EVE Search - [Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

[Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships - Amarr

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 25 post(s)

CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 190	Posted - 2013.04.08 14:21:00 - [1] - Quote Welcome to the Tech 1 Battleship rebalance, fasten your seatbelts! Some of the changes herein are significant, so I'm going to lay out our overall tiericide and balance principles at the top of each race's thread, and also provide ship-by-ship explanation. I encourage you to read both before hitting the caps lock key, you may find answers to some of your questions and concerns. Tiericide - Our effort to destroy ship tiers continues. With battleships, the tiers were most evident in HP amounts and price. All variations had an equal allocation of slots already (19), except drone bonused hulls or disruption hulls, which wonGÇÖt change. As usual, we will be dividing battleships into roles rather than tiers. The distribution will be as follows: One 'Attack' Battleship for each race, and two 'Combat' Battleships for each race (except Caldari, who will retain the only 'Disruption' Battleship for the time being). With these new roles in mind, we will be adjusting hitpoint amounts for all combat battleships near the former tier 3 hitpoint numbers, while the attack hulls will sit closer to the former tier 2s. As with other ship classes, attack battleships will be faster, more agile, and will focus more on damage application and projection than their combat counterparts. Cost of production will be adjusted to reflect tiericide, but so far we have not settled on exact numbers. Exciting roles for every ship and every race - One of our main goals during this balance pass is to see that each battleship has a lot to offer, and that each race has access to all of Eve's environments. Formerly, the battleship line had strange overlaps and gaps which left certain races excluded from certain styles of play and other races with more than one option for a certain role. This new distribution should hopefully provide new options and excitement for players of all races. I am breaking the post into four, by race, with the hope of isolating feedback. We look forward to hearing what you all have to say. Without further ado: AMARR A preface for Amarr: This ship line presented a special sort of obstacle. There were three ships with a heavy amount of overlap, all focusing on armor tanks and energy weapon damage. With the prices associated with tiers being removed, that overlap would be even more obvious, and likely, the apoc and geddon would fall into further disuse. That said, both of them are among eve's most iconic ships. We have decided to make big changes to them both, while hopefully preserving access to any use an Amarr pilot had prior. Abaddon: The Abaddon, price aside, was clearly the most dominant of the Amarr line-up. We've left it totally in-tact as your go-to laser brawler, except for the resist bonus tweak. This change is significant, and we are going to dedicate an entire thread to discussing the power of resistance bonuses later in the day. If you want to talk about this bonus here, in relation to the Abaddon specifically, feel free. The general idea from our end is that the current bonus to resistance is one of the most powerful ship bonuses in the game. It adds to the power of local tanks (active and passive) as well as remote tanks, which has consistently positioned ships with this bonus at the center of some of the most powerful gameplay available to combat pilots. We feel that the Abaddon is strong enough to perform perfectly well with the slight loss in resist. Amarr Battleship Skill Bonuses: +5% to Large Energy Turret damage +4% Armor resistances (-1% per level) Slot layout: 8H, 4M, 7L; 8 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 21000 PWG, 560 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 7000 / 8500 / 8000 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / recharge per second) : 6375 / 1250s / 5.1 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 89 / .14 / 125000000 / 20.03s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 / 75 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km / 85 / 7 Sensor strength: 22 Radar Sensor Strength Signature radius: 470 Apocalypse: We decided to use the Apocalypse as the secondary laser platform, rather than the Armageddon for two main reasons. Firstly, one had to have drones, and the Armageddon already did. Secondly, the Apocalypse's optimal range bonus was unique and was already providing a niche (allbeit small) and we didn't want to destroy that. After a few iterations we've decided to remove the cap use bonus and add a tracking bonus to the Apocalypse, making it a king for damage application. It will also be Amarr's Attack battleship, meaning it has received increased base speed, agility, lowered signature resolution, and slightly lowered hitpoints. It is also getting an increase to power grid and CPU so that beams are a more viable option in the future. There is some concern that the new Apoc will have a significant cap weakness, which will make it too similar to the Abaddon. We've lowered the base cap, but raised the recharge rate some too compensate. We're hoping that this ship will be exciting enough to offset any cap-based difficulty, but will be paying close attention to feedback. Amarr Battleship Skill Bonuses: +7.5% to Large Energy Turret optimal range +7.5% Large Energy Turret tracking speed (replaced large energy turret cap use) Slot layout: 8H, 4M, 7L; 8 turrets , 0 launchers Fittings: 21000 PWG(+500), 540 CPU(+35) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 6000(-211) / 6800(-700) / 7000(+359) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / recharge per second) : 6700(-800) / 1002s(-152s) / 6.69 (+.19) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 113(+19) / .119(-.017) / 97100000 / 16.02s (-2.29s) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(-25) / 75 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 73km(+5.5k) / 95 / 7 Sensor strength: 20 Radar Sensor Strength Signature radius: 380(-20) 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 sa...


CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 359	Posted - 2013.04.10 09:38:00 - [2] - Quote OP updated for some slight tweaks to the Apocalypse and Armageddon. Cap stability increase for Apoc and a powergrid tweak for the armageddon.


CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 381	Posted - 2013.04.10 15:25:00 - [3] - Quote Hello Amarrian citizens I wanted to drop a quick note to assure you that we are still here monitoring feedback. We've had several discussions about the state of the Amarr mission runner both before we released this proposal and now after we've seen some feedback. So far, we aren't convinced that changes will be necessary, but we are going to keep a close eye on it. This may be a discussion that will be more productive after these ships make it to Singularity and some actual flight testing can happen. Please keep up the discussion


CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 388	Posted - 2013.04.10 17:53:00 - [4] - Quote May Wanderdriven wrote: I don't understand why they can't remove 1 gun from the apocalypse and double the damage bonus. The biggest reason is that there isn't a damage bonus


CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 417	Posted - 2013.04.12 09:58:00 - [5] - Quote 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.


CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 417	Posted - 2013.04.12 10:33:00 - [6] - Quote 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.


CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 417	Posted - 2013.04.12 10:48:00 - [7] - Quote 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 C C P C C P Alliance 417	Posted - 2013.04.12 10:56:00 - [8] - Quote 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 C C P C C P Alliance 417	Posted - 2013.04.12 10:59:00 - [9] - Quote Quote: 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? This is actually the thing I'm personally most unsatisfied with. Part of my goals through the rebalance was to create more slot variation overall in battleships, and one of the best previous examples of this was the 8/3/8 Geddon. We had some versions of the Apoc with 8 lows, but in the end this layout seemed to fit best with the bonuses we wanted to go with. I'm convinced that the current lineup looks the healthiest of all the options we considered, and I expect the Navy BS to fill some of the gaps that still exist.


CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 417	Posted - 2013.04.12 11:06:00 - [10] - Quote Quote: are you able to give us any indication on when we can expect to see these land on SiSi? By the sounds of it your at a point where you are fairly happy with the changes. I'm not sure, but it can't be too long - Odyssey will be upon us soon!



CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 417	Posted - 2013.04.12 11:15:00 - [11] - Quote Being called Gallentean right after Gallente were saying we hate Gallente is pretty awesome. You're right about the primary racial roles, but Amarr has been establishing a stronger drone representation throughout tiericide. Dragoon -> Arbitrator -> Prophecy. And Khanid has always existed as a missile focused division of Amarr. I don't think we are straying far at all from Amarr offensive system organization with this battleship line.


CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 417	Posted - 2013.04.12 11:25:00 - [12] - Quote Quote: They'd be much happier about getting that drone/neut boat in a new hull instead of changing what they know and love. Yeah I mean I would love if we could have new art for every rebalance so that "legacy" ships like the Armageddon could stay the way they always have been. Its easy to see why this would be impossible though, right? Resource drain on art teams here would be immense, but more importantly, the game would quickly become an impossible maze of ships. If we want to be serious about refining the quality of balance in Eve, we would quickly have tens of ships in each class as we iterated through them. Fun for some I'm sure, but probably not good for the game overall =P


CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 417	Posted - 2013.04.12 11:29:00 - [13] - Quote Quote: CCP Rise are there any plans to add new disruption ships to battleship lineup in due time of course? I think its likely that somewhere down the line there will be a battleship sized disruption option for each race. We've talked about this a little in relation to these changes, but I think its possible that it will be part of a different pass later on. Whether that means new t1 hulls, new t2 hulls, or using something that already exists, I have no idea. Its on our minds though!


CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 417	Posted - 2013.04.12 11:30:00 - [14] - Quote Quote: DO NOT even dare to come any close near the Navy Armageddon and Navy Apocalypse... Oh I'll be coming near them pretty soon alright =) I think you'll be happy though.


CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 417	Posted - 2013.04.12 11:33:00 - [15] - Quote Been nice talking to you guys this morning, but its time for me to go to some meetings and eat some food. One more time - we'll be watching these (along with the other race's battleships) closely all the way through to deployment. I hope you stay with us the whole way and continue helping us with developing them. Have a good day!


CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 430	Posted - 2013.04.12 16:50:00 - [16] - Quote Hey again Amarr fans! After watching the thread, and having a nice talk with you guys this morning, the balance team here in Reykjavik devoted some time to carefully considering this issue of cap use for Amarr battleships. The resulting change is detailed in a post that should be stickied by now. Please go check it out! Look forward to hearing your feedback


CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 626	Posted - 2013.04.24 10:51:00 - [17] - Quote Quote: No they are not watchign anymore


CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 626	Posted - 2013.04.24 11:07:00 - [18] - Quote Yeah, I guess part of the drawback to so much active participation in the thread earlier is that now people worry we are gone. We aren't gone. Fozzie and Ytterbium and I have been talking about the battleships almost every day still. After our last round of reviews we still feel that Amarr is likely in the best place it can be for Odyssey. We will keep watching closely as everything heads to sisi and if more adjustments are needed we will make them.


CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 626	Posted - 2013.04.24 11:39:00 - [19] - Quote I don't mind the idea of some kind of regular balance check-in. That seems kind of cool. I'll talk with people here about it. As far as "proving things wrong" I think that fortunately EVE is rarely so straight forward or absolute. The Tempest comments point to some possible issues, but they also exaggerate some things and great oversimplify. Not to mention how much more complicated it is to solve problems than to find them. Those Tempest comments you're talking about seemed to assume that the correct course of action was to make big changes to the Tempest rather than making small ones to the Hyperion and there was no sensible comparison between those options, or any others.


CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 626	Posted - 2013.04.24 11:46:00 - [20] - Quote Quote: Im glad you are still watching, but I do not think amarr going to right direction. You are making them weaker, by reducing efficiency of armor tank (resistance bonuses) and boosting other races (8low slots on gallente) and taking away 50% bonus on capacitor and giving 10% instead. But my biggest concern is direction where EVE seems to be going - more and more benefits for new young players, and taking away advantages from older players with more skills and bigger budgets. Soon 10 t1 cruiser will be taking on triage archon, so new players are happy they killed capital ship with their 5 mil isk cruisers and 4 weeks skills. In 2 years everyone will be flying t1 cruisers and other rubbish, because flying expensive and big ships will not make any sence as "gain versus price+skills required' ratio will be so low. example augoror - 92 km rep range 598hp repaired / 5sec guardian - 68km rep range 384 hp repaired /5sec - guardian costs many times more and requires a lot more skills ofc archon - 52 km rep range 1500hp repaired / 5sec- and we talking here about capital ship with 1 capital module costing more than whole fitted augoror and requiring tons of skillpoints Resistance bonuses are problematic for very clear reasons which Fozzie has done a great job articulating. The ships that field them have a range of power and application and should each be addresses relative to the new changes individually, rather than making oversimplified "amarr is getting weaker" conclusions There is virtually no power based conclusions you can make about the relationship between 8 low mega and amarr as an overall race design. You need to be much more specific on how that is a problem. Closing the gap between new players and old players in some areas is definitely positive. If you notice that EVE gets to a point where you would rather have less ISK and SP let me know, we'll fix it asap. I'm curious about your augoror vs guardian comparison - I'm guessing your aurgoror has some other issues that you are leaving out of your comparison.



CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 704	Posted - 2013.05.13 14:07:00 - [21] - Quote Hi guys I like the spirit of this claim: "Lets try to get back on message in this thread instead of bickering back and forth. I'd like to summarize all the outstanding questions for CCP Rise or CCP Fozzie or whoever still cares how the Amarr players feel", so I'm going to respond to this point by point, and then maybe I can try and hit some other points after. Quote: 1) Why do Mega-beams use the same (within 5%) of the same obnoxious cap draw as the Tachyon? Their relative performance with tach's or even 1400's and 425 rails don't bear out this drawback. I think the answer to this question is that beams (and possibly energy weapons as a whole) need to be visited with a full balance pass. This is not a problem that should get fixed through ship design, it should get addressed through a weapon system rebalance. As we are now finishing up balancing most of the 'core' ships in the game we will be looking to add more module balancing and I would think weapon systems would be near the top of the list. Quote: 2) If the Apoc is supposed to use beams (per CCP Rise's description) why did it not receive any meaningful boost to PG and lost overall cap? The difference in PG/cap between beams and pulses (beams and pretty much any weapon for that matter) is ridiculous but the Apoc has the exact same PG as the brawler/pulse fit Abaddon. The Apoc is not "supposed" to use beams. I don't really know how you took that from my description which says "It is also getting an increase to power grid and CPU so that beams are a more viable option in the future." All I meant to say was that we increased fitting while lowering PG need for beams and so hopefully it would be more viable now than before. We know beams still need work on their own, as I said above. Quote: 3) Why the tracking bonus on the Apoc? If it's supposed to use beams and it's range bonus then why does it need tracking? First of all, again, it isn't "supposed" to use beams. Even if it was, you really think increased tracking will never be relevant? As for why tracking in general, I think there's a lot of reasons. Its makes the Apoc stand apart from the other two Amarr battleships in a very distinct and interesting way. It provides a niche for the Apoc in multiple environments. It offers a strong option to counter some of the most popular ships in PVP meta right now (attack BC and Tech 3 cruisers). It gives players who want to use Amarr battleships in smaller groups at closer ranges a new tool. It fits the idea of the attack role well. On and on. Quote: 4) The changes in the Large Energy Weapon thread were a step in the right direction but not nearly enough I'm glad you like them. I think they will be one part of the approach to working on energy weapons, and working directly on beams will be the other part. Overall most of the concerns here seem related to cap or more specifically, beams. I think the changes to cap use will deal with the first part well enough until we can look at beams as a system sometime in the near future. The Armageddon/Dominix debate seems to remain heated, but I think its a really good sign that there's people arguing both sides so passionately, and we'll just have to see how it shakes out once it goes live. Thanks for the feedback, I'll keep reading. And as I've said before, we will watch all of these after they go to TQ and make changes if things aren't working out well for a certain ship or race.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.