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 wrote:
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.

Reply:
While it may be that the resistance bonus may be problematic for the reasons stated (I am not denying this), I think a resistance nerf need to be addressed relto each ship individually including the new changes rather than making an oversimplified blanket nerf.

It is also true that this nerf will mainly hit amarr and caldari ships - hence the conception (for right or wrong) that the Gallente and Minmatar are may be favoured over Amarr and Caldari.

Furthermore, while a reduction of 1 percentage-point per level may seem insignificant it is actually quite significant since this is a 20% reduction of the resistance bonus (a reduction of 1/5), so this is not just a slight nerf - it just is not, no matter how it is presented.

While I am not against a resistance nerf per se, I am against the way it is supposed to be applied because then you assume that all ships can be handled in the same way which I just not think is possible. As I have already stated elsewhere, I think that each ship has to be handled indivudaully when applying this nerf and be (re)balanced accordingly (maybe through some kind of compensation for ships already re-balanced) when the nerf is applied and not long time after.

This is a comparison of the lasers and railguns. As you can see from this the Tachyon doesn't equate to anything on the list.
I am all for balancing lasers so it would appear one of two things needs to happen first.
Either get rid of the tachyon and balance lasers or add the equivalent tachyon sized gun to all the laser class beams.
People have been blowing smoke about balance and how unfair it would be to reduce power costs of lasers.
This is the current balance on Live servers.


Small

Small Focused Beam Laser I
10 km range
4 km falloff
7.22 activation GJ
4.00 rate of fire
3.0 damage modifier
0.1 rad/sec tracking

150mm Railgun I
12 km range
6 km falloff
2.34 activation GJ
4.25 rate of fire
3.025 damage modifier
0.0735 rad/sec tracking

Medium

Heavy Beam I
20 km range
8 falloff
21.67 activation GJ
6.00 rate of fire
3.0 damage modifier
0.033 rad/sec tracking

250mm Railgun I
24 km range
12 falloff
7.0 activation GJ
6.375 rate of fire
3.025 damage modifier
0.02415 rad/sec tracking

Large

425mm Railgun I
48 km range
24 km falloff
21 activation GJ
9.56 rate of fire
3.025 damage modifier
0.01010625 rad/sec tracking


Tachyon Beam Laser I
44 km range
20 km falloff
95 activation GJ
12.5 rate of fire
4.5 damage modifier
0.01392 rad/sec tracking

TLDR: Until you get to battleship sized turrets there is parity between Beams and Railguns except for the abusive power costs.

Dropping this into here since you guys stopped talking in the Large Energy Turret thread

To be frank... only the moa from the affected ships is not ins STRONG position. Do not know how many woudl really suffer from it...

Now, dear Rise, please go on and explain to us why you feel that Amarr being so screwed in regards to cap puts them in a good place? People would rather fit projectiles to our hulls then lasers because of the idiocy of these issues being so glaringly huge. No one uses Beams on our hulls (especially Tachyons, which are our racial equivalent) for cap issues (and PG with Tachyon) when they can instead throw on 1400s and laugh about it.

You Devs have done hardly anything this entire thread but pat us on the head "Yes, we know your there, but as for your concerns and numerous suggestions for possible ways to reasonably address them... here's a tonka toy, go play in the sandbox again, we don't care."

Why not actually address the issues, concerns, and possibly even suggestions we have been posting here for you to go over? Why not go over some details and specifics so we can see where you might possibly think we are so apparently full of ****?

Quite honestly, I'm about to give up, because all you can say is "we know you don't like this, but because we say we do, we know better, bugger off."

well, once I removed Mega Beams from your list since Tachyon's are the laser equivalent to 425 Rails, you will see that there is still parity, as your Rails still have more Optimal and Falloff, and cost less then 25% for activation cost. I also note that you deliberately left out the CPU and PG statistics, as this would only even more prove that Tachyons are balanced (and in most Laser user's justified opinion, overly so) in regards to 425 rails. Now, if you don't like how your 425 Rails work, then make your own thread for it, don't clutter this thread up which is meant for the Amarr Battleships.

All you need to do is look at the last revamp to see it. Amarr cruisers with less cap and less recharge than Gallente ones and still our gun cost more to fire.

That's completely wrong.

There is ONE gallente ship with more capacitor than amarr ships, and that's the Hyperion. The ship with bonus to armor reper and blasters.

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..

Thank you for your answer. I will never win battle on words with you, you are probably are able to make a fool out of me, no problem (your isk/skills comment). My point is you are closing the gap between new players and old players too much. Ofc augoror has other issues, but it doesnt change a fact that t1 ship shouldnt have any (especially that big) advantages over its t2 equivalent, and armor tanked race shouldnt have less armor slots than others - but sure, it me probably making oversimplified conclusions.

After our last round of reviews we still feel that Amarr is likely in the best place it can be for Odyssey.

Then the only conclusion I can draw is that you didn't actually read the thread.

We've pointed out in detail in several areas of this thread why we believe there are serious problems with what you're doing, but instead of addressing them you simply come back and say "screw you, we believe we're right anyway."

So either you didn't read them or you just don't care about what we have to say anymore, because if you did we'd actually be talking about it. That seems to be impossible at this point.

To be honest, I do not know either - that is why my point is that each affected ship should be examined individually to determine how it may be affected. For some ships the nerf may be ok without further rebalancing while others may need some kind of compensation, but it is difficult to say without at least having considered the impact of the nerf on each ship. I do not think CCP has done this for each ship in relation to the proposed blanket nerf. This is just my opinion though.

You want to see broken hm? Take a look at the Omen and the Thorax ... if you give the Omen the same treatment you just gave battleships (IE remove the -10% cap per level) How broken does that ship become?

This is what I'm talking about ... across the board beam lasers are broken. Yes the guns work. Yes they fit on the ship. No they are not "better".
The balance point looks like this. Beam have slightly less range, 50% more tracking, and higher fitting costs.
All I want to know is does CCP consider 50% more tracking worth 3x the power cost and ships with crippled capacitors.
Because THAT is the real question.

I think you need to re-read his post. One of his main points was that the ships hit by the resistance nerft will need individual tweaks to ensure they remain viable.

The effectiveness of resistance bonuses HAD to have an overall nerf done, across the board... it was too powerful a bonus in it's old (5%) form. Play testing which is underway now will reveal which ships (if any) need tweaks in other area's to keep them in a happy place. Those tweak will not be to their resistance bonus percentage, but in other area's that will enhance their roles.

This is both logical and necessary.

Well, I get the impression when the balancing initiative started they were a little bit on the fence about how to handle the resistance bonus. Now that they are set on a course of action a polishing pass (which we have seen done) for any necessary minor tweaking that will need to be done as a result should not be a huge deal (possibly in a point release).

Well, you may be right. However, in all fairness , I think that changes to the resistance and possible tweaks to the individual ships should take place at the same time, rather than doing the nerfs first and the tweaks in a later expansion. I would rather see the job done the first time rather than have to wait for yet another rebalancing pass - get the problem solved now rather than later. Then they can focus on another group of ships.

Well you are probably right :D ... as long as the do not wait until forever to do the tweaks... :D

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.

CCP RISE
Yes im sure people would love to know why amarr ships are going to stay so handicapped
- cap regen is far too low for guns too run for longer than a couple of minutes
-as a result they have to use more slots for cap mods. is this acceptable for CCP? no other race needs to do this.
-The apoc will still be slow when dual plated.
-beams are still impossible to fit on many of the battleships and again lots of mods to fit it if you can and for cap.
-the changes for laser turrets aren't enough any response to this?

Also any ideas on perhaps changing slot layouts on any of these ships?
How about abbadon trades a turret for a utility high? and maybe lose a high for a low.
you could compensate dps with stronger damage bonus.

It wouldn't be the first time Amarr have had to give up a ship class. You're essentially left with the Abaddon for large fleets with rep and cap transfer support, the Apoc for the odd sniperfun but generally overlooked in action, and now the Geddon will be the non-pirate cross trained powerhouse for small brawls.

A year from now, their metrics will prove the points of it. And instead of fixing the cap regen, or addressing lasers, they'll do something 'interesting' and we'll get another rate of fire bonus, or they'll drop a 'repair cycle time' reduction that hurts us worse.

This is par for the course, believe it or not. Luckily, our battlecruisers are the ****.