These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#961 - 2013-04-12 10:38:08 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hi guys

So I've been catching up on the thread a little this morning. I think you all deserve some comment at least, so here you go!

For those of you still concerned about the cap issues that Amarr will now face with both of its turret based options: we hear you. We are really caught here because a significant number of players find the cap bonus less exciting than a bonus like tracking. That said, its a really important bonus because of what it allows laser ships to do. We've been talking with the CSM, watching this thread, and doing experimenting of our own with the new ships internally to try and figure out how much of a problem it is. So far, we remain convinced that you will enjoy the Apoc more, on average, without the cap bonus. We want to let it go to public testing this way and then adjust off feedback at that point if there's major problems.

For those of you concerned about the idea that Gallente got revisions because they asked, and Amarr are not, I urge you to see the two as in completely different situations. The first set of Gallente ships were not just controversial or "off race", they were a broad disappointment. Once people began to point out that they simply fell short, we looked at them and tended to agree, so we were happy to go back and work on them some more. Amarr is in a different place where its not that they are simple "bad" ships, more that there is a lot of disagreement about how this race line should be structured. Thats understandable. We are in a really difficult position of wanting to offer new options for Amarr pilots, despite them having 2 iconic ships and one fleet staple. That means no matter where we go (for instance if the Apoc had become the drone ship) someone is going to be unhappy.

We, along with many players, feel that this an exciting direction for Amarr. I would ask that you guys accept this draft as more or less set, and then help us out with testing once these go to a public server.

I do appreciate your feedback and promise that its not falling on deaf ears.

I mostly agree with what you said though:

Suggestions for a few minor tweaks?
A little more cap regen on the Apoc?
A little more grid on the Abaddon?

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Ayla Crenshaw
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#962 - 2013-04-12 10:38:35 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
Thank you for your work CCP Rise!
May I know what do you think of the 6 turret + 7.5/level damage plan, for Abaddon or Apoc?


I think the problem with it is that the Abaddon is strong enough already (as proven on TQ) that giving it extra turrets right now would be difficult to justify, and the Apoc doesn't have a damage bonus to use - so doing this for the Apoc would mean reworking it completely around a new damage bonus.



8 turrets x1.25 = 10 effective
6 turrets x 1.375 = 8.25 effective
6 turrets x 1.5 = 9 effective

Correct me if I'm wrong but that change would actually take away turrets from Abaddon.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#963 - 2013-04-12 10:41:05 UTC
Ayla Crenshaw wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
Thank you for your work CCP Rise!
May I know what do you think of the 6 turret + 7.5/level damage plan, for Abaddon or Apoc?


I think the problem with it is that the Abaddon is strong enough already (as proven on TQ) that giving it extra turrets right now would be difficult to justify, and the Apoc doesn't have a damage bonus to use - so doing this for the Apoc would mean reworking it completely around a new damage bonus.



8 turrets x1.25 = 10 effective
6 turrets x 1.375 = 8.25 effective
6 turrets x 1.5 = 9 effective

Correct me if I'm wrong but that change would actually take away turrets from Abaddon.



Yes but peopel would wan t to do something with those spare highs :) IF it goes to a low slot as some asked.. the abaddon would become much more powerful than other battleship.

I think it shoudl get this powerful, but all other battleships must also increase their power to that level.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#964 - 2013-04-12 10:41:29 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
Thank you for your work CCP Rise!
May I know what do you think of the 6 turret + 7.5/level damage plan, for Abaddon or Apoc?


I think the problem with it is that the Abaddon is strong enough already (as proven on TQ) that giving it extra turrets right now would be difficult to justify, and the Apoc doesn't have a damage bonus to use - so doing this for the Apoc would mean reworking it completely around a new damage bonus.



After this change abaddon will have a damage of 6+2.25 as 8.25 turrets, instead of 10. the turret dps have be reduced, not increased.
with a 7 high 4 mid 8 low layout, this could be both mission friendly and keep performing well on the battle field.
If you think gaining an extra low is over powering this ship, it will only compensate the loss of DPS from reduced turrets.
I believe the overall DPS will be acceptable, but it helps with the cap problem.
And it solves the problem that Amarr new player's lvl4 mission ship.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#965 - 2013-04-12 10:44:05 UTC
ugh, the abaddon shouldn't be changed to be the cap stable mission running ship that the apoc and geddon would already conformably fill with the current set of stats.

Nor does it need an 8th low "just because". Focus on fixing the apoc instead of turning another into something it's not.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#966 - 2013-04-12 10:45:12 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Ayla Crenshaw wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
Thank you for your work CCP Rise!
May I know what do you think of the 6 turret + 7.5/level damage plan, for Abaddon or Apoc?


