These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Ship-troduction: The Amarr Oracle

First post
Author
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#141 - 2011-11-03 21:17:09 UTC
In space with 0 resistance I believe the place of thrusters doesn't matter...
Maul555
Xen Investments
#142 - 2011-11-03 23:34:30 UTC
looks great except for that WTF ammount of thrusters at the top
Erim Solfara
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#143 - 2011-11-03 23:47:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Erim Solfara
Pinky Denmark wrote:
In space with 0 resistance I believe the place of thrusters doesn't matter...


Not true, momentum, inertia, force, etc are all still in full effect. Astronaut's still have to push off the walls to move around in the ISS.


To clarify, the three large and three small thrusters in the centre mass are fine, but the extra 20 smaller thrusters at the top are just silly, and I imagine will look a mess in game.
Illectroculus Defined
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#144 - 2011-11-04 00:01:16 UTC
Pinky Denmark wrote:
In space with 0 resistance I believe the place of thrusters doesn't matter...


Put that theory into to the test - download Kerbal Space Program and try to build an asymmetric rocket.
Pharuan
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#145 - 2011-11-04 00:03:08 UTC
But imagine all the trails it would leave!
Erim Solfara
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#146 - 2011-11-04 00:06:17 UTC
There are 20 thrusters plus the six that make sense if I recall correctly. The trails from all that would be a bloody mess, it'd end up as a massive blue-white blob in the middle of the screen from anything but the front. Look at the original drawing, it looks great with just 2/3 trails.
Mordecai Heller
Offstation Fund Administration
#147 - 2011-11-04 00:29:46 UTC
Now can't wait to see the page about the Ascog. I hope you didn't think that we Caldari loyalists wouldn't notice it on the screen. Lol
Hannibal Ord
Fer-De-Lance
#148 - 2011-11-04 01:16:46 UTC
Nice design. But it's still hideous design.
Ariane VoxDei
#149 - 2011-11-05 21:52:05 UTC
Ok, now I have been on sisi (today)

Happily the sidething, which I complained about earlier, appears to be gone - or at least it is on my settings. +1

And the bonus to energy turret usage is actually -75% effectively as espected, though it takes BC V to get there, which is a much steeper SP investment than Cruiser V (thinking of the harbinger, to obtain similar cap).
However, this does not go hand in hand with Ytterbiums talk in the latest video. I suggest moving it to 10% per cruiser instead of 10% per BC (since you only need those two at III to get into it), but I would really prefer it being a flat -75% role bonus, unless you are really desperate to force people away from amarr (or force them into taking BC5 and fly commandships).

3 mids is not happy happy at all, for all the usual reasons.

Overall visual is ok so far, I just don't like the airgap between the 2 triangular sideplates (on either side) and the main hull, but that is almost nitpicking.
So far only the 6 center engines glow. Try to keep it like that. Those 14 round things higher up would be way too much as engine exhausts. They would really steal too much of the show from the lazers, quite apart from the inyourface annoyance when not zoomed out.

Combatwise, I am not convinced yet. To me it is screaming for a 4 hardpoint setup with a 100% bonus to large energy turrets.
And so far i pretty much stand by the somewhat heretical view of generalizing that quite a bit as mentioned previously, granting all the tier3 battlecruiser complete flexibility in picking large guns:
fitting bonus to all gun types
4 hardpoints with 100% to large guns of any type
energy use bonuses as needed.

Anyway, in its current state, I do not see why you would not take (or train for) a geddon/apoc/ tornado instead.
Sader Rykane
Midnight Sentinels
#150 - 2011-11-06 13:49:19 UTC
God CCP wtf do you have against cool looking ships?

This thing looks so incredibly stupid.
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#151 - 2011-11-07 23:14:19 UTC
Pinky Denmark wrote:
In space with 0 resistance I believe the place of thrusters doesn't matter...


Space does have resistance. Not a lot...but more than 0. Any kind of gravity at all causes resistance in space. Space also has matter in the form of all sorts of **** flying around...specs of dust and whatever that cause resistance. And yes there is gravity in space. If you are within any of the solar systems in EvE you would as an example be effected by the gravity of a star, planet or even moon even if it is really far away. Farther away you get the less the gravity is of course. Scientists have been able to measure the minute gravitational pull of objects in space millions and millions of miles away.

Well...I digress...

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821

Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
#152 - 2011-11-08 01:54:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Jojo Jackson
But WHY again this NO-bonus of 10% cap usage for Laser??

Guys, this is for real NO BONUS!!
It's a pre-gimp as many Armar ships suffer 1 bonus as this is nothink but "we don't want to give this ship better cap or cap-regen".

Fix it before you release this patch!
50% more BASE cap or 50% better BASE cap recharg.
Add REAL bonus like tracking/range/rof/armor/.. anythink but make it a REAL bonus like the other 3 races get!

And for the other Laser boats which a pre-gimped with this ANTI-bonus ... lower the damn cap usage of lasers and give this ships a REAL bonus!


PS: It's ******* stupid, that for example Legion Drone offensive does MORE damage with Autocannons then with Lasers!
Same for Maller and Punisher.

It just makes clear, how FAIL this ANTI-bonus is! :(

Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship!

