|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 11:19:00 -
[1]
The Abaddon needs a redesign to actually provide a new role for it and make it something other than a better version of the two already existing amarr battleships.
yes i know the 8 turrets + laser rof is quiet powerful but its also nothing new. all it does is provide a new toy for those with enough cash to afford a little increase in power over the gedon/apoc. when it comes to deciding which of the amarr battleships you want to use for pvp it comes down to personal preference rather than what role you would like to fill.
also: this problem was already apparent when the abaddons bonuses were first announced 2+ months ago and we saw the same complaints about it that we see now. as there has been no change to the design and not even some communication with the players as to why it was designed this way we can only conclude that tux (or whoever is in charge of designing it) has decided to ignore the players in this regard. as such i (and propably a few others as well) would really appreciate it if some dev (preferably the one who "designed" the ship) could step forward and explain what this ship is supposed to do and how it is something more than just a better version of the already exsiting amarrian battleships.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 20:49:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Grimpak
vexor, while equal in terms of drone firepower with the arbi, is capable of dishing more firepower (+5% hybrid damage), while the arbi is more of an Ewar platform.
however, the arbi has more armor and meds, wich makes him a better ECM nosdrone ship.
exactly. the vexor is different from the arbi. not better.
in the same way an amarrian drone bs does not need to be better or worse than the domi but different. if you want to go with the arbi as a start it would get a reasonably big dronebay (200m3 or so) a mix of turret and launcher hardpoints and a balanced slotlayout. stick the 10% dmg/hp dronebonus on it and then some other non-weapon bonus. td-optimal range could be one. some tanking or logistics bonus another.
also: i'm pretty certain Forsch knows how an arbi works.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 21:01:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Red Ochre how about YOU change the way you fight?
this is exactly what i would like to be able to do.
unfortunately tux has designed the abaddon to be a bigger and better version of our already existing battleships instead of something new.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 11:07:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Toaster Oven
Proposal: Abbadon ...
7-5-7 175m3 drone bay 6 turret hardpoints
Bonuses: 10% bonus to Large Energy Turret capacitor use per skill level 10% bonus to drone hitpoints and damage per skill level
the dronebay is too small. should be at least 200m3 for 1 wave of each hvy, med and small. preferably 250m3 for 2 waves of heavy drones. domi has 3 waves btw.
also i would prefer it without a bonus to its guns as that would make it pretty close to the domi & vexor design. gallente seem to go for drones + weapons bonus (well not the new bc but the others) while the arbi hulls gain most if not all damage from drones and have a support role instead of damage.
gonna post some abaddon ideas later
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 12:19:00 -
[5]
some ideas on what could make the abaddon different from the already existing amarrian battleships:
1. big arbitrator:
6-5-8 (or 7-5-7) 3 turrets 2 launchers 250m3 dronespace (minimum should be 200m3)
20% optimal range for tracking disruptors 10% drone dmg/hp
bs size version of the arbitrator. instead of td efficency bonus it gets a range bonus like the scorp to be used agaisnt other longrange bs. enough dronespace for 2 waves of heavy drones (domi has 3 waves). like the arbi it deals most of its damage with its drones and has mixed turret/launcher hardpoints. in contrast to the domi it is less focused on wepaons and direct damage and more a support ship (something amarr really needs) like it is already with arbi and vexor.
--
2. current abaddon + tanking with missiles
8-4-7 8 turrets 6 launchers
5% laser damage or rof 5% armor resistance
basicly like it is now but with unbonused launchers so it has a viable weapon for use when tanking. without missile bonuses those will not be anywhere near the ravens capabilities so theres no problem with it becoming a better missile spammer and it doesnt have to resort to matari weapons to tank without capusing weapons. also gives amarr a chance to deal non em/therm damage.
--
3. laser sniper
8-4-7 8 turrets
10% laser optimal range 10& laser cap use reduction (or 5% armor resistanc)
does what the name says. sniping with lasers. less damage than the tux proposed one but better range. 2nd bonus either laser sustainability or resistance like it has now. its still yet another laser boat but at least it will give us something we dont already have with a dedicated sniper instead of just being a better geddon.
--
4. dedicated tanker
6-5-8 4 launchers 150m3 dronespace
5% armor resitance 10% nos/neut ammount or 7.5% repair boost or cap recharge or some other tanking or logistics bonus
deals damage with drones and unbonused launchers while tanking real nice. didnt add any turret slots as lasers arnt all that good for tanking anyway. if targetting members of your own gang was easier and quicker the 2nd bonus could also become a logistics bonus for remote armor reppers for example.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 16:09:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Paladineguru
amar need something that can actually do decent dps
amarr already have decent dps with the geddon. supposedly tux will try and fix the enam problem so laser damage should improve again.
we do _not_ need a better version of the apoc or geddon and we do _not_ need a ship that can chose to be either a better apoc or a better geddon.
see my suggestions some posts above for possible solutions to this problem.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 23:17:00 -
[7]
i would give a bs sized arbitrator the standard +10% drone dmg/hp bonus because like the arbi it would be a support ship with a td bonus (optimal instead of efficiency). so its lasers cant have the -10% cap use bonus as well, making the use of lasers on the ship not that much of a good idea. so i would stick with the arbi design where drones are used as the main (and sometimes only) source of damage. then add a low number (for its class) of turret and launcher hardpoints (without bonuses on them) and at least 1x utility highslot.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 10:19:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Nebrin Abbadon needs to have a cap recharge rate bonus, as it is the 8 lasers are going to drain that faster than a fat kid with a slurpy.
and which bonus is it supposed to give up for that?
here are your options: a) laser rof & cap recharge -> if the cap recharger bonus is good enough to compensate for the lasers what you get here is a more clearly defined bettter-geddon.
b) cap recharge & 5% armor resists -> and here you get a more clearly visible better-apoc.
