These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Avald Midular
Doomheim
#2161 - 2013-04-30 05:00:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Avald Midular
Naso Aya wrote:
Avald Midular wrote:


We'd be in the same problem as we were with the cap bonus, a "bonus" that just covers up the insane design of lasers to make the ship playable. So now the ships are taxed one ship bonus along with the PG fitting mod tax and laser fire cap booster tax. What summer intern at CCP slipped that past the design team?


So now here's the difficult question: What are lasers supposed to be a trade off of? Projectiles have multiple ups and downs, as do railguns. But lasers seem to be fairly well rounded, except for the cap issue. I think the cap issue was implemented that since the Amarr are good with everything, but not best at anything, there should be some glaring downside to such a versatile weapon. Well here we are: should there be a downside besides cap to lasers?


Single damage type? More so since you're pretty much forced into scorch at every level. Obscene PG fitting required? In my opinion no other weapon type has as much glaring downsides as lasers, TRIPLE the cap cost as hybrids and the before mentioned PG fitting even with the latest tweaks punishes the player with too many modules required to fit and fire the weapons that it gimps their fit and forget it if they don't have all L5 skills...... they're broken
Naso Aya
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2162 - 2013-04-30 05:37:25 UTC
Well let's look at ships for a moment. With Caldari and Gallente in particular (Minmatar isn't so obvious, and I'm not used to flying Minmatar) there's a specific push to use certain ships with certain types of weapons. Long range vs short range, with Caldari using long range, and Gallente gaining more from using short range.

What benefit is it to put beams on an Apoc over scorch?

I think the hulls themselves can help, instead of hinder, the rebalance efforts. If the Apoc was put forward as the dedicated sniper boat- in otherwords, given the powergrid and cap to support Tachs, people would fit tachs. And poof, just like that, Tachs wouldn't need to be rebalanced in order to be fitable on the Abaddon, because if you want a sniper boat, you can use the Apoc!

In some sense, I feel like CCP is taking the easy way out and saying "Ah, lasers are broken, it doesn't matter what we do to the hulls, we'll rebalance lasers anyways in a year. Lets just make it so the hull bonuses are good, then when we rebalance lasers, we can make things fit the way we want to!" Thats the worst way to go about, in my opinion. Let the hulls actually be designed around fitting lasers, as opposed to being designed to be in line with all the others.
Calathorn Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2163 - 2013-04-30 07:38:15 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
He took issue with the statement that it's cap stable on just it's guns. I informed him he was misunderstanding. That's all.

That's the only statement being made there. That's it's cap stable with it's guns running. What else can you manage to infer from this statement, I don't know.

The point I was trying to make is that the statement you are bickering over is useless without additional information. Abaddon is effectively cap-stable with MPII firing standard crystals, yet it and the soon to be revised Apocalypse are constantly being brought up in cap arguments.

Crystals used, Modules fitted, Skill levels etc. are all not only relevant but essential as no one undocks a ship with just guns fitted and shoots a can/asteroid.


Cap stable with standard? Who actually loads standard?

Crystals used is in fact, entirely irrelevant, because the only crystals that are genuinely worth using are IN Multi, and Scorch.

And, if you cared to actually read the thread, most people are complaining about the cap use of Beams.

Modules fitted is also irrelevant, because we can easily take into account the Amarr slot tax for cap, so we have very little wiggle room as far as what we fit.

Skill levels are relevant only in how much this impacts the new player with less than perfect skills. Which, universally, the answer is that Amarr is a "all skills V" race (at least above frigate level anyway), and remains so with these changes. "No newbies need apply" might as well be the tagline of our race.



been noticing that as i switch from caldari to ammar (i like being adaptable, but the gallente ships are just plain-ass UGLY)

above frigate my main thought is "can i run the ship for more then 30 seconds? no? damn, 100mill wasted"

BRING BACK THE JUKEBOX

I attended the School of Hard Nocks, the only place you will ever learn anything of value, sadly most Americans never meet the requirments to attend
Calathorn Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2164 - 2013-04-30 07:42:27 UTC
Avald Midular wrote:
If anyone listens to the "Sh** on Kugu" Eve podcast, in the last section of the latest one they talk about Arty Abaddon fleets and how a Test FC is having success with that setup. Someone on the CSM is even running on the platform of making that a more sanctioned setup. If anything is a flashing neon sign that beam's are broken as hell it is the success of Arty Abaddon fleets (I mean other than 107+ pages of overwhelmingly negative feedback with zero meaningful CCP feedback).

