| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
   |
Posted - 2006.08.02 18:32:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Nyxus
Therefore change the slot layout slightly to 8/5/7 or 8/5/8 if it has an extra slot over the Apoc to make room for the required injector/injectors.
i believe 20 slots is to be the limit for a tier 3 bs and i suspect tux meant a 8-4-8 setup when he wrote this "one more medslot" stuff. as it really doenst make a lot of sense otherwise.
Originally by: Nyxus
Proposal ū Make the Abaddon have 8 turrets and 7 launchers.
This allows a great variation in setups for the Abaddon. It allows it to tank with missiles or gank with lasers, while not rendering the Geddon or Apoc obsolete. It allows Amarr a ship that can vary itĘs damage while being noticeably weaker than a Raven as it does less DPS than a raven with MUCH less overall range as it lacks any missile bonuses.
this sounds like a real nice idea to me.
regarding your fitting suggestions:
i dont think the stats posted so far have gotten a seal of approval from tux as of yet. so that stuff is propably still upto change. unless he just decides to ignore the abaddon and leave it as it is.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 18:52:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Foulis
The turret/launcher proposal isn't a bad idea, but I'd say drop it down to an 8/6 mix to further distance it from the raven/phoon. The turrets should be an option if you're going for tank and should make the ammar cry a bit when they realize they have to train ANOTHER weapons system. Eheehe, welcome to our world!
we already have launchers on some ships so i dont think theres much the minnies have to train that we can skip. aside from some of the shield related skills maybe. but we get to learn projectiles/hybrids instead for our mallers. :)
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 19:23:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Nyxus
Proposal ū Make the Abaddon have 8 turrets and 7 launchers.
...
7 Missile Abaddon vs Raven DPS
some more thoughts on that:
hmmm the difference in grid/cpu requirements of lasers/launchers could be a problem there. for the launcher setup it would need more cpu which could be used for sth else on the laser setup. and as it will need loads of grid for the lasers it would have a lot of leftover grid when using launchers. grid that could be used for tanking but may be more than it really should have for that purpose.
also 6 launchers seem like enough...even though without some bonus for them the damage will be rather sucky as you graph shows. but then again they should be used to accomodate the tanking role not the gank role of the ship.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 10:43:00 -
[4]
Originally by: ParMizaN
Missiles ring out as a big nono for me really, considering the sac was so bad and missile training on the amarr side is practically nil for most pilots so far, rendering it a "useless" tank ship for most until the skills are up to par. Grangted, it would be some variation but a raven would probably tank better anyways and the fitting would be all messed up.
if you dont want to fit launcher because you dont have good skills with them you could always stick to lasers/other turrets. those launcher hardpoints wouldnt have any bonuses attached to them so you wouldnt really lose out on something if you dont fit missiles. and aside from using projectiles there arent all that many alternatives when it comes to mounting weapons which dont use cap.
with our current tanking ships (like maller/proph) people already go for projectile weapons when they want to get a heavy tank going simply because those will make for a more sustainable tank. you alreay lose out on damage if you do this anyway. so adding launchers for the tankmode of the ship wouldnt really be much of a change in that regard. but the tanksetup wouldnt look like it has been defiled by a horde of barbarians.
also: iirc sac had only 3 launchers when it still had the missile bonus and even with those you could get a nice nos+launchers+heavy tank setup going. it just didnt work out well for dealing damage.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 12:45:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Flash Landsraad
I say turn it into a hybrid maller/arbitrator.
5% armour resists, 5% tracking disruptor effectiveness.
8/5/7 slot layout and up the speed very slightly.
Then we can have an 8x megapulse tracking disrupting tank boat. It wont be massive on the DPS front, but it can tank whilst using Amarr's EW speciality. I'd love a boat like this.
that would actually make it more likely to become an 8x autocannon + ewar + tank boat. also tracking disruptors are not as useful for a battleship as they are for cruisers.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.04 16:30:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
ah, I get the idea, you are creating the next easy mode mission ship that will leave the raven in dust behind...
did you also get the part where the ship doesnt have any bonuses to launchers?
