These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dev Tesla
Deep Matter Inc.
#2201 - 2013-05-01 00:20:08 UTC
Wow...those geddon changes... I have zero interest in flying a drone boat... Ugh

As a fairly new EVE player I'm finding the lack of response from CCP regarding the mostly negative feedback about the geddon to cause me some concern about wanting to fly Amarr. It seems apparent CCP has no interest in discussing issues with current Amarr pilots.

-1 for the Geddon changes
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2202 - 2013-05-01 00:37:17 UTC
Dev Tesla wrote:
Wow...those geddon changes... I have zero interest in flying a drone boat... Ugh

As a fairly new EVE player I'm finding the lack of response from CCP regarding the mostly negative feedback about the geddon to cause me some concern about wanting to fly Amarr. It seems apparent CCP has no interest in discussing issues with current Amarr pilots.

-1 for the Geddon changes

A lot of us like the Geddon changes also though. The comments seem fairly split on that.
Though I liked the Old Geddon also. But I have no issues and am keen to fly the New Geddon.
I just want it to be viable to fit lasers on the new Geddon, not Projectiles or Missiles only. And the BS changes have forced CCP to at least start addressing Lasers.
Now, the general Laser issue and the viability of any of the new boats to use Lasers, especially Beam, with no cap reduction.... that CCP need to come back to the table and talk more on, because most of us aren't even slightly convinced on that.
Calathorn Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2203 - 2013-05-01 00:41:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Calathorn Virpio
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dev Tesla wrote:
Wow...those geddon changes... I have zero interest in flying a drone boat... Ugh

As a fairly new EVE player I'm finding the lack of response from CCP regarding the mostly negative feedback about the geddon to cause me some concern about wanting to fly Amarr. It seems apparent CCP has no interest in discussing issues with current Amarr pilots.

-1 for the Geddon changes

A lot of us like the Geddon changes also though. The comments seem fairly split on that.
Though I liked the Old Geddon also. But I have no issues and am keen to fly the New Geddon.
I just want it to be viable to fit lasers on the new Geddon, not Projectiles or Missiles only. And the BS changes have forced CCP to at least start addressing Lasers.
Now, the general Laser issue and the viability of any of the new boats to use Lasers, especially Beam, with no cap reduction.... that CCP need to come back to the table and talk more on, because most of us aren't even slightly convinced on that.





+1

lasers are an ineffective option so long as they eat threw cap like it was chocolate covered cocaiine

EDIT: where'd the quote box goQuestion

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
#2204 - 2013-05-01 00:54:33 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dev Tesla wrote:
Wow...those geddon changes... I have zero interest in flying a drone boat... Ugh

As a fairly new EVE player I'm finding the lack of response from CCP regarding the mostly negative feedback about the geddon to cause me some concern about wanting to fly Amarr. It seems apparent CCP has no interest in discussing issues with current Amarr pilots.

-1 for the Geddon changes

A lot of us like the Geddon changes also though. The comments seem fairly split on that.
Though I liked the Old Geddon also. But I have no issues and am keen to fly the New Geddon.
I just want it to be viable to fit lasers on the new Geddon, not Projectiles or Missiles only. And the BS changes have forced CCP to at least start addressing Lasers.
Now, the general Laser issue and the viability of any of the new boats to use Lasers, especially Beam, with no cap reduction.... that CCP need to come back to the table and talk more on, because most of us aren't even slightly convinced on that.


I think most people "accepted" the change especially since it looks like they had the art done long before they asked for feedback, though it looks like they're not interested in that as well. Personally I think the comments about it are overwhelmingly negative and I've followed all 110 pages closely. Most tend to agree that taking an iconic and popular ship and giving it a niche support role isn't a good idea and if they really wanted to use the art they should have added a hull. More people wouldn't complain about it if they left one of the other two ships any way playable to either new SP or non-fleet players.
Calathorn Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2205 - 2013-05-01 01:06:44 UTC
Avald Midular wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dev Tesla wrote:
Wow...those geddon changes... I have zero interest in flying a drone boat... Ugh

As a fairly new EVE player I'm finding the lack of response from CCP regarding the mostly negative feedback about the geddon to cause me some concern about wanting to fly Amarr. It seems apparent CCP has no interest in discussing issues with current Amarr pilots.

