These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#601 - 2013-04-10 12:38:01 UTC
Tonto Auri wrote:
Hulasikaly Wada wrote:
6 turret tachyons capable with 10% dmg bonus Xlvl

That will never happen. It's just way too much damage.

well not as high as nightmare
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#602 - 2013-04-10 12:39:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
My concern is that the geddon is hilariously hard to tackle, even if you use faction points or skirmish links. Its pretty much "bring a recon or gtfo" which I dont think is a good design. It can neut anything inside point range, and has bonused drones (and the neuts ofc) to deal with nos frigates.
Mariner6
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#603 - 2013-04-10 12:40:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Mariner6
I for one am impressed to the changes to the Amarr line up and can't wait to fly the APOC. I really can't see anything to complain about here particularly as much of its Cap bonus has been pushed into the hull itself. This thing with scorch will be simply awesome.

You knew a drone boat was coming and this change made sense. The Geddon is going to be a great boat, and a difficult one to deal with when facing one or more. Just getting tackle on it will make it a real pain and I can imagine already these ratting in null. They'll just insta neut the tackler that lands on them and warp out. In brawling fleets they'll make logi have to stay at range, making that logi now very susceptible to damps. I like it. Powerful addition to the T1 line up.

The loss of the 1% to armor resist per level I think is a mistake. Leaving it as it was would make a nice balance between choosing between armor 5% resists and shield 4% resists. Shields get all the benefits of speed and passive regen. This would help the overall balance between shield and armor. I know that it doesn't address the huge difference between active and passive armor tanking but that is clearly a problem with the poor armor reppers and how they work. This is evidenced in how ASB's evened out the playing field on the shield side. Why CCP is so stubborn on not addressing this odd, and for certain the AAR's certainly don't fix the problem.

But at the end of the day, with perhaps a bit different slot layout for diversity, overall they look really solid.
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#604 - 2013-04-10 12:44:43 UTC
Jack C Hughes wrote:
Tonto Auri wrote:
Hulasikaly Wada wrote:
6 turret tachyons capable with 10% dmg bonus Xlvl

That will never happen. It's just way too much damage.

well not as high as nightmare

1. We're not discussing faction ships here (Nightmare will likely get her own nail in the head later)
2. Nightmare is by far a special beast.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison

Hulasikaly Wada
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#605 - 2013-04-10 12:45:04 UTC
Jack C Hughes wrote:
The 6 turret idea is interesting. Lets have sth like 6 turrets+10%damage+range, with 7high 4mid 8low
so that is a 9 turret dps laser platform, lower dps and lower mobility than oracle, but better tank and range.

and a new beam platform? right?


Let the Abaddon be the "stupid role" ship ( dmgXbuffer stoned in place without cap regen )

and the Apocalipse the "inteligente ship" ( self lol ) , having lower dps and buffer with better application and use ( 6 turret way as the Harbinger have , 10% dmg Xlvl and range over the cap use )

8 low slot can be OP but Amar have to have "8 low slots' ships"

Hula
Ayla Crenshaw
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#606 - 2013-04-10 12:45:24 UTC
Mariner6 wrote:
I for one am impressed to the changes to the Amarr line up and can't wait to fly the APOC. I really can't see anything to complain about here particularly as much of its Cap bonus has been pushed into the hull itself. This thing with scorch will be simply awesome.

You knew a drone boat was coming and this change made sense. The Geddon is going to be a great boat, and a difficult one to deal with when facing one or more. Just getting tackle on it will make it a real pain and I can imagine already these ratting in null. They'll just insta neut the tackler that lands on them and warp out. In brawling fleets they'll make logi have to stay at range, making that logi now very susceptible to damps. I like it. Powerful addition to the T1 line up.

