EVE Search - Solution to the Amarr problem...simple, easy, and will work.

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Solution to the Amarr problem...simple, easy, and will work.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
StinkFinger	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:24:00 - [1] Increas the EM damage on all crystals by 50%. Problem solved. --
Foulis	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:25:00 - [2] Originally by: StinkFinger Increas the EM damage on all crystals by 50%. Problem solved. You know why there isn't a solution to the "Amarr Problem"? There isn't an amarr problem. Their ships are well balanced, and do what they do well. ---- Cake > Pie - Imaran Originally by: CCP Hammer Boobies
HippoKing	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:29:00 - [3] There is an amarr problem, but it does not need a blanket change, it needs specific ships looking at.
Hakuin	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:30:00 - [4] Originally by: Foulis Originally by: StinkFinger Increas the EM damage on all crystals by 50%. Problem solved. and do what they do well. Yes, nothing. ________ In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few.
Cruz	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:30:00 - [5] The problem is a fitting problem. Fix the PG usage on lasers or boost the grid of certain amarr ships. --------------------------- For the glory of the empire!
StinkFinger	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:35:00 - [6] Problem is that the vast majority of ships start with a very high base EM resist. Only way to counter that is to lower the resist or increase the EM dmg crystals do. The latter is easier and more effective. --
Foulis	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:37:00 - [7] Edited by: Foulis on 02/07/2006 18:42:27 Originally by: HippoKing There is an amarr problem, but it does not need a blanket change, it needs specific ships looking at. That's what I mean. There isn't an "Amarr Problem". There is a Tach problem, and a Sacrilege problem. Just like there was a typhoon problem. The amarrians have (in general) good tanks and a decent amount of damage besides. They have ships that are good at tanking (maller, punisher, absolution, apoc) and ships that are good at ganking (arma, that gank cruiser, zealot). They even have ships that fill a variety of roles (arbitrator, pilgrim, curse). I don't see what they have to whine about in those regards. I especially don't see why they need more damage. Edit: Originally by: Hakuin Yes, nothing. So you're saying that you don't have one of the best tanking BS in the game. That the apoc has actually ceased to exist. That the arma has had all but 1 turret HP removed too? DAMN MAN, you've really been nerfed. Originally by: StinkFinger Problem is that the vast majority of ships start with a very high base EM resist. Only way to counter that is to lower the resist or increase the EM dmg crystals do. The latter is easier and more effective. Except for every shield tanking ship in the game. Except for 2 (and only 2) minmatar battlecruisers. All others have what? Max 10% initial em resist on shield? You have the ability to rip through shields, this is balanced by a lack of ability against armor. It's almost as if it's... balanced? ---- Cake > Pie - Imaran Originally by: CCP Hammer Boobies
Foulis	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:42:00 - [8] Edited by: Foulis on 02/07/2006 18:42:03 fsck double post. ---- Cake > Pie - Imaran Originally by: CCP Hammer Boobies
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:43:00 - [9] Is this the start of another 37 pages? --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
StinkFinger	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:46:00 - [10] Edited by: StinkFinger on 02/07/2006 18:48:49 Originally by: Foulis Edited by: Foulis on 02/07/2006 18:42:27 Except for every shield tanking ship in the game. Except for 2 (and only 2) minmatar battlecruisers. All others have what? Max 10% initial em resist on shield? You have the ability to rip through shields, this is balanced by a lack of ability against armor. It's almost as if it's... balanced? 30% of ships shield tank, rest armor tank. That's not balance. --
Benglada	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:51:00 - [11] Originally by: StinkFinger Edited by: StinkFinger on 02/07/2006 18:48:49 Originally by: Foulis Edited by: Foulis on 02/07/2006 18:42:27 Except for every shield tanking ship in the game. Except for 2 (and only 2) minmatar battlecruisers. All others have what? Max 10% initial em resist on shield? You have the ability to rip through shields, this is balanced by a lack of ability against armor. It's almost as if it's... balanced? 30% of ships shield tank, rest armor tank. That's not balance. yes, it is. (and iirc crystals do more base damage then any other ammo, iv been hit by geddons with all 80 resists and they can still gank better then most other ships) --------------------------- Originally by: Wrangler Unfrtinately you dnot get to vote..
Foulis	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:51:00 - [12] Originally by: StinkFinger Edited by: StinkFinger on 02/07/2006 18:48:49 Originally by: Foulis Edited by: Foulis on 02/07/2006 18:42:27 Except for every shield tanking ship in the game. Except for 2 (and only 2) minmatar battlecruisers. All others have what? Max 10% initial em resist on shield? You have the ability to rip through shields, this is balanced by a lack of ability against armor. It's almost as if it's... balanced? 30% of ships shield tank, rest armor tank. That's not balance. Yet again, amarr ships aren't all about the gank, that is to a lesser extent gallente territory. You have high quality sustainable tanks to back it up with. ---- Cake > Pie - Imaran Originally by: CCP Hammer Boobies
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:51:00 - [13] solution to the amarr problem: free +int implants from the emperor and restrictions for forum posting Originally by: Oveur This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.