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.04 16:53:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Lobo Noturno
I really thing the Abbadon would do better as a half-missile/half turret boat. It seems that the one thing ammarian pilots need is a more versatile BS.
a split turret/launcher setup can also be very nice as can be seen with the typhoon and nightmare. the cap use of lasers would once more be a problem though. if you take 1 bonus for the launchers you will have only one left for laser cap or damage/rof.
Originally by: Lobo Noturno
Also, another thing is more mid slots and less low slots. Perhaps the ammarian can use more EW modules in their ships if they actually have slots for it(and the extra slots allow for shield tanking when necessary).
personally i dont like that idea all that much as i dont think amarr should get a bs with 6+ medslots which is what a dedicated ewar boat would need.
also: aside from the fact that shieldtanks are a horrible idea for amarrian ships...for pvp use theres really not much reason to fit one as long as armortanking is still possible.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.04 16:58:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Zhaine
abaddon setup
that would just make it a bit less caphungry. not add anything new to amarrian battleships. also: that could still be setup as a better geddon/apoc for most things.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.05 11:29:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Nyxus
The Typhoon is good because it gets a bonus to both missiles, guns, and has a whopping dronebay to make up for the lower damage of the split weapons system. It's a good design and implementation from Tux's team and I applaud them for it. The Abaddon shouldn't be a carbon copy though.
i agree completely there.
the point was that a split weapon system isnt always bad but doesnt work as nicely with lasers+launchers as it does with projectiles+launchers due to the lack of the laser-capuse bonus. the nightmare adresses that with its 3rd bonus.
whats the dronebay size of a nightmare btw?
Originally by: Nyxus
It's actually something new, unique, and versatile. Something Amarr indisputably need.
while i agree with that it would still leave the apoc (as it is now) pretty much useless once your abaddon is available. but then again thats not much of a change from the tux-abaddon.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.06 02:10:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Stephar
It's hard to call drones a true secondary weapon on Amarrian ships. Check out the drone bays:
while most of your number are correct they dont say much about whether or not drones can be called a secondary amarrian weapon system. in fact what size dronebay other races ships have is of no intrest to what constitutes such a secondary weapons system for amarroan ships.
let me add some more info there:
listing all amarrian t1 ships which have a secondary weapons system.
name = dronespace, launcherslots
Crucifier = 5m3, 0
Tormentor = 5m3, 0
Inquisitor = 0m3, 3 (missiles=main weapon)
Augoror = 5m3, 0
Arbitrator = 75m3, 1 (drones=main weapon)
Omen = 15m3, 1
Prophecy = 25m3, 1
Armageddon = 125m3, 0
Apocalypse = 75m3, 2
now as you can see almost all our ships which are actually lucky enough to have a secondary weapons system have access to some sort of dronebay. the only exception being the inquisitor which is actually our t1 missile frig. looking at the ships that have both a dronebay and launchers you will notice that they are always able to field more drones (of their class size) than launchers.
as you can see i split the list into 2 parts...the first of which contains the frigs and the auguror. those are the ships which see little to no use in amarrian pvp. the inquistor isnt as bad as the others but still not the most commonly used frig when you also have the punisher and executioner at your disposal.
now in the 2nd group you find our more important pvp ships.
among them our drone-cruiser: the arbitrator. a ship which is not only an excellent choice for solo pvp but also an essential part of our fleets (small and medium sized ones that is...not the bs-only blobs people seem to confuse with fleets). as its a droneship drones are actually its primary weapon here and neither the 1 launcher slot nor the 2 turrets are actually of the greatest importance to its fitting.
for the omen and prophecy its similar. while they can use their drones effectivly against small targets the launcher is more added flavour than an important part of the setup and often gets replaced by a nos instead.
on to the geddon then. no launcher slots here but a dronebay able to hold 5x heavy drones which will add quiet a bit of damage and are certainly important to the ships overal performance.
the apoc now is a ship that has quiet a few problems itself. its most distinguishing feature being its 8 turretslots (at least until the tier 3 battleships get released). as it lacks the geddons rof bonus pilots often try to make up for that by using all 8 turrets once more leaving no room for the launcher. the dronebay is smaller but still quiet useful.
now i would hope we can agree than an amarrian pilot looking for pvp combat will have much more use for droneskills than missile related ones. and thus drones are propably more worthy of being called our secondary weapons system.
