These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#521 - 2013-04-09 21:59:25 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Lillith Sakata wrote:
Loki Vice wrote:
also on a side note, he says he wants the new armageddon to be like the dragoon... the dragoon is argueably the worst of all the new destroyers, I haven't seen one flown since they first came out, while the other see lots of use.

If people want a strong drone boat with the option for neuts, people default to the dominix... why should the amarr have a ship does also does the same thing?


And why would we build one around Gallente crap? Amarrian ships might have drone bays, sometimes big ones. but we still are flying bricks with big f'n lasers coming out our freakin heads.

This point came up earlier in the thread (concerning the similarity to a Dragoon, and it's current lack of popularity).

The Nuet/Drone combo is a bit problematic for the Dragoon as both need time to actually be effective, and time is something a Destroyer hull rarely has plenty of due to it's fragility.

It needs to either do it's damage from a long distance (which the Algos can easily do even while using drones) or do it's damage overwhelmingly fast. The Dragoon needs to stay relatively close (even with the range bonus to it's small neuts), is not fast enough to kite, and is too fragile to hang in there to get full effect from it's NOS/drone combo before it dies.

The proposed Armageddon hull would have considerable room to play with for it's large range boosted NOS, and would be robust enough to hang in there long enough to be effective.

To me, this points to the Dragoon needing some help, maybe a role bonus to be able to effectively fit medium nos/nuets?
If you want strong neuting on a small hull, you should probably use a Sentinel. The Amarr T2 lineup, actually, has boats whose specific purposes are cap warfare. No need to introduce into T1 more things to further marginalize the T2 boats. If anything, the Amarr "variety" of T1 ewar is tracking disruption, and it's T2 "variety" is cap warfare. I'm not sure, since we're seeing more boats being introduced designed to perform these T2-variety functions, why we don't see more web supported bonuses on Minmatar T1 hulls or warp disruption bonuses on T1 Gallente. That seems to make more sense to me than adding T1-bonused hulls have T2-like effects.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Pelea Ming
Immortal Odyssey Adventure Group
#522 - 2013-04-09 22:00:09 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
CCP - the Abaddon is not so widely used because its resistance bonus makes it significantly better than other battleships.

It's used because other battleships' bonuses make them significantly worse than the Abaddon.

^^^^ This, lmao.
Pelea Ming
Immortal Odyssey Adventure Group
#523 - 2013-04-09 22:02:26 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
[quote=Zimmy Zeta]
Hmm.. have you tried instead of going with a full rack of small nuets, fitting 2 or 3 med nuets to it? it'd give you quite abit more range hopefully without giving up too much cap killing, and this would slow down those proj/missile boats since it'd turn off their prop mods and make your drones able to chew them up more effectively.

Dragoon has 72,5 PG
A single medium Neut requires 175 PG.
I wanted to love that ship when it came out, mini-curse just sounded too sweet. Just a single one of the initial batch is still alive in my hangar waiting for deployment..I called it the "Desperation fit":
3x drone Damage Amplifier II
1x Co Processor II
1x MWD
1xOmnidirectional Tracking link
- Everything else left empty.

Yea, as I figured would happen, then, when I saw them doing that with a destroyer, just to unwieldy to actually pull off the role they wanted it to perform, and now it will sit, pretty much useless, b'c they won't want to bother making it useful.
Pelea Ming
Immortal Odyssey Adventure Group
#524 - 2013-04-09 22:03:47 UTC
Kor'el Izia wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:

...awesomesauce...

Armageddon:
...
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second) : 6200(+887.5) / 1087s / 5.7
...

The Armageddon recieved a buff to cap/s, please highlight it more Smile

Pre: (6200 - 887.5) / 1087 = 4.887 cap/s
Post: 6200 / 1087 = 5.7 cap/s

Difference: +0.813 cap/s

Which is not near enough to counter it's loss of the hull bonus to reduce cap draw of it's lasers.
Pelea Ming
Immortal Odyssey Adventure Group
#525 - 2013-04-09 22:05:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Pelea Ming
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Lillith Sakata wrote:
Loki Vice wrote:
also on a side note, he says he wants the new armageddon to be like the dragoon... the dragoon is argueably the worst of all the new destroyers, I haven't seen one flown since they first came out, while the other see lots of use.