also: cap recharge default bonus is 5% iirc. at lvl4 thats 20% -> the same as one cpr. fitting just one cpr is not gonna save the ship even if its the faction version with 25%.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 10:32:00 -
[9]
Originally by: HeyLookHere but imo a tracking disruptor bonus doesnt make much difference - jammers are still better even after the patch
tracking disruptors actually work quiet well and if you give it a 20% td optimal range bonus (like the scorp gets for ecm) you can reach up to snipe range and reduce the optimal of those ships. they will then have to either come closer or try and jam/td you.
assuming you have 5 medslots you will propably need 2x sensorboosters to lock those longrange enemies. that would leave 3 slots for td allowing you to reduce the optimal of 3 ships sitting far off or stack them on one ship for a greater reduce at closer range. on short range the effect would be a good as an the td from an arbi but seeing how battleships dont start out with the best tracking anyway i think it would still be good enough. sounds like a pretty decent ewar-bonus to me tbh.
of course if you fit an eccm or a speedmod yourself this could be only 2x td max.
regarding the drone bonus: an arbi relies on drones for the majority of its damage. a bs sized version should too to keep it seperate from the domi.
also: a nos/neut+ lasers ship could also be nice as it would also provide something new for us.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 12:37:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Forsch
I don't know.. a drone hp bonus doesn't sound too good to me. Would only help if the drones actually get shot at, which doesn't happen that often. Otherwise normal drones (without bonus) would be just as good. Usually drone boats have a drone hp + dmg bonus.
pretty much spot on. i've been using the arbi a alot and i think only 1 time someone tried to shoot at the drones. ah and there was one time over a year ago where i lost drones to a smartbomb.
Originally by: Forsch
But as I said, if that comes too close to the Dominix, why not give it: Bonus1 10% tracking disruptor optimal Bonus2 5% armor resist per level
A big drone bay but without bonus, kinda like the Typhoon. While being good at tanking and EW (tracking disruption in fleet fights).
this would be nice as well. however i think it needs 20% range like the scorp to actually reach long range battleships. would also need a fair share of launchers to compensate for the lack of laser cap use reduction.
|
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 16:37:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade Lets not go down the whole; Cruiser = bigger Frigate, Battleship = bigger Cruiser road. It's boring and lacking originality.
because just makeing a better version of already existing battleships needs so much more originality.
at least for amarr our frig and crusier lineup offers some versatility in the form of drone, ewar and missile ships besides the standard amarr lasers and tank. when you get the the battleship level we already have 2 ships specializing in lasers and armor tanks. we do not need a 3rd.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 02:56:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade You're missing my point. If you just make a Battleship-sized version of the EW cruiser, it makes the cruiser obsolete (more slots, more HP's e.t.c). There needs to remain role differences between the ship classes to ensure diversity.
maybe you should have read my big arbi suggestion then before you decided to comment. in actual fact it does not have the same ewar bonus that the arbitrator has and fills a different role.
the arbi cruiser gets 5% bonus to Tracking Disruptor effectiveness per skill level. it is very good for mid to close range use against turret ships. greatly reduces optimal and tracking. stick two of them on another cruiser in shortrange combat and try to gain some transversal and it will have trouble hitting you. can not reach snipers.
the bs sized arbi would instead get 20% optimal range for tds which would work like the scorpions 20% ecm optimal range and allow you to use the module against long range ships. the effect isnt as good as it is on the arbi but reaches further out. at long range you will mostly benefit from the reduced optimal range. forcing the enemy to change ammo or get in closer for good hits. at closer ranges the tracking reduction will also be of some help though not as good as on the arbi.
also: a bigger class ship with the same role does not make small class ships obsolete. if that was the case the following ships would be useless: amarr: omen, maller caldari: caracal, moa, blackbird gallente: thorax, vexor minmatar: rupture, stabber (just looking at t1 crusiers here but there are a lot more that fit your idea of obsolete)
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 11:13:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 29/10/2006 11:13:28
Originally by: Gabriel Karade Well, perhaps I'm just being dogmatic but as I see it; a Battleship is a ship of the line, lots of firepower, lots of HP's/tank, something to be supported by other ships and not the other way around.
this works fine if your caldari. others cant reach long range battleships with their ewar/support cruisers.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 19:17:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Saboro Kai Fix the cap problem with the Abaddon and it should be fine. The Amarr race doesnt need "another" mining ship,thats what a giant Arbi will end up being .
cant really talk about its mining capabilities as i havent mined for a few years. usually i use my arbi for pvp where it easily outclasses our other t1 crusiers.
however i'm not so sure why you think a big arbi bs with 3 turrets and 5 drones without a mining bonus would make a good mining ship considering that the tux-abaddon has 8 turrets and can also field 5 mining drones.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 22:47:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Saboro Kai And there's part of the problem . These new ships arent meant only for PVP or 0.0 space warfare. They are meant for everyone to use in any system sec type, missions , ratting, plex & war . You had info on these ships months back, now you want a change
1. all the complaints brought up now were alreay brought up and apparently ignored when tux first announced the abaddon bonuses. so far he has not even seen fit to share his thoughts on why amarr does not deserve a ship filling a role different from those we already have on the bs level.
2. its a combat ship. of course its designed for pvp. it should not be designed just with fleet battles in mind and thats one of the reasons why i'm not happy with it. we already have 2 other battleships which perform fine at these. and the only thing the abaddon with its current bonuses really shines at will be long range fleet battles.
