How do you compensate for that 24km dead zone, where you coudlnt hit a house if it was moving? I tend ot use locus an meta rigs myself

Second, in several other videos during the Fanfest, you can see that a lot has been going on in the company and the game. Related to this particular issue, you can check this video http://www.twitch.tv/ccp/c/2203986 (Ship Rebalancing), at 42:20. The guy is mentioning he can't use Railguns without running out of cap, haha, he doesn't even have a clue of how bad it goes for lasers. Pity the question was posed as he did, because he completely screwed the question, but it is clear that many players do face the problem.

That's cos the Nomen had a cap reduction bonus on its lasers. Guess what's going away in Odyssey? (Take a look at the navy cruiser respec thread.)

Since it is a kiting ship exclusively one can also assume that test was done using scorch, a T2 disruptor running and a MWD fitted, right?

I have a sneaking suspicion that its cap will behave like that of the Vagabond, with MWD being pulsed once in a while to stay near peak recharge .. but of course the rather critical difference is that the Nomen will be forced to fit cap modules in case of emergency MWD pulses or its damage drops even lower than it starts out with (lasers need cap after all ) whereas the Vagabond can generally ignore capping out.

If anyone listens to the "Sh** on Kugu" Eve podcast, in the last section of the latest one they talk about Arty Abaddon fleets and how a Test FC is having success with that setup. Someone on the CSM is even running on the platform of making that a more sanctioned setup. If anything is a flashing neon sign that beam's are broken as hell it is the success of Arty Abaddon fleets (I mean other than 107+ pages of overwhelmingly negative feedback with zero meaningful CCP feedback).

Personally I think it is idiotic to have a race firing a weapon that is triple the cap cost as the next weapon down and yet has TWO BS's with 8 turrets, whereas the Gallente feedback prompted them to change their BS's to not have 8 turrets anymore. Apparently 107+ pages isn't enough or they were never actually looking for Amarr feedback.

New Amarr tagline suggestion: "Low SP and non-fleet need not apply"

Taht is not about beams being broken and more about the metagame where the fleets are so huge and carrier and logistics remote repair so prevalent that DPS is not so relevant and alpha strike became more necessary than anything.

That is somethign that you do not fix with modules, but only by changing targets in eve and creating oportunities for smaller scale ( effecrively medium sized gangs) PVP.


This is not a beams issue. This is a 3!@#!@#1 metagame issue because CCP wants to advertise massive battles etc and forget to give us FUN types of PVP.

Taht is not about beams being broken and more about the metagame where the fleets are so huge and carrier and logistics remote repair so prevalent that DPS is not so relevant and alpha strike became more necessary than anything.

That is somethign that you do not fix with modules, but only by changing targets in eve and creating oportunities for smaller scale ( effecrively medium sized gangs) PVP.


This is not a beams issue. This is a 3!@#!@#1 metagame issue because CCP wants to advertise massive battles etc and forget to give us FUN types of PVP.

Joke's on us guys, we can drop an additional 25% cap use of lasers if we don't learn rapid fire.

I wonder what the chances are of the resist changes following through to the amarr and caldari capitals. Any bets?

I still can't believe the Geddon change...

Well, I'm at least not training large lasers yet. Much better investments of time than trying to put points in for a ship I'm not going to use.

I still think there's a way to reconcile at least some of these differences, but it'd require taking down the Abaddon, and I'm not sure CCP has the ******* to mess with a nullsec fleet ship.

I also think that leaving a range bonus on the Apoc simply because it's always had a range bonus is hypocritical when the Armageddon is being dismantled.

There have been plenty of reasonable suggestions already. Moving away from having TWO 8 turret ships is a good start. Make them both 6-7 turret ships and modify the bonuses to keep dps the same, there DONE. If you're worried about balance and adding utility highs, then take them away if you want. Anything is better than being the only race with BS's having triple the cap cost as the next weapon down but also having both laser BS's be 8 turret. It's like they have a sense of humor to punish Amarr in this way.

Thats a band aid solution that does nothing to actually address the cause of the issue which is Laser Beams using too much cap & PG (& Pulses also use a bit much, but not anywhere near the same degree). Same as the cap use 'bonus' was just a band aid that prevented the true problem becoming too crippling.
To actually fix the problem properly, it has to be done with a fix to lasers.

They didn't mess with the Raven without having a cruise missile fix prepared ahead of time...

Yes but there's only so much good design to go around. I think Amarr got stuck with some of the stinky.

I'm kind of wondering what design the Amarr even ended up with. These bonuses would be perfectly fine if we were any other race, but as Amarr...

If cap to turrets is such a boring bonus, why not try giving a bonus to cap recharge rate or cap amount, per level? Wouldn't be nearly as boring then, that's for sure.

We'd be in the same problem as we were with the cap bonus, a "bonus" that just covers up the insane design of lasers to make the ship playable. So now the ships are taxed one ship bonus along with the PG fitting mod tax and laser fire cap booster tax. What summer intern at CCP slipped that past the design team?

So now here's the difficult question: What are lasers supposed to be a trade off of? Projectiles have multiple ups and downs, as do railguns. But lasers seem to be fairly well rounded, except for the cap issue. I think the cap issue was implemented that since the Amarr are good with everything, but not best at anything, there should be some glaring downside to such a versatile weapon. Well here we are: should there be a downside besides cap to lasers?

Cap stable with standard? Who actually loads standard?

Crystals used is in fact, entirely irrelevant, because the only crystals that are genuinely worth using are IN Multi, and Scorch.

And, if you cared to actually read the thread, most people are complaining about the cap use of Beams.

Modules fitted is also irrelevant, because we can easily take into account the Amarr slot tax for cap, so we have very little wiggle room as far as what we fit.

Skill levels are relevant only in how much this impacts the new player with less than perfect skills. Which, universally, the answer is that Amarr is a "all skills V" race (at least above frigate level anyway), and remains so with these changes. "No newbies need apply" might as well be the tagline of our race.

If anyone listens to the "Sh** on Kugu" Eve podcast, in the last section of the latest one they talk about Arty Abaddon fleets and how a Test FC is having success with that setup. Someone on the CSM is even running on the platform of making that a more sanctioned setup. If anything is a flashing neon sign that beam's are broken as hell it is the success of Arty Abaddon fleets (I mean other than 107+ pages of overwhelmingly negative feedback with zero meaningful CCP feedback).

Personally I think it is idiotic to have a race firing a weapon that is triple the cap cost as the next weapon down and yet has TWO BS's with 8 turrets, whereas the Gallente feedback prompted them to change their BS's to not have 8 turrets anymore. Apparently 107+ pages isn't enough or they were never actually looking for Amarr feedback.

New Amarr tagline suggestion: "Low SP and non-fleet need not apply"

Joke's on us guys, we can drop an additional 25% cap use of lasers if we don't learn rapid fire.