If people want a strong drone boat with the option for neuts, people default to the dominix... why should the amarr have a ship does also does the same thing?


And why would we build one around Gallente crap? Amarrian ships might have drone bays, sometimes big ones. but we still are flying bricks with big f'n lasers coming out our freakin heads.

This point came up earlier in the thread (concerning the similarity to a Dragoon, and it's current lack of popularity).

The Nuet/Drone combo is a bit problematic for the Dragoon as both need time to actually be effective, and time is something a Destroyer hull rarely has plenty of due to it's fragility.

It needs to either do it's damage from a long distance (which the Algos can easily do even while using drones) or do it's damage overwhelmingly fast. The Dragoon needs to stay relatively close (even with the range bonus to it's small neuts), is not fast enough to kite, and is too fragile to hang in there to get full effect from it's NOS/drone combo before it dies.

The proposed Armageddon hull would have considerable room to play with for it's large range boosted NOS, and would be robust enough to hang in there long enough to be effective.

To me, this points to the Dragoon needing some help, maybe a role bonus to be able to effectively fit medium nos/nuets?
If you want strong neuting on a small hull, you should probably use a Sentinel. The Amarr T2 lineup, actually, has boats whose specific purposes are cap warfare. No need to introduce into T1 more things to further marginalize the T2 boats. If anything, the Amarr "variety" of T1 ewar is tracking disruption, and it's T2 "variety" is cap warfare. I'm not sure, since we're seeing more boats being introduced designed to perform these T2-variety functions, why we don't see more web supported bonuses on Minmatar T1 hulls or warp disruption bonuses on T1 Gallente. That seems to make more sense to me than adding T1-bonused hulls have T2-like effects.

Oh, I'm not proposing this to marginalize the T2 hulls, simply that, as it currently stands, the Dragoon is a waste of a market slot, it can't begin to survive long enough for it's nuets to do anything as it currently sits.
And, actually, i have to agree, the Dragoon would be more effective if it had TD range buffs.
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#526 - 2013-04-09 22:06:10 UTC
Give each race a new E-War battleship and the Caldari a new COMBAT battleship.

;)
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#527 - 2013-04-09 22:07:43 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
[quote=Zimmy Zeta]
Hmm.. have you tried instead of going with a full rack of small nuets, fitting 2 or 3 med nuets to it? it'd give you quite abit more range hopefully without giving up too much cap killing, and this would slow down those proj/missile boats since it'd turn off their prop mods and make your drones able to chew them up more effectively.

Dragoon has 72,5 PG
A single medium Neut requires 175 PG.
I wanted to love that ship when it came out, mini-curse just sounded too sweet. Just a single one of the initial batch is still alive in my hangar waiting for deployment..I called it the "Desperation fit":
3x drone Damage Amplifier II
1x Co Processor II
1x MWD
1xOmnidirectional Tracking link
- Everything else left empty.

I have to agree. I think it might be worth it to try your suggestion (I was thinking exactly the same by the way)... simply increasing the range bonus of the small neuts might make the difference. Say twice the bonus, perhaps more. The extra range that it could operate at might buy it the time to actually be effective.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Pelea Ming
Immortal Odyssey Adventure Group
#528 - 2013-04-09 22:08:39 UTC
Sean Parisi wrote:
Give each race a new E-War battleship and the Caldari a new COMBAT battleship.

;)

Actually, this, I like. It would let people keep the 'Geddon in it's own role without stepping all over the Domi's toes, and instead introduce something along the lines of the proposed geddon change on a new hull.

Only downside to this is, it would break up the current eve theme of 3 ships to each T1 size category (dessies being the current sole exception at only 2)
Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#529 - 2013-04-09 22:11:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Iam Widdershins
I understand a need to make the Armageddon different than the others, but I think it is very sad that it has to go in this direction. It just doesn't have any draw to me, it doesn't really mesh together, and its bonuses are a sad and confusing mishmash with no clear goal in mind. Neuts to 36km are nice I suppose but they don't mesh at all with either a hull with no bonused weapons (which are going to trend towards either artillery, for which it has not enough powergrid especially after the nerf, or blasters/torpedoes which are short-range). There is nothing I can think of that is especially useful about having neuts that go to 37.8km, and the ship is astoundingly slow.