3. if you want to run missions/complexes with an amarrian bs you will most likely be better off with the apoc or geddon because you need sustainable dmg+tank for this kind of combat. with the abaddon that will only work well with projectile weapons fitted. i hear its a better miner though.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 23:32:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Grimpak
so yes, you could say that, I see Ewar not that important in the amarr/gallente/minmatar racial concepts, wich base themselves in tankability for amarr, damage for gallente and speed for minmatar, with secondary for "lots of turrets" approach for amarr, remote firepower (droning) for gallente, and firepower flexibility for minmatar.
for amarr the problems with this concept are: 1. once kali 1 gets released we will no longer have turret superiority 2. our tankers use cap heavy weapons which counters their own tankpower 3. tanking is not all that nice for pvp (you cant concentrate tanks for example)
Originally by: Grimpak
Bar the gallente tier3, which is intended to be the ultimate blaster boat, CCP wants to create solid fleet ships in an, already saturated of range capable fleet ships (specially the amarr, since both geddon and apoc can go fleet).
well thats one of the things that make me wonder how they decided what those ships would become.
caldari: easy enough they lacked the turretboat...sniperbonus like the smaller caldari gunboats
gallente: they already have the mega for fleet use so they get a specialized blasterboat (even though that may have its own issues).
minmatar: a specialized fleetship with 8 turrets and enough grid for artillery instead of their usuall split setups. the tanking bonus isnt all that great for fleet battles and everyone knows it (including tux) since it was first announced. still no change there.
amarr: we have 2 good fleetships to start with which already makes us stick out in this department. for some reason its decided we need to get another one. to make it clear that its a fleetship it gets rof+armor resist as bonuses, slotlayout and dronespace are copied over from the apoc to save some time, total powergrid is copied from the maelstrom design because that makes no sense at all. this leaves us with a ship with better overal stats than both apoc and geddon while outperforming them only as a longrange fleetship with some plates as a passive tank. to make sure people dont use it for other situations it doesnt get the laser capuse reduction. not a problem for sniperfleets. you propably wont sit there and fire for ages anyway and the passive tank may buy you some more time to get out should you attract fire. also it would be evne more obvious that its jsut a better verison of already existing ships if they had given it the laser capuse bonuse instead of the armor one.
Originally by: Grimpak
So TBH, while the inclusion of a tier3 battleship is welcome to increase the number of options in the battleship range, it will be impossible to fit such ships in this class, bar the caldari, unless they change the pre-existing battleships, or they change the approach they want to do in the tier3. To be quite honest, I prefer the first option, and I believe aswell that CCP will choose first, if they intend to bring out tier3's with little(advised) to no changes(NOT advised).
well if they really wanted (as in planned to do this) to create fleet ships for tier3 i wonder why they didnt follow through with the gallente one. if there were some plans to change the apoc and/or geddon to prevent us from having 3 almost identical ships that would be fine with me. in fact i would prefer it if our top tier battleship was a laser spewing fleetship and we got a support or otherwise specialist ship for tier 1 or 2.
however there have be no such announcements and if they had designed the abaddon with this in mind then there would really be no reason not to explain it to the players. especially after being asked about it for over 2 months now.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 12:11:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Zarch AlDain
Amarr
1: Drone boat.
Follow on from the Abaddon and give it a nice drone bay. Perhaps to make it a bit different from the Dominix give it 8 turret hard points, a bonus to turret energy use, a tanking bonus and no drone bonus - but a 200+m3 drone bay.
8 turrets with laser cap use reduction bonus and a tanking bonus is what the apoc has now. so this would just be an apoc with a biger dronebay. a real droneboat should have a bonus to drones so it can actually use them better than a normal bs.
Originally by: Zarch AlDain
2: Nos boat.
Amarr are good at high energy stuff, so lets give them a bonus for NOS. 20% per level bonus to Nos range (and maybe effectiveness) will let it nos out to 50km, combine with a 5% rate of fire on turrets and you have a very interesting and different ship that sucks energy out of you and then fires it back in laser form.
50km nos range would be too much for a bs i think. at least before nos gets nerfed. depending on how that works out a large nos-range bonus could be ok again.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 21:27:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Attak Why not just change the Abbadon RoF bonus to damage? It'll still use all it's cap trying to fire those 8 tach's, but it won't be quite so horribly cap gimped. It would still force people to choose between a high damage fleet ship and an uber tank, which imo is good.
it would be somewhat better but overall still pretty useless. abaddon would still be nothing new with that change. it would still be a better version of our already existing bs only now using a bit less cap and having a better alpha.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.10.31 12:29:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 31/10/2006 12:29:56
Originally by: Nemain
It would be easy to make it less on the drone front than the Domi though, just in the same way the Arb is to the Vexor.
arbi is not a lesser droneboat compared to the vexor. their drone capabilities are exactly the same. a bs sized droneboat should have at leat 200-250m3 dronespace to have some spares. 250 would give you 2 waves of heavies while the domi still has 3 waves.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.01 00:41:00 -
[20]
from looks alone apoc or abaddon would both work well as droneboats :)
it would even fit better if our tier 1 or 2 bs was turned into a support ship instead of the tier 3 one. i've seen this suggested a few times now and agree with it:
tier 1: big arbi based on apoc hull tier 2: geddon laser rof boat (slightly better stats maybe as a tier 2 ship) tier 3: abaddon tanker
just giving the abaddon our typical tanking bonuses (5% resists and -10% laser cap use) may not be that great an idea though as lasers are still not very good for tanking even with the cap use reduction bonus. people would still fit projectiles on it to tank it and it wouldnt really be able to stand up to the other tier 3 bs (in particular the rokh and maelstrom here) without a real bonus to lasers.
instead i would suggest staying closer to the tux-fleet-abaddon design by giving it 5% resits as the first bonus and then either 10% optimal range or 5% damage. it should not get rof as thats already done by the geddon. then you can add some unbonused launcher hardpoints for tanking or just accept that people will continue to use projectiles on it when they want to tank it.
|
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.01 01:00:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Logan Xerxes
And here's some food for thought, Minnies have the best Artillery boat! Gallente have the best Drone boat! Amarr have the best.... um, yeah, I'll get back to you on that.... Though my point is that each race has it's strengths and weaknesses. The Caldari happen to have the Focus of Long-Range Railguns, Short-Mid range missiles, ECM and shield tanking.