-1 for the Geddon changes

A lot of us like the Geddon changes also though. The comments seem fairly split on that.
Though I liked the Old Geddon also. But I have no issues and am keen to fly the New Geddon.
I just want it to be viable to fit lasers on the new Geddon, not Projectiles or Missiles only. And the BS changes have forced CCP to at least start addressing Lasers.
Now, the general Laser issue and the viability of any of the new boats to use Lasers, especially Beam, with no cap reduction.... that CCP need to come back to the table and talk more on, because most of us aren't even slightly convinced on that.


I think most people "accepted" the change especially since it looks like they had the art done long before they asked for feedback, though it looks like they're not interested in that as well. Personally I think the comments about it are overwhelmingly negative and I've followed all 110 pages closely. Most tend to agree that taking an iconic and popular ship and giving it a niche support role isn't a good idea and if they really wanted to use the art they should have added a hull. More people wouldn't complain about it if they left one of the other two ships any way playable to either new SP or non-fleet players.



when has ammar EVER been new player/non-fleet friendly?

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
#2206 - 2013-05-01 01:11:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Avald Midular
Calathorn Virpio wrote:
Avald Midular wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dev Tesla wrote:
Wow...those geddon changes... I have zero interest in flying a drone boat... Ugh

As a fairly new EVE player I'm finding the lack of response from CCP regarding the mostly negative feedback about the geddon to cause me some concern about wanting to fly Amarr. It seems apparent CCP has no interest in discussing issues with current Amarr pilots.

-1 for the Geddon changes

A lot of us like the Geddon changes also though. The comments seem fairly split on that.
Though I liked the Old Geddon also. But I have no issues and am keen to fly the New Geddon.
I just want it to be viable to fit lasers on the new Geddon, not Projectiles or Missiles only. And the BS changes have forced CCP to at least start addressing Lasers.
Now, the general Laser issue and the viability of any of the new boats to use Lasers, especially Beam, with no cap reduction.... that CCP need to come back to the table and talk more on, because most of us aren't even slightly convinced on that.


I think most people "accepted" the change especially since it looks like they had the art done long before they asked for feedback, though it looks like they're not interested in that as well. Personally I think the comments about it are overwhelmingly negative and I've followed all 110 pages closely. Most tend to agree that taking an iconic and popular ship and giving it a niche support role isn't a good idea and if they really wanted to use the art they should have added a hull. More people wouldn't complain about it if they left one of the other two ships any way playable to either new SP or non-fleet players.



when has ammar EVER been new player/non-fleet friendly?


When you're one of the other three races. All three can reasonably fit at least one of their ships and mission/solo pvp with them with all lvl 3 skills. Try and fit an abaddon or apoc with lvl 3 engineering or not lvl 5 cap skills, I'll run and grab the tissues. Save 1-2 of them for when you try and fit an active tank or MWD even with lvl 5 skills.
Calathorn Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2207 - 2013-05-01 01:18:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Calathorn Virpio
Avald Midular wrote:
Calathorn Virpio wrote:
Avald Midular wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dev Tesla wrote:
Wow...those geddon changes... I have zero interest in flying a drone boat... Ugh

As a fairly new EVE player I'm finding the lack of response from CCP regarding the mostly negative feedback about the geddon to cause me some concern about wanting to fly Amarr. It seems apparent CCP has no interest in discussing issues with current Amarr pilots.

-1 for the Geddon changes

A lot of us like the Geddon changes also though. The comments seem fairly split on that.
Though I liked the Old Geddon also. But I have no issues and am keen to fly the New Geddon.
I just want it to be viable to fit lasers on the new Geddon, not Projectiles or Missiles only. And the BS changes have forced CCP to at least start addressing Lasers.
Now, the general Laser issue and the viability of any of the new boats to use Lasers, especially Beam, with no cap reduction.... that CCP need to come back to the table and talk more on, because most of us aren't even slightly convinced on that.


