These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
J A Aloysiusz
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3121 - 2013-06-02 02:16:26 UTC
The Djego wrote:
John 1135 wrote:
It does look like Apoc/Napoc will be left high-and-dry by these changes. Abaddon replaces it in most roles. I'm not saying the Abaddon is ideal, just better than new Apoc. And Navy 'geddon in roles that use faction versions.

I rely on other posters for checking this through the turret damage formula, but if they are correct then the range-band at which the bonus tracking significantly impacts DPS doesn't feel useful. What might have been interesting is a gun-sig reduction bonus. The golden fleet can always use a fly swatter.


Why do you think it is a clever idea to suggest a new bonus if you don't understand the tracking formula yourself? For example 400 signature resolution vs 320 sig means a you get a 20% tracking penalty(3.2/4 = 0.8). Turret sig resolution is a simple tracking modifier, and a reduction is exactly the same as a tracking bonus. It is quite similar to 2008, where people didn't understand that blasters received a 400% nerf with the scram and web changes for effective tracking at point blank and that the maxed out 1600 DPS gank mega went from face ****(like killing sub bs hulls in 30s or less at point blank) to useless for solo pvp.

To give you a little hint about apoc vs abaddon in fleet pvp after the patch, try to think about a BS doctrine can outgank a apoc fleet at a range that the apoc fleet chose, since other formats are not able to dictate range against it and sig/speed tanking gang concepts that can migrate damage against 10 times the effective tracking of a neutron blaster fitted megathron(that is comparing 90% webed targets to unwebed targets, just to give you a idea). They got a range window of zero meters, where they can operate without getting owned(this is why I pointed out that Rise will get massive issues if he wants to balance HACs with the current apoc changes).

I am pretty sure no one wants to fly the new apoc after patch and the guys from PL just trolled you be calling the changes pretty good. What?


I agree. The apoc is a strong ship for fleet warfare and underused. However if the navy apoc stays at the same price, bumping up is a no-brainer.
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#3122 - 2013-06-02 08:10:11 UTC
J A Aloysiusz wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
J A Aloysiusz wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
J A Aloysiusz wrote:
I'd also like to point out that the 'geddon will have the lowest potential energy neutralization of the Amarr line (as the others have 1 more high slot). It's clearly drawn the short stick here.


True. But, the reason it will make the best neut platform of the Amarr Battleships anyway is because it has a viable source of dps besides it's high slots. It has drones.

The other battleships, yes they can fit an extra neut compared to the Geddon. But to back it up, all they have is unbonused drones. Meh.

Especially for small gang work, where you can't just outsource the dps to the other guys in the fleet, it works very well.


I agree, but wouldn't a dominix work just as well, if not better? A dominix's tracking+optimal gardes could make short work of ranged tacklers, thus nullifying the only real benefit of ranged neuts. The addition of a 5% neut amount would bring the geddon in line with the scorpion as a disruption boat, and set it apart from the dominix, which currently overshadows it, in my opinion.



I can easily see the immense range of the Geddon coming into play more often than the Domi's tracking bonus. Neut amount just crosses into the territory of the Bhaalgorn, and I can see why they didn't want to do that.

Idk how you see the Domi overshadowing it, to be honest. Yeah the Domi has a lot better defenses, but you fit better on the Geddon since it has about 3500 more PG. It will make for the more effective boat for the role, imo. Which explains, at least to me, why the Gallente have pitched such a fevered whine about their Domi now. They think we've beat them out for the battleship drone role, and I honestly agree.


Fair points, but notice the Mega has a 25% damage + 60% web, 2/3 of the vindi's 37.5% damage + 90% web. Using this as comparison, one could hardly say a 5% geddon would cross into the realm of the whopping 15% bhaal.

I do agree with you when you say the geddon is stepping on the dominix's toes. I think we can agree they're too similar, and could use some differentiation? Since Gallente is the primary drone race, one could argue the geddon should have a slightly lower (7.5%, maybe?) damage bonus.