The loss of the 1% to armor resist per level I think is a mistake. Leaving it as it was would make a nice balance between choosing between armor 5% resists and shield 4% resists. Shields get all the benefits of speed and passive regen. This would help the overall balance between shield and armor. I know that it doesn't address the huge difference between active and passive armor tanking but that is clearly a problem with the poor armor reppers and how they work. This is evidenced in how ASB's evened out the playing field on the shield side. Why CCP is so stubborn on not addressing is odd, and for certain the AAR's certainly don't fix the problem.

But at the end of the day, with perhaps a bit different slot layout for diversity, overall they look really solid.


0.49 cap/s does not equate to "cap use bonus pushed to hull". I have this nagging doubt you even fly Amarr or comprehend just how much cap lasers use.
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#607 - 2013-04-10 12:46:49 UTC
Ayla Crenshaw wrote:
Mariner6 wrote:
I for one am impressed to the changes to the Amarr line up


0.49 cap/s does not equate to "cap use bonus pushed to hull". I have this nagging doubt you even fly Amarr or comprehend just how much cap lasers use.

He's just posting to make an impression of happy people, so these bad changes gets pushed to live.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison

Ayla Crenshaw
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#608 - 2013-04-10 12:48:20 UTC
Hulasikaly Wada wrote:
Jack C Hughes wrote:
The 6 turret idea is interesting. Lets have sth like 6 turrets+10%damage+range, with 7high 4mid 8low
so that is a 9 turret dps laser platform, lower dps and lower mobility than oracle, but better tank and range.

and a new beam platform? right?


Let the Abaddon be the "stupid role" ship ( dmgXbuffer stoned in place without cap regen )

and the Apocalipse the "inteligente ship" ( self lol ) , having lower dps and buffer with better application and use ( 6 turret way as the Harbinger have , 10% dmg Xlvl and range over the cap use )

8 low slot can be OP but Amar have to have "8 low slots' ships"

Hula


Megathron is getting an 8th low slot. See the irony here?

One thing I don't like about 6-gun Apocalypse is the model issue - it's graphical design is meant to use 8 guns (two nests of 4). Otherwise it's pretty solid and should be applied to all Amarr ships, that would help a lot with cap AND powergrid issues too.
Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#609 - 2013-04-10 12:50:18 UTC
Tonto Auri wrote:
Jack C Hughes wrote:
Tonto Auri wrote:
Hulasikaly Wada wrote:
6 turret tachyons capable with 10% dmg bonus Xlvl

That will never happen. It's just way too much damage.

well not as high as nightmare

1. We're not discussing faction ships here (Nightmare will likely get her own nail in the head later)
2. Nightmare is by far a special beast.


when compared with Rokh or mealstorm this 6 turret idea is not that strong.
or maybe 7 turret with 5% bonues sounds better?

Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#610 - 2013-04-10 12:53:49 UTC
Ayla Crenshaw wrote:
Hulasikaly Wada wrote:
Jack C Hughes wrote:
The 6 turret idea is interesting. Lets have sth like 6 turrets+10%damage+range, with 7high 4mid 8low
so that is a 9 turret dps laser platform, lower dps and lower mobility than oracle, but better tank and range.

and a new beam platform? right?


Let the Abaddon be the "stupid role" ship ( dmgXbuffer stoned in place without cap regen )

and the Apocalipse the "inteligente ship" ( self lol ) , having lower dps and buffer with better application and use ( 6 turret way as the Harbinger have , 10% dmg Xlvl and range over the cap use )

8 low slot can be OP but Amar have to have "8 low slots' ships"

Hula


Megathron is getting an 8th low slot. See the irony here?

One thing I don't like about 6-gun Apocalypse is the model issue - it's graphical design is meant to use 8 guns (two nests of 4). Otherwise it's pretty solid and should be applied to all Amarr ships, that would help a lot with cap AND powergrid issues too.


never mind the grapics, look at how paladin and vargur use the apoc and tempest design.
Mariner6
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#611 - 2013-04-10 12:59:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Mariner6
Ayla Crenshaw wrote:
Mariner6 wrote:
I for one am impressed to the changes to the Amarr line up and can't wait to fly the APOC. I really can't see anything to complain about here particularly as much of its Cap bonus has been pushed into the hull itself. This thing with scorch will be simply awesome.