Personally I think it is idiotic to have a race firing a weapon that is triple the cap cost as the next weapon down and yet has TWO BS's with 8 turrets, whereas the Gallente feedback prompted them to change their BS's to not have 8 turrets anymore. Apparently 107+ pages isn't enough or they were never actually looking for Amarr feedback.

New Amarr tagline suggestion: "Low SP and non-fleet need not apply"



lol, but then the ammar might actually be usefull in PVP and gods know we can't have that happenRoll

BRING BACK THE JUKEBOX

I attended the School of Hard Nocks, the only place you will ever learn anything of value, sadly most Americans never meet the requirments to attend
Calathorn Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2165 - 2013-04-30 07:44:04 UTC
Naso Aya wrote:
Joke's on us guys, we can drop an additional 25% cap use of lasers if we don't learn rapid fire.




Shocked


oops, too lateRoll

BRING BACK THE JUKEBOX

I attended the School of Hard Nocks, the only place you will ever learn anything of value, sadly most Americans never meet the requirments to attend
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2166 - 2013-04-30 10:22:05 UTC
I find strange how people still fail to realize that 7 tachyons on an APOC is more damage at range than any other battleship :P

Not saying the apoc does not deserve the PG to fit 8 tachyosn (EXACLTY.. that woudl means without MWD, so it would match same performance the tempest and maelstrom have with fittings)

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2167 - 2013-04-30 10:24:10 UTC
Naso Aya wrote:
Avald Midular wrote:


We'd be in the same problem as we were with the cap bonus, a "bonus" that just covers up the insane design of lasers to make the ship playable. So now the ships are taxed one ship bonus along with the PG fitting mod tax and laser fire cap booster tax. What summer intern at CCP slipped that past the design team?


So now here's the difficult question: What are lasers supposed to be a trade off of? Projectiles have multiple ups and downs, as do railguns. But lasers seem to be fairly well rounded, except for the cap issue. I think the cap issue was implemented that since the Amarr are good with everything, but not best at anything, there should be some glaring downside to such a versatile weapon. Well here we are: should there be a downside besides cap to lasers?



They already have it. Pulses are the worse tracking of short ranged weapons (although nto enough to be problematic at their typical engagement ranges . It goes Blasters > AC> Pulses. The beams have the shortest effective range of the long range weapons. But that at the bennefit of MASSIVELY higher damage output and better tracking. OF course the APOC cancels that.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Apostrof Ahashion
Doomheim
#2168 - 2013-04-30 11:37:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Apostrof Ahashion
Kagura Nikon wrote:
I find strange how people still fail to realize that 7 tachyons on an APOC is more damage at range than any other battleship :P

Not saying the apoc does not deserve the PG to fit 8 tachyosn (EXACLTY.. that woudl means without MWD, so it would match same performance the tempest and maelstrom have with fittings)


At what range? Over 130km? And with less than 1k alpha. Yeah im happy now.

And you can fit Alphastorms with 40 mil Genolution implant set.
John 1135
#2169 - 2013-04-30 12:14:37 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
John 1135 wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
I obviously haven't looked at the Nav Harb on test server yet, but the Nav Omen is actually cap stable perma-running it's 4 lasers by themselves with nothing fitted to help it's cap, so they actually balanced it's cap properly.

(hint hint WTF Abaddon?)

That's cos the Nomen had a cap reduction bonus on its lasers. Guess what's going away in Odyssey? (Take a look at the navy cruiser respec thread.)

No, I did my tests with the NOmen on the test server that has the proposed changes to it (ie, that "lack" of hull boosts for cap).

I see I mistook your point. Sorry.