A 60% web is a bonus for a megathron??!! Everyone can fit one, and 60% is not enough to make up for blaster tracking on smaller targets. What you should have said is 'megathron gets 0% bonus to web and vindi gets 50%, so I want a 5% bonus on my geddon because. No reason. Just because I want one.'

And nerf the dronme bonus on the geddon as a counter??!! That'd make it a crappier drone boat. Why on Earth would you ever even consider such butchery to a ship with such potential !
John 1135
#3123 - 2013-06-02 09:46:55 UTC  |  Edited by: John 1135
The Djego wrote:
Why do you think it is a clever idea to suggest a new bonus if you don't understand the tracking formula yourself?

You misinterpreted what I wrote. Nowhere do I say that I don't understand the formula myself.

The Djego wrote:
For example 400 signature resolution vs 320 sig means a you get a 20% tracking penalty(3.2/4 = 0.8). Turret sig resolution is a simple tracking modifier, and a reduction is exactly the same as a tracking bonus.

While tracking mirrors sig in the tracking formula, factors scaling one do not necessarily scale the other.

The Djego wrote:
To give you a little hint about apoc vs abaddon in fleet pvp after the patch, try to think about a BS doctrine can outgank a apoc fleet at a range that the apoc fleet chose, since other formats are not able to dictate range against it and sig/speed tanking gang concepts that can migrate damage against 10 times the effective tracking of a neutron blaster fitted megathron(that is comparing 90% webed targets to unwebed targets, just to give you a idea). They got a range window of zero meters, where they can operate without getting owned(this is why I pointed out that Rise will get massive issues if he wants to balance HACs with the current apoc changes).

I am pretty sure no one wants to fly the new apoc after patch and the guys from PL just trolled you be calling the changes pretty good.

Your argument is obfuscated by your sentence construction. Are you trying to say that Apoc fleets will dictate range so that they will out-DPS opposing battleships? And that the tracking bonus will narrow the window for HACs. Or are you saying that the Apoc will be awful after the patch and that PL comments (cynically) underscore that point? Can you make yourself clearer?

I would guess that the HAC match-up was on the designers' minds when they added the tracking bonus. Perhaps they also felt that attaching a raw-damage bonus to range would be OP: so they wanted to provide something narrower to provoke player creativity? The sense I get is they wanted a more conditional bonus. But if it proves too narrow then for much of the player base it'll be the same as no bonus at all.
Samas Sarum
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#3124 - 2013-06-02 10:20:23 UTC
John 1135 wrote:
The Djego wrote:
Why do you think it is a clever idea to suggest a new bonus if you don't understand the tracking formula yourself?

You misinterpreted what I wrote. Nowhere do I say that I don't understand the formula myself.

The Djego wrote:
For example 400 signature resolution vs 320 sig means a you get a 20% tracking penalty(3.2/4 = 0.8). Turret sig resolution is a simple tracking modifier, and a reduction is exactly the same as a tracking bonus.

While tracking mirrors sig in the tracking formula, factors scaling one do not necessarily scale the other.

The Djego wrote:
To give you a little hint about apoc vs abaddon in fleet pvp after the patch, try to think about a BS doctrine can outgank a apoc fleet at a range that the apoc fleet chose, since other formats are not able to dictate range against it and sig/speed tanking gang concepts that can migrate damage against 10 times the effective tracking of a neutron blaster fitted megathron(that is comparing 90% webed targets to unwebed targets, just to give you a idea). They got a range window of zero meters, where they can operate without getting owned(this is why I pointed out that Rise will get massive issues if he wants to balance HACs with the current apoc changes).

I am pretty sure no one wants to fly the new apoc after patch and the guys from PL just trolled you be calling the changes pretty good.

Your argument is obfuscated by your sentence construction. Are you trying to say that Apoc fleets will dictate range so that they will out-DPS opposing battleships? And that the tracking bonus will narrow the window for HACs. Or are you saying that the Apoc will be awful after the patch and that PL comments (cynically) underscore that point? Can you make yourself clearer?