and this is exactly the problem. caldari get to chose between 1. the best long range sniping bs, 2. the only pure missile bs and 3. the only ewar bs. if you count this you get 3 completely different designs, each featuring the best ship for its purpose and each a caldari ship. the other races can come up with 1 or 2 categories at best.
also you can see the reason why tier 3 bs are getting introduced in the first place: caldari were lacking a fleetship with instant damage capability. the 3 other races already had this covered in a more or less good manner. and while no one can really say that the caldari dont deserve to get their rail-bs people are wondering why caldari are the only race getting a bs that fills new role.
for amarr the role most obviously missing is a ewar-support bs. hence you get people calling for this particular type of ship instead of yet another fleetship.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.01 03:01:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 01/11/2006 03:04:36
Originally by: JForce
Originally by: Udyr Vulpayne for amarr the role most obviously missing is a ewar-support bs. hence you get people calling for this particular type of ship instead of yet another fleetship.
But none of the Minmatar or Gallente BS have a strong ewar-support bs either. So it's all relative.
yes and i'm not disputing that. just saying that for amarr a support ship like the arbi is what is obviously missing if you look at our cruisers or frigs. for gallente and minmatar its not that easy. especially for me because i dont fly that stuff :)
gallente has a drone, a blaster and a rail-bs (last 2 may be a bit to close atm). not sure which one should also get a sensor dampener bonus. i guess it could work nicely with the hyperion to improve its chances to get into range without exploding halfway there. but i'm not too sure if it couldnt use that bonus slot for something more important for blasters maybe. would also work on the domi. however drones + ewar has been amarrian so far and the gallentean droneboats seem to go for more offensive power really. another option may be the gallente tier 2 bc with some dampener range bonus maybe as that one doesnt follow the gank design of the others.
minmatar is even more difficult because their racial ewar isnt all that well liked and their ships arent as specialized. the typhoon seems to be a rather nice platform now and i wouldnt want to change a bonus there. the tempest could in theory get an ewar bonus but that would require a complete rethinking of what the ship is supposed to do. the maelstrom as proposed seems to be aimed at providing a main fleet ship with a shieldtank. giving their main fleet battleship an ewar bonus seems just wrong because it would mix firepower and ewar. also a shieldtank with ewar needs more medslots. so i'm not really sure if they want or need an ewar support ship. maybe with some new form of ewar.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.01 23:28:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 01/11/2006 23:30:36
Originally by: Grimpak
one should ask however:
is the Ewar BS a role that we are forcibly creating for gallente/amarr/minmatar, attempting to reach some sort of uniformity between all 4 races, or is this one of the major flaws of the 4-year old, ill-designed racial concepts that CCP apparently wants to follow?
well theres only so much you can do with just lasers and tank. at the bs level we have 2 ships that are already pretty close to each other because of this limitation. it could work if amarr really were better at tanking then eveyone else and if lasers really were the most devastating weapon around. if that was the case it would make sense to restrict us to just those two fields and have us suffer the consequenzes of it. thats not the case however and so we're left with specializing in mediocrity.
also its not like i suggest to create those racial ewar forms from scratch. the amarr and gallente already have their ewar crusiers/recon crusier which seem to work wuiet nicely with their fleets.
adding a bs sized arbi and giving one of the gallente bs a dampener range bonus isnt going to push the races towards uniformity. ecm, td and sd are still 3 very different forms of ewar with very different applications. what it will do is break the caldari monopoly on fleet/long range ewar. and theres really no reason why long range ewar should be resticted to caldari only. especially now that they get their fleet bs and efficent ecm gets moved to caldari only. so if anything this would push the 3 races involved closer to balance, not uniformity.
edit: ah yes...the minnies are left out but thats mostly because they will soon be reclaimed anyway and work in our mines. so they wont have any time to fly around in spaceships no matter how crappy those are.
in case we dont reclaim them soon they may need to get their own form of ewar, if they want it.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.02 13:37:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Grimpak
by uniformity I meant that instead having a more distinguishing characteristic, all races have some sort of Ewar.
ewar is really to powerful/important to be left to just one race.
also: like i wrote above the other races would need to be significantly more powerful at their supposed speciality to make up for it. i believe that would be far harder to balance.
Originally by: Forsch
Originally by: Nemain Anyway it's all a moot point I supose as the current design looks here to stay.
Well.. why this forum section here then if not for feedback? Hopefully things are in a state that they can still be changed from.
well so far there hasnt even been a single dev response to the issues raised here so i'm not too hopeful. i would suspect that they dont want to bring about any real changes to the new ships now but have realized that they have failed with designing some of them. if they come in here now they will pretty much have to admit to that.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.02 14:01:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 02/11/2006 14:00:46
Originally by: Jim McGregor So basicly when they design a third battleship, they cant really make it too different. I think thats why we are in the situation we have here.
you mean they cant make it too different for other races than caldari?
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.02 15:30:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Ithildin
It is. The "bigger Moa" has a solid place in the Caldari design philosophy, it follows a clear progression, and has been a critical missing design since summer 2003 (when CCP moved electronic warfare from high slot to mid slot) and the changes to Raven and Scorpion moving them away from railgun usage.
no its not. the bigger moa has exactly the same reason to exist that a big arbi has. once upon a time there were caldari rail bs. now there are none. claiming that merlin->moa->rokh is a clear progression and not admitting the same for crucifier->arbitrator->big arbi is simply wrong.
in the same way i could claim that amarr exclusively needs to get the stacking penalty for damagemods removed because once upon a time they could fill all their lowslots with heatsinks for uber gankage. clearly this is a part of our race identity that has been critically missing since they fixed it.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.02 17:22:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Yes. As I see it, half of the Caldari ships are hybrid ships, so I wouldnt say its very different to what they already have. Amarr has 1 drone ship in the Arbi, but most of their ships is just lasers. Wouldnt you agree?