I did note the words 'testserver', but coming as they did with 'Nav Harb' before the comma I expected you were referring to the Nav Omen as is, rather than on test. In part because the current version has refreshingly robust cap making it a pleasure to fly: your comment chimed with something I liked about the present ship so I thought you were referring to the present ship! FWIW I don't favour an inevitable comma before 'but' unless intended that everything after the comma contrasts with everything before.

I did fail to note the reference to 4 lasers, which was the evidence that both were on test.

Someone mentioned that Amarr are a 'newbies need not apply' race. I'd rather be a race that can fly its ships and become better with SP, than just about fly its ships after a load of SP. I'm facing next Amarr BS V and Large Lasers V and with those long trains ahead of me the Odyssey changes feel like a point where I can safely switch to another racial series.
Avald Midular
Doomheim
#2170 - 2013-04-30 12:24:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Avald Midular
Kagura Nikon wrote:
I find strange how people still fail to realize that 7 tachyons on an APOC is more damage at range than any other battleship :P

Not saying the apoc does not deserve the PG to fit 8 tachyosn (EXACLTY.. that woudl means without MWD, so it would match same performance the tempest and maelstrom have with fittings)


We'll assume you mean the T1 BS's. I'd like to see your math after the latest missile changes or even for a 1400 Maelstrom. We have to take care of all these roaming bands of 7 turret Apoc's this second! Oh wait there aren't any? Hmm...
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2171 - 2013-04-30 15:22:07 UTC
Avald Midular wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
I find strange how people still fail to realize that 7 tachyons on an APOC is more damage at range than any other battleship :P

Not saying the apoc does not deserve the PG to fit 8 tachyosn (EXACLTY.. that woudl means without MWD, so it would match same performance the tempest and maelstrom have with fittings)


We'll assume you mean the T1 BS's. I'd like to see your math after the latest missile changes or even for a 1400 Maelstrom. We have to take care of all these roaming bands of 7 turret Apoc's this second! Oh wait there aren't any? Hmm...


This is a point I have been trying to make all of the "lasers are fine" people, from the he-who-shall-not-be-named dumbass who has been trolling this entire thread for weeks, down to Kagura here, the newest disciple of this misconception.

If lasers (specifically beams) were good, they'd be popular. If Caldari (specifically missiles) were good, they'd be popular.

They're not, so ergo, they aren't good. For whatever reason, be it travel time (which, you will note, is being fixed) or overly high cap use (which, you will note, we are being given a raspberry about), popularity in this game pretty much can be equated to power.

This game has been around so long, and math hammered out so well, that there are no dark horses lurking anywhere, for the enterprising gamer to find. Whatever it is, it's been tried by somebody. If it works, then it goes on the pile. If it doesn't, then it is discarded. And EVE gamers are an economical bunch too, what is used now, is used because it's positives outweigh it's negatives.

"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.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2172 - 2013-04-30 16:57:27 UTC
And, honestly, I agree overall... if CCP wants to nerf the concept of 1400 Abaddons being so heavily popular, the resist nerf won't change a thing. We need to drop it from and 8 turret boat down to 6 or 7, and just make the damage bonus pick up the slack. And obviously, this would hugely address the idiotic cap issues it has.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2173 - 2013-04-30 17:44:54 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
So Fozzie.
Have you and CCP Rise completely stopped taking feedback on the ship and module balance changes?
Are you just going to release things as they are currently presented?
We're just over a month from release and the last time you or he posted in any of the Amarr T1 BS or the LET threads was just a handful of posts by Rise completely discarding most of the feedback in the thread from the past 90 pages before his post. And those handful of posts were over a week after anything previously.

What's the point of making such threads then? You haven't really given us much indication that you're doing anything about them, that you're reading them anymore, or even that you care.


We've been very busy with fanfest and myself with getting these devblogs out the door. We're definitely not done taking feedback on those balance changes.

Well that's comforting. At what point before an expansion would you say changes are locked in? A week before? Two weeks?


A few days for changes that don't require localization. Obviously the earlier the better though.

It took James going to a completely unrelated thread to get us some feed back, but here is the responses so that we can all have something to see about it.
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#2174 - 2013-04-30 18:10:25 UTC
That's some vague responce. And note the "not required localization". Assuming they are dead set to push this crap on us, the ship descriptions WILL require localization, which means - the changes already locked in... most likely.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Naso Aya
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2175 - 2013-04-30 18:22:39 UTC
He also got a response from Fozzie, not Rise. We don't know if Rise is under different constraints than Fozzie is in terms of time, ship balancing, etc.
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#2176 - 2013-04-30 18:32:48 UTC
Naso Aya wrote:
He also got a response from Fozzie, not Rise. We don't know if Rise is under different constraints than Fozzie is in terms of time, ship balancing, etc.

Constraints are not set per employee...

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2177 - 2013-04-30 20:23:05 UTC
Attack battleships

I may post this in every thread.

Anybody feel these are a little lacking in their role.

The Mega may be an exception due to it’s opportunity for massive close range DPS but generally these feel like they should be on the move and yet seem to have cap problems doing so, this is not so much a problem for combat battleships that may end up in scram range or as fleet platforms where mobility is just one factor.

Attack frigates have a role bonus over combat frigates, this helps them maintain tackle and speed by reducing the cap draw of propulsion disruption modules. At battleship level such a bonus would make very little difference but at battleship level, no ship can run a Microwarpdrive for any significant period of time.

How would people feel about a cap reduction role bonus for propulsion modules for all Attack Battleships? Even something as strong as 50% or even 75% to enable these ships to stay on the move (as much as battleships can) without constant cap boosting.
Calathorn Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2178 - 2013-04-30 20:38:29 UTC
Alticus C Bear wrote:
Attack battleships

I may post this in every thread.

Anybody feel these are a little lacking in their role.

The Mega may be an exception due to it’s opportunity for massive close range DPS but generally these feel like they should be on the move and yet seem to have cap problems doing so, this is not so much a problem for combat battleships that may end up in scram range or as fleet platforms where mobility is just one factor.

Attack frigates have a role bonus over combat frigates, this helps them maintain tackle and speed by reducing the cap draw of propulsion disruption modules. At battleship level such a bonus would make very little difference but at battleship level, no ship can run a Microwarpdrive for any significant period of time.

How would people feel about a cap reduction role bonus for propulsion modules for all Attack Battleships? Even something as strong as 50% or even 75% to enable these ships to stay on the move (as much as battleships can) without constant cap boosting.



sounds nice. but the ammar already have problems with lazers, so i doubt CCP will take any notice of this

BRING BACK THE JUKEBOX

I attended the School of Hard Nocks, the only place you will ever learn anything of value, sadly most Americans never meet the requirments to attend
Avald Midular
Doomheim
#2179 - 2013-04-30 20:41:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Avald Midular
Pelea Ming wrote:
And, honestly, I agree overall... if CCP wants to nerf the concept of 1400 Abaddons being so heavily popular, the resist nerf won't change a thing. We need to drop it from and 8 turret boat down to 6 or 7, and just make the damage bonus pick up the slack. And obviously, this would hugely address the idiotic cap issues it has.


I didn't even think about it from the Arty Abaddon angle but YESS, 100% agree!

Switching at least the Abaddon to 6 turrets but keeping same damage is now an even more obvious, low risk solution:

1) Helps out the PG fitting for those that don't like being forced into Scorch to avoid PG mods/rigs
2) Don't have to spend all the mid-slots on cap modules
3) Elegant "solution" to Arty Abaddon fleets which are having huge success
4) Brushes the cobwebs off Large Beams for anything but a Nightmare
5) Having 2 8 turret BS's for the race with triple the cap cost just to fire your weapons and absurdly more PG to fit them is a cruel joke
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2180 - 2013-04-30 21:13:41 UTC
Quote:
Having 2 8 turret BS's for the race with triple the cap cost just to fire your weapons and absurdly more PG to fit them is a cruel joke


Moreso when other race's Battleships are actively having turrets removed, and their damage bonuses buffed to compensate, specifically for the purpose of alleviating cap use.

"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.