I think the problem with it is that the Abaddon is strong enough already (as proven on TQ) that giving it extra turrets right now would be difficult to justify, and the Apoc doesn't have a damage bonus to use - so doing this for the Apoc would mean reworking it completely around a new damage bonus.



8 turrets x1.25 = 10 effective
6 turrets x 1.375 = 8.25 effective
6 turrets x 1.5 = 9 effective

Correct me if I'm wrong but that change would actually take away turrets from Abaddon.



Yes but peopel would wan t to do something with those spare highs :) IF it goes to a low slot as some asked.. the abaddon would become much more powerful than other battleship.

I think it shoudl get this powerful, but all other battleships must also increase their power to that level.


come on... how can a ship with 8.25 turrets and a extra heat sink (most likely to be the third or the second heat sink) over power a 10 turrets ship...
Ayla Crenshaw
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#967 - 2013-04-12 10:46:40 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Ayla Crenshaw wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
Thank you for your work CCP Rise!
May I know what do you think of the 6 turret + 7.5/level damage plan, for Abaddon or Apoc?


I think the problem with it is that the Abaddon is strong enough already (as proven on TQ) that giving it extra turrets right now would be difficult to justify, and the Apoc doesn't have a damage bonus to use - so doing this for the Apoc would mean reworking it completely around a new damage bonus.



8 turrets x1.25 = 10 effective
6 turrets x 1.375 = 8.25 effective
6 turrets x 1.5 = 9 effective

Correct me if I'm wrong but that change would actually take away turrets from Abaddon.



Yes but peopel would wan t to do something with those spare highs :) IF it goes to a low slot as some asked.. the abaddon would become much more powerful than other battleship.

I think it shoudl get this powerful, but all other battleships must also increase their power to that level.


Due to stacking penalties and other considerations that additional lowslot, even IF used for a Heat Sink, wouldn't (napkin math gooo!) add enough oomph to 6-turret Abaddon to outdamage the old Abaddon, more so for the 7.5%/level version. It would however increase flexibility in fitting it as well as giving Amarr 8-low battleship it deserves.
Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#968 - 2013-04-12 10:46:48 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
ugh, the abaddon shouldn't be changed to be the cap stable mission running ship that the apoc and geddon would already conformably fill with the current set of stats.

Nor does it need an 8th low "just because". Focus on fixing the apoc instead of turning another into something it's not.


Well then give me back my cap stabled apoc.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#969 - 2013-04-12 10:46:54 UTC
Jack C Hughes wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Ayla Crenshaw wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
Thank you for your work CCP Rise!
May I know what do you think of the 6 turret + 7.5/level damage plan, for Abaddon or Apoc?


I think the problem with it is that the Abaddon is strong enough already (as proven on TQ) that giving it extra turrets right now would be difficult to justify, and the Apoc doesn't have a damage bonus to use - so doing this for the Apoc would mean reworking it completely around a new damage bonus.



8 turrets x1.25 = 10 effective
6 turrets x 1.375 = 8.25 effective
6 turrets x 1.5 = 9 effective

Correct me if I'm wrong but that change would actually take away turrets from Abaddon.



Yes but peopel would wan t to do something with those spare highs :) IF it goes to a low slot as some asked.. the abaddon would become much more powerful than other battleship.

I think it shoudl get this powerful, but all other battleships must also increase their power to that level.


come on... how can a ship with 8.25 turrets and a extra heat sink (most likely to be the third or the second heat sink) over power a 10 turrets ship...



because people would likely fit yet another plate instead :P

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#970 - 2013-04-12 10:47:00 UTC
Thank you for making the amarr ships more exciting. Yes, the lazor bonus is very much a good solid bonus, however you can get around this bonus by giving ships a stronger capacitor if you have to... And since most people tank amarr ships with a fully passive armor buffer and use cap boosters to run MWD, tackle and guns the bonus is mostly obsolete in my eyes.

A better flavor makes them attractive ships and except for the mishandled Geddon which will likely be fun anyway I am looking forward playing them. That is if the Megathron doesn't get 8 lowslots at least...
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#971 - 2013-04-12 10:48:28 UTC
Quote:
And why, pray tell, is that new "exciting" direction to Amarr even necessary?


Such a tone!

Despite the fact that clearly there are people who were happy with the Amarr battleships in their former state, overall there was a significant gap in use between apoc/geddon and most other battleships (the only BS used less was the hyperion).

I looked across as many different environments/metrics as possible and this was a consistent theme.

Hope that helps!

@ccp_rise
Ayla Crenshaw
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#972 - 2013-04-12 10:49:36 UTC
Pinky Denmark wrote:
Thank you for making the amarr ships more exciting. Yes, the lazor bonus is very much a good solid bonus, however you can get around this bonus by giving ships a stronger capacitor if you have to... And since most people tank amarr ships with a fully passive armor buffer and use cap boosters to run MWD, tackle and guns the bonus is mostly obsolete in my eyes.