You knew a drone boat was coming and this change made sense. The Geddon is going to be a great boat, and a difficult one to deal with when facing one or more. Just getting tackle on it will make it a real pain and I can imagine already these ratting in null. They'll just insta neut the tackler that lands on them and warp out. In brawling fleets they'll make logi have to stay at range, making that logi now very susceptible to damps. I like it. Powerful addition to the T1 line up.

The loss of the 1% to armor resist per level I think is a mistake. Leaving it as it was would make a nice balance between choosing between armor 5% resists and shield 4% resists. Shields get all the benefits of speed and passive regen. This would help the overall balance between shield and armor. I know that it doesn't address the huge difference between active and passive armor tanking but that is clearly a problem with the poor armor reppers and how they work. This is evidenced in how ASB's evened out the playing field on the shield side. Why CCP is so stubborn on not addressing is odd, and for certain the AAR's certainly don't fix the problem.

But at the end of the day, with perhaps a bit different slot layout for diversity, overall they look really solid.


0.49 cap/s does not equate to "cap use bonus pushed to hull". I have this nagging doubt you even fly Amarr or comprehend just how much cap lasers use.


I do fly Amarr. I understand your concern and its vaild, but I also think that if its performing too poorly then CCP will revisit it and push some more Cap like he just did. They seem fairly reasonable at listening to players lately. What's nice about this boat is that you certainly don't have to rely on MWDing as much to get into range of primary during a fight like you do a blaster boat and that certainly helps. Have you EFT'd this with a cap booster to see how long the cap lasts? I have to imagine its fairly competitive. I can also see these flying around with the standard logi support, and getting topped off from time to time with Cap from them right? But the tracking bonus? well that is simply awesome.

And they are also proving that they are going back and addressing problems well after the first balancing pass. So if the APOC is a complete dud due to CAP and the argument is compelling, then you'll get your desires.
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#612 - 2013-04-10 13:06:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Tonto Auri
Jack C Hughes wrote:
Tonto Auri wrote:
Jack C Hughes wrote:
Tonto Auri wrote:
Hulasikaly Wada wrote:
6 turret tachyons capable with 10% dmg bonus Xlvl

That will never happen. It's just way too much damage.

well not as high as nightmare

1. We're not discussing faction ships here (Nightmare will likely get her own nail in the head later)
2. Nightmare is by far a special beast.


when compared with Rokh or mealstorm this 6 turret idea is not that strong.
or maybe 7 turret with 5% bonues sounds better?


7 or 8 turets with 5% damage and keep 7.5% optimal bonus, with slightly limited powergrid, so it can't fit all 8 Tachs without fitting modules - sounds fair to me.
The only issue so far that I'm concerned with is the buff to native cap regen, that flowing in air. It may make dual-rep tanks very viable. Too much viable.
I'd rather propose a flat role bonus to lasers cap consuption for laser ships, for easier tank balance.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison

Ayla Crenshaw
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#613 - 2013-04-10 13:07:10 UTC
Mariner6 wrote:
Ayla Crenshaw wrote:
Mariner6 wrote:
I for one am impressed to the changes to the Amarr line up and can't wait to fly the APOC. I really can't see anything to complain about here particularly as much of its Cap bonus has been pushed into the hull itself. This thing with scorch will be simply awesome.

You knew a drone boat was coming and this change made sense. The Geddon is going to be a great boat, and a difficult one to deal with when facing one or more. Just getting tackle on it will make it a real pain and I can imagine already these ratting in null. They'll just insta neut the tackler that lands on them and warp out. In brawling fleets they'll make logi have to stay at range, making that logi now very susceptible to damps. I like it. Powerful addition to the T1 line up.

