|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 25 post(s) |
Crash Lander
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
39
   |
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:35:00 -
[1] - Quote
Ayla Crenshaw wrote:As a relatively fresh player I can only say that taking away Apocalypse cap use bonus is a horrible idea and you should feel bad for even thinking it was good.
This really screws over low-skilled Amarr players, especially in PvE. This thing is barely capstable as it is with only guns and hardeners running without great capacitor/cap use skills.
I'm inclined to agree with this. The cap bonus and the range bonus of the Apoc really set this apart for PvE. I remember the days/month before I got perfect cap skills and doing low skilled PvE with Amarr battleships was a real exercise. The cap bonus on the Apoc/NApoc was a really strong incentive to train BS V.
And the cap bonus allowed for creative non-capstable fits using the large cap pool for things like a MWD fit apoc. Please consider the PvE aspects of these changes as well. |
Crash Lander
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
39
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 22:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
Reading the posts, every concern has been mentioned at least multiple times by now. There was a single dev reply in the Gallante thread and no reply here so far.
Lets wait for some dev replies to see where they stand. That should give a reasonable idea to how receptive to the feedback are they. |
Crash Lander
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
39
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 05:03:00 -
[3] - Quote
There are exactly 2 ships in the game that can fit tachs properly:
1) Nightmare: fine.
2) Paladin: Barely can, it gets Powergrid issues if you try to be creative.
Both are 100% bonus/half rack ships. If I were to go on a limp I would say they don't intend to change this and tachs will remain for those two ships. Everyone else gets pulse or beams. |
Crash Lander
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
39
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 13:38:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:OP updated for some slight tweaks to the Apocalypse and Armageddon. Cap stability increase for Apoc and a powergrid tweak for the armageddon.
Just give the Apoc its bloody cap bonus back. Who the heck wants tracking bonus when you are shooting pulses at 30-50km. By removing the cap bonus you are nerfing utility slots on this ship for a bonus that will rarely be usable on this ship. I don't want to have to be forced to use a cap booster if I decide to put on a MWD. Again tracking bonus at range with pulse is worthless. |
Crash Lander
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
39
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 15:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Tonto Auri wrote:Crash Lander wrote:Atomic Option wrote:After sleeping on it, the simplest statement of the problem with the Apoc change is that:
the new bonus to tracking doesn't synergize well with the optimal bonus.
When do you most need optimal? When you're far away.
When do you most need tracking? When you're closer to an orbiting target.
The cap bonus can synergize with any fit that uses lasers, but the tracking bonus isn't useful in as many situations. If you want to move away from cap bonuses, find something else that synergizes with optimal. QFT. How the hell I missed this post? Care to provide a link? That person deserve a "like". You might consider that apparently this person has never flown an Apoc in anger, nor as part of a fleet. A tracking bonus is a huge boost to these ships in a kiting role. Laser tracking has always been it's weak point. Inability to track incoming tacklers and kill them fast enough to leverage their range advantage has always been the Apoc's weak point. If a workable cap level can be arrived at, then tracking is probably the PERFECT bonus for this ship in it's attack role. I would respectfully suggest some folks spend less time using EFT and it's bretheren, and more time actually flying the ships they are offering comment on.
Your point is just as valid as the quote. Hence we have a problem. One one hand you have fleet uses for a ship (any ship) that generally don't have to deal with cap problems too much (engagements are short, there are guardians around etc). These situations favor the tracking bonus.
On the other hand you have the traditional domain of this ship. Solo/small group PvE used mostly beginners before they move to other hulls. The removal of the cap bonus is bad here.
I can tell you as someone that does a fair bit of PvE with amarr ships that the cap bonus really made this ship (and its navy variant) distinct from the other two ships.
That second group is just as large (if not larger) than the first. This is what CCP gets for shoehorning PvP oriented changes across the entire BS line. |
Crash Lander
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
40
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 15:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Crash Lander wrote:
Your point is just as valid as the quote. Hence we have a problem. One one hand you have fleet uses for a ship (any ship) that generally don't have to deal with cap problems too much (engagements are short, there are guardians around etc). These situations favor the tracking bonus.