I would guess that the HAC match-up was on the designers' minds when they added the tracking bonus. Perhaps they also felt that attaching a raw-damage bonus to range would be OP: so they wanted to provide something narrower to provoke player creativity? The sense I get is they wanted a more conditional bonus. But if it proves too narrow then for much of the player base it'll be the same as no bonus at all.


Is having 2 out of 3 boats with such narrow usefulness ranges a good design choice? I see the Abaddon's popularity going up for the shear lack of choices at that price range despite it's mediocrity outside of fleet.
Samas Sarum
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#3125 - 2013-06-02 10:28:29 UTC
J A Aloysiusz wrote:
The Djego wrote:
John 1135 wrote:
It does look like Apoc/Napoc will be left high-and-dry by these changes. Abaddon replaces it in most roles. I'm not saying the Abaddon is ideal, just better than new Apoc. And Navy 'geddon in roles that use faction versions.

I rely on other posters for checking this through the turret damage formula, but if they are correct then the range-band at which the bonus tracking significantly impacts DPS doesn't feel useful. What might have been interesting is a gun-sig reduction bonus. The golden fleet can always use a fly swatter.


Why do you think it is a clever idea to suggest a new bonus if you don't understand the tracking formula yourself? For example 400 signature resolution vs 320 sig means a you get a 20% tracking penalty(3.2/4 = 0.8). Turret sig resolution is a simple tracking modifier, and a reduction is exactly the same as a tracking bonus. It is quite similar to 2008, where people didn't understand that blasters received a 400% nerf with the scram and web changes for effective tracking at point blank and that the maxed out 1600 DPS gank mega went from face ****(like killing sub bs hulls in 30s or less at point blank) to useless for solo pvp.

To give you a little hint about apoc vs abaddon in fleet pvp after the patch, try to think about a BS doctrine can outgank a apoc fleet at a range that the apoc fleet chose, since other formats are not able to dictate range against it and sig/speed tanking gang concepts that can migrate damage against 10 times the effective tracking of a neutron blaster fitted megathron(that is comparing 90% webed targets to unwebed targets, just to give you a idea). They got a range window of zero meters, where they can operate without getting owned(this is why I pointed out that Rise will get massive issues if he wants to balance HACs with the current apoc changes).

I am pretty sure no one wants to fly the new apoc after patch and the guys from PL just trolled you be calling the changes pretty good. What?


I agree. The apoc is a strong ship for fleet warfare and underused. However if the navy apoc stays at the same price, bumping up is a no-brainer.


I'm not sure that's what he was saying at all. Can you explain why upgrading to Napoc is a no brainer? It looks like pretty much exactly the same ship for a lot more money.
John 1135
#3126 - 2013-06-02 11:04:49 UTC  |  Edited by: John 1135
Samas Sarum wrote:
I'm not sure that's what he was saying at all. Can you explain why upgrading to Napoc is a no brainer? It looks like pretty much exactly the same ship for a lot more money.

It comes back to your former point. I'm going to assume Djego intended the last line ironically, else everything above it makes no sense. So the argument he's putting is that

a) other BS fleets won't dictate range to the Apoc

b) HACs will have their operating range band against Apoc narrowed, shifting the match-up to Apoc's favour

If that isn't the intended argument, feel free to correct me. I tend to agree with b), not so much a). Apoc-blobs might perform better in null against Zealots etc; or they might lose critical DPS to more frequent cap-downtimes. And still for many players no matter how well Apoc satisfied that role: it would be the same as having no role at all.

I suspect the designers would like to see player creativity take the tracking bonus and do something interesting with it.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#3127 - 2013-06-02 11:12:27 UTC
John 1135 wrote:
The Djego wrote:
For example 400 signature resolution vs 320 sig means a you get a 20% tracking penalty(3.2/4 = 0.8). Turret sig resolution is a simple tracking modifier, and a reduction is exactly the same as a tracking bonus.