Maybe I'm just overly bitter about losing EVE's classic DPS battleship, but I'm just not feeling it. To sum up my feelings: I don't understand how it's going to be in any way better than a Dominix, nor do I feel the neut range bonus contributes to its usefulness in any significant way.

On top of that, speaking of losing ships for certain roles, I don't really know if I like the Apocalypse changes either. It has good application certainly, but apparently we are expected to fly it around fast-ish and at range, while using a full rack of the most capacitor-hungry guns in the game, and without actually having any kind of bonus to its actual damage output. This makes me feel it doesn't really do the greatest job trying to fill the attack battleship role.

Not only that, but we're left without any ships that actually give a bonus to capacitor usage for large lasers. Whatever happened to that? They are absolutely nightmarish to run for long periods of time even with a capacitor bonus, and now we need capacitor boosters for everything...

Personally I would recommend maybe replacing the optimal bonus on the apocalypse with a capacitor bonus and giving it some of its HP back, but I dunno.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#530 - 2013-04-09 22:16:56 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
Oh, I'm not proposing this to marginalize the T2 hulls, simply that, as it currently stands, the Dragoon is a waste of a market slot, it can't begin to survive long enough for it's nuets to do anything as it currently sits.
And, actually, i have to agree, the Dragoon would be more effective if it had TD range buffs.
Right, and I don't think you're trying to marginalize T2 hulls, but that is the effect when you give T1 hulls neuting capabilities. On a side note, I think it makes sense to have missile introduction on T1 hulls, because there are ships across the T2 spectrum that use missiles, and missiles have their own training supports. (I know I don't use a sacrilege or a HAM Legion, for example, because I don't have many missile skills trained.) But there's certainly no need for cap warfare-related bonuses on T1 hulls, since "Energy Emission Systems" doesn't require any unique supports.

Personally, I think that Amarr drone boats should have gone another route with their bonuses--not necessarily in TD, since hulls already support that bonus. Perhaps a double drone bonus? A laser cap bonus? Since T1 hulls are oriented toward lower-skilled pilots, a double drone bonus would have fit the dragoon well, or, hell, even an out-of-the-box bonus like +afterburner speed (pulled from the Legion's sub). This way, AB-sig-tanking that the Zealot is known for could have worked its way into the T1 lineup to further show that playstyle, and the hull would have been bonused for drone damage for its damage output.

Just some quick thoughts there, but there were many, many that we (and CCP) could have collectively brainstormed on that aren't necessarily using the T2 "variety" of bonuses.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Pelea Ming
Immortal Odyssey Adventure Group
#531 - 2013-04-09 22:24:13 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
Oh, I'm not proposing this to marginalize the T2 hulls, simply that, as it currently stands, the Dragoon is a waste of a market slot, it can't begin to survive long enough for it's nuets to do anything as it currently sits.
And, actually, i have to agree, the Dragoon would be more effective if it had TD range buffs.
Right, and I don't think you're trying to marginalize T2 hulls, but that is the effect when you give T1 hulls neuting capabilities. On a side note, I think it makes sense to have missile introduction on T1 hulls, because there are ships across the T2 spectrum that use missiles, and missiles have their own training supports. (I know I don't use a sacrilege or a HAM Legion, for example, because I don't have many missile skills trained.) But there's certainly no need for cap warfare-related bonuses on T1 hulls, since "Energy Emission Systems" doesn't require any unique supports.

Personally, I think that Amarr drone boats should have gone another route with their bonuses--not necessarily in TD, since hulls already support that bonus. Perhaps a double drone bonus? A laser cap bonus? Since T1 hulls are oriented toward lower-skilled pilots, a double drone bonus would have fit the dragoon well, or, hell, even an out-of-the-box bonus like +afterburner speed (pulled from the Legion's sub). This way, AB-sig-tanking that the Zealot is known for could have worked its way into the T1 lineup to further show that playstyle, and the hull would have been bonused for drone damage for its damage output.