On the other hand you have the traditional domain of this ship. Solo/small group PvE used mostly beginners before they move to other hulls. The removal of the cap bonus is bad here.
I can tell you as someone that does a fair bit of PvE with amarr ships that the cap bonus really made this ship (and its navy variant) distinct from the other two ships.
That second group is just as large (if not larger) than the first. This is what CCP gets for shoehorning PvP oriented changes across the entire BS line.
there is no problem with taking pvp first then pve second , there are marauders entirely for pve , when they get the balance pass ,just be rdy to adress your issues
I was expecting a reply like this. That is why I emphasized mostly beginners before they move to other hulls. You just can't compare the time it takes to get into an Apoc to a Murader. If training times were even remotely close I would agree with you. |
Crash Lander
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2013.04.23 00:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
Test server Feedback:
I did some PvE tests in the new Apoc but before any any arguments some prefaces are in order
- I consider cap stability a waste. What I consider valid is having just barely enough cap to complete the needed task. For PvE I fit my ships with somewhere between 1:30min-5min of cap depending on the ship/mission/etc.
- I know my missions inside and out
- I have almost perfect skills
With the above in mind: now the feedback on Apoc:
1) It can muddle its way through L4s. Eg: screenshot. (Killing the last NPC with 30% cap and a bit of armor, this is how it should be)
2) This might be a point of contention but it needs more CPU. Not enough CPU to fit standard active tank in lows and a MWD with Pulses.
3) Cap: Yes the energy turret change helps a little bit to remedy the loss of the bonus but this isn't the Apoc of old. You have to babysit that cap. I had to swap a dps related rig to a cap related rig to keep it in the game.
I won't post my specific fit as to a large degree I consider fits a matter of preference. The only thing I will say is considering my criteria above (not being cap stable), having to still dedicate 2-3 rigs to cap related modules is not something I consider good balance. Slap on a MWD there and things change very quickly.
TLDR, I and probably many of you can manage/adapt/whatever. I don't like repeating this argument but I'll say it anyways it isn't as newbie friendly like it was before. Wether CCP cares or not.... meh, I don't. |
Crash Lander
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 22:28:00 -
[8] - Quote
@CCP Rise
In my post I pointed out how I think the tracking bonus in exchange for the cap bonus is not a good trade:
Crash Lander wrote:Test server Feedback:
...
In-case it isn't clear what I'm trying to say here; I'll re-iterate it differently: Removing the cap bonus is forcing me to swap a rig that was previously free to be anything (DPS/Tracking/Range/Whatever) to a cap rig to compensate. This in an indirect trade of a bonus and probably not the intended effect.
You've given me a fixed bonus (extra tracking) and taken away my choice of a bonus in a rig. This is why cap bonuses (and cap use bonuses on Amarr ships aren't currently as useless as people think)
Here is yet another way of putting it. At Level V
Today:
Ship with 50% cap use bonus + 3 empty rig slots
Say you didn't change the ships and only implemented the Large Energy Turret changes: Today I can emulate the same with this (ignoring the PG change, if that matters to you put an Ancillary rig and you still have 1 rig slot left):
Ship with Cap bonus + 1 Large energy Discharge (20% Cap use bonus) + 2 empty rig slots.
Post proposed patch:
New Apoc in terms of old Apoc:
Ship + 3 x Large Energy Metastasis Adjuster I (Each gives 15% bonus with stacking=>36.6% tracking vs the 37.5 that your new proposed bonus gives)
I would really really appreciate your answer on why you think taking a useful bonus away, then giving me essentially the equivalent of 3 tracking rigs is a move forward.
Today If I felt like my Apoc needed more tracking, I can just stick 3 rigs on it AND not have cap issues. Tomorrow I'm forced to have the 3 tracking rigs whether I need it or not and potentially deal with cap problems.
This was mentioned differently way back in the thread on how the tracking bonus doesn't energize with this ship.
I just don't understand what you are trying to do here. |
|
|
| |
|