StinkFinger	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:52:00 - [14] Originally by: Foulis Originally by: StinkFinger Edited by: StinkFinger on 02/07/2006 18:48:49 Originally by: Foulis Edited by: Foulis on 02/07/2006 18:42:27 Except for every shield tanking ship in the game. Except for 2 (and only 2) minmatar battlecruisers. All others have what? Max 10% initial em resist on shield? You have the ability to rip through shields, this is balanced by a lack of ability against armor. It's almost as if it's... balanced? 30% of ships shield tank, rest armor tank. That's not balance. Yet again, amarr ships aren't all about the gank, that is to a lesser extent gallente territory. You have high quality sustainable tanks to back it up with. dmg > tank Everytime. --
Hakuin	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:54:00 - [15] Originally by: Foulis Edited by: Foulis on 02/07/2006 18:42:27 So you're saying that you don't have one of the best tanking BS in the game. That the apoc has actually ceased to exist. That the arma has had all but 1 turret HP removed too? DAMN MAN, you've really been nerfed. Yes yes, continue talkin' about amarr BS, never talk about amarr t1 frigate, inty, AF, stealth bomber, covert ops, small pulse lasers, small beam lasers... But ehy! Tachs are uber = Amarr are uber too... (I don't fly amarr bs) ________ In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few.
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.07.02 18:56:00 - [16] Originally by: StinkFinger 30% of ships shield tank, rest armor tank. That's not balance. You know what, your solution is not going to solve that; it's even going to make it worse. Who is going to shield tank when laser have it even easier against shield tanks ? The real problem is ecm and the like, or how mid slot mods are usually so much better/useful/needed than low slot mods, making it way better, so often, to armor tank - especially with eanm t2. What need to be done is to make shield tanking worthwhile again, by balancing low and mid slot mods, and not the opposite. I'm sorry to say that so bluntly but your solution is awful and not going to improve anything. NB.
StinkFinger	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:03:00 - [17] Originally by: Naughty Boy Originally by: StinkFinger 30% of ships shield tank, rest armor tank. That's not balance. You know what, your solution is not going to solve that; it's even going to make it worse. Who is going to shield tank when laser have it even easier against shield tanks ? The real problem is ecm and the like, or how mid slot mods are usually so much better/useful/needed than low slot mods, making it way better, so often, to armor tank - especially with eanm t2. What need to be done is to make shield tanking worthwhile again, by balancing low and mid slot mods, and not the opposite. I'm sorry to say that so bluntly but your solution is awful and not going to improve anything. NB. Fixing shield tanking is going take a hell of alot more work and tweaking then solving the pitiful amount of damage 90% of amarr ships do. Bump up EM damage and stop the whiners from whining. --
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:09:00 - [18] Originally by: StinkFinger Fixing shield tanking is going take a hell of alot more work and tweaking then solving the pitiful amount of damage 90% of amarr ships do. Bump up EM damage and stop the whiners from whining. I know I better have a proper balance than half-assed fix that rules many options out of the game. Many people would like to think that a less complex gameplay would be more interesting, but all it is going to do is make balancing more difficult. Less complex gameplay = less significant variables = gameplay harder to balance. If anything, complexity is very helpful in any balancing process as it increase the variables that can be tweaked, allowing things to be different yet balanced. So, in a word, no. NB.
StinkFinger	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:13:00 - [19] Originally by: Naughty Boy Originally by: StinkFinger Fixing shield tanking is going take a hell of alot more work and tweaking then solving the pitiful amount of damage 90% of amarr ships do. Bump up EM damage and stop the whiners from whining. I know I better have a proper balance than half-assed fix that rules many options out of the game. Many people would like to think that a less complex gameplay would be more interesting, but all it is going to do is make balancing more difficult. Less complex gameplay = less significant variables = gameplay harder to balance. If anything, complexity is very helpful in any balancing process as it increase the variables that can be tweaked, allowing things to be different yet balanced. So, in a word, no. NB. I would say that an entire race of ships (except the geddon) being non-viable in pvp is the definition of 'less complex gameplay'. --
Mnengli Noiliffe	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:15:00 - [20] yeah and while you're at it increase base explosive damage of ammo and missiles by 50%, because those damn shields start with 60% base resist to explosive. and while you're nerfing eanm, don't forget to nerf invulnerability field, they make those shields unpenetrable by explosive torps and nuclear ammo. thats overpowered.
StinkFinger	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:18:00 - [21] Originally by: Mnengli Noiliffe yeah and while you're at it increase base explosive damage of ammo and missiles by 50%, because those damn shields start with 60% base resist to explosive. and while you're nerfing eanm, don't forget to nerf invulnerability field, they make those shields unpenetrable by explosive torps and nuclear ammo. thats overpowered. Why? You have the option of using therma, kinetic, or even EM missles and ammo. No need for any changes there. Amarr ships are restricted to EM being their primary with thermal a distant secondary, damage type. --
OrangeAfroMan	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:19:00 - [22] What problem? There literally is nothing wrong with Amarr, they are actually very well balanced. Gronsak is Tux's angry alt.
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:20:00 - [23] Originally by: StinkFinger I would say that an entire race of ships (except the geddon) being non-viable in pvp is the definition of 'less complex gameplay'. First, that's wrong at best, and pathetic propaganda in politically correct terms in any other perspective. Second, ECM is broken, the whole low/mid slot balance is broken since the stacking changes, and those are the problems that need to be adressed independantly from the issues with amarr ships. The only thing mitigating this are stabs, which arguably are very broken too, leaving us with a stack of problems that your solution is nowhere near close to solve. Thirdly, when the current ecm/nos issues are taken care of, it will be time to redefine the role of some amarr ships, as tanking is forever lacking due to how very fundamental game mechanisms are; and for tanking ships more than cap and a small extra armor buffer is needed. As a conclusion, not only is your solution not going to solve anything, but it is also going to break things that are working fine at the moment. Hardly a fix by any reasonable definition of the word. NB.
