|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 25 post(s) |
Rynnik
In Exile.
Imperial Outlaws.
77
   |
Posted - 2013.04.10 11:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
All three of these BS share 4 mids, 7 lows. You may have diversified away from lasers on all of them but you sure didn't shake up much else - especially in light of a Gallente 8 low BS. How about a Hyperion treatment with double damage bonus on 6 turrets for the Apoc. That further assists the cap issues and allows a slot to be reallocated to the lows. |
Rynnik
In Exile.
Imperial Outlaws.
80
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 13:07:00 -
[2] - Quote
Hulasikaly Wada wrote:May Wanderdriven wrote:Rynnik wrote:All three of these BS share 4 mids, 7 lows. You may have diversified away from lasers on all of them but you sure didn't shake up much else - especially in light of a Gallente 8 low BS. How about a Hyperion treatment with double damage bonus on 6 turrets for the Apoc. That further assists the cap issues and allows a slot to be reallocated to the lows. THIS The optimal range bonus is something really good on the ships and IMO must be preserved as a distinctive factor ( even the oracle do NOT have it ) Now , without the cap bonus i will like really to see a dmg bonus , as already May Wanderdriven said, 7 hi-slot / 6 turret tachyons capable with 10% dmg bonus Xlvl and everyone will be happy , or give it a 7.5% RoF Xlvl always with 6 turret Hpoints and another low slot to counter the cap issue ( and make somehow return the old Armageddon way back ) Hula
Amarr Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+7.5% to Large Energy Turret damage and optimal range
+7.5% Large Energy Turret tracking speed (replaced large energy turret cap use)
Fixed the bonuses for a 6 turret Apoc. It brings it in just above the current 8 effective turrets at level 5. |
Rynnik
In Exile.
Imperial Outlaws.
81
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 19:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: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 
So pull a 'Dominix' on it and add one. Put the 7.5 per level bonuses together and add the damage bonus required to free up the slots and do more with the allocation of 19. |
Rynnik
In Exile.
Imperial Outlaws.
81
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 21:43:00 -
[4] - Quote
Arline Kley wrote:Why are people becoming fixated with making the Apoc either a 6 or 7 turret ship, all to give it a measley 5% dmg bonus per level, which would in turn fall into the purview of the Abaddon?
There is no need to adjust the Apoc's turret layout. It is designed for long range combat - to eliminate the enemy from range with a full broadside of electromagnetic radiation. What would you possibly fit onto the free slot either way? Utility slots are better suited to the Armageddon - the only time I will most likely agree with CCP Rise in this factor.
I support an Apoc turret revision because I really want an Amarr BS with 8 lows. To be truthful though I would be pretty happy if we get any variation beyond 4 mids / 7 lows on all three proposed platforms.
Why the Apoc?
---
The Armageddon can't be the ship because the last thing this game needs is an 8 low neut domi. I don't think I need to go into detail to explain that.
---
The Abaddon would be the natural ship choice to give 8 lows. However, I don't think CCP will go for it.
First off they just nerfed the resist bonus. We don't have the details and this is all just guessing and conjecture until they actually post the resist nerf blog or thread (please do that soon guys!). But it seems reasonable to assume that they want a decrease in the max tank on these hulls (rokh and abaddon) and won't likely entertain an extra tanking slot because of that.
Secondly, the 'increased bonus, decreased turret' configuration needed to free up a slot to be allocated to the lows would also buff cap use (and fitting). These changes pretty clearly indicate they are happy with the abaddon being the cap guzzler that it is. It really is a strong hull and if that aspect is buffed it really starts to risk an even greater proliferation problem. Same problem if the changes worked out to a utility high (if the Hype model was followed). So in order to maintain balance and keep things in check I doubt Abaddon changes work out.
---
That just leaves the Apoc. In order to get these Attack BS flown I think there is some wiggle room given the attraction of flying ABCs instead. A utility high and 8th low are buffs, but nothing that would push this ship into the OMGWTFROFLSTOMP status of the proposed armageddon, the gallente lineup as a whole, and the torp spam about to hit the fan after large missiles get adjusted (willing to bet any amount of isk they get overcompensated in that balance pass).
At 7(6 turret) / 4 / 8 the Apoc would be nicely versatile while still very Amarr with the limited mids. Cap would be a touch more friendly for those low skill missioners or whatever. Tachs would fit a touch easier. I could fit a neut or nos for small gang brawling (yes I would do this using this hull even though the proposed mega and the geddon overshadows it for the role just to get my pew pew laser fix).
So there we are with the substantiation of why I hope that they will at least consider adjusting the hull a bit and bonus it something like:
7.5% per level to damage (keep it right around 8 effective turrets or it WILL be overpowered)
7.5% per level to large energy turret optimal range and tracking (they were d
Sorry it took so long to explain that but it is a bit complex! For those that don't agree with the initial premise of Amarr getting an 8 low BS and at least one hull separated from the 4 mids and 7 lows cookie cutter (why are all the Amarr laser cruisers 5/3/7 btw? but that is for another thread) all I can offer is that I really really want it.  |
Rynnik
In Exile.
Imperial Outlaws.
84
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 00:18:00 -
[5] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:I don't want to sound too critical but this is just horribly balanced. You essentially traded a high slot and two turret mounts to add a low, but you really didn't take them away because you just slapped a 3rd bonus on it. Effectively you added a high utility slot, a low slot, more fitting space, and better cap stability because 6 guns. And a tiny bit of damage, but lets not get hung up on a quarter of a turret.
The cap and fitting depend on the other stats that I purposely left out. CCP would have to balance it out, but a net gain in both would be a good thing for the reasons I posted earlier. A utility high and another low are the entire purpose of shifting the turret setup. Setting aside the Armageddon which is pure utility highs, having both laser battleships pack 8 turrets is too limiting within the hardcap of 19 slots. I personally really want some slot diversification for Amarr ships both these BS and the laser cruiser lineup (5 ships with 5/3/7 layouts).
As for the 3rd bonus on it, I will totally accept that it is a 3rd bonus around the time you acknowledge that the proposed Domi has 4 (For the record it doesn't - it has the two bonuses it needs in order to be a viable, interesting, entertaining addition to the Gallente lineup). 
What role, niche, or aspect of predicted gameplay do you find this horribly balanced in? |
Rynnik
In Exile.
Imperial Outlaws.
86
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 10:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
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. |
Rynnik
In Exile.
Imperial Outlaws.
87
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:27:00 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: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.
Dude, I am seriously sorry to be pushing this so hard, but did you read: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2871743#post2871743
Are you totally unwilling to pull a domi on your desired bonuses for this hull and leave some room for the damage bonus required to bring it back to nearly (or exactly) 8 turrets effective overall? I think the 8 lows is achievable on this hull in an interesting and not overly complex way. And I also think it is the only way I would ever pick one up in the face of the 8 low monstrosity you turned the Mega into. The other two attack BS are impossible to scope until the missile changes happen, but pound for pound you have left the Apoc way behind the Mega as a attack gun BS and I think both things can be addressed pretty easily. |
|
|
| |
|