These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#2141 - 2013-04-29 18:20:50 UTC
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"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2142 - 2013-04-29 18:24:23 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"



Taht is not about beams being broken and more about the metagame where the fleets are so huge and carrier and logistics remote repair so prevalent that DPS is not so relevant and alpha strike became more necessary than anything.

That is somethign that you do not fix with modules, but only by changing targets in eve and creating oportunities for smaller scale ( effecrively medium sized gangs) PVP.


This is not a beams issue. This is a 3!@#!@#1 metagame issue because CCP wants to advertise massive battles etc and forget to give us FUN types of PVP.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Avald Midular
Doomheim
#2143 - 2013-04-29 18:37:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Avald Midular
Kagura Nikon wrote:
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"



Taht is not about beams being broken and more about the metagame where the fleets are so huge and carrier and logistics remote repair so prevalent that DPS is not so relevant and alpha strike became more necessary than anything.

That is somethign that you do not fix with modules, but only by changing targets in eve and creating oportunities for smaller scale ( effecrively medium sized gangs) PVP.


This is not a beams issue. This is a 3!@#!@#1 metagame issue because CCP wants to advertise massive battles etc and forget to give us FUN types of PVP.



Fair point about huge fleet metagame, but my understanding was that it wasn't just being used in huge fleets, but also smaller scale fights when you didn't have a lot of logi support or you expected to be neuted or wanted to MWD more (or at all).

Either way my main points was about the idiocy of Amarr being the only race with 2 8 turret setups with their obscene cap costs.
Avald Midular
Doomheim
#2144 - 2013-04-29 19:13:25 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
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"



Taht is not about beams being broken and more about the metagame where the fleets are so huge and carrier and logistics remote repair so prevalent that DPS is not so relevant and alpha strike became more necessary than anything.

That is somethign that you do not fix with modules, but only by changing targets in eve and creating oportunities for smaller scale ( effecrively medium sized gangs) PVP.


This is not a beams issue. This is a 3!@#!@#1 metagame issue because CCP wants to advertise massive battles etc and forget to give us FUN types of PVP.



I'm also worried these fleets will be used to inflate the statistics to point out that "see Amarr BS's are still being used" after the changes we must have did something right.
Naso Aya
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2145 - 2013-04-29 20:49:44 UTC
Joke's on us guys, we can drop an additional 25% cap use of lasers if we don't learn rapid fire.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2146 - 2013-04-29 21:19:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
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.


Bwa ha ha ha ha!

You win the thread.

[Edit: Wait, didn't Rise threaten us all earlier with less SP? It was a hidden path to cap stability! If only we had known!

"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.
Dr Ted Kaper
Arondight
#2147 - 2013-04-29 21:24:37 UTC
Ravcharas wrote:
I wonder what the chances are of the resist changes following through to the amarr and caldari capitals. Any bets?


I'd count on it because that's where those resist bonuses are strongest. Archons and Chimeras are much stronger in a lot of situations.
LuisWu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2148 - 2013-04-29 22:19:22 UTC  |  Edited by: LuisWu
¿108 pages and not even a smiley like the last time? I´m surprised, I though CCP RIse loved to talk about ships...

BTW resistance nerf its been already announced for all ships of all races with the 5% bonus per skill level :

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=224880&find=unread

F*** This Game
LuisWu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2149 - 2013-04-29 22:22:21 UTC  |  Edited by: LuisWu
.Double post?

F*** This Game
sens1
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#2150 - 2013-04-29 23:56:07 UTC
I still can't believe the Geddon change...
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#2151 - 2013-04-30 01:52:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenshi Hanshin
sens1 wrote:
I still can't believe the Geddon change...


The fat lady has started singing yet my friend!

CCP has seemed to forgotten that we the players are the ones that allow them to put food on the table. Plus it might not be a bad idea to do a boycott. From what I read, Iceland is having some economic problems. So odds are that they would *really* feel it. Then they would be motivated to get with the program of how much we don't like their proposals. Just a thought...
Naso Aya
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2152 - 2013-04-30 02:39:11 UTC
Well, I'm at least not training large lasers yet. Much better investments of time than trying to put points in for a ship I'm not going to use.

I still think there's a way to reconcile at least some of these differences, but it'd require taking down the Abaddon, and I'm not sure CCP has the cojones to mess with a nullsec fleet ship.

I also think that leaving a range bonus on the Apoc simply because it's always had a range bonus is hypocritical when the Armageddon is being dismantled.
Avald Midular
Doomheim
#2153 - 2013-04-30 03:09:38 UTC
Naso Aya wrote:
Well, I'm at least not training large lasers yet. Much better investments of time than trying to put points in for a ship I'm not going to use.

I still think there's a way to reconcile at least some of these differences, but it'd require taking down the Abaddon, and I'm not sure CCP has the ******* to mess with a nullsec fleet ship.

I also think that leaving a range bonus on the Apoc simply because it's always had a range bonus is hypocritical when the Armageddon is being dismantled.


There have been plenty of reasonable suggestions already. Moving away from having TWO 8 turret ships is a good start. Make them both 6-7 turret ships and modify the bonuses to keep dps the same, there DONE. If you're worried about balance and adding utility highs, then take them away if you want. Anything is better than being the only race with BS's having triple the cap cost as the next weapon down but also having both laser BS's be 8 turret. It's like they have a sense of humor to punish Amarr in this way.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2154 - 2013-04-30 03:17:23 UTC
Avald Midular wrote:
Naso Aya wrote:
Well, I'm at least not training large lasers yet. Much better investments of time than trying to put points in for a ship I'm not going to use.

I still think there's a way to reconcile at least some of these differences, but it'd require taking down the Abaddon, and I'm not sure CCP has the ******* to mess with a nullsec fleet ship.

I also think that leaving a range bonus on the Apoc simply because it's always had a range bonus is hypocritical when the Armageddon is being dismantled.


There have been plenty of reasonable suggestions already. Moving away from having TWO 8 turret ships is a good start. Make them both 6-7 turret ships and modify the bonuses to keep dps the same, there DONE. If you're worried about balance and adding utility highs, then take them away if you want. Anything is better than being the only race with BS's having triple the cap cost as the next weapon down but also having both laser BS's be 8 turret. It's like they have a sense of humor to punish Amarr in this way.

Thats a band aid solution that does nothing to actually address the cause of the issue which is Laser Beams using too much cap & PG (& Pulses also use a bit much, but not anywhere near the same degree). Same as the cap use 'bonus' was just a band aid that prevented the true problem becoming too crippling.
To actually fix the problem properly, it has to be done with a fix to lasers.
Avald Midular
Doomheim
#2155 - 2013-04-30 03:20:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Avald Midular
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Avald Midular wrote:
Naso Aya wrote:
Well, I'm at least not training large lasers yet. Much better investments of time than trying to put points in for a ship I'm not going to use.

I still think there's a way to reconcile at least some of these differences, but it'd require taking down the Abaddon, and I'm not sure CCP has the ******* to mess with a nullsec fleet ship.

I also think that leaving a range bonus on the Apoc simply because it's always had a range bonus is hypocritical when the Armageddon is being dismantled.


There have been plenty of reasonable suggestions already. Moving away from having TWO 8 turret ships is a good start. Make them both 6-7 turret ships and modify the bonuses to keep dps the same, there DONE. If you're worried about balance and adding utility highs, then take them away if you want. Anything is better than being the only race with BS's having triple the cap cost as the next weapon down but also having both laser BS's be 8 turret. It's like they have a sense of humor to punish Amarr in this way.

Thats a band aid solution that does nothing to actually address the cause of the issue which is Laser Beams using too much cap & PG (& Pulses also use a bit much, but not anywhere near the same degree). Same as the cap use 'bonus' was just a band aid that prevented the true problem becoming too crippling.
To actually fix the problem properly, it has to be done with a fix to lasers.


100% agreed, but they've said that the Laser overhaul is still in the future and that the large energy tweaks were all we were going to get in the short-term. If they won't budge on those numbers then I suggest the above so that the BS's as they are now won't make it to Odyssey totally unusable with anything but Scorch (and Arties).
Naso Aya
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2156 - 2013-04-30 04:01:49 UTC
They didn't mess with the Raven without having a cruise missile fix prepared ahead of time...
Avald Midular
Doomheim
#2157 - 2013-04-30 04:03:47 UTC
Naso Aya wrote:
They didn't mess with the Raven without having a cruise missile fix prepared ahead of time...


Yes but there's only so much good design to go around. I think Amarr got stuck with some of the stinky.
Naso Aya
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2158 - 2013-04-30 04:32:15 UTC
Avald Midular wrote:
Naso Aya wrote:
They didn't mess with the Raven without having a cruise missile fix prepared ahead of time...


Yes but there's only so much good design to go around. I think Amarr got stuck with some of the stinky.


I'm kind of wondering what design the Amarr even ended up with. These bonuses would be perfectly fine if we were any other race, but as Amarr...

If cap to turrets is such a boring bonus, why not try giving a bonus to cap recharge rate or cap amount, per level? Wouldn't be nearly as boring then, that's for sure.
Avald Midular
Doomheim
#2159 - 2013-04-30 04:44:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Avald Midular
Naso Aya wrote:
Avald Midular wrote:
Naso Aya wrote:
They didn't mess with the Raven without having a cruise missile fix prepared ahead of time...


Yes but there's only so much good design to go around. I think Amarr got stuck with some of the stinky.


I'm kind of wondering what design the Amarr even ended up with. These bonuses would be perfectly fine if we were any other race, but as Amarr...

If cap to turrets is such a boring bonus, why not try giving a bonus to cap recharge rate or cap amount, per level? Wouldn't be nearly as boring then, that's for sure.


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?
Naso Aya
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2160 - 2013-04-30 04:55:31 UTC
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?