The loss of the 1% to armor resist per level I think is a mistake. Leaving it as it was would make a nice balance between choosing between armor 5% resists and shield 4% resists. Shields get all the benefits of speed and passive regen. This would help the overall balance between shield and armor. I know that it doesn't address the huge difference between active and passive armor tanking but that is clearly a problem with the poor armor reppers and how they work. This is evidenced in how ASB's evened out the playing field on the shield side. Why CCP is so stubborn on not addressing is odd, and for certain the AAR's certainly don't fix the problem.

But at the end of the day, with perhaps a bit different slot layout for diversity, overall they look really solid.


0.49 cap/s does not equate to "cap use bonus pushed to hull". I have this nagging doubt you even fly Amarr or comprehend just how much cap lasers use.


I do fly Amarr. I understand your concern and its vaild, but I also think that if its performing too poorly then CCP will revisit it and push some more Cap like he just did. They seem fairly reasonable at listening to players lately. What's nice about this boat is that you certainly don't have to rely on MWDing as much to get into range of primary during a fight like you do a blaster boat and that certainly helps. Have you EFT'd this with a cap booster to see how long the cap lasts? I have to imagine its fairly competitive. I can also see these flying around with the standard logi support, and getting topped off from time to time with Cap from them right? But the tracking bonus? well that is simply awesome.

And they are also proving that they are going back and addressing problems well after the first balancing pass. So if the APOC is a complete dud due to CAP and the argument is compelling, then you'll get your desires.


I'd just like to point out all those poor dudes that don't want to fit a goddamned cap booster on their missioning ships (I'm one of them and I sure as hell not the only one). There's no Amarr Battleship with Cap use bonus left if these changes go live. This kicks new players in the shins (with the Odyssey change it'll be even easier to sit in a BS than it was, seems like CCP wants people in those ships faster, don't you think "what are you doing in BS with low skills" crowd?). Capping out with only guns firing is just plain wrong; not being able to fit tachyons on any hull without powergrid mods/rigs is another huge issue. Hell even if you could you'd run out of cap in a minute or two.
Rynnik
Evasion Gaming
The Ancients.
#614 - 2013-04-10 13:07:56 UTC
Hulasikaly Wada wrote:
May Wanderdriven wrote:
Rynnik wrote:
All three of these BS share 4 mids, 7 lows. You may have diversified away from lasers on all of them but you sure didn't shake up much else - especially in light of a Gallente 8 low BS. How about a Hyperion treatment with double damage bonus on 6 turrets for the Apoc. That further assists the cap issues and allows a slot to be reallocated to the lows.


THIS


The optimal range bonus is something really good on the ships and IMO must be preserved as a distinctive factor ( even the oracle do NOT have it )

Now , without the cap bonus i will like really to see a dmg bonus , as already May Wanderdriven said, 7 hi-slot / 6 turret tachyons capable with 10% dmg bonus Xlvl and everyone will be happy , or give it a 7.5% RoF Xlvl always with 6 turret Hpoints and another low slot to counter the cap issue
( and make somehow return the old Armageddon way back )

Hula


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

Fixed the bonuses for a 6 turret Apoc. It brings it in just above the current 8 effective turrets at level 5.
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#615 - 2013-04-10 13:10:17 UTC
Rynnik wrote:
Amarr Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+7.5% to Large Energy Turret damage and optimal range
+7.5% Large Energy Turret tracking speed (replaced large energy turret cap use)

Fixed the bonuses for a 6 turret Apoc. It brings it in just above the current 8 effective turrets at level 5.

1. It makes the ship 3-bonused. Which is unlikely to happen.
2. Please leave 8-turret Apocalypse alone. It is designed to work that way.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison

Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#616 - 2013-04-10 13:13:26 UTC
Tonto Auri wrote:



7 or 8 turets with 5% damage and keep 7.5% optimal bonus, with slightly limited powergrid, so it can't fit all 8 Tachs without fitting modules - sounds fair to me.
The only issue so far that I'm concerned with is the buff to native cap regen, that flowing in air. It may make dual-rep tanks very viable. Too much viable.
I'd rather propose a flat role bonus to lasers cap consuption for laser ships, for easier tank balance.


role bonus is not going to work. You are not going to have role bonus to only one race.
What are you going to give to the other 3?
I don't think a race should have no battle ship that could even fit 8 of their largest guns. The other 3 have, not Amarr.
So that is why I support the 6 turret idea, that is a kind of 8 turrets in another way.
Tachs with no cap bonus will eat up cap too fast, compared to others.
And thier pg requirement is just a bit too high.

Hulasikaly Wada
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#617 - 2013-04-10 13:16:55 UTC
Tonto Auri wrote:
Rynnik wrote:
Amarr Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+7.5% to Large Energy Turret damage and optimal range
+7.5% Large Energy Turret tracking speed (replaced large energy turret cap use)

Fixed the bonuses for a 6 turret Apoc. It brings it in just above the current 8 effective turrets at level 5.

1. It makes the ship 3-bonused. Which is unlikely to happen.
2. Please leave 8-turret Apocalypse alone. It is designed to work that way.


"+7.5% to Large Energy Turret damage and optimal range "
This, have capacitor and fitting solutions all in 1

"+7.5% Large Energy Turret tracking speed (replaced large energy turret cap use)"
Will trade this for a med slot so there's no 3 bonuses on a ship, or a low slot if you dont want it too much sansha's way

Hula
Arline Kley
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#618 - 2013-04-10 13:21:39 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Insignificant Changes


Well, good way of grasping the thoughts on the thread there. Lowering the Armageddons by 3000? Oh no, guess that means Ill just stick on a couple of 20% rigs, BOOM its back up to standard the 16k PG. And can still flail with the 7 Neuts of stupidity. And the drones that can have a 150% bonus damage and hit point bonus, and another 10% if the racial specs are included. And thats before the inclusion of any mods/implants that help boost drones.


CCP Rise wrote:
While we understand that this is a very powerful ship, it should not be oppressive.


Clearly you do not understand the concept of oppressive. It's current abilities are able to be countered successfully. Sticking on Neuts and Drones of Doom will make it Oppressive. Small Fleet fights will be nullified by just a handful of these ships, and larger ones will devolve into "Who can neut the capitals first"

Go back to the drawing board, CCP Rise. You have barely addressed any of the concerns held within this thread and, please do not believe for one minute that you will have that hideous Armageddon getting into the game in the state that you propose.

Or do you want me to actually produce a proper Armageddon design for you?


I also hope that you consider the other issues put into this thread, namely:

- Inability to mount top tier weapons (Tachyon Lasers)
- Reduction of effective capcitor by 50% from the removal of the Laser Cap bonuses
- Removal of the need to have Cap Boosters as a standard fitting (be it actually useful cap sizes or the return of the Laser Cap bonus - Cap regen amount is NOT helpful )
- Removal of the split weapons on the Armageddon

I would post more complaints, but I am currently on my lunch, so my time is limited.

"For it was said they had become like those peculiar demons, which dwell in matter but in whom no light may be found." - Father Grigori, Ravens 3:57

Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#619 - 2013-04-10 13:22:53 UTC
The problem with trying to have a 8 Tachs is PG
You simply can't have a ship with that much PG, it is wastful when fitting any other weapon
or in another way, overly powered PG.
a 6 turret desigh with 50% damage solves it.
it has normal PG, if you wish to have some smartbombs or neut, when you want to have dual rep.
and it keeps Tach a dedicated Amarr weapon as there is no need to decrease pg consumption and cap.
YuuKnow
The Scope
#620 - 2013-04-10 13:23:52 UTC
Boo to the Armageddon as a drone ship.

There's too much redundancy here if you make the Arma a drone ship whereas the Dominix is already a drone ship. What would be the point? (instead of two Amarr ships with identical uses, you instead have one Amarr and one Gallante ship with identical uses).

And why a drone ship?Ugh

Make it a neut ship with lasers, but leave out the drones.

yk