Keen Fallsword
Skyway Patrol
#153 - 2011-11-08 03:12:45 UTC
Jojo Jackson wrote:
But WHY again this NO-bonus of 10% cap usage for Laser??

50% more BASE cap or 50% better BASE cap recharg.
Add REAL bonus like tracking/range/rof/armor/.. anythink but make it a REAL bonus like the other 3 races get!

And for the other Laser boats which a pre-gimped with this ANTI-bonus ... lower the damn cap usage of lasers and give this ships a REAL bonus!


Well not 3 races :) dont ask about gallente talos hehe :)

We can Say that this patch got only one good ship and it is tornado of coz.... There is something really strange that mini are the best in almost everything well not in caps and supers but we will see coz they may be tweeked. Anyway add mini skills to yours skills set :( coz ccp dont change minmatar as we know devs fave race. I may only Say that this is happening when you allow your workers to play in mmo haha
Siabhra
Interstellar Archaeology
#154 - 2011-11-08 04:10:19 UTC
Me likey!!
Shocked
Trash Ice
Tesla Cat
#155 - 2011-11-09 10:42:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Trash Ice
For the Love of God!
Make more than 3 med slotsAttention

UP
I really dont understand, why CCP hate shield amarr so much

Forget the shield - you will have no slot for cap booster Shocked

I'm shitting bricks
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#156 - 2011-11-10 18:43:44 UTC
Trash Ice wrote:
I'm shitting bricks


Does it hurts? Shocked

You can train for Talos and Gallente if you really want to fly bad stuff.
Trash Ice
Tesla Cat
#157 - 2011-11-11 04:14:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Trash Ice
SUDDENLY, i want to fly amarrian bad staf

this thing would be really bad with some useful bonus like tracking or optimal and 4 meds

btw
does anybody noticed THIS:
Tornado: rof + falloff bonus
Talos: dmg + tracking bonus
Naga: topedo velocity OR optimal bonus (coz there is no sense in fitting both torps and hybrids)
Oracle: dmg + CAPACITOR USE

sooooo....
WHY oracle and naga have only one useful bonus?

not to speak of "50% reduction in the capacitor need of Large Energy Turrets"
so oracle already has capacitor bonus - why should i be happy about second one?

CCP, please, give some bad sh*t to amarr
Rip Minner
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
#158 - 2011-11-14 00:36:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Rip Minner
Trash Ice wrote:
SUDDENLY, i want to fly amarrian bad staf

this thing would be really bad with some useful bonus like tracking or optimal and 4 meds

btw
does anybody noticed THIS:
Tornado: rof + falloff bonus
Talos: dmg + tracking bonus
Naga: topedo velocity OR optimal bonus (coz there is no sense in fitting both torps and hybrids)
Oracle: dmg + CAPACITOR USE

sooooo....
WHY oracle and naga have only one useful bonus?

not to speak of "50% reduction in the capacitor need of Large Energy Turrets"
so oracle already has capacitor bonus - why should i be happy about second one?

CCP, please, give some bad sh*t to amarr


1.) Tornado is still great.
2.) Talos is still going to only be good for what blaster boats do already just fine.
3.) Naga is going to be in the above Talos as good for what blaster boats do already just fine and though some torps on for pos/cap bashing.
4.) Oracle is probly the worst off as it is not going to have the staying power of other Large Energy weapon ships and no one was asking for or even expeting a faster Large Energy weapon ship. Is added speed going to hose pulse tracking on a smaller faster ship that gets no added tracking bonus?

And all of the T3 BC will suffer in major fleet fights against real BS's. Bear

I mean realy the killing list on major fleet fights just changed alittle

1.) Hel/Nadhoggur
2.) T3 BC becouse there going to drop fast and remove alot of dps when they do drop. If there as easy to Alph as I belive they will be they my be moved to spot 1 as the reping of the Hel/Nadhoggur probly will not matter one bit.

But for smaller fleets and in lower class wormholes I think this things are going to be great with the Tornado right at the top of her game agaist other ships and the Naga will be the fastest one for taking out pos in class 1-2 wh's and the Oracle will be kind of semi-afk pos smashing in the same holes you know Energy weapons endless ammo deal.

Is it a rock point a lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship point a lazer at it and profit. I dont see any problems here.

Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#159 - 2011-11-14 12:01:33 UTC
Well actually I'm happy when I have Oracles in my SISI fleets, they have this important stuff that is range versatility and application. Strong enough tanks to not make logis cry good speed, overall I'd say a good ship.

So don't be bored about your thrusters placement, it's less important than some other BC's being completely and utterly useless once again for fleet engagements where usual range is between 60 to 80km

Haven't try small gang engagement type, so I can't say who good/bad this Oracle is at this game but I'm willing to think it does he's game very well.
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#160 - 2011-11-14 13:33:45 UTC
ORACLE is possibly the best of all tier battle-cruiser in fleets. I'm pretty freaking sure that these things can signature tank, with a large tank to begin with. Add a Damnation, Loki and they replace Zealot for the most part. In terms of price to performance and by the way. The best non-t2 cruiser for armour-HAC fleets is the Omen navy issue. This ship is alot better than that.

Also, it seems to be able to Nano pretty well. Think it's a good thing it has only one mid slot because it would be to overpowered. Something I do not believe the Tornado is YET!