Zhaine	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:21:00 - [24] It's pretty clear that lowering 'standard' armor EM resitst to 50% (or around that, perhaps lower) would be far more suitable than your solution, as it doesn't mean that lasers would become vastly overpowered against shields with no EM hardener/no cap left. The problem is the dominance of armour tanks, especially passive/EANM tanks with plates, which lasers with their high EM damage are poor against. Your boost to lasers would certainly combat this, but it would overpower lasers in other places where they are fine. By the way I'm not saying that lowering EM resists is the correct solution, it's just a better one than the OP's. - - - - - - - - - - Quote: I don't even want a ship, ships are for carebears. Give me a fish bowl for my head (to keep space out) and smear me with lard, then armed with a toasting fork-
StinkFinger	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:25:00 - [25] Originally by: Zhaine It's pretty clear that lowering 'standard' armor EM resitst to 50% (or around that, perhaps lower) would be far more suitable than your solution, as it doesn't mean that lasers would become vastly overpowered against shields with no EM hardener/no cap left. The problem is the dominance of armour tanks, especially passive/EANM tanks with plates, which lasers with their high EM damage are poor against. Your boost to lasers would certainly combat this, but it would overpower lasers in other places where they are fine. By the way I'm not saying that lowering EM resists is the correct solution, it's just a better one than the OP's. 50% was just a random number. 10-15% may be more realistic. Bottom line, an increase in EM dmg would make more amarr ships viable in pvp. --
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:26:00 - [26] Originally by: StinkFinger 50% was just a random number. 10-15% may be more realistic. Bottom line, an increase in EM dmg would make more amarr ships viable in pvp. For the last time. Before making amarr ships better, it's first going to make shield tanking even more useless than it already is. NB.
Mnengli Noiliffe	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:27:00 - [27] Originally by: StinkFinger Why? You have the option of using therma, kinetic, or even EM missles and ammo. No need for any changes there. Amarr ships are restricted to EM being their primary with thermal a distant secondary, damage type. you do have that option as well ... fit some projectiles? launch some drones? Kind of irrelevant but I remember looting lots of projectile guns off some apoc/geddon NPCs :)
OrangeAfroMan	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:32:00 - [28] Originally by: StinkFinger Originally by: Foulis Originally by: StinkFinger Edited by: StinkFinger on 02/07/2006 18:48:49 Originally by: Foulis Edited by: Foulis on 02/07/2006 18:42:27 Except for every shield tanking ship in the game. Except for 2 (and only 2) minmatar battlecruisers. All others have what? Max 10% initial em resist on shield? You have the ability to rip through shields, this is balanced by a lack of ability against armor. It's almost as if it's... balanced? 30% of ships shield tank, rest armor tank. That's not balance. Yet again, amarr ships aren't all about the gank, that is to a lesser extent gallente territory. You have high quality sustainable tanks to back it up with. dmg > tank Everytime. LOL So he basically just lost all credibility Gronsak is Tux's angry alt.
StinkFinger	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:32:00 - [29] Originally by: Mnengli Noiliffe Originally by: StinkFinger Why? You have the option of using therma, kinetic, or even EM missles and ammo. No need for any changes there. Amarr ships are restricted to EM being their primary with thermal a distant secondary, damage type. you do have that option as well ... fit some projectiles? launch some drones? Kind of irrelevant but I remember looting lots of projectile guns off some apoc/geddon NPCs :) So in order to make amarr ships viable, your solution is to fit projectiles or hybrids? Smells like '04 to me. --
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:37:00 - [30] Problem 1: Medium Beams. - Needs powergrid looked into! And this aply to beams and beams only. You know the one that currently take more than 15 powergrid for T1. Problem 2: Tracking. - Tracking is a laser's strong point. It's far better than tracking on hybrids mounted onto Megathrons, even though no specific bonus are given for lasers. The problem? Tracking doesn't matter nearly enough for this massive advantage to become an advantage worth noting. Problem 3: Lack of diversity in all of EVE. - Ships are just too similar within classes. For example, Megathron and Armageddon perform very similarly. What if the 'geddon had a lot better capacitor but it's weapons also consumed more cap? The lack of diversity slightly rob the Amarr of identity. Caldari have strong EWar while Gallente have drones that are more or less unique to them, Minmatar have speedy agile ships, while Amarr have... well... Problem 4: Uneven damage type distribution. - Crystals should do 40% Th and 60% EM (or there about). In some cases they do 100% EM (Radio) - THIS is wrong. New sig coming soonÖ By "soon" I do not necessarily mean "this year"
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.07.02 19:46:00 - [31] Edited by: Naughty Boy on 02/07/2006 19:47:42 Originally by: Mnengli Noiliffe oh well, just release explosive t2 ammo and be done with it .. really, I didn't get why were they halted. I think it had something to do with massive Minmatar whine .. really, do you believe they will boost lasers having such a powerfull anti-amarr whine force? If explosive crystals are introduced without a damage penalty, I'd hardly call the whines about this unjustified. Being able to deal different damage types always comes up with a raw damage reduction; this shouldn't be different for laser crystals. NB.
Aemilus Brutus	Posted - 2006.07.03 03:14:00 - [32] Originally by: Ithildin Problem 1: Medium Beams. - Needs powergrid looked into! And this aply to beams and beams only. You know the one that currently take more than 15 powergrid for T1. Problem 3: Lack of diversity in all of EVE. - Ships are just too similar within classes. For example, Megathron and Armageddon perform very similarly. What if the 'geddon had a lot better capacitor but it's weapons also consumed more cap? The lack of diversity slightly rob the Amarr of identity. Caldari have strong EWar while Gallente have drones that are more or less unique to them, Minmatar have speedy agile ships, while Amarr have... well... Problem 4: Uneven damage type distribution. - Crystals should do 40% Th and 60% EM (or there about). In some cases they do 100% EM (Radio) - THIS is wrong. I really agree with these 3 problems. At present an armor tanking ship is about the same as another armor tanking ship, that hurts Amarr having a unique role. Combine that with screwy em/thermal damage distibution and you have a large portion of the Amarr problem covered. A few minor changes to Amarr tanks and damage distribution and balance becomes close to perfect and 90% of all Amarr "whinners" shutup. I don't think it would take much to restore Amarr to a unique, balanced role. The issues with some ships and weapons are there and need to be addressed on a case by case basis. That would take more dev time and should probably tacked on to the list below older ship and weapon issues that have yet to be fixed. Frigates, t2 and t1, have problems that too often get buried in the Amarr threads. The t1/t2 cruisers may need some minor adjusting as well, again on a case by case basis.
Copine Callmeknau	Posted - 2006.07.03 03:28:00 - [33] Explosive crystals would be massively overpowered with the Amarr's high damage mod. Maybe if the penalty for them was -25% damage mod/RoF it would be OK. ------- See the idiot walk, see the idiot talk
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2006.07.03 03:44:00 - [34] Threads like these are borderline trolling in my opinion. If you really believe that Amarr have a problem which can be solved by messing with their ships and weapons.. thats fine. But one-liner solutions that make no sense are only going to annoy people. For what? I haven't seen anyone here agree, and whats worse is you get counter-suggestions with even more nonsensical suggestions. Everyone here should be restrained from being within 100km of CCP's source code. Trust me when I say this, the Amarr do not have a problem. What they have is one or two useless ships and guns, which virtually every other race has too. Aside from that, they are very easily balanced and have been since the pulse nerf. People who are flying Amarr are more or less unhappy because its a boredom that can only be matched by missile spamming nubboats. Doesn't mean the ships don't perform well. Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
Haniblecter Teg	Posted - 2006.07.03 04:36:00 - [35] Whole lot of dumb in this thread. On both sides. ---------------------------------------- Friends Forever
Darineah Charach	Posted - 2006.07.03 04:38:00 - [36] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Threads like these are borderline trolling in my opinion. If you really believe that Amarr have a problem which can be solved by messing with their ships and weapons.. thats fine. But one-liner solutions that make no sense are only going to annoy people. For what? I haven't seen anyone here agree, and whats worse is you get counter-suggestions with even more nonsensical suggestions. Everyone here should be restrained from being within 100km of CCP's source code. Trust me when I say this, the Amarr do not have a problem. What they have is one or two useless ships and guns, which virtually every other race has too. Aside from that, they are very easily balanced and have been since the pulse nerf. People who are flying Amarr are more or less unhappy because its a boredom that can only be matched by missile spamming nubboats. Doesn't mean the ships don't perform well. Well said. There seems to be a disparity in the number of players picking each particular race. I read somewhere that 40% are Caldari and the lowest percentage is Amaar. This has been used in the past to argue that Caldari are overpowered and Amaar are nerfed and Minmatar is 'playing the game in hard mode' (which, being Minmatar i completely agree with). I think it's a self fulfilling prophecy. New players come in and know nothing so they research and ask questions. They check help chat, noob channel, forums etc and read everywhere people whining that Amaar are crap and Caldari are uber. SO of course it follows, they pick the tough guy. I don't think the game is unbalanced, i think the whining is and that is why we have a disparity in the races. ------- Boxing Kangaroo
Darineah Charach	Posted - 2006.07.03 04:41:00 - [37] http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=359615 I rest my case. ------- Boxing Kangaroo
Cruz	Posted - 2006.07.03 04:42:00 - [38] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Threads like these are borderline trolling in my opinion. If you really believe that Amarr have a problem which can be solved by messing with their ships and weapons.. thats fine. But one-liner solutions that make no sense are only going to annoy people. For one, there is a problem in the frig area. The ships have roughly the same grid as counterpart ships while the weapons consuming hideously more grid. Two, the apocs cap bonus is useless in todays PVP arena, with the boost to cap boosters, the apocs cap bonus's and sustainabilty of dual rep tanks is pointless since any ship with a cap booster can now sustain a dual rep tank. And no current PVP usually doesn't last past the time it takes a ship to run out of booster charges. Ships do too much dps for that. Three, the grid usage on Beam weapons is retarded... This goes back to the frigs issue, small beams use stupid amounts of grid... Medium beams use even stupider amounts of grid, and megabeams? Pssh. Don't even talk to me about tachyons... But tachyons are sort of balanced by the fact they do the most dps out of any BS sized long range gun. But then again, a Mega/Tempest with 2 damage mods > Apoc with 2 RCU IIs to fit those tachyons. Again your right, the guns themselves, barring grid usage, have not much real problems. On the ships they are ment to be fitted, they do the same raw dps as other ships when you count bonuses and use the same cap as hybrids with maxed out Skills for that ship. The whole EANM II + DCU Tanking style so prevalent nowadays effectively makes amarr ships do 25% dps less then other ships at close range, and 50% less dps at long range then other ships against armor tanks, but ohh well... Long range fleet pvp isn't everything ;-) I dunno though in all, I think an apoc has some unrealized potential, but its 25% cap capacity bonus needs to be rethought in this current day and age of EVE. Preferablly replaced with a 5% resist bonus truly making it a better tank than other ships. And maller needs more grid. And of course Beam weapns need their grid usage relooked at. Especially on the Frig/cruiser level. And midslot/lowslot value has to be rebalanced. --------------------------- For the glory of the empire!
Necrologic	Posted - 2006.07.03 04:56:00 - [39] Originally by: Cruz Edited by: Cruz on 03/07/2006 04:50:30 Originally by: DigitalCommunist Threads like these are borderline trolling in my opinion. If you really believe that Amarr have a problem which can be solved by messing with their ships and weapons.. thats fine. But one-liner solutions that make no sense are only going to annoy people. For one, there is a problem in the frig area. The ships have roughly the same grid as counterpart ships while the weapons consuming hideously more grid. Two, the apocs cap bonus is useless in todays PVP arena, with the boost to cap boosters, the apocs cap bonus's and sustainabilty of dual rep tanks is pointless since any ship with a cap booster can now sustain a dual rep tank. And no current PVP usually doesn't last past the time it takes a ship to run out of booster charges. Ships do too much dps for that. Three, the grid usage on Beam weapons is retarded... This goes back to the frigs issue, small beams use stupid amounts of grid... Medium beams use even stupider amounts of grid, and megabeams? Pssh. Don't even talk to me about tachyons... But tachyons are sort of balanced by the fact they do the most dps out of any BS sized long range gun. But then again, a Mega/Tempest with 2 damage mods > Apoc with 2 RCU IIs to fit those tachyons. Again your right, the guns themselves, barring grid usage, have not much real problems. On the ships they are ment to be fitted, they do the same raw dps as other ships when you count bonuses and use the same cap as hybrids with maxed out Skills for that ship. The whole EANM II + DCU Tanking style so prevalent nowadays effectively makes amarr ships do 25% dps less then other ships at close range, and 50% less dps at long range then other ships against armor tanks, but ohh well... Long range fleet pvp isn't everything ;-) I dunno though in all, I think an apoc has some unrealized potential, but its 25% cap capacity bonus needs to be rethought in this current day and age of EVE. Preferablly replaced with a 5% resist bonus truly making it a better tank than other ships. And maller needs more grid. And of course Beam weapns need their grid usage relooked at. Especially on the Frig/cruiser level. And midslot/lowslot value has to be rebalanced. I think one of the big issues in the end, and im sure we can agree on this at least, is that in pvp Gank > Tank. So any ship setup for tanking will always be inferior to a ship setup for ganking in pvp. Unless your ship has some sort of uber tank. With expensive faction gear :/ Agreed.
Lisento Slaven	Posted - 2006.07.03 05:12:00 - [40] I wouldn't mind seeing some other ships besides caldari being forced to shield tank. I am pretty good with Amarr since that's all I've been flying for quite a long time. But as I understand it, Minmatar and Gallente primary armor tank as well. My question is - can the Minmatar and Gallente armor tank just as good as most Amarr ships? If they can manage that then the Amarr aren't specialized armor tankers. This question gets even harder to answer when you point out the fact that certain weapons have grid problems/certain mods have problems with Amarr and you are forced to give up a tanking module for a damage/RCU/COProc module (even at level 5 skills). What good are those low slots for tanking when you have to throw in a different module to fix something else and end up using the same amount of lowslots tanking, as every other armor tank? --- Lisento Slaven wants to be a Space Whaler in EVE. Put in space whales!
Mnengli Noiliffe	Posted - 2006.07.03 06:39:00 - [41] Edited by: Mnengli Noiliffe on 03/07/2006 06:40:02 Originally by: Lisento Slaven I wouldn't mind seeing some other ships besides caldari being forced to shield tank. I am pretty good with Amarr since that's all I've been flying for quite a long time. But as I understand it, Minmatar and Gallente primary armor tank as well. how do you armor tank a tempest? Quote: My question is - can the Minmatar and Gallente armor tank just as good as most Amarr ships? If they can manage that then the Amarr aren't specialized armor tankers. because of the superior capacitors and tanking bonuses. Quote: This question gets even harder to answer when you point out the fact that certain weapons have grid problems/certain mods have problems with Amarr and you are forced to give up a tanking module for a damage/RCU/COProc module (even at level 5 skills). What good are those low slots for tanking when you have to throw in a different module to fix something else and end up using the same amount of lowslots tanking, as every other armor tank? Amarr have tech 1 non-faction BS that has 8 low slots. Megathron only has 7 and it has to use damage mods too. Amarr ships tend to have bigger capacitors than other races' ships. Amarr have capacitor, armor resistances and armor HP bonuses on some of their ships. These things make Amarr ships better for armor tanking.
Shadowsword	Posted - 2006.07.03 08:19:00 - [42] Originally by: Mnengli Noiliffe Amarr ships tend to have bigger capacitors than other races' ships. Said capacitor usually aren't that much bigger in most case (something like +5-10%), and they also tend to recharge more slowly, which mean the average recharge rate is about the same. ------------------------------------------ Don't make War, War is messy. Make love instead, so your kids will do the War part for you.
Hugh Ruka	Posted - 2006.07.03 08:42:00 - [43] Originally by: Cruz Edited by: Cruz on 03/07/2006 04:50:30 Originally by: DigitalCommunist Threads like these are borderline trolling in my opinion. If you really believe that Amarr have a problem which can be solved by messing with their ships and weapons.. thats fine. But one-liner solutions that make no sense are only going to annoy people. For one, there is a problem in the frig area. The ships have roughly the same grid as counterpart ships while the weapons consuming hideously more grid. Two, the apocs cap bonus is useless in todays PVP arena, with the boost to cap boosters, the apocs cap bonus's and sustainabilty of dual rep tanks is pointless since any ship with a cap booster can now sustain a dual rep tank. And no current PVP usually doesn't last past the time it takes a ship to run out of booster charges. Ships do too much dps for that. Three, the grid usage on Beam weapons is retarded... This goes back to the frigs issue, small beams use stupid amounts of grid... Medium beams use even stupider amounts of grid, and megabeams? Pssh. Don't even talk to me about tachyons... But tachyons are sort of balanced by the fact they do the most dps out of any BS sized long range gun. But then again, a Mega/Tempest with 2 damage mods > Apoc with 2 RCU IIs to fit those tachyons. Again your right, the guns themselves, barring grid usage, have not much real problems. On the ships they are ment to be fitted, they do the same raw dps as other ships when you count bonuses and use the same cap as hybrids with maxed out Skills for that ship. The whole EANM II + DCU Tanking style so prevalent nowadays effectively makes amarr ships do 25% dps less then other ships at close range, and 50% less dps at long range then other ships against armor tanks, but ohh well... Long range fleet pvp isn't everything ;-) I dunno though in all, I think an apoc has some unrealized potential, but its 25% cap capacity bonus needs to be rethought in this current day and age of EVE. Preferablly replaced with a 5% resist bonus truly making it a better tank than other ships. And maller needs more grid. And of course Beam weapns need their grid usage relooked at. Especially on the Frig/cruiser level. And midslot/lowslot value has to be rebalanced. I think one of the big issues in the end, and im sure we can agree on this at least, is that in pvp Gank > Tank. So any ship setup for tanking will always be inferior to a ship setup for ganking in pvp. Unless your ship has some sort of uber tank. With expensive faction gear :/ I tend to agree with the resist bonus. Amarr ships should have armor tanks from hell. With either armor resist or armor rep bonuses. ------------------------------ if you want peace, prepare for war ... ------------------------------ Removed due to offensive content - Laqum I realy liked my signature. Oh well
Monkphish	Posted - 2006.07.03 09:10:00 - [44] Originally by: Cruz The problem is a fitting problem. Fix the PG usage on lasers or boost the grid of certain amarr ships. Dam right, lower the grid on laser.
Imperial Coercion	Posted - 2006.07.03 09:16:00 - [45] Originally by: Foulis So you're saying that you don't have one of the best tanking BS in the game. Do you own a modefied Delorean? Because you must be back to the future.
Imperial Coercion	Posted - 2006.07.03 09:20:00 - [46] Edited by: Imperial Coercion on 03/07/2006 09:21:54 Originally by: Imperial Coercion Originally by: Foulis So you're saying that you don't have one of the best tanking BS in the game. Do you own a modefied Delorean? Because you must be back to the future. Originally by: DigitalCommunist Everyone here should be restrained from being within 100km of CCP's source code. That includes you who want to split sensor booster range/sig Good luck on that. Quote: Trust me when I say this, the Amarr do not have a problem. Well that shows how little you know. I cant be bothered explaining it all to you where there are allready several threads on the issue with not only the numbers but also valid arguments to prove it. Quote: What they have is one or two useless ships and guns, which virtually every other race has too. Aside from that, they are very easily balanced and have been since the pulse nerf. People who are flying Amarr are more or less unhappy because its a boredom that can only be matched by missile spamming nubboats. Doesn't mean the ships don't perform well. They used to perform well pre Red moon rising. If you think the same is the case today then you are blind, and quite frankly I fail to see why you are in charge of the ship guide in that magazine of yours.
OrangeAfroMan	Posted - 2006.07.03 09:21:00 - [47] Originally by: Darineah Charach Originally by: DigitalCommunist Threads like these are borderline trolling in my opinion. If you really believe that Amarr have a problem which can be solved by messing with their ships and weapons.. thats fine. But one-liner solutions that make no sense are only going to annoy people. For what? I haven't seen anyone here agree, and whats worse is you get counter-suggestions with even more nonsensical suggestions. Everyone here should be restrained from being within 100km of CCP's source code. Trust me when I say this, the Amarr do not have a problem. What they have is one or two useless ships and guns, which virtually every other race has too. Aside from that, they are very easily balanced and have been since the pulse nerf. People who are flying Amarr are more or less unhappy because its a boredom that can only be matched by missile spamming nubboats. Doesn't mean the ships don't perform well. Well said. There seems to be a disparity in the number of players picking each particular race. I read somewhere that 40% are Caldari and the lowest percentage is Amaar. This has been used in the past to argue that Caldari are overpowered and Amaar are nerfed and Minmatar is 'playing the game in hard mode' (which, being Minmatar i completely agree with). I think it's a self fulfilling prophecy. New players come in and know nothing so they research and ask questions. They check help chat, noob channel, forums etc and read everywhere people whining that Amaar are crap and Caldari are uber. SO of course it follows, they pick the tough guy. I don't think the game is unbalanced, i think the whining is and that is why we have a disparity in the races. QFT on both cases, like I've said before, and I'm breaking my own rule here :( Just ignore it and hope the mods do too. BTW to the guy who asked "how do you armor tank a tempsst? omg im so witty" well... you use those 6 lowslots eh? Gronsak is Tux's angry alt.
