04-24 15:22:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Unseen Spectre
CCP Rise wrote:
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.

Reply:
While it may be that the resistance bonus may be problematic for the reasons stated (I am not denying this), I think a resistance nerf need to be addressed relto each ship individually including the new changes rather than making an oversimplified blanket nerf.

It is also true that this nerf will mainly hit amarr and caldari ships - hence the conception (for right or wrong) that the Gallente and Minmatar are may be favoured over Amarr and Caldari.

Furthermore, while a reduction of 1 percentage-point per level may seem insignificant it is actually quite significant since this is a 20% reduction of the resistance bonus (a reduction of 1/5), so this is not just a slight nerf - it just is not, no matter how it is presented.

While I am not against a resistance nerf per se, I am against the way it is supposed to be applied because then you assume that all ships can be handled in the same way which I just not think is possible. As I have already stated elsewhere, I think that each ship has to be handled indivudaully when applying this nerf and be (re)balanced accordingly (maybe through some kind of compensation for ships already re-balanced) when the nerf is applied and not long time after.
Regolis
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1817 - 2013-04-24 15:25:01 UTC
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.



You can interpret this one of two ways.
1)Amarr is where we think it should be.
2)We have other changes planned for Amarr but not for this expansion and if we modify things too much right now it'll be game breaking after our planned changes.

number 2 is what I'm worried about... waiting 6 months to a year for planned changes while having crippled ships
Test numbers I posted pretty much show that without max fitting skills and max cap skills you should fly another race.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1818 - 2013-04-24 15:25:46 UTC
Unseen Spectre wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
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.

Reply:
While it may be that the resistance bonus may be problematic for the reasons stated (I am not denying this), I think a resistance nerf need to be addressed relto each ship individually including the new changes rather than making an oversimplified blanket nerf.

It is also true that this nerf will mainly hit amarr and caldari ships - hence the conception (for right or wrong) that the Gallente and Minmatar are may be favoured over Amarr and Caldari.

Furthermore, while a reduction of 1 percentage-point per level may seem insignificant it is actually quite significant since this is a 20% reduction of the resistance bonus (a reduction of 1/5), so this is not just a slight nerf - it just is not, no matter how it is presented.

While I am not against a resistance nerf per se, I am against the way it is supposed to be applied because then you assume that all ships can be handled in the same way which I just not think is possible. As I have already stated elsewhere, I think that each ship has to be handled indivudaully when applying this nerf and be (re)balanced accordingly (maybe through some kind of compensation for ships already re-balanced) when the nerf is applied and not long time after.


To be frank... only the moa from the affected ships is not ins STRONG position. Do not know how many woudl really suffer from it...

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1819 - 2013-04-24 15:35:29 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.


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

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

well, once I removed Mega Beams from your list since Tachyon's are the laser equivalent to 425 Rails, you will see that there is still parity, as your Rails still have more Optimal and Falloff, and cost less then 25% for activation cost. I also note that you deliberately left out the CPU and PG statistics, as this would only even more prove that Tachyons are balanced (and in most Laser user's justified opinion, overly so) in regards to 425 rails. Now, if you don't like how your 425 Rails work, then make your own thread for it, don't clutter this thread up which is meant for the Amarr Battleships.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#1820 - 2013-04-24 15:41:37 UTC
Kill2 is a ******* clown... His overinflated baddie ego has now gone through the roof with an unjustified employment that has resulted in poor statistical analysis of how the game actually works...

"well this ship did this much dmg during this week"

Guess what bub, players using ships during a particular week is very heavily influenced by Coalition doctrines... I would think someone with as much in game "experience" as you would understand that. Sadly the tried and tested conclusion of players going full ****** when they join the ccp staff is proving true yet again, ******* christ.