regarding t2 ships:
while we get some more missile using ships in the tech2 area we also get 2 more drone-cruisers, which once more manage to surpass many of the ships in their class.
hopefully the khanid mkII project may shake things up a bit in the future but for now i dont see how one can argue that drones are not the more important secondary weapons system for amarrian pvp.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.06 11:56:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 06/08/2006 11:57:59
Originally by: Ithildin
It's clear that the Dominix, with it's intense drone damage coupled with electronic warfare and nosferatu work really great, so everyone wants one for their own race. Especially the Amarrians, it seems.
amarrians want some more variety. we want a way to deal damage other than using lasers only. as far as secondary weapons systems go you get to chose from drones and missiles in that regard. we already use drones and they are much more important to amarrian pvp than missiles. is that really so hard to understand?
sure an amarrian missileboat would serve that purpose just as well but that would be much more of a change from what amarrians currently use than a droneboat.
also..theres no need to make it a drone+ewar battelship really. an amarrina drone-bs could work nicely with a dronebonus and a tanking bonus for example and still be different from the domi.
Originally by: Ithildin
As for being original, take a hint from Nyxus, will you? At least try something new, like suggesting bonuses to drones that does NOT directly involve damage.
the major point of the whole exercise would be to make amarrians less predictable in what they can do. when it comes to weapon systems (like drones for example) you may notice that dealing damage is what they do most of the time.
with the number of useable drones set to 5 these days theres really not all that much you can do to modify their effectiveness in combat. which is propably why pretty much every drone specialist ship gets this 10% damage/hitpoint bonus. thats especially true at the battelship level where you cant just add more dronespace to allow for bigger drones.
sure you can go and boost other features of drones besides their damage output/hitpoints. the problem is that with the restriction to 5 drones a droneboat needs a damageboost in order to make the drones its primary weapon.
boosting drone tracking or speed would make the heavy drones on a battleship more useful against small targets but add nothing to its ability to fight in its own class.
boosting drone optimal and drone control range is only really useful for sentry drones which due to their own limitations would require a dronebay at least as large as the domis and a damage bonus on top of it.
if your so scared that an amarrian droneboat would overpower the dominix why dont you start a thread requesting a boost to the domi. maybe ask for a 2nd dronebonus. get the domi shifted to a higher tier or even try and get another drone-bs.
also: if you really wanted to stay rp-conform when it comes to balancing issues you would actually have to deal with a weak domi as its supposed to an old (aka outdated) design.
Originally by: Ithildin
As was decisively proven long ago, a large drone bay is utterly useless.
ah so the ishkur is pretty much useless then and the domi would work just as well with 125m3? are you sure that you know how drones work? i agres that dronebay size alone is not a good enough feature once you reach battleship level but to claim that a larger dronebay is useless doesnt really add to your credibility.
Originally by: Ithildin
And last but not least, why would Amarr ever design drone AI!?
amarrians would design a bigger arbitrator because on the cruiser level that is our most useful ship currently. it can perform very well in a variety of different situations ranging form solocombat right up to fleetsupport. it has some ewar potential and at the same time you cant disable an arbi just as easily as the rest of our t1 cruisers.
compare that to the bs level where we have no variety and both available ships (apparently soon all 3 available ships) can be countered quiet easily with one setup wich works against all of them at the same time. to top it off they offer pretty much no support ability.
yeah looking at that i really wonder why we would not want to have just another laserboat on top of the already existing ones
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.06 12:13:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Ithildin
I've not seen a single effort to suggest a balanced new drone ship concept - they've all been focused on adopting the Dominix' strengths.
then you clearly havent read all of them but decided to make that claim anyway.
what most/all take from the domi is the DRONEbonus. which is rather important for a DRONEship.
Originally by: Ithildin
The Dominix' hybrid turret damage bonus is not anywhere near useless. I fairly like it. And here's the part of where I don't understand your reasoning. The hybrid turret damage bonus has nothing to do with nosferatus nor ECM, so why does it need be changed first afterwards?