While tracking mirrors sig in the tracking formula, factors scaling one do not necessarily scale the other.

Wrong. Considering how EVE use the numbers, tracking is exactly equal to sig resolution. There is no additions in the game, only multiplications, so the scale is pointless.
The Djego
Hellequin Inc.
Mean Coalition
#3128 - 2013-06-02 13:29:09 UTC  |  Edited by: The Djego
J A Aloysiusz wrote:


I agree. The apoc is a strong ship for fleet warfare and underused. However if the navy apoc stays at the same price, bumping up is a no-brainer.


As far as I am aware you need the base hull for the LP shop offers to get a ship or get a BPC(what will include the extra minerals from the apoc change). So prices will rise accordingly with the increased prices of the T1 hull.

John 1135 wrote:

You misinterpreted what I wrote. Nowhere do I say that I don't understand the formula myself.


I think the interpretation, that you don't understand the tracking formula seams pretty plausible given what you did wrote.

John 1135 wrote:
While tracking mirrors sig in the tracking formula, factors scaling one do not necessarily scale the other.


Both factors are interchangeable on the mathematical level and there is no stacking for ship bonuses, there is no case where scaling creates a difference. The only time a difference happens is when people assume that -37,5% turret sig resolution would be the same as 37,5% extra tracking, while the correct value would be -27,3%. Then again this doesn't have anything to do with scaling but people doing her math wrong. But feel free to do the math yourself.

John 1135 wrote:
Your argument is obfuscated by your sentence construction. Are you trying to say that Apoc fleets will dictate range so that they will out-DPS opposing battleships? And that the tracking bonus will narrow the window for HACs. Or are you saying that the Apoc will be awful after the patch and that PL comments (cynically) underscore that point? Can you make yourself clearer?


Given that the apoc gets a absurd effective tracking at range, is faster than other common fleet BS and can perfectly fine cover the 80-110km range window where you can't use long range webbing it should be pretty obvious what statement is correct and what might be sarcasm.

Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread

Samas Sarum
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#3129 - 2013-06-03 12:39:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Samas Sarum
The Djego wrote:

Given that the apoc gets a absurd effective tracking at range, is faster than other common fleet BS and can perfectly fine cover the 80-110km range window where you can't use long range webbing it should be pretty obvious what statement is correct and what might be sarcasm.


Really? It's slower than 2 out of 3 Minmitar ships, 2 out of 3 Gallente ships, 1 out 3 Caldari, and none of the Amarr, so that pretty much puts it right at "mediocre speed".

At the ranges you cited, the only thing that needs tracking that high would be cruisers/bc's so exactly how is the Apoc fleet going to find themselves at 90km for very long? I think a Rokh alpha fleet would be more effective at this scenario. 1 Faction TC takes care of 90% of the bonus so I think I'd still rather have any damage bonus at all than a pretty situational one, considering Amarr already have another niche ship.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#3130 - 2013-06-03 13:34:08 UTC
Do you think faction tracking comps are commonly fitted to fleet BS?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Samas Sarum
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#3131 - 2013-06-03 13:59:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Samas Sarum
Malcanis wrote:
Do you think faction tracking comps are commonly fitted to fleet BS?


My point was that the ship bonus can be gotten on a better hull with very few modules for the few cases the average pilot needs that high of tracking in a BS but if you're parsing words then fine, a scripted TC 2 is 30% tracking which is 80% of the bonus, having one or two of those in a fit isn't all that uncommon. Slap them on a Rokh and you get the same range with a much better tank and alpha with the same range, or an Abaddon for significantly better tank and dps at the cost of range.

I'm not saying the bonus is worthless, just saying that there are far more superior bonuses they could have put on it that more pilots would get a use out of considering we already have 1 niche ship in the lineup.
John 1135
#3132 - 2013-06-03 18:18:56 UTC  |  Edited by: John 1135
The Djego wrote:
John 1135 wrote:

You misinterpreted what I wrote. Nowhere do I say that I don't understand the formula myself.