Just some quick thoughts there, but there were many, many that we (and CCP) could have collectively brainstormed on that aren't necessarily using the T2 "variety" of bonuses.

yeah, I think an AB speed boost would help the current dragoon abit, allowing it a better speed tank without having to pretty much insta-kill its cap trying to run an MWD.
This Suxbad
State War Academy
Caldari State
#532 - 2013-04-09 22:26:27 UTC
what is this the pela ranger blog? delete some of that crap I became dissintersted in seeing peoples opinions because the post is jammed up with their blathering.

Definition of blob is more friends than you! Do you play eve or play eve for others?

Pelea Ming
Immortal Odyssey Adventure Group
#533 - 2013-04-09 22:28:16 UTC
So post something of your own that's actually constructive, instead of senseless whining and personal attacks.
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#534 - 2013-04-09 22:32:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Georgina Parmala
Pelea Ming wrote:
Kor'el Izia wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:

...awesomesauce...

Armageddon:
...
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second) : 6200(+887.5) / 1087s / 5.7
...

The Armageddon recieved a buff to cap/s, please highlight it more Smile

Pre: (6200 - 887.5) / 1087 = 4.887 cap/s
Post: 6200 / 1087 = 5.7 cap/s

Difference: +0.813 cap/s

Which is not near enough to counter it's loss of the hull bonus to reduce cap draw of it's lasers.

Losing the hull bonus increases cost of running 8 Mega pulse lasers with Scorch and two heat sinks by 26 cap/sec. You need to at the very least drop a tracking computer for an extra recharger. Maybe T2 one of the CCC rigs as well. Assuming a PvE fit to start with.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38

Pelea Ming
Immortal Odyssey Adventure Group
#535 - 2013-04-09 22:33:49 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
Kor'el Izia wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:

...awesomesauce...

Armageddon:
...
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second) : 6200(+887.5) / 1087s / 5.7
...

The Armageddon recieved a buff to cap/s, please highlight it more Smile

Pre: (6200 - 887.5) / 1087 = 4.887 cap/s
Post: 6200 / 1087 = 5.7 cap/s

Difference: +0.813 cap/s

Which is not near enough to counter it's loss of the hull bonus to reduce cap draw of it's lasers.

Losing the hull bonus increases cost of running 8 Mega pulse lasers with Scorch by 26 cap/sec

Thank you very much for doing the actual math on that :)
Rog Valdrr
Calamarri Farts
#536 - 2013-04-09 22:37:11 UTC
Sean Parisi wrote:
Give each race a new E-War battleship and the Caldari a new COMBAT battleship.

;)


THIS.

Pelea Ming
Immortal Odyssey Adventure Group
#537 - 2013-04-09 22:50:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Pelea Ming
Rog Valdrr wrote:
Sean Parisi wrote:
Give each race a new E-War battleship and the Caldari a new COMBAT battleship.

;)


THIS.


So, I have to go there... your corp name... squidlicious? Cthullu fthgan anyone? :P
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#538 - 2013-04-09 22:52:34 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Wel The distribution will be as follows: One 'Attack' Battleship for each race, and two 'Combat' Battleships for each race (except Caldari, who will retain the only 'Disruption' Battleship for the time being).


Just wondering, but how is a neut bonused bs not a disruption bs?
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#539 - 2013-04-09 23:07:26 UTC
Kithrus wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Welcome to the Tech 1 Battleship rebalance, fasten your seatbelts!



AMARR

A preface for Amarr: This ship line presented a special sort of obstacle. There were three ships with a heavy amount of overlap, all focusing on armor tanks and energy weapon damage. With the prices associated with tiers being removed, that overlap would be even more obvious, and likely, the apoc and geddon would fall into further disuse. That said, both of them are among eve's most iconic ships. We have decided to make big changes to them both, while hopefully preserving access to any use an Amarr pilot had prior.

Abaddon:

The Abaddon, price aside, was clearly the most dominant of the Amarr line-up. We've left it totally in-tact as your go-to laser brawler, except for the resist bonus tweak. This change is significant, and we are going to dedicate an entire thread to discussing the power of resistance bonuses later in the day. If you want to talk about this bonus here, in relation to the Abaddon specifically, feel free. The general idea from our end is that the current bonus to resistance is one of the most powerful ship bonuses in the game. It adds to the power of local tanks (active and passive) as well as remote tanks, which has consistently positioned ships with this bonus at the center of some of the most powerful gameplay available to combat pilots. We feel that the Abaddon is strong enough to perform perfectly well with the slight loss in resist.

