These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mr Hyde113
#141 - 2013-04-08 18:30:21 UTC
When we asked for a T1 BS balance pass, we didn't mean pull a drive by and destroy the Amarr BS lineup.

Seriously, what are you thinking?

If you actually wanted to do something helpful, why not fix what needed fixing instead of just tossing everything out the window and puting in some half baked ship ideas.

Abaddon - Was fine, it was tanky and did good dps but was heavy on cap as a downside. If you wanted to tone it down, you could have touched its drones bay or something secondary.

Apocalypse - This was always supposed to be Amarr's sniper boat. Lower damage than the Armageddon and Abaddon, but way more projection and cap stability. If you wanted to help the Apoc, you should have fixed its horrible fitting and given it enough grid and CPU to fit Tachyons and given it decent base lock range.

Armageddon - This is possibly one of the dumbest changes I have seen to date. NO GEDDON PILOT EVER ASKED FOR THIS. The ship was FINE, it had a role as a laser damage boat with less tank than the baddon but with better cap stability. If you wanted to balance it, you could have eased its fitting and given it enough CPU to fit what it needed rather than just change it into a range neut domi.


I hope these changes will be scrapped and given a proper look based on what Amarr pilots actually need, rather than some cookie cutter model you guys are trying to throw ships into.



BTW - BUFF THE HARBINGER.

Evil
Alice Saki
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#142 - 2013-04-08 18:32:14 UTC
Mr Hyde113 wrote:
When we asked for a T1 BS balance pass, we didn't mean pull a drive by and destroy the Amarr BS lineup.

Seriously, what are you thinking?

If you actually wanted to do something helpful, why not fix what needed fixing instead of just tossing everything out the window and puting in some half baked ship ideas.

Abaddon - Was fine, it was tanky and did good dps but was heavy on cap as a downside. If you wanted to tone it down, you could have touched its drones bay or something secondary.

Apocalypse - This was always supposed to be Amarr's sniper boat. Lower damage than the Armageddon and Abaddon, but way more projection and cap stability. If you wanted to help the Apoc, you should have fixed its horrible fitting and given it enough grid and CPU to fit Tachyons and given it decent base lock range.

Armageddon - This is possibly one of the dumbest changes I have seen to date. NO GEDDON PILOT EVER ASKED FOR THIS. The ship was FINE, it had a role as a laser damage boat with less tank than the baddon but with better cap stability. If you wanted to balance it, you could have eased its fitting and given it enough CPU to fit what it needed rather than just change it into a range neut domi.


I hope these changes will be scrapped and given a proper look based on what Amarr pilots actually need, rather than some cookie cutter model you guys are trying to throw ships into.



BTW - BUFF THE HARBINGER.

Evil



Well Said +1

FREEZE! Drop the LIKES AND WALK AWAY! - Currenly rebuilding gaming machine, I will Return.

Loki Vice
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#143 - 2013-04-08 18:34:18 UTC
Please tell me that the armageddon navy issue will keep it's current role, it would be silly to make it a neuting drone ship as well ontop of this new geddon and the baahlgorn...
Novacrow
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#144 - 2013-04-08 18:34:34 UTC
Mr Hyde113 wrote:


BTW - BUFF THE HARBINGER.

Evil


I admit, I lol'd.
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#145 - 2013-04-08 18:35:04 UTC
These changes make Bhaalgorn and Nightmare not worth using anymore with their price tags since these will be so much cheaper...

Also great way to butcher Apocalypse that many liked to run missions with without constantly eating cap booster charges...
Cy4nid3
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#146 - 2013-04-08 18:36:27 UTC
Loki Vice wrote:
Please tell me that the armageddon navy issue will keep it's current role, it would be silly to make it a neuting drone ship as well ontop of this new geddon and the baahlgorn...



I Hope it too. Navy Geddon is my last hope.

@ Mr Hyde113

/sign
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#147 - 2013-04-08 18:40:51 UTC
Unforgiven Storm wrote:
+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)

a mini bhaalgorn?

hell yeah a viable cap warfare BS thats "affordable" :P

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]

Danny DCO
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#148 - 2013-04-08 18:41:01 UTC
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)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ
Alice Saki
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#149 - 2013-04-08 18:41:11 UTC
You better not break my bhaal.

My favourite ship in this damn game

FREEZE! Drop the LIKES AND WALK AWAY! - Currenly rebuilding gaming machine, I will Return.

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#150 - 2013-04-08 18:43:39 UTC
Alice Saki wrote:
Mr Hyde113 wrote:
When we asked for a T1 BS balance pass, we didn't mean pull a drive by and destroy the Amarr BS lineup.

Seriously, what are you thinking?

If you actually wanted to do something helpful, why not fix what needed fixing instead of just tossing everything out the window and puting in some half baked ship ideas.

Abaddon - Was fine, it was tanky and did good dps but was heavy on cap as a downside. If you wanted to tone it down, you could have touched its drones bay or something secondary.

Apocalypse - This was always supposed to be Amarr's sniper boat. Lower damage than the Armageddon and Abaddon, but way more projection and cap stability. If you wanted to help the Apoc, you should have fixed its horrible fitting and given it enough grid and CPU to fit Tachyons and given it decent base lock range.