I think the interpretation, that you don't understand the tracking formula seams pretty plausible given what you did wrote.

John 1135 wrote:
While tracking mirrors sig in the tracking formula, factors scaling one do not necessarily scale the other.


Both factors are interchangeable on the mathematical level and there is no stacking for ship bonuses, there is no case where scaling creates a difference. The only time a difference happens is when people assume that -37,5% turret sig resolution would be the same as 37,5% extra tracking, while the correct value would be -27,3%. Then again this doesn't have anything to do with scaling but people doing her math wrong. But feel free to do the math yourself.

Thank you for back-pedalling. We agree that they are identical on a mathematical level. My proposal - which I intended more lightly than you seem to assume - relied upon it. I'm surprised you failed to notice. To make the point clearer. The sig component scales with weapon and ship class. The tracking component scales with range between the ships, turret tracking in rads, and target's transversal. While these components plug into the formula interchangeably: factors that scale the latter, such as range between the ships, are not ludically identical to factors that scale the former. Using guns with a smaller sig may be mathematically the same as fitting and using a web: but the gameplay is different.

The Djego wrote:
John 1135 wrote:
Your argument is obfuscated by your sentence construction. Are you trying to say that Apoc fleets will dictate range so that they will out-DPS opposing battleships? And that the tracking bonus will narrow the window for HACs. Or are you saying that the Apoc will be awful after the patch and that PL comments (cynically) underscore that point? Can you make yourself clearer?


Given that the apoc gets a absurd effective tracking at range, is faster than other common fleet BS and can perfectly fine cover the 80-110km range window where you can't use long range webbing it should be pretty obvious what statement is correct and what might be sarcasm.

I did not desire to deprecate your language because that should not be germaine to our conversation. And besides, English might not be your mother tongue. However, your sentence construction and word (mis)use obfuscate your meaning: when I asked you to clarify I was being sincere.

Where I hope CCP are taking this is that they want Amarr battleships to enjoy broader combat utility instead of being forced into herds like frightened cattle. Thus the revision of lasers and cap bonuses, the 'geddon respec, and wider ranging design moves such as the MJD, might well fall into a larger picture of battleships that can consider solo or small gang roams alongside fleet and PVE. So in the end I'm not an all-out hater of the changes.

I have commented upon them negatively because the designers have seemed too afraid of the pride of the golden fleet becoming enormously overpowered: and thus (potentially) condemned it to months of pale uncertainty. Nerfs have come before remedies, and bonuses have erred on the side of weak or narrow. Patience is a virtue when you are the game designer being paid to work on a product; less so when you are the customer paying to use it.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#3133 - 2013-06-03 18:57:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Bouh Revetoile
John 1135 wrote:
Nice piece of surreptitious back-pedalling. You no longer claim they are identical, only that they are identical on a mathematical level. Which I never disputed. My proposal - which I intended more lightly than you seem to assume - relied upon it. I'm surprised you failed to notice. To make the point clearer. The sig component scales with weapon and ship class. The tracking component scales with range between the ships, turret tracking in rads, and target's transversal. While these components plug into the formula interchangeably: factors that scale the latter, such as range between the ships, are not identical to factors that scale the former. Using guns with a smaller sig may be mathematically the same as fitting and using a web: but the gameplay is different.

It's a computer who compute the maths behind the game, not a philosopher. When it is mathematicaly the same, it's also the same in game, like without any difference, because a computer compute, it doesn't interpret.

Numbers are percentages, and they are multiplied, so there is no difference of scale. 25% more tracking or 25% less signature resolution is exactly the same ; well, not exactly in fact, but if you balance the bonus, they have exactly the same effect.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#3134 - 2013-06-04 17:31:26 UTC
Well the new patch is in and everything is dandy, but as I mentioned earlier in this thread it's time for us to strike and not fly amarr battleships. I'm starting my strike today and wont fly them again until we've had a proper balance pass that addresses cap needs for both ships, modules and weaponry...