I think most people "accepted" the change especially since it looks like they had the art done long before they asked for feedback, though it looks like they're not interested in that as well. Personally I think the comments about it are overwhelmingly negative and I've followed all 110 pages closely. Most tend to agree that taking an iconic and popular ship and giving it a niche support role isn't a good idea and if they really wanted to use the art they should have added a hull. More people wouldn't complain about it if they left one of the other two ships any way playable to either new SP or non-fleet players.



when has ammar EVER been new player/non-fleet friendly?


When you're one of the other three races. All three can reasonably fit at least one of their ships and mission/solo pvp with them with all lvl 3 skills. Try and fit an abaddon or apoc with lvl 3 engineering or not lvl 5 cap skills, I'll run and grab the tissues. Save 1-2 of them for when you try and fit an active tank or MWD even with lvl 5 skills.




lol, good thing i got both of those mentioned skills to LV 5, start out as ANY other race and THEN spec into ammar seems like the only way to do it so you're not twiddling your thumbs for 6 months waiting to finnally fit a decent CRUISER fit.


EDIT: oh right, i took a 5 month break, i'm STILL twiddling my thumbs......

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
The CandyGirl
Candy's Toy Shop
#2208 - 2013-05-01 01:37:30 UTC
I like the idea for the new geddon, when i first saw it i was like sweet a super long range curse with more tank and dps but less maneuverability.

I was sad because my duel heavy pulse anti small ship geddon was dieing but i still had the navy geddon for that.

But then i did some math....

geddon at lvl 5
tech 2 heavy neuts
37.8 km range
600 nueted every 24 sec
w/ 7 nuets / 4200 every 24 sec

curse at lvl 5
tech 2 med neuts
37.8 km range
360 neuted every 12 seconds
w/5 med neuts / 3600 every 24 seconds

So what we have is a ship that is in my opinion worse than the curse. it costs more, has the same range, and only slightly more nueting power. It has a little more dps and more ehp but far less maneuverability.

IMO it needs a greater range IE 60-70km maybe father. right now as i see it it is just too slow and will be easily kitted by nano ships

or make it the attack ship give it high tacking bonuses less hp more speed give the ability to combat the smaller support ships.

keep the apoc as the go to sniping platform.

and the abaddon as a slow high damage brawler.

but either turn the geddon into a neuting drone boat that has a place next to the curse and bhaal. or turn it into a quick high tracking laser platform.

Being a smartass is always better than being a dumbass!
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2209 - 2013-05-01 01:50:12 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Dual Heavy beam has more fitting requirement than a 350.
Megabeam has nearly 50% more fitting requirement than a 425. 50%! Despite being a 'smaller' size with weaker stats than the 425.
Tachyon is at about 75% more fitting requirement than a 425. And is the matching Tier.
Tachyon is also 500PG higher fitting than a 1400. Tachyons cost MORE PG than the highest alpha Arti in the game.

So?
We can also complain that 425mm Rails have more CPU requirements than any other large long-range turret. In isolation this means nothing.

Try this: When we compare DPS we get a very different picture:

Weapon Dam / Dur = Dam

Tachyon 4.5 12.5 0.360
Mega Beam 3.0 9.0 0.333
Dual Hvy Beam 2.0 7.2 0.278

425mm Rail 3.025 9.56 0.316
350mm Rail 2.2 7.31 0.301
Dual 250mm 1.65 5.85 0.282

1400mm How 10.672 40.16 0.266
1200mm Arty 5.082 21.04 0.242

Note that a Tachyon does far more DPS than any other weapon, and that artillery pays for its alpha by having very poor DPS. Hyrbrids have superior range, but lower DPS than lasers (and worse tracking). Lasers have the best DPS and the best tracking, at the cost of high PG requirements, and high cap use (but other turrets use ammo, and have a slower reload time than lasers).

If tachyons weren't a pain to fit they'd be overpowered.
Calathorn Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2210 - 2013-05-01 02:03:11 UTC
Josilin du Guesclin wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Dual Heavy beam has more fitting requirement than a 350.
Megabeam has nearly 50% more fitting requirement than a 425. 50%! Despite being a 'smaller' size with weaker stats than the 425.
Tachyon is at about 75% more fitting requirement than a 425. And is the matching Tier.
Tachyon is also 500PG higher fitting than a 1400. Tachyons cost MORE PG than the highest alpha Arti in the game.