Armageddon - This is possibly one of the dumbest changes I have seen to date. NO GEDDON PILOT EVER ASKED FOR THIS. The ship was FINE, it had a role as a laser damage boat with less tank than the baddon but with better cap stability. If you wanted to balance it, you could have eased its fitting and given it enough CPU to fit what it needed rather than just change it into a range neut domi.


I hope these changes will be scrapped and given a proper look based on what Amarr pilots actually need, rather than some cookie cutter model you guys are trying to throw ships into.



BTW - BUFF THE HARBINGER.

Evil



Well Said +1

The superiority of a resistance bonus to an active tanking bonus is something that has been pointed out and discussed for a long time. It is particularly apparent at the BS fleet level. Hopefully this will trickle down (and up) into other ship classes as well.

Beams of all types look to be ripe for rebalancing, this may make the Apoc changes look more palatable to you.

The Armageddon overlapped strongly with the roles of the other ships in the Amarr BS line up. The new role it has been given ties together other strong Amarr themes that currently are not recognized at the BS level.

The Armageddon has always had a very large drone bay, and the Amarr have a history of relying heavily on drones including ships specialized for them... hence they are considered the Amarr secondary weapons system.

Amarr ships in general usually packed a utility slot for NOS/Neuts, and again have ship lines devoted to their use. Overall a very strong part of Amarrian lore.

And of course thanks to Khanid influence the Amarr have always had ship lines dedicated to missile use, making them unique armor tanking missile ships.

It's about time that Amarr lore is finally reflected in the BS line up instead of 3 ships all dedicated to pretty lazer light shows.

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

Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#151 - 2013-04-08 18:43:45 UTC
I'm not so sure I like the new Armageddon yet and I definitely want to see you really nerf the Talos before reading about how well you think you are doing ;-) But I like how you have differentiated all 3 battleships and given all of them a reason to be picked...

I do however wish to talk about resistance bonus. I really like the 4% armor resist as armor have way more HP from plates than shield have from extenders and eanm have those 20% resist for T1...

But I think it's an error to cut the shield resist from 25% to 20% - T1 invuls are 25% so doesn't make sense to cut those down. The real problem is logistics and carriers rather than resist bonus.

Pinky
Kern Hotha
#152 - 2013-04-08 18:46:56 UTC
None of these changes are welcome and they certainly aren't necessary. This is just change for the sake of change.

We distinguish the excellent man from the common man by saying that the former is the one who makes great demands upon himself, and the latter who makes no demands on himself.

Jose Ortega y Gasset (1883 - 1955)

Jureth22
EVE-RO
Goonswarm Federation
#153 - 2013-04-08 18:47:16 UTC
DENWIR wrote:
You are insane?! EvilEvilEvil

DONT TOUCH ARMAGEDDON! This changes killing armageddon!


+1 .

******* make another battleship that fill in the neut/drone bonuses.same for every race you guys are messing up.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#154 - 2013-04-08 18:50:15 UTC
Interesting how many people seem to dislike having logical options, instead of not really having to think at all.

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

Mr Hyde113
#155 - 2013-04-08 18:50:38 UTC
I'm dead serious though. WHAT GEDDON PILOT WOKE UP ONE DAY AND SAID, OH, TODAY I WOULD LIKE TO BE A DOMINIX!

???????
Alice Saki
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#156 - 2013-04-08 18:51:42 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Interesting how many people seem to dislike having logical options, instead of not really having to think at all.


I'm not a cheap skate.

If I want a Neuting ship I use a Bhaalgorn.

FREEZE! Drop the LIKES AND WALK AWAY! - Currenly rebuilding gaming machine, I will Return.

Mr Hyde113
#157 - 2013-04-08 18:52:42 UTC
Alice Saki wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Interesting how many people seem to dislike having logical options, instead of not really having to think at all.


I'm not a cheap skate.

If I want a Neuting ship I use a Bhaalgorn.




OR if you are cheap, what was stopping you from putting 8 heavy neuts on an APOC?
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#158 - 2013-04-08 18:54:35 UTC
DO.... NOT.... DARE..... TO..... TURN..... MY...... GODDAMN.... GEDDON..... INTO ..... ANOTHER......DOMINIX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!

Novacrow
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#159 - 2013-04-08 18:56:24 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Interesting how many people seem to dislike having logical options, instead of not really having to think at all.


I don't know. I have mixed feeling about the entire changes. I like the option of having a heavy neuting battleship, but I don't want to lose the old geddon as well...

The old Apoc gave us damage projection and plenty of cap.

The Abaddon gave us superior tank, but has cap issues.

The old geddon sort of sat right in the middle for me. I liked it. It was cheap and could easily pump out ~1k dps. What is not to like with that? I liked the ship because it was not too difficult to fit and could dish out some hurt.

If they addressed cap issues on the new Abaddon and Apoc, then I am all for the changes.

Frothgar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#160 - 2013-04-08 18:56:36 UTC
Love the new Geddon. Thatl be so interesting to play.