Personally, I'd prefere if the Domi was given enough powergrid to fit more than just electron blasters after NOS has been dealt with...
as you may have noticed non-faction t1 ships generally only get 2 bonuses. with the domi already having 1 bonus to drones you can not add a second dronebonus (and thereby make it a superior droneboat) without removing the hybrid bonus. unless you dont want the domi to become a pure droneboat but would rather have it block the way for other races so you can argue that others cant have a droneboat just a strong as the domi.
Originally by: Ithildin
Now, as to having an Amarr BShip "like the Arbitrator" means, in fact, that the Amrageddon'd be the drone battleship. And, by keeping true the progression, the Megathron'd be the Gallentean drone battleship.
You don't do balance by pushing at one side of an ungainly blob, introducing an Amarrian drone battleship will have serious consequences to other ships - unless it's done smart. Smart suggestions for Amarrian drone battleships have been very scarce.
see if you had been paying attention to the various ideas you would have noticed that it has been suggested several times to actually give us a tier1 droneboat instead and leave the tier3 as a gunboat. its not like amarrians dont know that gallenteans are supposed to be the dronemasters. we dont really want your place at the top of the lsit when it comes to drones. we want a different type of battleship that doesnt rely on lasers alone but still fits in with what we already fly.
gallenteans themself on the other hand dont seem as much interested in having the best drone-bs around as they seem interested in preventing anyone else from actually getting one.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.06 12:41:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Stephar
(new) Apoc: 6/6/6, 200m3 drone bay, +5% tracking disruptor, +10% drone hp/damage
personally i would prefer:
6/4/8, 200m3 drone bay, +10% drone hp/damage, tanking bonus
or
7/4/7, 200m3 drone bay, +10% drone hp/damage, tanking bonus
if you feel that 7 lows plus a tanking bonus are too much
or
6-7/5/6-7, 200m3 drone bay, +5% tracking disruptor, +10% drone hp/damage
if the td-bonus is to be kept
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.06 15:08:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Ithildin
Udyr, please examine the Amarrian T1 line and background. You'll find that as many drone ships they have as many missile ships to boot. Additionally, their close ties with the Caldari as demnstrated with the Khanid opens up more to missiles than to drones.
i already did right in this very thread: amarrian secondary weapons system
its true we have 1x missile frig and 1x drone cruiser in the t1 department. however that drone crusier sees a lot more use and in contrast to the inquisitor the arbi is an essential part of our fleet. also notice how those ships with both drones and missiles can always field more drones than missiles.
Originally by: Ithildin
Giving the Amarrian tier 1 battleship a bonus to drone tracking and MWD speed would indeed add to it! It would mean it's larger drones perform better against smaller targets than compared with the Dominix.
with that dronebonus our bs would be better than average at killing cruiser and frigs with its drones. which is also be the job of the arbi or our other crusiers. still it could be a nice idea if the rest of the ship is powerful enough to make up for that somewhat strange bonus.
Originally by: Ithildin
Twice the drone bay isn't twice as good when you get over 125 metrics, and it's even worse the higher you go
125m3 (geddon)
+ possible to fit 5x heavies for max damage against battleships
- no room for additional small or med drones to deal with fast crusiers/frigs
- no spares in case you lose some of your drones
- no room for drones with other damagetypes (thats one of the main advantages of drones in case you were wondering why that comes up so often)
- no room for additional dronetypes: logistic, ewar, combat utility, sentry
375m3 (domi)
+ can fit 5x heavy drones
+ can fit 2 more waves of heavy drones (different damage types or just more drones in case you lose some)
or
+ can fit 5x heavies, 5x med, 5x small + specialist drones or spares for all around fun
or
+ fit 5x heavies for shortrange, 5x sentries for longer range fights, 5x med and 5x small to fight off smaller stuff and still have 50m3 for 2 more heavies or 2x specialist drones
200m3 (proposed amarrian drone-bs)
+ enough space to fit 5x heavy 5x med and 5x small with no spares
or
+ 5x heavies with 3x spares/other damage type (domi can fit 10 heavy spares)
or
+ 5x heavies with some specialist drones
as you may have noticed i always started with 5x heavy drones here. thats because a battleship imo should specialize in fighting other battleships not picking of frigs and cruisers. you could of course fit a mix of heavies, med and small drones for a geddon but that would result in reduced damage against bs-sized targets and reduced tracking against the smaller targets.
i hope this little example helps to make you see the various advantages of having a dronebay above 125m3.
to get back to your comment about a dronebay twice as big not being twice as good:
its true that it doesnt increase the damage you can do at any one time but it does double your options as to what drones you can deploy. and that is rather important when it comes to reacting to the situation on the field.
Originally by: Ithildin
What I'm saying is that it's nowhere near justifying the significantly higher powergrid, capacitor, and subsequently tanking and other offensive ability that comes from being higher tier.
if a former 8x lasers gunboat was turned into a droneboat theres no reason why it should have as much grid/cap as it had before. that being said an amarrian droneboat will still need more grid than a gallente one as our weapons use significantly more of it. how much it ends up with depends on more than just its tier. the number of medslots, turret/launcher hardpoints and the 2nd bonus are most likely more important that what tier the ship is
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.06 16:31:00 -
[15]
some more thoughts on other dronebonuses for a bs:
(a) drone tracking + drone mwd speed
would be nice for using heavy drones against smaller targets. a problem would be the damage output vs. battleships. also: in a decent fleet you will have smaller support ships to deal with crusiers and frigs.
possible 2nd bonus:
10% laser cap reduce
if you add a laser capuse bonus as a 2nd bonus the ships damage against other bs will still be lacking unless you manage to find a way to fit more than 8 guns on it.
5% armor resist / other tanking bonus
better tank than the above version but still really crappy damage vs bs. plus you cant use lasers and still expect to tank nicely.
5% laser rof or damage
that would improve the damage agaisnt bs. at the same time you get the abaddons cap problems. tbh a ship with a laser-dmg/rof bonus should be able to fry most crusiers without even getting its faser/better tracking drones out.
to allow the possibilty of decent damage against battleships without massive cap problems such a ship would propably need an additional bonus to non-laser weapons which doesnt fit all that well into the amarrian field. alternatively you could also ignore damage vs bs completely and go for more medslots and ewar but thats also not very amarrian.
(b) drone optimal range + drone damage (+ drone control range)
a sentry drone sniper. was suggested in some other thread.
needs 3 bonuses to really work unless you want to force people to fit most of their highslots with drone link augmentors.
problem: has a rather narrow field of use. as soon as you get into shortrange and have to use non-sentry drones (due to the crappy tracking on sentries) most of its drone bonuses will be useless. in contrast to the rokh (or other ship with a rangebonus), which can still use its rangebonus on shortrange hybrids, a drone optimal bonus on non-sentry drones wouldnt really do anything at all.
it would also need a massive dronebay if you actually wanted to be able to fit enough sentry drones to be able to change damagetypes or switch optimal range.
if such a ship was to get any other bonus its usefulness would depend highly on whether or not a drone control range bonus is included in the dronebonuses. if you have to fill your highs with drone link mods a bonus to lasers will most likely be wasted. in that case a tanking bonus would be best.
so you could do sth like:
+5% armor resists, x% drone optimal range, x% drone damage
forced fill all/most highs with drone link augmentors
or
5% laser dmg/rof, x% drone optimal range, x% drone control range
-> high capuse and the drone part of the damage output would be at the same level as it is with a geddon..only with increased range
or completely forcing it into the role of drone sniper:
+x% drone optimal range, x% drone control range, +x% sentry drone damage/hitpoints
- give the ship a massive dronebay (500m3 or greater) as sentries are rather big and deciding on a type not only set your damagetype but also your range
- drone damage boost would have to be high to make up for a lack of turret bonus
problem: whats to stop people from just using it up close as a gankversion of the domi?
-> possible solution would be to restrict the damage and hitpoint bonus to sentry drones
without such restrictions it could be used as a bigger domi but without the damage boost the sentries wouldnt hit for all that impressive amounts of damage. and without the massive dronebay your field of use would be even smaller.
a more important problem with such a highly specialized ship is that it would only be effective at range.
also...that ship would have no typical amarrian bonuses left and propably fit better for gallente.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 00:14:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Lord WarATron
Go the whole hog - 8 launchers.
...
The ship needs no bonuses except for em damage. 8 Launchers with a em damage bonus will actually make a em focused ship worthwhile and scary at the same time.
hmm read your post a few times now and i still cant decide if your being serious or silly there. so just in case you really think that you had a good idea there:
how about you start using the abaddons 8 laser turrets with rof or damage bonus on them to do em damage if you really feel the need for it. as an added bonus you even get some therm thrown into the mix which is a lot less crappy than em damage.
seriously: an amarrian ship with launchers should never get a bonus to em-missiles. one of the main reason to actually use missiles instead of lasers is to be able to do a useful type of damage (aka not EM damage for most pvp situations). as you may have noticed most pvp setups armor tank these days. add the em-damage nerf we got from eanmII+dc tank and you may find out why an em-missile bonus is not really useful at all. and even if that would eventually get fixed you can still use your lasers do deal that type of damage. no need to gimp the missile part of the ship for that purpose.
also: giving it a em-missile damage bonus would require removing one of the other 2 bonuses which also happen to be really useful bonuses compared to that one.
Originally by: Lord WarATron
The point is that the Abaddon will cost far more than the raven to manufacture, and will outclass the raven in doing EM damage by such a degree, that people would actually start using Active Armour EM hardners!.
the difference between the cost of a raven and an abaddon will depend entirely on its insurance cost and propably be rather low.
also: if the ship was to become so powerful with em damage, that people would go and fit active em armor hardeners because of it, it would also be slightly overpowered when it comes to shieldtanks.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 19:46:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Lord WarATron
I am well aware of the EANMII + Damage control issue. I was perhaps the first guy to post about it a few weeks ago.
However, there are only 2 solutions, more damage types for the amarr or actually make EM a serious damagetype from a specialised ship.
to derail the thread some more:
you could also try and reduce the problem created with the armor compensation skills and the eanmII+dc tank by changing those mods. the em problem lies with the armor resists and using those mods, not with shield resists.
if you boost em damage output you also boost it against shields and ships not using/unable to use a eanmII+dc tank. also: if you boost it on a specalist ship the problem doesnt really get solved for all the others.
if you go and give us other damagetypes you just work around the problem instead of fixing it.
anyway: the main point i was trying to make was that you dont need to change the abaddon from: 5% laser rof (or damage) and 5% armor resists to the inquisitors bonuses if you want to deal heavy em-damage. lasers are pretty good at that already and will not be purely em based on top of it.
and back to the original topic:
as has been said before the idea was not to create a better missileboat than the raven but to give the abaddon a possibility to tank and still fire some weapons (other than projectiles).
if you want to deal damage with it just fit 8 lasers and enjoy the bonus to them until you run dry. if you want to tank you'll still be able to deal some damage with 7 bonusless launchers but your damage output wont approach that of the gankfitting. you'll also be able to deal whatever type of damage you prefer which should help make up for some of that lost raw damage.
a very nice concept which would give the abaddon some difference over the geddon (damage bonus instead of rof) and allow for a nice tanksetup without the use of projectiles.
it will still leave the apoc in a rather useless position if it gets released this way but in contrast to the ship proposed by tux it would at least open some new possibilites for amarr.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 22:30:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Talthrus
For all of you saying "Hurr I'd train missiles!" have fun training up an additional 7-10mil SP in missiles to use the ship effectively in PVP at all.
thats actually not true:
you can train up missiles pretty fast compared to other weapons systems. especially if your only going after one shipclass. also: you dont need to max all missile related skills in order to use them effectively.
Originally by: Talthrus
Giving Amarr a missile ship would be a complete slap in the face to Amarr pilots as NO PVP viable Amarr ships use missiles (the Sac is a pile of junk in PVP).
thats actually not true:
t1: inquisitor, arbitrator, omen, prophecy, apoc
t2: maled, vengeance, purifier, heretic, curse, sacri
sure most of them dont use missiles as a primary weapon, but if you really want to use the ships to their fullest potential you will need some missile skills already.
Originally by: Talthrus
I'd love to see a continuation of the recon ship line or a big and nasty version of the zealot.
zealot is t2. the new battleships will be t1.
the t1 version of the zealot would be the omen. a "big and nasty" version of the omen is alreay available with the geddon. also: the abaddon as proposed by tux would be a bigger and better geddon.
|
| |
|