1. its not really half of them its one line out of 3 2. the arbi is not just drones. its drones + td + mixed hardpoints + blanaced slotlayout thats setting it apart form the other amarrian ships. 3. our top tier ships are traditionally our tankers. so that would be projectile weapons. not lasers
Originally by: Jim McGregor
In the end, I dont think we want a Eve where every race can do it all. They should be focused on their thing, and the only reason you guys want a drone ship is because you are tired of lasers (or think their damage suck). Good news is that its very, very easy to fly the gallente drone ships since you dont need racial t2 gun skills.
i dont want a domi or scorp for amarr but i also dont want to have to learn to fly 2 races ships just to be able to fill more than 1 role. what i do want is a good support/ewar ship for amarr instead of yet another feeltship.
the amarr bs lineup after kali would be like this if you copied it to caldari: tier1: missile rof tier2: shield resist bonus tier3: missile rof+shieldresist bonus (cant fit launchers and a shieldtank at the same time though)
you say you dont want all races to be equal. how about making them balanced instead. giving amarr a support/ewar bs would not turn us into caldari or gallente copies. it would help balance our capabilities. i'm not suggesting giving us an ecm bonus but instead a bonus to our own and very different form of ewar for example.
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Edit: Udyr, I read your post, but you forget about Ferox and probably lots of other ships that are designed for hybrids. Caldari are missiles and hybrids. You cant say that amarr is lasers and drones.
ewar ships dont get a bc apparently.
caldari: - ewar: griffin, blackbird, scrop -> 3 total - missiles: kestrel, caracal, drake, raven -> 4 total - rails: merlin, moa, ferox, rokh -> 4 total
so caldari have 3 distinct lines from frig up to bs. on each level they get to chose between 3 different types of ships depending on the role they wish to fill.
amarr: - ewar: crucifier, arbitrator -> 2 total - laser gank: executioner, omen, harbinger, geddon -> 4 total - laser tank: punisher, maller, prophecy, apoc -> 4 total
amarr get 2 complete lines but someone forgot to make at least these 2 really different from each other. in theory they fill almost identical roles as it is already. well unless you really want to use our top tier ships in what they do best (tanking). in this case go ahead and fit projectiles.
now i left the abaddaon out there so that you can try and find the lineup thats missing a bs for yourself.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.02 20:14:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Grimpak
unfortunately, boring inflexibility IS the amarr concept.
this may be true according to the backstory but really doesnt translate well into any kind of balance.
if this truely was the case (and according to tux the devs themself have no idea what amarr is supposed to be) amarr has a badly broken core concept. like i wrote above: if our concept was inflexible lasers+tank ships both these fields would have to be significantly better than what the more flexible races can offer.
if we are supposed to rely only on lasers as our weapons of choice lasers will need to be a lot more powerful than each other weapon type. and when it comes to the 2nd part of the supposed amarrian core concept this idea fails completely as tanking with lasers is simply not a good idea. to make this viable lasers would need to be reduced to 0 cap or amarrian ships need to get godly cap recharge rates. as a side effect this idea would reduce all amarrian combat to 2 simple strategies: either gank the enemy (most likely pvp strategy then) or sit it out and slowly nible them to death. doesnt sound terribly exciting and from what i gathered ccp is trying to move away from quick ganks and towards longer and more sophisticated combat. as such limiting a race to gankmobiles doesnt sound like a terribly clever idea. in fact i seem to remember that we already had amarrian gankmobiles some time ago and the devs and non-amarrian players were no to thrilled with it.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.02 21:13:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Ithildin
As was said, the Amarrian fluff (backstory) actually has them as unadaptive and unflexible - very much like how most religious groups are by the very nature of their being.
the backstory also describes us as easily outnumbering the other empires, our ships having nigh unbreakable armor (unless you happen to have a jovian motherhsip handy) and gives us devastating lasers as our weapon of choice.
incidentially the gallente need to go and find some new bonuses for their carrier + mothship because the caldari are actually the fighter specialists. dont worry though gallente get to be the ewar masters in return. minmatar will need to get nerfed across the board unfortunately as they arent really up to date with their ships (at least all the original ones).
i'm sure i could go and find a few more of these.
not all is lost though: while browsing the ships i found that at least the prophecy already has a fitting description: "it was determined after mixed fleet engagements with early prototypes that the Prophecy would be more effective as a slightly smaller, more mobile form of artillery support."
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.02 21:20:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 02/11/2006 21:24:38 Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 02/11/2006 21:23:50
Originally by: Grimpak
while each race fleet should be as consistent to their core concept as possible, it is also that a bit of oddball-ness here and there should be available, altho it should not be considered as maintray.
i think we agree there and i already wrote earlier that i would prefer a bs sized arbi at tier 1 or 2. now if tux were to come in and tell us that he plans to change our tier1 or 2 bs to make sure we're not limited to laser+armor, laser+armor and laser+armor that would be great and i could be happy with a gimpy abaddon. as he doesnt seem to have any plans to change the lower tier bs though i will continue to point out that this new battleship is most definately not what we need.
Originally by: Grimpak
I don't consider the arbitrator as mainstray of the amarr fleet...
as far as t1 crusiers go it is _the_ amarrian combat vessel. unless you know exactly what you're up against and can prepare yourself the arbitrator will be your best bet when it comes to amarrian crusiers.
edit: to clarify...the reason for that lie with the crappyness of the omen when it comes to fittings and the extreme inflexibility of the maller. with the geddon and apoc at bs level it wouldnt be as bad.
|
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.02 21:23:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Grimpak
while I agree that the description might be misleading, my belief is that "artillery" is meant as "long range fire support", in the prophecy description.
the description actually points in a very valid direction for a pvp fitting for our tankers.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.02 21:49:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Grimpak
I would like to see the prophecy as a long range firepower platform with sturdy armor (swapping one of those bonuses for a range bonus + adding more grid)
well the prophecy like all our tankers suffers from getting a laser cap use bonus. without it it couldnt tank with lasers at all. with the bonus it tanks mediocre while using lasers or real nice with projectiles. as it lacks a good bonus to lasers theres not much reason to prefer them over projectiles. i'm not really sure if there is a viable way to make tanking with lasers a good idea.
as you can see the caldari tankers dont need the capuse bonus so they have a free slot for optimal range which gives them a real incentive to use rails. for them the capuse isnt so bad as they can also fit some launchers for tanking or on some ships try to get a passive tank. and of course staying further away from your enemy helps decreasing damage as well.
one possible idea for our tankers would really be to make them more like the nyxus-abaddon: 1 good bonus to lasers (dmg or range for example) and the 5% armor resist bonus. then add some unbonused launchers for tanking. the ships would have good damage or range in laser mode OR they could tank good with not so great damage in tankmode. of course that also works without launchers and fitting projectiles but that jsut seems more wrong every time you try it.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.03 00:50:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Grimpak
+5% dmg to lasers +5% armor resists
change slot layout to 8/4/7 with 4 launchers and 8 turrets.
Link to the original thread about it from nyxus. still has the 20 slots from the devblog of the time but the general idea remains valid.
i'm thinking this could be one way to impove our entire tanking line from sucky to nice.
+5% armor resist +5% laser damage high number of turet slots for its class medium number of launcher slots for its class small dronebay for its class
- all would work as gank or tank like the tux-abaddon. - as the bonus is +dmg the ships are actually different to the gank line with the rof bonus. - no need to fit matari weapons for a good tank. - our top tier ships would get fitted with correct sized lasers more often
example maller: 5% armor resists 5% laser damage slots: 6/3/6 5 turrets 3 launchers 10m3 dronespace tweak other stats as needed
-> there would finally be a good reason to fit cruiser sized lasers on the maller for damage -> good tank but less damage with launchers
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.03 10:38:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 03/11/2006 10:41:29 Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 03/11/2006 10:38:37
Originally by: Nifel To all those who want a 5% damage bonus for the Abaddon:
You're encroaching on Minmatar territory. You'll be getting nearly the same alpha strike as the Maelstorm (2% difference) and out-alpha strike the Tempest. And on top of that still have vastly better DPS.
so? you dont see me complaining that the other 3 races are encroaching on amarrian 8 turret bs territory.
minmatar ships would still have the best alpha and the abaddon would actually do less dps with this bonus instead of laser rof. it would be at least slightly different from the geddon and not run out of cap as fast.
also: tux wants to up artillery damage by 5% to improve minmatar alpha for some reason.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.03 11:42:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Yeah, maybe the minor fact that some ships will have perhaps double the current hitpoints has something to do with it.
i'm quiet aware of that. notice how tux also forgot to boost the cap of amarrian laser and gallente blaster boats and increase the aggrotimer for jumping/docking. then theres the issue of boosting already nice passive plate/extender setups over active tanks.
the whole hp boost seems to be poorly thought through. as could be seen on the initial reaction on the forums this does affect a bit more than just fight duration. a lot of rather obvious issues seem to get ignored there. i'm pretty confident that this could have worked a lot better had he started a thread on this a month ago and simply asked what people think of it and how it will affect the game.
regarding the reduced usefulness of alpha: i suspect that your right and artillery will become closer to rails/beams.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.03 15:01:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Nyxus
+5% armor resists per level +10% armor hp per level
8/6 turrets/missile hardpoints.
Great fleet platform (although severe cap problems), good survivability because the tank is ACTUALLY better, and low dps no-cap use weapons for close range tanking.
wouldnt have any cap problems in fleet ops at all. without a bonus to laser damage/rof/optimal and no laser cap use bonus theres no reason to prefer lasers over 1400mm artillery.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 11:48:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Parallax Error So for Amarr,
Tier 1 = Abaddon (In the mold of a bigger Arbitrator) Tier 2 = Armageddon (Omen style) Tier 3 = Apocalypse (Maller equivalent, change the cap amount bonus to armour resists)
as has been said before this seems pretty much perfect for amarrian battelships. now we just need to find out why tux doesnt like it/hasnt managed to come up with this pretty obvious idea himself.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 11:53:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Ryo Jang
i dont particularly care about it being just another laser bs. thats what they are for! if you want EW, thats what your cruiser wingmates are for! and that still doesnt stop you from fitting any form of EW and still using it fairly effectively, for instance, i quite regularly use a target painter on my geddon.
so you think our tier 3 bs should really just be a copy of the geddon/apoc with slightly better stats then?
also: our ew-cruiser (thats the arbi) lacks the range bonus of the caldari versions. you wont be able to use it effectively against longrange battleships. same goes for any other non-caldari-ewar ship.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 21:06:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Ithildin
Amarr. ti1 - Drone. Apoc hull, arbitrator design ti2 - Gank. Armageddon hull, Armageddon design ti3 - Tank. Abaddon hull, Apoc/Abaddon fusion
sounds pretty good to me. the tankers need to get a real overhaul to adress the tanking with lasers problems though.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.08 00:07:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Ithildin
Originally by: Udyr Vulpayne
the tankers need to get a real overhaul to adress the tanking with lasers problems though.
What I was thinking of was something along the lines of: +5% resistances and +10% capacitor capacity.
will have the same problem as our other tankers, crappy damage and ok tank with lasers or crappy damage and a godly tank with projectiles.
without a real bonus (no cap use reduction does not count) to lasers there is really not much reason to fit them (especially on a tanker). to adress this without changing lasers i would suggest to turn all our tankers into sth like this:
tier 3 bs (scale down for proph and maller..punisher needs something else due to too few slots on frigs) 8/4/7 8 turrets/6 launchers 75 m3 dronespace
5% armor resists 5% laser damage OR 10% laser optimal
real good natural cap+recharge loads of armor, weak shields (really weaker than armor not just slightly less)
this would give a reason to fit lasers in gank- or snipe-mode while still providing a way to tank without using projectiles.