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...

Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3135 - 2013-06-04 17:36:03 UTC
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Well the new patch is in and everything is dandy, but as I mentioned earlier in this thread it's time for us to strike and not fly amarr battleships. I'm starting my strike today and wont fly them again until we've had a proper balance pass that addresses cap needs for both ships, modules and weaponry...

I second this and actually i don't feel like flying any of the new battleships.
Loki Vice
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#3136 - 2013-06-05 00:27:50 UTC
TIP Armageddon
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#3137 - 2013-06-05 01:01:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
I must admit I intend to buy a Paladin....
However, that only works because it effectively has -50% capacitor/pg/cpu use as a role bonus (+100% damage as a reverse to double the effective turrets)
drake duka
Protean Concept
#3138 - 2013-06-05 01:39:51 UTC
Magic Crisp wrote:
Well, second by a second.

Anyway, doesn't the apoc needs to have a bit more EHP, to be similar than the other two? If tiericide is going on, and tiers are gone, and the steps in EHP were part of the tiers, then it could use a bit more, especially since the baddon has resist bonuses next to its great HPs.

The geddon seems interesting. Feels like the geddons will be the new welpests. When these hit sisi, i'll probably try to fly it with neuts and ACs :)

I think cruises will be much stronger than ac's as the unbonused weapon of choice. Not sure why geddon lost a slot overall though. Would be nice if it got an extra slot, it's nice now but drones are difficult to use in anything other than small gangs.
John 1135
#3139 - 2013-06-05 11:22:12 UTC
drake duka wrote:
I think cruises will be much stronger than ac's as the unbonused weapon of choice. Not sure why geddon lost a slot overall though. Would be nice if it got an extra slot, it's nice now but drones are difficult to use in anything other than small gangs.

It was at 400 sig on the OP for awhile, but now that shows 450. Hmm... better check it in game.
The Djego
Hellequin Inc.
Mean Coalition
#3140 - 2013-06-05 11:36:13 UTC
I never was really satisfied with the old apoc(I always considered it the low level performer for people that can't be bothered with cap management), so I was giving it a new try. All I have to say is that the overall performance actually is surprisingly solid, it is 1100 m/s fast, aligns quick, performs notable better in L4 with lots of small stuff and can hit stuff even while mwding to the next group. Best result was a 18.5m tick in a Pirate Scarlet(angle, blood and serpentis) and around 12 minutes for recon 1/3 full clear(11.3M tick), hammering down TD cruisers without any real effort and making spaced out groups, moving to gates or picking up mission loot no issue at all.

[Apocalypse Navy Issue, L4 Foxcat]
Core B-Type Large Armor Repairer
Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I
Heat Sink II
Imperial Navy Heat Sink
Imperial Navy Heat Sink
Imperial Navy Heat Sink

Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
Cap Recharger II
Core A-Type 100MN Microwarpdrive

Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Conflagration L

Large Energy Locus Coordinator II
Large Energy Discharge Elutriation II
Large Energy Discharge Elutriation I


Hobgoblin II x2
Hobgoblin II x3
Imperial Navy Curator x3

Simple question did anybody actually tried the new Apoc instead of moaning about that you can't make it cap stable with 2 slots any more? In my opinion it is a very solid ship now, what it misses in raw dps it can make up in mobility, tracking and range, while keeping the option of just hitting out to 91km optimal with scorch if you want to kill a small group without moving over or if you need to break down a TD wall. While the mach still punches out more dps, the navy Apoc is probably the closest thing you can get if you want something that plays very similar. If anything a 8. target lock slot and a bit more scan res would be nice.

The new apoc is the first time I flown a amarr BS that is not a brick(since the nano nerf), for this I want to thank you Rise. Smile

Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread