These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2301 - 2013-05-02 21:50:09 UTC
and as a side note, the Heatsink suggestion is balanced in and of itself and perfectly reasonable to be left in a vacuum, since the net result is a 1% dps loss to avoid the extra hit to cap
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2302 - 2013-05-02 21:57:54 UTC
Avald Midular wrote:

From my experience, it's the fitting that stops most from fitting tach's in fleet and instead use Scorch when not fitting Arties. Since Oracle's fit tach's easier than any BS (great design btw) they usually fit them. Make them fittable by BS's and then balance them if needed, but leaving them fittable by only the T3 BC and pirate ship while the BS's are left with broken mega-beams and Scorch isn't balanced compared to the options of other races.

I think we may disagree here, but I feel a maybe minor (on top of the proposed changes) fitting tweak and a moderate cap change will have very competitive megapulse. Megapulse capable platforms are already competitive in raw output. The Abaddon specifically looses at range due to the nature of it's competitor, the Rokh, having a range bonus.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#2303 - 2013-05-02 22:15:58 UTC
Avald Midular wrote:
When you stop mis-characterizing our argument, people will respond to you with something other than a block. Not one person has said they should have low cap/fitting, just something in the canyon sized gulf between double the PG and triple the cap cost.

That shows you don't understand the nature of fitting and capacitor : they are relative to ships.

And no, a ship with 5% capacitor don't mean its weapons should only have 5% more cap use, because that's absolutely not how things work. I already said it, but weapons account for most of the PG of a ship, but other modules use a fix amount of PG. 300% PG use mean that your ship need 300%PG + fix amount to be exactly equal to basePG+fix amount. Also, I never saw anyone here consider the higher cpu cost of railguns.

Basing the request for cap and fitting on a weapon comparison alone is stupid. When you will show some comprehensive comparisons, I'll stop moaning about railguns because you will have stoped to moan about your things, because you'll realize that they are actually very effective with the changes proposed in the laser thread.

People are crying for beams to be easy to fit and use(and yes, asking for them to be fittable with everything else without fitting module is asking for easy fitting ; and asking for an easy cap stable mission fit is asking for easy cap use), but still, after 100 pages, nobody ever showed a comparison with an amarr ship being arguably worse, all things considered, than another ship.
Naso Aya
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2304 - 2013-05-02 22:19:29 UTC
I'm pretty sure I did, but whatever. I'm not looking back through 100+ pages to find it.

On a more important note, we passed the Gallente thread length! Yay CCP Fozzie wins the bet!
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2305 - 2013-05-02 22:21:18 UTC
Naso Aya wrote:
Super spikinator wrote:

So much Energy is being wasted on arguing between 425s and tachs (or now mega beams) that nobody is going through and doing a three way comparison with the 1400mm, you know, the king of sniper alphafleets.


Actually, the king has the lowest dps of all platforms, as well as substantially shorter range than rails, and being a bit harder to fit than mega beams- but fundamentally fit-able on both of the Minmatar ships. So the reason people don't want to bring up the king is that regardless of how Tachs are changed, they won't overshadow 1400mm, and it makes the 425 Rail side weaker- rails are the easiest weapons to fit, combined with the longest range of the weapons. Yes Tachyons can reach pretty damn far too, but a Rokh vs Apoc, the Rokh will have substantially more range unless fitted with blasters.

Just to correct a fallacy here.
1400's are EASIER to fit than Megabeams.
Not by much mind you.
They have identical PG costs & Megabeams have 10 higher CPU costs.
This is 1400 vs Megabeam.....
Avald Midular
Doomheim
#2306 - 2013-05-02 22:26:27 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Avald Midular wrote:
When you stop mis-characterizing our argument, people will respond to you with something other than a block. Not one person has said they should have low cap/fitting, just something in the canyon sized gulf between double the PG and triple the cap cost.

That shows you don't understand the nature of fitting and capacitor : they are relative to ships.

And no, a ship with 5% capacitor don't mean its weapons should only have 5% more cap use, because that's absolutely not how things work. I already said it, but weapons account for most of the PG of a ship, but other modules use a fix amount of PG. 300% PG use mean that your ship need 300%PG + fix amount to be exactly equal to basePG+fix amount. Also, I never saw anyone here consider the higher cpu cost of railguns.


I don't mention the fittings relative to the ships because Amarr ships don't receive bonus PG to compensate (Maelstrom for instance, which has same PG and more CPU, presumably for its shield tank). As for cap, are you saying 5% total cap is enough to make up for weapons costing triple the cost of rails?

Come on, CPU of rails? They cost 10% more CPU as the next weapon down, are you seriously lining that up against what Amarr weapons cost in PG? That's why no ones mentioned it.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#2307 - 2013-05-02 22:38:19 UTC
Avald Midular wrote:
I don't mention the fittings relative to the ships because Amarr ships don't receive bonus PG to compensate (Maelstrom for instance, which has same PG and more CPU, presumably for its shield tank). As for cap, are you saying 5% total cap is enough to make up for weapons costing triple the cost of rails?

Come on, CPU of rails? They cost 10% more CPU as the next weapon down, are you seriously lining that up against what Amarr weapons cost in PG? That's why no ones mentioned it.

I'm not saying amarr cap is enough, I'm saying there is no valid arguments supporting the oposite, because no argument showed a comprehensive comparison. I'm sure you can provide some, the problem is that there is almost none here, and there is absolutely none considering the 20% buff to cap and PG use of beams.

As for CPU, percentages are irrelevant unless they are a portion of a ship CPU ; and even then, a comprehensive comparison would take the slot layout into account (mid slots use more CPU than low slots in general for example).

What have been showed here is that amarr have difficulties making a beam fit for pve -- though nobody talk about pulse being good for pve against EM weak rats, yet that must be considered in a pve balance comparison, because the actual problem of these beams fits is then a lot more narrow than some would want people to believe.
Naso Aya
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2308 - 2013-05-02 22:44:35 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Naso Aya wrote:
Super spikinator wrote:

So much Energy is being wasted on arguing between 425s and tachs (or now mega beams) that nobody is going through and doing a three way comparison with the 1400mm, you know, the king of sniper alphafleets.


Actually, the king has the lowest dps of all platforms, as well as substantially shorter range than rails, and being a bit harder to fit than mega beams- but fundamentally fit-able on both of the Minmatar ships. So the reason people don't want to bring up the king is that regardless of how Tachs are changed, they won't overshadow 1400mm, and it makes the 425 Rail side weaker- rails are the easiest weapons to fit, combined with the longest range of the weapons. Yes Tachyons can reach pretty damn far too, but a Rokh vs Apoc, the Rokh will have substantially more range unless fitted with blasters.

Just to correct a fallacy here.
1400's are EASIER to fit than Megabeams.
Not by much mind you.
They have identical PG costs & Megabeams have 10 higher CPU costs.
This is 1400 vs Megabeam.....


Don't forget the post Odyssey laser changes, which will make mega-beams substantially easier to fit. But we'll see if they're used, seeing as the base range is 20% less than 425 rails, and they don't have as high alpha or damage versatility as associated with Artillery.

Oh, and if you're comparing mega-beams to artillery, then the Artillery actually has a better range, with the same base as the megabeams, but literally twice as much falloff as lasers. Damage per second of course leans to mega-beams, but artillery have the lowest damage per second of all weapon types, including rails. 1400 versus Mega-beam, 1400 comes out ahead in all ways pre-Odyssey, but post Odyssey Mega-beams are substantially easier to fit with tank, have higher damage per second, and increased tracking.

As has been discussed, tracking is not very necessary for a sniper ship. Or rather, if it is necessary, your FC messed up somewhere.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2309 - 2013-05-02 23:43:28 UTC
Quote:
And yes, here and in the laser thread several statements have been made equating 425's to Tachs.


Equating. As in them being the highest level of weaponry in their class.

Duals, Megas, Tachs.

Railguns also have 3, of which 425s is the biggest.

Equating. Not saying they should be equal in fitting, per your statement.

In fact, even the quote you put up, does not in any way shape or form suggest that they should have equal fitting requirements.

You sir, are a liar.

"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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2310 - 2013-05-02 23:46:28 UTC
Avald Midular wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Avald Midular wrote:
I'm all for tradeoff's while fitting, as long as ALL races have to make those tradeoffs. As it is with the new ships, Amarr have to make a lot more tradeoffs especially for non-fleet or low-SP fits and I don't see that with the other races BS lineup. Amarr are shoehorned into fitting Scorch and buffer tanking and have to give up a lot of modules/rigs to do otherwise while no other race has to. The Gallente got their ships changed away from 8 turret setups which helped their situation after about 2 hours on the forum, and we're asking for a similar consideration of the Amarr lineup.

The problem is that all the proposed "solutions" will bring are caldari+gallente cries about their railguns being terrible compare to low cap/fitting beams.


When you stop mis-characterizing our argument, people will respond to you with something other than a block. Not one person has said they should have low cap/fitting, just something in the canyon sized gulf between double the PG and triple the cap cost.


Very. much. this.

No one can yet manage to give me a cogent reason as to why the fitting requirements are so insane, and the cap use 300% of the closest comparison.

These are nothing more than quality of life changes, so why are they such a big flaming deal to all the detractors? (hint, there's only one answer. The polarizing, self entitled mindset that says "If X gets something, then Y and Z are getting screwed!". The same kind of idiocy in the nullsec vs highsec "debates")

"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.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2311 - 2013-05-02 23:47:09 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
And yes, here and in the laser thread several statements have been made equating 425's to Tachs.


Equating. As in them being the highest level of weaponry in their class.

Duals, Megas, Tachs.

Railguns also have 3, of which 425s is the biggest.

Equating. Not saying they should be equal in fitting, per your statement.

In fact, even the quote you put up, does not in any way shape or form suggest that they should have equal fitting requirements.

You sir, are a liar.

So saying that Tachs should be comparable to 425's specifically doesn't mean one thinks they should be comparable to 425's specifically. Got it. I have no words for you anymore.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2312 - 2013-05-02 23:58:25 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
And yes, here and in the laser thread several statements have been made equating 425's to Tachs.


Equating. As in them being the highest level of weaponry in their class.

Duals, Megas, Tachs.

Railguns also have 3, of which 425s is the biggest.

Equating. Not saying they should be equal in fitting, per your statement.

In fact, even the quote you put up, does not in any way shape or form suggest that they should have equal fitting requirements.

You sir, are a liar.

So saying that Tachs should be comparable to 425's specifically doesn't mean one thinks they should be comparable to 425's specifically. Got it. I have no words for you anymore.


No, your argument, that I took exception against, was that you were saying people want Tachs to have the same fitting as 425s. Look.
Quote:

That said I still hold that if fittings and cap were fixed as some here suggest, to the point of making fittings on tach's quivalent to 425's, Tach's would completely obsolete large rail sniping platforms out to the limits of their T2 ammo


Yeah, right there, in your own words.

You lie. No one says this, no one has.

"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.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2313 - 2013-05-02 23:59:14 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
I'm not saying amarr cap is enough, I'm saying there is no valid arguments supporting the oposite, because no argument showed a comprehensive comparison.

Except for the ones you've ignored.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#2314 - 2013-05-03 00:02:10 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You lie. No one says this, no one has.

Oh really ? So you can explain what "we want our weapon to be usable" mean ?
Because if that's not "like 425mm railguns", then that is how beams will be with the fix in the beams turrets thread : they should be usable with 10% less PG and 20% less cap use.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2315 - 2013-05-03 00:05:04 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You lie. No one says this, no one has.

Oh really ? So you can explain what "we want our weapon to be usable" mean ?
Because if that's not "like 425mm railguns", then that is how beams will be with the fix in the beams turrets thread : they should be usable with 10% less PG and 20% less cap use.


Yeah, I can explain to you for the umpteenth time.

We don't want our guns to cost 200% more PG and 300% more cap.

It'd rather those numbers be closer to 150% and 200%. Especially if all we really get out of it is one TC worth of tracking.

And I'd love it if we had some usable crystals besides I.N. Multi and Scorch.

Who are you quoting with that, btw? I'd love to know their name, because it's certainly no one I've ever heard of...

"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.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2316 - 2013-05-03 00:07:09 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You lie. No one says this, no one has.

Oh really ? So you can explain what "we want our weapon to be usable" mean ?
Because if that's not "like 425mm railguns", then that is how beams will be with the fix in the beams turrets thread : they should be usable with 10% less PG and 20% less cap use.

What you're saying is equivalent to "x < y, and z < y, therefore z = x."
See the problem?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2317 - 2013-05-03 00:09:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
And yes, here and in the laser thread several statements have been made equating 425's to Tachs.


Equating. As in them being the highest level of weaponry in their class.

Duals, Megas, Tachs.

Railguns also have 3, of which 425s is the biggest.

Equating. Not saying they should be equal in fitting, per your statement.

In fact, even the quote you put up, does not in any way shape or form suggest that they should have equal fitting requirements.

You sir, are a liar.

So saying that Tachs should be comparable to 425's specifically doesn't mean one thinks they should be comparable to 425's specifically. Got it. I have no words for you anymore.


No, your argument, that I took exception against, was that you were saying people want Tachs to have the same fitting as 425s. Look.
Quote:

That said I still hold that if fittings and cap were fixed as some here suggest, to the point of making fittings on tach's quivalent to 425's, Tach's would completely obsolete large rail sniping platforms out to the limits of their T2 ammo


Yeah, right there, in your own words.

You lie. No one says this, no one has.

Except saying that the 2 should be comparable, which means comparable use. Though they aren't comparable in use requirements or output. They aren't comparable. They aren't equivalents.

So the statement by your interpretation is just that Tach's and 425's are largest in their respective categories. In which case it would be fair to compare megapulse to 425's, contrary to the statement made, as those are the closest comparison performance point, Tach's being the largest being rendered completely irrelevant.

So which is it? Was he saying tachs should fit near 425 usage cases? Or just pointing out that both were the largest in a completely unrelated point to not being able to compare 425's to their actual nearest competitor for what would at that point be some other unstated reason?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2318 - 2013-05-03 00:13:46 UTC
"Tachyons are just too big. Look at those numbers! Clearly nothing should ever be allowed to fit them."

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2319 - 2013-05-03 00:16:58 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:


Except saying that the 2 should be comparable, which means comparable use. Though they aren't comparable in use requirements or output. They aren't comparable. They aren't equivalents.

So the statement by your interpretation is just that Tach's and 425's are largest in their respective categories. In which case it would be fair to compare megapulse to 425's, contrary to the statement made, as those are the closest comparison point, Tach's being the largest being rendered completely irrelevant.

So which is it? Was he saying tachs should fit near 425 usage cases? Or just pointing out that both were the largest in a completely unrelated point to not being able to compare 425's to their actual nearest competitor for what would at that point be some other unstated reason?



Who is "saying they should be comparable?"

Anybody on the last, oh hell, I'd even go as far as 10 pages of this thread, are just arguing over which ones can be compared for dps analysis.

Duals = Duals

Megas = 350s

Tachs = 425s.

Those are the size tiers of Large Hybrid and Laser battleship weapons. We each have three, see?

People are arguing whether the dps of Megas should be based on their closest statistical equivalent, 425s, or not. Because they are remarkably, even lazily, statistically close.

That's it. Idk what hat you pulled "you all want Tachs to be as easy to fit as 425s" from, but it sure wasn't anyone I know of.

"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.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2320 - 2013-05-03 00:17:33 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
"Tachyons are just too big. Look at those numbers! Clearly nothing should ever be allowed to fit them."

Do you feel other weapons provide comparable performance alternatives?