A better flavor makes them attractive ships and except for the mishandled Geddon which will likely be fun anyway I am looking forward playing them. That is if the Megathron doesn't get 8 lowslots at least...


Capacitors would have to be about 30% to 40% better to offset the loss of cap use bonus.

If we get that I'll sign up for these changes with every limb I have, even if it means learning how to write with my feet.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#973 - 2013-04-12 10:50:56 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
And why, pray tell, is that new "exciting" direction to Amarr even necessary?


Such a tone!

Despite the fact that clearly there are people who were happy with the Amarr battleships in their former state, overall there was a significant gap in use between apoc/geddon and most other battleships (the only BS used less was the hyperion).

I looked across as many different environments/metrics as possible and this was a consistent theme.

Hope that helps!



Well its more of a case taht battleships were almost not used at all for PVP outside huge fleet fights. And I think we neede dsome work to change THAT.. more than finding new strange sub roles. Grnated the geddon will find its usage in low scale PVP because its very powerful But a lot of the other battleships cannot hope to get used more.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#974 - 2013-04-12 10:51:22 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:



because people would likely fit yet another plate instead :P


well if you fit a plate instead, the dps will be decreased by 17.5%, that is a trade off.
The repping power will not be increased by anywhere near 17.5% I believe.
Ayla Crenshaw
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#975 - 2013-04-12 10:51:35 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
And why, pray tell, is that new "exciting" direction to Amarr even necessary?


Such a tone!

Despite the fact that clearly there are people who were happy with the Amarr battleships in their former state, overall there was a significant gap in use between apoc/geddon and most other battleships (the only BS used less was the hyperion).

I looked across as many different environments/metrics as possible and this was a consistent theme.

Hope that helps!


Fair enough! I didn't think my tone was that harsh though...

I do hope you take another (deep) look at the cap issues though. There are a lot of ways to solve them.

I just don't want to cap out from firing my guns only. I don't want to be forced to fit a cap booster on my ships. Can you at least assure us that you'll TRY to make that possible?
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#976 - 2013-04-12 10:52:05 UTC
Jack C Hughes wrote:
Pattern Clarc wrote:
ugh, the abaddon shouldn't be changed to be the cap stable mission running ship that the apoc and geddon would already conformably fill with the current set of stats.

Nor does it need an 8th low "just because". Focus on fixing the apoc instead of turning another into something it's not.


Well then give me back my cap stabled apoc.

Well, I would if I could, but I don't think the New Apoc is THAT far away from being great.

It would be interesting if they give the Apoc a massive cap pool, perhaps 3-4 times larger than most battleships, but it regenerated quite slowly. With CPR's it might be a bit too high... but then again that could provide some interesting options within the games current PVP meta.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Rynnik
Evasion Gaming
The Ancients.
#977 - 2013-04-12 10:53:48 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
We, along with many players, feel that this an exciting direction for Amarr. I would ask that you guys accept this draft as more or less set, and then help us out with testing once these go to a public server.


Can you comment on Amarr slot homogenization and why you don't feel the need to break out of 4 mids 7 lows or or make a single one of the platforms have 8 lows? That would go a long ways towards the 'flavour' tweaking of your changes. Did you READ the suggestion of how to do that for the Apoc a couple pages back? Not much has to be changed to include the damage bonus and if it needs a nerf to allow for the extra low and utility high that can easily be done by tweaking numbers.
Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#978 - 2013-04-12 10:55:53 UTC
In my first impression of the Amarr's cap bonus
it suggest that the lasers are just too powerful, and it needs such bonus to prevent other races to use it.

If you can use it on other race's ships, it simply means it is not that powerful.

Then now amarr battle ships do not have that bonus anymore
if you want to keep lasers on amarr ship only, the cap for those Amarr battleship should be much higher than other races to keep the guns fire.
Or the guns it self use less cap, which ables other races fitting lasers, while I don't think many would consider.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#979 - 2013-04-12 10:56:05 UTC
Jack C Hughes wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:



because people would likely fit yet another plate instead :P


well if you fit a plate instead, the dps will be decreased by 17.5%, that is a trade off.
The repping power will not be increased by anywhere near 17.5% I believe.



read my whoel post damm. i am not against. I am just saying why CCP think itsa powerful You do not have to conveince me.

I thin ALL battleships need some sort of buff.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#980 - 2013-04-12 10:56:09 UTC
Quote:
I do hope you take another (deep) look at the cap issues though. There are a lot of ways to solve them.


We really have looked at them. Fozzie was running level 4s yesterday easily in a pulse Apoc without sacrificing many slots. Not only can you run them, but you gain a lot of offensive capability because of the tracking bonus and the increased speed and agility.

I think you will find its not a very painful shift - but again, public testing will give us a better idea.

@ccp_rise