Amarr Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+5% to Large Energy Turret damage
+4% Armor resistances (-1% per level)

Slot layout: 8H, 4M, 7L; 8 turrets, 0 launchers
Fittings: 21000 PWG, 560 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 7000 / 8500 / 8000
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / recharge per second) : 6375 / 1250s / 5.1
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 89 / .14 / 125000000 / 20.03s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 / 75
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km / 85 / 7
Sensor strength: 22 Radar Sensor Strength
Signature radius: 470



Amarr Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+7.5% to Large Energy Turret optimal range
+7.5% Large Energy Turret tracking speed (replaced large energy turret cap use)

Slot layout: 8H, 4M, 7L; 8 turrets , 0 launchers
Fittings: 21000 PWG(+500), 540 CPU(+35)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 6000(-211) / 6800(-700) / 7000(+359)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / recharge per second) : 6700(-800) / 1002s(-152s) / 6.69 (+.19)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 113(+19) / .119(-.017) / 97100000 / 16.02s (-2.29s)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(-25) / 75
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 73km(+5.5k) / 95 / 7
Sensor strength: 20 Radar Sensor Strength
Signature radius: 380(-20)


This is both joking rant and tinfoil hat but are you trying to nerf CVA and PIE more?


CCP Rise wrote:

Armageddon:

This is a fun one. Bet you guys didn't think my first two projects would be to slow down the Talos and throw the old Armageddon out the window! But! I think its the best thing for the race line overall. What we've done here is make the Armageddon an echo to the new dragoon destroyer. It makes sense for Amarr to have a battleship variation that rewards players who've trained for dragoon -> arbitrator -> prophecy, and with the neut range bonus, the Armageddon should be a huge payoff. As the Armageddon is falling under 'combat' it will receive a substantial hitpoint boost, sensor strength boost, sig increase, and speed decrease.

While we understand that this is a very powerful ship, it should not be oppressive. Hopefully it will offer a new type of challenge to fly and fly against. To anyone who is very sad to see the old Armageddon go, I encourage to you consider that if left the same, it would have been even more crowded by the Abaddon as a result of the price adjustment than it already was. Again, we look forward to your feedback.

Amarr Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+10% to Drone damage and Hit Points (replaced large energy turret rate of fire)
+10% Energy Neutralizer and Energy Vampire range (replaced large energy turret cap use)

Slot layout: 7H(-1), 4M(+1), 7L(-1); 5 turrets(-2) , 5 launchers(+5)
Fittings: 14500 PWG(-2000), 550 CPU(+65)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 6800(+1331) / 8500(+1859) / 8000(+1789)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second) : 6200(+887.5) / 1087s / 5.7
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 100(-5) / .13(+.002) / 105200000 / 18.96s (+.29)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 375(+250)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km / 110 / 7
Sensor strength: 21 Radar Sensor Strength (+4)
Signature radius: 450 (+80)


Okay I like that things have been changed up for the teir one version but like the prophecy I'm not keep lest for a lorish blueprint design perspective how the tier one is a drone platform and tier two is a laser platform.

I know, I know revisions but the Golden fleets feeling a little slapdash right now...



Does this mean that all other resists will now be reduced to 4% in all sub battleship lines. The real nerf is the nerf to your hard won skills.

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

FlamingManiac
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#540 - 2013-04-09 23:33:04 UTC
I am concerned about how the change to the Armageddon will amplify a subtle imbalance in neuting mechanics.

One of the excellent mechanics of EVE is that larger ships have damage penalties against smaller ships, dependent on target speed and target signature radius. With energy neutralizers the effect is quite the opposite - not only are absolute neutralization effects the same regardless of target ship, neuts are inordinately effective against targets smaller than yourself. The capacitor cost to yourself is on the order of magnitude of the ship you are flying, and the neutralized amount on the target ship is also scaled to the order of magnitude of the ship you are flying. In other words a BS with a heavy neut only takes ~10% of his capacitor to cycle his neut, but if he is using that neut on a frigate it will neut 100% of that frigate's capacitor.

The primary purposes for neuts are:

1) Neut out capital ships
2) Turning off the guns/active tank of a single/small number of ships
3) Neut off tackle in small gang situations
4) Neut out logistics

---

1) As I am concerned with what happens when a larger ship neuts a smaller ship, the way neuts interact with capitals is not an issue.

2) I am also not particularly concerned here, as this is primarily relevant in ganks. You cannot efficiently neut out a single other ship of equal size to you to turn off the tank/guns, and you cannot neut out a large number of smaller targets unless you dedicate many more than just your utility highs to neuts.

3) This is an interesting and legitimate use that I would be unhappy if any changes I propose invalidate this.

4) This is my main concern. Heavy neuts are already very effective against cruiser-sized logistics, taking ~3 heavy neuts to completely neut out a logistics ship. This can currently be done out to a range of 25km. At the moment it is difficult to fill out your highs with heavy neuts on the drone boats that essentially have lots of utility high slots (Dominix...). However with the proposed Armageddon change you have a damn good reason to fit 6x heavy neuts, which looks like can be done quite easily fitting wise along with a full tank and capacitor boosters. It will be able to neut out 2 logistics cruisers at 36km. This means it can quite easily reach out and touch someone after jumping through a gate, and after being neuted out the ship has a difficult time turning on its MWD to run. The only defense the cruiser has is the lock time of the BS, and even that could quite reasonably be reduced depending on fit. On the whole this additional range combined with the already profound impact heavy neuts have on cruisers screws with the logistics dynamic in a way that I do not believe is intended.

---

Main proposed change

Reverse the ranges of small/medium/heavy neuts.

Small: ~25 km
Medium: ~15 km
Heavy: ~8 km

Yes, battleships are slow and makes it harder to get in range with heavy neuts. Their primary target should not be ships smaller and therefore faster than themselves, but ships equal to or larger than themselves (BS and caps). It should be more difficult to get in range, and it should require conscious effort. A carrier isn't getting away. It should not be jumping through a gate and getting to immediately be 100% effective against anything in the gate radius.

This also has the effect of forcing an additional tradeoff in fitting the utility high in solo/small gang BS. No longer is it a no-brainer to put a heavy neut in the utility high of whatever the new equivalent of your solo geddon is Kil2 :P. You have to either put a heavy neut that will be effective against other brawlers, or fit a smaller neut that has the range to neut off tackle that are kiting at range. This will also impact frig warfare, but I think a longer neut range will make things more interesting in the current binary meta of either kite at 20km or go balls deep with short range weapons.

Give the Armageddon a 7.5% neut amount/level bonus, making it a mini Bhaalgorn which gets a 15% bonus. This gives it an edge in neuting out targets as large or bigger than it (screw you triage carriers) without having to spend for a faction BS. Combined with the other change it also means that it can do a lot of damage to logistics grouped up (AB logistics orbiting gates/anchors) but requires positioning and finesse.

---

Additional solutions

A) Significantly buff capacitor batteries in their neut protection role. While not utterly awful, they are not nearly good enough to warrant precious mid slots on current logistics ships. For the mid slots you have to consider a prop mod, a tank on the Basilisk and Scimitar, capacitor recharge on the Oneiros and Scimitar, and ECCM modules that are practically required against swarms of ECM drones even after the sensor strength buff via skill change. It's incredibly difficult to justify a capacitor battery as an anti-neut mechanism in their current state. I am all for creative fittings (and trust me, getting a capacitor battery on logistics would make some creative fittings) and trade-offs, but a 12.5% reflect, cap recharge sub-par to a recharger, and 700GJ cap bonus (only 100GJ more than a single heavy neut) does not cut it as an actual energy neut defense.

B) Logistics battleships. This makes a ridiculous amount of sense, even in conjunction with the other changes. A larger capacitor pool and additional slots make it more difficult to be neuted out by heavy neuts at the expense of a slower, more expensive ship. It allows for the trade-off decision between cruiser-sized logistics and battleship-sized logistics, like choosing between AHACs and armor BS. Even if you already had plans for such ships, I urge you to consider rolling out neut changes as closely as possible to the release of this hull.