Originally by: Ithildin
Here's a draft/suggestion: High: 7 (5 turrets, 4 launchers) Mid: 5 Low: 6 CPU: 600 Powergrid: 12,000 Drone bay: 300m¦ +10% drone damage and hit points, +5% tracking disruptor efficiency
for a tier 1 arbi-bs: - arbi has even distribution of slows so with 18 total that would be 6-6-6...however: - an amarrian bs should have at least 7 lowslots (imho) - no more than 5 medslots - so maybe 6/5/7 or 5/5/8 - mixed hardpoints like the arbi - 5% td effectiveness changed into 20% td optimal to actually give it different targets than the arbi has and let it reach long range bs. the effect would be less powerful but usable on different targets. the actual range bonus could maybe be a bit lower number with the reduced sniping ranges in kali. 20% is the ewar range bonus of caldari ships and td and ecm range is somewhat similar so you could reach long range ships with this.
|
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.09 02:44:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Ryo Jang
Originally by: Udyr Vulpayne
so you think our tier 3 bs should really just be a copy of the geddon/apoc with slightly better stats then?
thats exactly what im saying. we do damage. we tank. thats what we do. want ew? go gallente or caldari. and slightly better stats? it has 12,000 armor! for christs sake.
a sound theory. i have a few questions though:
- what if our predictable damage wasnt all that superior compared to the other races to make up for the lack of versatility?? - what if our tanks werent all that much better than those of other races to make up for the lack of versatility? - what if not being completely predictable is slightly better for pvp compared to increased stats?
- what if i dont want to use gallente or caldari ew but amarrian ew instead? - if a higher tier should result in slightly better stats why not turn the rokh into a raven with more shield then? - even better why dont we take 1 ship in each class and race and change all the others to become copies with different stats according to their tier? for crusiers we could have 4 mallers with steadily increasig armor hitpoints for example. the caldari get 4 caracals only the get more shield instead of armor.
also: how much armor do the geddon and apoc have on the testserver?
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.09 11:41:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 09/11/2006 11:41:50
Originally by: Ryo Jang
Originally by: Udyr Vulpayne - what if our predictable damage wasnt all that superior compared to the other races to make up for the lack of versatility??
well imo, it should be, to make up for it
Originally by: Udyr Vulpayne - what if our tanks werent all that much better than those of other races to make up for the lack of versatility?
see above ...
so you're basicly agreeing that amarrians dont get the advantages with lasers and armor tanks they should have to make up for their lack of versatility.
and yet you still seem to think that adding yet another ship doing exactly the same things slightly better is a good idea?
Originally by: Ryo Jang
Originally by: Udyr Vulpayne - what if not being completely predictable is slightly better for pvp compared to increased stats?
of course. but youre talking about bonuses here, and they just dont matter when it comes to fitting your ship how YOU want it. sure, if you have weapons bonuses, then thats a good thing to invest in.
sure you can try and fit an ecm-abaddon or a full-nos apoc. this is sure to work well maybe once or twice if at all. just in the same way as you may be able to kill a greedy pirate with a correctly fitted bestower once in a while. for all other times your stuck with a ship that is very easy to predict and counter. actually not 1 but 3 ships that are very easy to predict and counter.
also...gimping your damage output to make your ships work in the first place doesnt seem like a good idea really. that some of our ships do actually work better with minmatar weapons should be some kind of a hint that things are not good the way they are.
Originally by: Ryo Jang
but just because you dont have 5% more ecm strength per level, doesnt mean you cant have an ecm. you can do anything you like on any ship.
not really true. there simply is no way to reach long range targets with amarrian ewar. for this you need a range bonus. it simply wont work without one and theres no ship in the game that has one.
also note: ecm is not the amarrian ew type. and just sticking an ecm mod on a ship not designed for them will not have the desired effect with kali anyway.
Originally by: Ryo Jang
caldari are innovators, amarr are traditional. its in the storyline.
yes yes i'm quiet aware of the backstory. unfortunately amarrian ship in the game only have the disadvantages described there but dont get to enjoy the devastating lasers and near unbreakable armor they should have.
if you really want to have it this way then amarrians should get really powerful lasers and the best armortanks around (not in the same ship propably). instead we seem to specialize in sub-standard weapons and mediocre tanks.
if things would work according to the storyline the maller or omen would be our most powerful t1 crusiers. go ahead and ask your new alliance which not so typical amarrian crusier it is instead.
Originally by: Ryo Jang
Originally by: Udyr Vulpayne - even better why dont we take 1 ship in each class and race and change all the others to become copies with different stats according to their tier?...
now youre just being silly.
at least on the bs level we have already achieved this on the testserver.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.09 20:58:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Virizium
The abbadon is fine the way it is. What most people forget is it is suppose to be a tanker OR a ganker, and NOT BOTH!
Throw cap recharge rigs on it with a couple rechargers and or cpr's and you wont have a problem with cap at all. I recently tanked 2 hurricanes for 5 minutes before they decided to disengage and try and take out an easier target.
how is adding cap rechargers, cpr's or cap rigs going to change this ship from an unneeded and poorly designed fleet bs into the new role it should be filling?
also: you didnt manage to take out at least one of those 2 battlecrusiers during 5 minutes? in fact you didnt even manage to hold them in place. what exactly was the fuction this setup was suppsoed to perform? other than sit there maybe?
in addition to this: please feel free to provide an abaddon setup using lasers that tanks as good as an abaddon setup with projectiles on it. you say that amarrians cant have a missile boats because missiles are not part of our racial identity. are projectiles part of it?
