These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Arline Kley
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#901 - 2013-04-11 21:19:36 UTC
Meduza13 wrote:
Mr Hyde113 wrote:

I'm just going to keep posting until we get actual revisions. Evil


Well so there will be at least 2 of us.


Make that 3.

Hell, I'll keep posting variants that should actually get a design that is worth it.

"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
Jezza McWaffle
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#902 - 2013-04-11 21:43:25 UTC
I wonder how long it will take for an EVE Petition to come around asking for CCP Rise's resignation...

Wormholes worst badass | Checkout my Wormhole blog
Rynnik
Evasion Gaming
The Ancients.
#903 - 2013-04-11 21:43:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Rynnik
Arline Kley wrote:
Why are people becoming fixated with making the Apoc either a 6 or 7 turret ship, all to give it a measley 5% dmg bonus per level, which would in turn fall into the purview of the Abaddon?

There is no need to adjust the Apoc's turret layout. It is designed for long range combat - to eliminate the enemy from range with a full broadside of electromagnetic radiation. What would you possibly fit onto the free slot either way? Utility slots are better suited to the Armageddon - the only time I will most likely agree with CCP Rise in this factor.


I support an Apoc turret revision because I really want an Amarr BS with 8 lows. To be truthful though I would be pretty happy if we get any variation beyond 4 mids / 7 lows on all three proposed platforms.

Why the Apoc?

---

The Armageddon can't be the ship because the last thing this game needs is an 8 low neut domi. I don't think I need to go into detail to explain that.

---

The Abaddon would be the natural ship choice to give 8 lows. However, I don't think CCP will go for it.

First off they just nerfed the resist bonus. We don't have the details and this is all just guessing and conjecture until they actually post the resist nerf blog or thread (please do that soon guys!). But it seems reasonable to assume that they want a decrease in the max tank on these hulls (rokh and abaddon) and won't likely entertain an extra tanking slot because of that.

Secondly, the 'increased bonus, decreased turret' configuration needed to free up a slot to be allocated to the lows would also buff cap use (and fitting). These changes pretty clearly indicate they are happy with the abaddon being the cap guzzler that it is. It really is a strong hull and if that aspect is buffed it really starts to risk an even greater proliferation problem. Same problem if the changes worked out to a utility high (if the Hype model was followed). So in order to maintain balance and keep things in check I doubt Abaddon changes work out.

---

That just leaves the Apoc. In order to get these Attack BS flown I think there is some wiggle room given the attraction of flying ABCs instead. A utility high and 8th low are buffs, but nothing that would push this ship into the OMGWTFROFLSTOMP status of the proposed armageddon, the gallente lineup as a whole, and the torp spam about to hit the fan after large missiles get adjusted (willing to bet any amount of isk they get overcompensated in that balance pass).

At 7(6 turret) / 4 / 8 the Apoc would be nicely versatile while still very Amarr with the limited mids. Cap would be a touch more friendly for those low skill missioners or whatever. Tachs would fit a touch easier. I could fit a neut or nos for small gang brawling (yes I would do this using this hull even though the proposed mega and the geddon overshadows it for the role just to get my pew pew laser fix).

So there we are with the substantiation of why I hope that they will at least consider adjusting the hull a bit and bonus it something like:

7.5% per level to damage (keep it right around 8 effective turrets or it WILL be overpowered)
7.5% per level to large energy turret optimal range and tracking (they were definitely on an interesting path with these)

Sorry it took so long to explain that but it is a bit complex! For those that don't agree with the initial premise of Amarr getting an 8 low BS and at least one hull separated from the 4 mids and 7 lows cookie cutter (why are all the Amarr laser cruisers 5/3/7 btw? but that is for another thread) all I can offer is that I really really want it. P
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#904 - 2013-04-11 21:56:54 UTC
Tonto Auri wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
Tonto Auri wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
would encourage new players even in missions to fleet up.

Thanks, I laughed. Especially hard I laughed for missions, where warping in a second ship aggro whole pocket.

That just means that they all need a proper tank, doesn't mean one ship can't be cap support to a few others to make it easier for them to melt the rats with their lasers.

You know? We've tried it back in the day. Newbie Prophecy + Augoror(mine, I've had enough skills to make it work, but nowhere near the top).
Didn't worked quite well. Neither of us have enough tank to survive the aggro alone.

Hmm... maybe some spider tank, too?
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#905 - 2013-04-11 21:59:27 UTC
I always thought that Armageddon was battleship equivalent of Omen and Abaddon is battleship equivalent of Maller. So when CCP Rise say that "battleship line had strange overlaps" does it mean cruiser line have strange overlaps too. What?