Meridius	Posted - 2006.07.03 09:23:00 - [48] Originally by: HippoKing There is an amarr problem, but it does not need a blanket change, it needs specific ships looking at. - _____
Imperial Coercion	Posted - 2006.07.03 09:24:00 - [49] Edited by: Imperial Coercion on 03/07/2006 09:24:14 Originally by: OrangeAfroMan BTW to the guy who asked "how do you armor tank a tempsst? omg im so witty" well... you use those 6 lowslots eh? Autopest will kill of any apocs tank in 30 seconds, and the apoc will hardly get to scratch its armour.
Deja Thoris	Posted - 2006.07.03 09:25:00 - [50] This idea is moronic. I'm surprised it illicits proper responses.
Gariuys	Posted - 2006.07.03 09:37:00 - [51] And what's worse, it has some amarrian nubling telling DC that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Oh well, had my lunch break laugh.
Sir Juri	Posted - 2006.07.03 10:23:00 - [52] Yes, boost the amarr. The amarr needs some love to, with all slaves and hippies getting the attention lately. damn need to make a new sig...
PriceCheckMax	Posted - 2006.07.03 10:35:00 - [53] Originally by: Mnengli Noiliffe how do you armor tank a tempest? Wait, how do you shield tank a tempest? ACs, Nosf MWD, injector, multispectral, web, disruptor 2 x Lar, 2 EANM2, DCU, Gyro
infraX	Posted - 2006.07.03 10:45:00 - [54] I find it funny how people complain about the raven being the most common bs, yet when it comes to a whine thread about lasers, someone happens to mention that far more people are armour tanking than shield tanking I have an amarr specialised character and I don't see the problem with lasers in comparison to the other weapon types. Here's a test for all you people whining about EM doing rubbish damage on armour:- get an armour tanked bs and fit a thermal, kinetic and explosive hardener (fairly cookie cutter setup here) and fire an explosive torp/cruise missile at it. Now try with an EM torp/cruise missile and note the difference in damage.
Kaleeb	Posted - 2006.07.03 11:02:00 - [55] While I dont believe amaar bs's really have a problem I will concede that the techII frigs need some love for the following reasons: 1. They look sexy especially malediction 2. Small beams are too difficult to fit 3. crusader seem to have big time cpu probs whenever i fit it People say the apoc doesnt tank aswel but you have to remember you have more base armour than other bs, more cap and as you dont have a damage bonus that says to me fit for that uber tank e.g. 4x guns 2x nos 2x neuts etc
Eximius Josari	Posted - 2006.07.03 11:10:00 - [56] Edited by: Eximius Josari on 03/07/2006 11:10:07 Here is an idea. Make the Amarr Laser Cap Bonus a Cap Use Reduction Bonus to modules that belong specifically to that class (say a BS, Large Lasers, Large Reps, 100MN ABs/MWDs, etc). Click Above
Imperial Coercion	Posted - 2006.07.03 11:10:00 - [57] Originally by: Kaleeb People say the apoc doesnt tank aswel but you have to remember you have more base armour than other bs, more cap and as you dont have a damage bonus that says to me fit for that uber tank e.g. 4x guns 2x nos 2x neuts etc cap injectors
Gariuys	Posted - 2006.07.03 12:08:00 - [58] Originally by: Imperial Coercion Originally by: Kaleeb People say the apoc doesnt tank aswel but you have to remember you have more base armour than other bs, more cap and as you dont have a damage bonus that says to me fit for that uber tank e.g. 4x guns 2x nos 2x neuts etc cap injectors Let me finish that sentence for you... cap injectors need freaking huge ammo, which is only usable if you got a short supply line... or expect to die soon.
Shadowsword	Posted - 2006.07.03 14:10:00 - [59] Edited by: Shadowsword on 03/07/2006 14:11:22 Originally by: Gariuys Let me finish that sentence for you... cap injectors need freaking huge ammo, which is only usable if you got a short supply line... or expect to die soon. Which in turn mean that it's a must-have for nearly every close range BS setup, while long range BS setups rely on "passive" tanking (hardeners and plate, and very small hp/regeneration per second). The result is that the possibility to run a double large armor repairer tank is only truely usefull for pve, and even there a Raven shield tank is better, and just as durable, if you manage smartly it's activation time. Why? Because your weapon cap usage alone nullify your cap advantage, and because shield tanking is more cap-efficient than armor tanking. Right now, with a dual rep tank, what can you tank exactly? Another Apoc An Armageddon will outdamage your tank, unless you use EANM II. A Raven will not only outdamage your tank, but also suck your cap Same for blaster-Domi or Nos-Domi, and blasterMega Same for Nos-Typhoon or AC-Torp typhoon, AC Tempest. Even a scorp can nos you enough to break your tank. At the end of the day, the Apoc's "specialisation" in sustainability is completely outclassed by any other BS with a damage-related bonus. ------------------------------------------ Don't make War, War is messy. Make love instead, so your kids will do the War part for you.