So?
We can also complain that 425mm Rails have more CPU requirements than any other large long-range turret. In isolation this means nothing.

Try this: When we compare DPS we get a very different picture:

Weapon Dam / Dur = Dam

Tachyon 4.5 12.5 0.360
Mega Beam 3.0 9.0 0.333
Dual Hvy Beam 2.0 7.2 0.278

425mm Rail 3.025 9.56 0.316
350mm Rail 2.2 7.31 0.301
Dual 250mm 1.65 5.85 0.282

1400mm How 10.672 40.16 0.266
1200mm Arty 5.082 21.04 0.242

Note that a Tachyon does far more DPS than any other weapon, and that artillery pays for its alpha by having very poor DPS. Hyrbrids have superior range, but lower DPS than lasers (and worse tracking). Lasers have the best DPS and the best tracking, at the cost of high PG requirements, and high cap use (but other turrets use ammo, and have a slower reload time than lasers).

If tachyons weren't a pain to fit they'd be overpowered.



ok, make them a pain to fit, but get rid of the 10 seconds of firing and outta cap bitBig smile

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
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#2211 - 2013-05-01 02:04:34 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Tonto Auri wrote:
"Just drop turrets" doesn't make sense. Why forcing choices? I'm flying a 'geddon with six turrets, while it could field seven. Now, what? I have all I need for a specific task at hand, in a balance of offense and defense that suits my needs. If I need something else, I can do it in a different way.



You know you can use the 8 slots with mega pulkses for another role right...?

That's exactly what I did mean in the post you quoted, if you read it carefully.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Avald Midular
Doomheim
#2212 - 2013-05-01 02:20:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Avald Midular
Josilin du Guesclin wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Dual Heavy beam has more fitting requirement than a 350.
Megabeam has nearly 50% more fitting requirement than a 425. 50%! Despite being a 'smaller' size with weaker stats than the 425.
Tachyon is at about 75% more fitting requirement than a 425. And is the matching Tier.
Tachyon is also 500PG higher fitting than a 1400. Tachyons cost MORE PG than the highest alpha Arti in the game.

So?
We can also complain that 425mm Rails have more CPU requirements than any other large long-range turret. In isolation this means nothing.

Try this: When we compare DPS we get a very different picture:

Weapon Dam / Dur = Dam

Tachyon 4.5 12.5 0.360
Mega Beam 3.0 9.0 0.333
Dual Hvy Beam 2.0 7.2 0.278

425mm Rail 3.025 9.56 0.316
350mm Rail 2.2 7.31 0.301
Dual 250mm 1.65 5.85 0.282

1400mm How 10.672 40.16 0.266
1200mm Arty 5.082 21.04 0.242

Note that a Tachyon does far more DPS than any other weapon, and that artillery pays for its alpha by having very poor DPS. Hyrbrids have superior range, but lower DPS than lasers (and worse tracking). Lasers have the best DPS and the best tracking, at the cost of high PG requirements, and high cap use (but other turrets use ammo, and have a slower reload time than lasers).

If tachyons weren't a pain to fit they'd be overpowered.


Come on, you don't do your argument any favors when you say 425's have more CPU than any other weapon....by a measly 6 CPU versus Cruise Launcher or less than 10% (only 9 more than Tach's). While Tach's require near DOUBLE more PG than 425's at 4125 versus 2310 for 425's. Remember Tach's use TRIPLE the cap as 425's as well.

Nobody is saying Beams shouldn't cost more cap or more PG, but there is a football field of difference between mega-beams/tach's and the other weapons when it comes to PG and Cap and we're just asking for this difference to be lowered so that these weapons actually get used by something other than a Nightmare since it is the only one that can actually fit them without gimping their fit beyond belief that they might as well use Scorch and save the tears.

If Tach's were as OP as you claim we would see them used more...or at all especially in fleet environments where cap isn't as much an issue and you wouldn't see Amarr ships fitting Scorch nearly 100% of the time (only taking a break to fit Arties).
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#2213 - 2013-05-01 02:36:45 UTC
Avald Midular wrote:
Come on, you don't do your argument any favors when you say 425's have more CPU than any other weapon....by a measly 6 CPU versus Cruise Launcher or less than 10% (only 9 more than Tach's). While Tach's require near DOUBLE more PG than 425's at 4125 versus 2310 for 425's. Remember Tach's use TRIPLE the cap as 425's as well.

Nobody is saying Beams shouldn't cost more cap or more PG, but there is a football field of difference between mega-beams/tach's and the other weapons when it comes to PG and Cap and we're just asking for this difference to be lowered so that these weapons actually get used by something other than a Nightmare since it is the only one that can actually fit them without gimping their fit beyond belief that they might as well use Scorch and save the tears.

If Tach's were as OP as you claim we would see them used more...or at all especially in fleet environments where cap isn't as much an issue and you wouldn't see Amarr ships fitting Scorch nearly 100% of the time (only taking a break to fit Arties).

Let's make comparison fair, shall we? What is these 6 CPU make in percentage of CPU available on battleship?

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Avald Midular
Doomheim
#2214 - 2013-05-01 02:43:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Avald Midular
Tonto Auri wrote:
Avald Midular wrote:
Come on, you don't do your argument any favors when you say 425's have more CPU than any other weapon....by a measly 6 CPU versus Cruise Launcher or less than 10% (only 9 more than Tach's). While Tach's require near DOUBLE more PG than 425's at 4125 versus 2310 for 425's. Remember Tach's use TRIPLE the cap as 425's as well.

Nobody is saying Beams shouldn't cost more cap or more PG, but there is a football field of difference between mega-beams/tach's and the other weapons when it comes to PG and Cap and we're just asking for this difference to be lowered so that these weapons actually get used by something other than a Nightmare since it is the only one that can actually fit them without gimping their fit beyond belief that they might as well use Scorch and save the tears.

If Tach's were as OP as you claim we would see them used more...or at all especially in fleet environments where cap isn't as much an issue and you wouldn't see Amarr ships fitting Scorch nearly 100% of the time (only taking a break to fit Arties).

Let's make comparison fair, shall we? What is these 6 CPU make in percentage of CPU available on battleship?


I mentioned that, it's less than 10%, versus the 100% difference in PG the Amarr face.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2215 - 2013-05-01 02:53:19 UTC
Tonto Auri wrote:
Avald Midular wrote:
Come on, you don't do your argument any favors when you say 425's have more CPU than any other weapon....by a measly 6 CPU versus Cruise Launcher or less than 10% (only 9 more than Tach's). While Tach's require near DOUBLE more PG than 425's at 4125 versus 2310 for 425's. Remember Tach's use TRIPLE the cap as 425's as well.

Nobody is saying Beams shouldn't cost more cap or more PG, but there is a football field of difference between mega-beams/tach's and the other weapons when it comes to PG and Cap and we're just asking for this difference to be lowered so that these weapons actually get used by something other than a Nightmare since it is the only one that can actually fit them without gimping their fit beyond belief that they might as well use Scorch and save the tears.

If Tach's were as OP as you claim we would see them used more...or at all especially in fleet environments where cap isn't as much an issue and you wouldn't see Amarr ships fitting Scorch nearly 100% of the time (only taking a break to fit Arties).

Let's make comparison fair, shall we? What is these 6 CPU make in percentage of CPU available on battleship?

Nice cherry picking of arguments.
I love how you pick only on Tachyons DPS... Ignoring it's fitting requirements, Cap use, the lower range than the 425.....
Then lets go to Megabeams shall we.... That cost MORE PG than a 425. While having significantly lower range, basically the same DPS, tripple the cap use.
Or Dual Heavy Beams, That are worse in every way than the 350 Rail..... Higher fitting, lower range, lower DPS, still tripple the cap use....

Beams cost more PG and have tripple the Cap use of the next step up in size of rail. (Inside large beams/Rails), Tier 1 Beam higher requirements than Tier 2 Rail. Tier 2 Beam higher requirements than Tier 3 rail.

So sure, Tachs have the most paper DPS. Rails have the most range, meaning at certain ammo points, Rails will actually have more DPS because they will have switched to a shorter range ammo that does more DPS compared to Tachyons. Arties have more alpha. This means that all 3 weapons are top in one category. Yet out of the other categories, Tachyons are the bottom in a whole heap of them. Then if we drop to Megabeams, it becomes a joke.

Anyway, on the BS changes. Nice Curse/Geddon analysis. Can the Geddon sensibly fit 7 Heavy Neuts, I heard that questioned.
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#2216 - 2013-05-01 02:59:17 UTC
Avald Midular wrote:
Tonto Auri wrote:
Avald Midular wrote:
Come on, you don't do your argument any favors when you say 425's have more CPU than any other weapon....by a measly 6 CPU versus Cruise Launcher or less than 10% (only 9 more than Tach's). While Tach's require near DOUBLE more PG than 425's at 4125 versus 2310 for 425's. Remember Tach's use TRIPLE the cap as 425's as well.

Nobody is saying Beams shouldn't cost more cap or more PG, but there is a football field of difference between mega-beams/tach's and the other weapons when it comes to PG and Cap and we're just asking for this difference to be lowered so that these weapons actually get used by something other than a Nightmare since it is the only one that can actually fit them without gimping their fit beyond belief that they might as well use Scorch and save the tears.

If Tach's were as OP as you claim we would see them used more...or at all especially in fleet environments where cap isn't as much an issue and you wouldn't see Amarr ships fitting Scorch nearly 100% of the time (only taking a break to fit Arties).

Let's make comparison fair, shall we? What is these 6 CPU make in percentage of CPU available on battleship?


I mentioned that, it's less than 10%, versus the 100% difference in PG the Amarr face.

I'ts 10% only if you count a full rack. (~1.1-1.2% per position, average BS have ~500CPU)

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Naso Aya
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2217 - 2013-05-01 03:00:15 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:


Anyway, on the BS changes. Nice Curse/Geddon analysis. Can the Geddon sensibly fit 7 Heavy Neuts, I heard that questioned.


No. Current Neuts are 2000 powergrid for a meta 4, 2250 for a meta 5.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2218 - 2013-05-01 03:03:45 UTC
Naso Aya wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:


Anyway, on the BS changes. Nice Curse/Geddon analysis. Can the Geddon sensibly fit 7 Heavy Neuts, I heard that questioned.


No. Current Neuts are 2000 powergrid for a meta 4, 2250 for a meta 5.

Then if the Curse can sensibly fit 7 mediums, that needs addressing
Naso Aya
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2219 - 2013-05-01 03:11:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Naso Aya
The curse can only fit 5, but has a 100% increase at level V recon ships. Look at The CandyGirl's post above, her math is right.

The Armageddon feels awfully specialized for being a tech I ship, if it's gonna have drones, I feel it shouldn't be encouraged to fit neuts- that'll happen regardless of what bonuses you slap onto it. Neuts are powerful by themselves already.

Since the Armageddon can only fit 6 neuts top, it actual is the exact same neut amount as a curse, for a higher price tag (post patch) and a better tank- at the cost of mobility.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2220 - 2013-05-01 03:15:09 UTC
Naso Aya wrote:
The curse can only fit 5, but has a 100% increase at level V recon ships. Look at The CandyGirl's post above, her math is right.

The Armageddon feels awfully specialized for being a tech I ship, if it's gonna have drones, I feel it shouldn't be encouraged to fit neuts- that'll happen regardless of what bonuses you slap onto it. Neuts are powerful by themselves already.

Yea, 5 is what I meant, typo fail :).
I kinda like the neut bonus, it is an Amarr thing, and it is a very general boat that can fit any weapons it wants currently, (Though anyone fitting cap using guns to it.... And it doesn't have the PG to think about fitting LR Guns except rails) but I can see it is an underwhelming bonus with that Analysis.
I would note the Curse currently costs more than the Geddon, Geddon is going at around 100 Mil, but that will jump with the extra materials. And cost is meant to be only a tiny balance factor anyway.