Didn't see explanation about 19 slot layout earlier so sorry about that CCP Rise, silly me.
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#906 - 2013-04-11 22:00:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmy Zeta
Rynnik wrote:


(good stuff)



Agreed.

I never saw much point in a 6 gun Apoc, but you, sir, convinced me.

And with the 8 low slot Apoc, just classify it as the third Combat Battleship, and we will have a nice lineup across the four races that should match the intended design philosophy:

Minmatar: 2 Attack 1 Combat
Gallente: 2 Combat 1 Attack
Caldari: 1 Combat 1 Attack 1 Disruption
Amarr: 3 Combat

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.
Hulasikaly Wada
DO.IT
I.N.D.E.P.E.N.D.E.N.T
#907 - 2013-04-11 22:20:53 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
Rynnik wrote:


(good stuff)



Agreed.

I never saw much point in a 6 gun Apoc, but you, sir, convinced me.

And with the 8 low slot Apoc, just classify it as the third Combat Battleship, and we will have a nice lineup across the four races that should match the intended design philosophy:

Minmatar: 2 Attack 1 Combat
Gallente: 2 Combat 1 Attack
Caldari: 1 Combat 1 Attack 1 Disruption
Amarr: 3 Combat


Yeah, Rynnik wrote it right , /agree on pure gold

Anyhow i think this proposed Apoc more as an attack Bs, no base res bonus to lower incoming dmg ,
having the best support to let it apply dmg and maybe be the lightest weight amarr Bs fill the role IMO

Hula
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#908 - 2013-04-11 22:28:57 UTC
Ashlar Vellum wrote:
I always thought that Armageddon was battleship equivalent of Omen and Abaddon is battleship equivalent of Maller. So when CCP Rise say that "battleship line had strange overlaps" does it mean cruiser line have strange overlaps too. What?

Didn't see explanation about 19 slot layout earlier so sorry about that CCP Rise, silly me.
This was my understanding as well. Armageddon was a rate of fire, laser spewing monster with a smaller tank, and the Abaddon was the tanky/brick variety, with the Apoc pulling up the last slot with longest range. I thought the ship categories were as well defined.

I'd personally like to see the Geddon go to 5x laser turrets with a turret bonus and lower the drone bandwidth to 100 mb/s. That'd allow it to still retain its focus on attack ship with lasers and drones, if they must with the drones. A laser bonus and a neuting range one I think I'd like the best, however, and give it back 125 mb/s bandwidth with 250 m3 bay.

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

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

Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#909 - 2013-04-11 22:29:16 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:

Agreed.

I never saw much point in a 6 gun Apoc, but you, sir, convinced me.

And with the 8 low slot Apoc, just classify it as the third Combat Battleship, and we will have a nice lineup across the four races that should match the intended design philosophy:

Minmatar: 2 Attack 1 Combat
Gallente: 2 Combat 1 Attack
Caldari: 1 Combat 1 Attack 1 Disruption
Amarr: 3 Combat


Yeah.
Now we just need one more race to have a nice lineup across battleship lineups. P

Minmatar: 2 Attack 1 Combat
Gallente: 2 Combat 1 Attack
Caldari: 1 Combat 1 Attack 1 Disruption
Amarr: 3 Combat
Sleepers: 3 Attack
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#910 - 2013-04-11 22:54:25 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Ashlar Vellum wrote:
I always thought that Armageddon was battleship equivalent of Omen and Abaddon is battleship equivalent of Maller. So when CCP Rise say that "battleship line had strange overlaps" does it mean cruiser line have strange overlaps too. What?

Didn't see explanation about 19 slot layout earlier so sorry about that CCP Rise, silly me.
This was my understanding as well. Armageddon was a rate of fire, laser spewing monster with a smaller tank, and the Abaddon was the tanky/brick variety, with the Apoc pulling up the last slot with longest range. I thought the ship categories were as well defined.

I'd personally like to see the Geddon go to 5x laser turrets with a turret bonus and lower the drone bandwidth to 100 mb/s. That'd allow it to still retain its focus on attack ship with lasers and drones, if they must with the drones. A laser bonus and a neuting range one I think I'd like the best, however, and give it back 125 mb/s bandwidth with 250 m3 bay.


Well apparently, we were wrong and stand corrected by CCP Rise.
Geddon was a bloody dragoon in disguise afterall!
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#911 - 2013-04-11 22:58:33 UTC
Ashlar Vellum wrote:
Well apparently, we were wrong and stand corrected by CCP Rise.
Geddon was a bloody dragoon in disguise afterall!