ImaTest	Posted - 2006.07.03 14:41:00 - [60] Originally by: Shadowsword and because shield tanking is more cap-efficient than armor tanking. Since when did Shield tanking become more Cap energy efficient than Armor repping? (f is for Farad, unit of capacitor energy) Xlarge Shield Booster II: 400f, 600hp, 5sec 80.00f/s, 120.0hp/s, 1.5hp/f Large Armor Repairer II: 400f, 800hp, 12sec 33.33f/s, 66.66hp/s, 2.0hp/f Shield tanking is more HP/second, but draws a LOT more juice.
Cruz	Posted - 2006.07.03 14:48:00 - [61] Originally by: Gariuys And what's worse, it has some amarrian nubling telling DC that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Oh well, had my lunch break laugh. Yah because Digi is the infallible god of all!! Reading posts ftl... --------------------------- For the glory of the empire!
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.07.03 14:58:00 - [62] 1.) The OPs idea is moronic. 2.) I totally agree with crux's post on the 2nd page.
F4ze	Posted - 2006.07.03 15:10:00 - [63] There was no "Amarr problem" before CCP changed the EAN's. Now every armor tanker uses energized adaptive nano membranes, while before alot of people didn't fit an EM hardener.
Shasel Pintar	Posted - 2006.07.03 16:30:00 - [64] Well I have a very easy suggestion to solve the Amarr problem : --> Give all Amarr ships a base 40 % reduction to Energy Turret capacitor use. --> Change the 10 % reduction to energy turret capacitor use per level to 10 % more armor HP per level. You get the same DPS, but a ****load of armor, making Amarr the true armor kings.
Imperial Coercion	Posted - 2006.07.03 16:31:00 - [65] Originally by: Shasel Pintar Well I have a very easy suggestion to solve the Amarr problem : --> Give all Amarr ships a base 40 % reduction to Energy Turret capacitor use. --> Change the 10 % reduction to energy turret capacitor use per level to 10 % more resistance per level. FIXED
Cruz	Posted - 2006.07.03 16:33:00 - [66] Originally by: Imperial Coercion Originally by: Shasel Pintar Well I have a very easy suggestion to solve the Amarr problem : --> Give all Amarr ships a base 40 % reduction to Energy Turret capacitor use. --> Change the 10 % reduction to energy turret capacitor use per level to 10 % more resistance per level. lol 50% built in resists to all... Overpowered :P Arma tanking 4k dps with faction gear ftw. FIXED --------------------------- For the glory of the empire!
Imperial Coercion	Posted - 2006.07.03 16:34:00 - [67] Edited by: Imperial Coercion on 03/07/2006 16:35:11 Nevermind the number, I just wanted to give resistance bonus instead of hp bonus. Couldnt be arsed to edit it properly. edit : I lol at myself now
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.07.03 16:40:00 - [68] I think there is one major problem to be added to the list: - too many "pro-amarr" people making rediciously overpowered suggestions for boosts. Seriously: Think stuff through before you post! Stuff like this will make it only less likely that reasonable suggestions will be taken seriously at all and if anything reduce the possibility that there will be any changes.
Gariuys	Posted - 2006.07.03 19:59:00 - [69] Originally by: Cruz Originally by: Gariuys And what's worse, it has some amarrian nubling telling DC that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Oh well, had my lunch break laugh. Yah because Digi is the infallible god of all!! Reading posts ftl... None he ain't but compaired to the suggestions in this thread... really. This has absolutely crap all to do with balancing. It has to do with ill thought out changes that fix nothing, but break lots.
Gariuys	Posted - 2006.07.03 20:00:00 - [70] Originally by: ImaTest Originally by: Shadowsword and because shield tanking is more cap-efficient than armor tanking. Since when did Shield tanking become more Cap energy efficient than Armor repping? (f is for Farad, unit of capacitor energy) Xlarge Shield Booster II: 400f, 600hp, 5sec 80.00f/s, 120.0hp/s, 1.5hp/f Large Armor Repairer II: 400f, 800hp, 12sec 33.33f/s, 66.66hp/s, 2.0hp/f Shield tanking is more HP/second, but draws a LOT more juice. Add shield boost amplifier, add skills presto.... shield tanking more cap effecient.... geez we did this like a 100 times already.
Cruz	Posted - 2006.07.03 20:12:00 - [71] Edited by: Cruz on 03/07/2006 20:12:39 null Originally by: Gariuys Originally by: Cruz Originally by: Gariuys And what's worse, it has some amarrian nubling telling DC that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Oh well, had my lunch break laugh. Yah because Digi is the infallible god of all!! Reading posts ftl... None he ain't but compaired to the suggestions in this thread... really. This has absolutely crap all to do with balancing. It has to do with ill thought out changes that fix nothing, but break lots. I don't agree with the OP in any which way. And I was simply stating the problems with Amarr which most people agree with I actually didn't propose any fixes other then fix the grid, fix the bonuses, and give the apoc a 25% resist bonus instead of 25% Cap bonus. --------------------------- For the glory of the empire!
Imperial Coercion	Posted - 2006.07.03 20:33:00 - [72] Originally by: Cruz I don't agree with the OP in any which way. Me neither, but when a self proclaimed ship expert says something that stupid I cant help myself.
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.07.03 20:40:00 - [73] Originally by: Gariuys ..None he ain't but compaired to the suggestions in this thread... really. This has absolutely crap all to do with balancing. It has to do with ill thought out changes that fix nothing, but break lots. The problem is that he makes a blanket statement - which are usually wrong. "Amarr are broken!!1!11" is here just as wrong as "Amarr have no problems". Because they do - question is if one regards them as serious problems or not. But even if not it won#t change their nature..as problems.

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

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.