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.09 21:07:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Captain Raynor
Every time CCP gives the Amarr a missile ship (read: Sacrilege) they whined it up so hard about how it was unfair they had to train up missile skills to use it that Tux caved in and turned it into a crappy Zealot clone.
or maybe the old sacrilege just wasnt all that good to begin with.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.13 22:37:00 -
[45]
people should stop trying to discuss with obvious trolls. its hard enough for the devs to ignore the 21 pages we have here already without us cluttering it up more.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 17:54:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Karash Amerius How about making the Abaddon go in the same vien as the Augoror?
Bonus: 10% Cap Reduction Large Energy Turret / 10% Armor HP per level.
I think that would be a good "role"
would be a nice tank with autocannons. much like the apoc only with a better 2nd bonus.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 23:56:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Ath Amon i agree, as said in other posts imho the problem here is mostly about weapons and not for ship themselves
well looking at the abaddon as it is now you cant really do much other than completely scrap the design and go back to square one. the whole idea behind it is wrong and proven not to work.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 01:54:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Miri Tirzan
That is why I suggest changing the bonus to 20% cap recharge rate bonus per ship skill level and changing controlled burst to 10% per level.
The first fixes the Abaddon and the second helps all cap using turrets in the game.
which abaddon bonus do you want to replace with that 20% cap recharge rate?
replace the 5% resists and you get a better geddon. replace the 5% rof and you get a better apoc.
not really going to change the fact that this ship is a failed design and most definately not a much needed addition to the amarrian fleet. it does not fill a new role the way it is now and changing it to become clsoer the our old battleships wont fix that.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 12:57:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Mush Room
Load of bull. Other races have so many more lowslots that they can easily equip backup arrays, thus nullifying ECM.
hahahahahhahahahahaha. no seriosuly. go and try it some time.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 18:23:00 -
[50]
Originally by: PSEWAR
Originally by: Zixxa Abaddon, Tempest, Mega, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Apoc, Geddon will beat Rokh 24/7 in fleet.
If you are so sure about this you should accept my offer.
i think we have a very good opportunity here to make both zixxa and us amarrians happy.
now we just need to convince tux that this would be way better for caldari: rokh: 5% hybrid rof, 5% shield resists abaddon: 10% laser optimal, 5% armor resists
i say we let zixxa work on convincing tux and we'll take it upon ourself to try and get amarrian pilots to accept this horrible optimal bonus.
|
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 18:43:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Mareia -Rumor- PS Tux said he was thinking about changing abaddons bonus to damage rather than ROF. Make him do this ASAP. -Rumor-
If this is true, I will be very happy with the abbadon and a very happy amarr BS skill V Pilot
just changing the bonus from rof to damage would be a start but wouldnt really fix the deeper problems this ship has. it will still be a 3rd amarrian fleet bs. maybe it will be better than the other 2 but it will not add anything new unless some real changes are made.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.19 15:13:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Kaylana Syi
Abaddon -------- - 2 turret slot + 4 missile slots + 1 mid 600 TF 20000 MW 175 m3 Drone bay
10% turret disruptor optimal range per level 5% armor resistance per level
- 10% optimal is too weak to actually reach sniper range. the caldari ew range bonuses are always for 20% per level and ecm already starts out with a better optimal range (well at least the racials do).
- if you dont give a real bonus to lasers add some more launcher hardpoints. otherwise we just end up with another projectile boat.
- why should amarrian and gallente tier3 bs get one more slot than minmatar and caldari?
other than that is a lot better than what tux came up with. i would still prefer a big arbitrator with 20% td optimal range and 10% drone dmg/hp.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 16:11:00 -
[53]
Originally by: voidvim The Abaddon new bonus are
Special Ability: 5% bonus to Large Energy Turret damage and 5% armor resistance per level.
It's far more cap stable now.
so it stays a design failure then. nothing more than a better version of the already existing amarrian battleships.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.21 23:39:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Ms Rousseau
I think the devs should talk to some RPers to find out what is best to do since they would have the best idea of their racial identity. Maybe not getting input from RPers is what got the 4 races into this schizo mess-- all they've done is listen to non-RPings PvPers who seem to want the races to have all the same ships but with different skins.
hehe...i know a few rpers that would prefer the abaddon to be an untypical amarrian bs. not because we want all races to have the same ships but because we only fly amarrian ships and still want to have some ships that are good for pvp. if all 3 of our battleships rely purely on lasers we get to be utterly predictable in bs-sized pvp. on the crusier and frig-level its not so bad because we have the arbitrator and inquisitor there.
now with the current bonuses on the abaddon: 5% laser damage (in case that gets fixed anyway) 5% armor resists
the abaddon is at least not as crappy as it was before. it still fails because it still is nothing but a better geddon/apoc. but at least now it can perform the gank part to some decree without running out of cap instantly.
now a quick fix would be to simply give it 6 unbonused launcher slots on top of that. then we would be able to actually use its supposed 2nd role and tank this ship without using projectile weapons.
and thats one of the points many amarrian rpers hate: our tankers are better off with matari weapons if they really want to get a good sustainable tank going. if our tank-line of ships had some launcher slots we could use this other zero-cap weapon for tanking and from an rp-point of view missiles are far less heretical than matari projectile weapons.
of course giving the abaddon launchers to tank with would further reduce the usefulness of the apoc but that ship has been in need of some change for a long time anyway.
another option would be the big-arbitrator in place of the abaddon or apoc: 10% drone dmg/hp 20% tracking disruptor optimal range 5 medslots split launcher/turret/utility highslots 250m3 dronebay
there are a lot of other ways to make the abaddon useful. just giving us 3 more or less identical battleships is not going to help us much though.
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 11:27:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Ather Ialeas
If you want drones, train Gallente bs lvl1. Doesn't really take long at all assuming you have learning skills.
ah so its ok that our tier 3 bs is nothing but a slightly better version of tier1/2 because we can always train for another race. didnt think of that.
Originally by: Ather Ialeas
Drones are not the Amarrian way. Missiles are not the Amarrian way
for t1 you may want to have a look at the inquisitor, arbitrator, harbinger and geddon.
|
|
|
|