CCP Rise is just a troll. You don't need to repeat his words.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Meduza13
Silver Octopus
Infernal Octopus
#912 - 2013-04-11 23:02:38 UTC
I completely do not understand the idea of CCP hate 5% resistance bonus. Explanation "Because logistics is to powerful on it" just doesn't speak to me. Like for me ships generally die to quickly, sometimes its even hard to lock ships in a triage carrier before they die, if you fight against high dps fleet, especially those crazy overpowered Attack Battlecruisers with "8 easyfit biggest guns" on them. So i cant see reason for lowering resistance bonus on ships at all, never mind removing them.
bring back 5% resistance bonus on abaddon , please.
Kraschyn Thek'athor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#913 - 2013-04-11 23:11:42 UTC
There is an logic flaw with the Attack Battleship.

It will be equal in price to an Combat Battleship.
It will less mobile then an Oracle/Naga/Talos... while having comparable Damage/Range.

A ship doing the same for more money, will be forced out of buisness.
You cannot hunt those Attack Battlecruiser, you don't outgun them.
Don't get me wrong, I love these hard hitting Battlecruiser.

But Attack BS are no counter against Combat BS, Attack BC or HAC.
They could counter Combat BCs, but since HACs are in the same priceclass and more usefull.....
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#914 - 2013-04-11 23:11:50 UTC
Meduza13 wrote:
I completely do not understand the idea of CCP hate 5% resistance bonus.

I'll explain: They don't want to see armor gangs at all. As scarce as they are currently, they want to eliminate them in favor of homogenous shield tank.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#915 - 2013-04-11 23:15:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Meduza13 wrote:
I completely do not understand the idea of CCP hate 5% resistance bonus. Explanation "Because logistics is to powerful on it" just doesn't speak to me. Like for me ships generally die to quickly, sometimes its even hard to lock ships in a triage carrier before they die, if you fight against high dps fleet, especially those crazy overpowered Attack Battlecruisers with "8 easyfit biggest guns" on them. So i cant see reason for lowering resistance bonus on ships at all, never mind removing them.
bring back 5% resistance bonus on abaddon , please.

When logistics are involved a resistance bonus scales too well in comparison to active tanks.

You know, I sometimes think we'd be better off if the two schools of thought for tank bonuses on T1 hulls revolved around more repping ability or more raw shield or armor hit points (like the Augoror).

The powerful resist bonuses could then be reserved solely for the T2 varieties.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Kraschyn Thek'athor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#916 - 2013-04-11 23:24:00 UTC
And btw.
my favorite Armageddon layout would be....
5% per Level Damage
5% per Level RoF
8x Turrets, 8x High, 3x Medium, 8x Low
Standard Drone supplement 75/75.

That would be Armageddon Style. The Laser Beast of Doom.
The new Armageddon will be nice, it will be used, and will be the Capital Killer Support ship.
Maybe we will even see Neut-Armageddon Logi-Killer Wings.

In case we need an Missile BS for Amarr (Mission Runner), make an Khanid Armageddon with 6x Launchers and Resistance Boni.
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#917 - 2013-04-11 23:33:31 UTC
Rynnik wrote:
I support an Apoc turret revision because I really want an Amarr BS with 8 lows. To be truthful though I would be pretty happy if we get any variation beyond 4 mids / 7 lows on all three proposed platforms.

Why the Apoc?

---

The Armageddon can't be the ship because the last thing this game needs is an 8 low neut domi. I don't think I need to go into detail to explain that.

---

The Abaddon would be the natural ship choice to give 8 lows. However, I don't think CCP will go for it.

First off they just nerfed the resist bonus. We don't have the details and this is all just guessing and conjecture until they actually post the resist nerf blog or thread (please do that soon guys!). But it seems reasonable to assume that they want a decrease in the max tank on these hulls (rokh and abaddon) and won't likely entertain an extra tanking slot because of that.

Secondly, the 'increased bonus, decreased turret' configuration needed to free up a slot to be allocated to the lows would also buff cap use (and fitting). These changes pretty clearly indicate they are happy with the abaddon being the cap guzzler that it is. It really is a strong hull and if that aspect is buffed it really starts to risk an even greater proliferation problem. Same problem if the changes worked out to a utility high (if the Hype model was followed). So in order to maintain balance and keep things in check I doubt Abaddon changes work out.

---

That just leaves the Apoc. In order to get these Attack BS flown I think there is some wiggle room given the attraction of flying ABCs instead. A utility high and 8th low are buffs, but nothing that would push this ship into the OMGWTFROFLSTOMP status of the proposed armageddon, the gallente lineup as a whole, and the torp spam about to hit the fan after large missiles get adjusted (willing to bet any amount of isk they get overcompensated in that balance pass).

At 7(6 turret) / 4 / 8 the Apoc would be nicely versatile while still very Amarr with the limited mids. Cap would be a touch more friendly for those low skill missioners or whatever. Tachs would fit a touch easier. I could fit a neut or nos for small gang brawling (yes I would do this using this hull even though the proposed mega and the geddon overshadows it for the role just to get my pew pew laser fix).

So there we are with the substantiation of why I hope that they will at least consider adjusting the hull a bit and bonus it something like:

7.5% per level to damage (keep it right around 8 effective turrets or it WILL be overpowered)
7.5% per level to large energy turret optimal range and tracking (they were definitely on an interesting path with these)

Sorry it took so long to explain that but it is a bit complex! For those that don't agree with the initial premise of Amarr getting an 8 low BS and at least one hull separated from the 4 mids and 7 lows cookie cutter (why are all the Amarr laser cruisers 5/3/7 btw? but that is for another thread) all I can offer is that I really really want it. P


I support this product and or service.
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#918 - 2013-04-11 23:51:13 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
Rynnik wrote:


(good stuff)



Agreed.

I never saw much point in a 6 gun Apoc, but you, sir, convinced me.

And with the 8 low slot Apoc, just classify it as the third Combat Battleship, and we will have a nice lineup across the four races that should match the intended design philosophy:

Minmatar: 2 Attack 1 Combat
Gallente: 2 Combat 1 Attack
Caldari: 1 Combat 1 Attack 1 Disruption
Amarr: 3 Combat



Amarr really don't need an Attack Battleship. Why would our engineers give us more speed when they could give us more armor? That's right they wouldn't.

Especially with MJD. I'm not sure why an Amarr on the BS level would care about going something less that 1000m/s.

And with plates, cause we don't have the cap to use both lasers and an active tank, we end up being so slow and so slow to align might just keep to our strengths, ability to consistently project damage, have a tank that outlasts the opposition, and leave a field of strewn wreaks all about us.
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#919 - 2013-04-11 23:51:27 UTC
Axel Kurki wrote:

Apocalypse (combat, four turrets, four launchers, 8/4/6, 125m3 drone bay)
+10% drone hit points and damage
+10% energy neutralizer and energy vampire optimal range
"In days past, only those in high favor with the Emperor could hope to earn the reward of commanding one of these majestic and powerful battleships. In latter years, the Apocalypse class was superseded by the newer Abaddon class as the Empire's ship of the line. However, noting the impressive capacitor of the design, royal ship engineers repurposed the class for capacitor warfare, with the hull space freed by removing obsolete systems rededicated for drone control equipment."
This is the suggested Armageddon, except with an Apocalypse-style capacitor and an extra high slot, making it potentially even slightly better at sucking cap, perhaps with the slight issue of having less tank due to one less low slot. It has a clear profile as the capacitor warfare/drone boat. It might be a slight issue of having an eight-hardpoint drone ship, though this is partially taken care of having to deal with split, unbonused weapons.

Armageddon (attack, eight turrets, 8/3/8, 75m3 drone bay)
-10% large energy turret capacitor usage
-5% large energy turret rate of fire
(Remember that in EVE, rate of fire stat means "weapon cycle time".)
"The mighty Armageddon class is the main warship of the Amarr Empire. Its heavy armaments and strong engines are specially designed to crash into any battle like a juggernaut and deliver swift justice in the name of the Emperor."
Only a slight change to the fluff, and little change to the hull (faster, less drones, more pewpew). The main niche for the ship is that it is now the highest-damage Amarr battleship, and also the only one capable of sustained laser fire without compromising the fit otherwise.


I like these, on face value. That said, might I suggest to CCP:

If you want to give Amarr an ewar line, wait until you add a new ship. And every Amarr ship, no matter it's 'role', should be armor tanked. The most lows, the most armor, the toughest bastards on the field.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?
Flyinghotpocket
Small Focused Memes
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#920 - 2013-04-11 23:53:07 UTC
Arline Kley wrote:
Meduza13 wrote:
Mr Hyde113 wrote:

I'm just going to keep posting until we get actual revisions. Evil


Well so there will be at least 2 of us.


Make that 3.

Hell, I'll keep posting variants that should actually get a design that is worth it.

4

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro