EVE Search - What's so bad about Amarr?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

What's so bad about Amarr?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lucien Lestat	Posted - 2007.03.03 11:51:00 - [1] Hi there, I'm a relatively new player currently with an Amarrian char. However I don't wether to regret picking this race and flying amarr ships or not. Surfing these forums everyone seems to think Amarr are inferior to the other races. Why is this? If they truly are the worst then will there be a patch to change this? I'm seriously considering switching and I really need some opinions.
LUKEC Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.03.03 12:08:00 - [2] You have to ask right question: What is amarr good at? <- mining? Does it do anything better than other races ? <- dying? -------- .....
Asestorian Minmatar Dark Centuri Inc. Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.03.03 12:08:00 - [3] First things first. If you enjoy flying Amarr ships, then you should continue to do so. Unless you are obsessed with maxing your stats to be the best then there is no need to switch. But to answer your primary question. It is commonly believed that Amarr are slightly inferior to other races at this time. That isn't to say they are useless, they can do perfectly well in all areas of combat, however it is often the case that the other races ships do the same things better. This is down to a lot of reasons, and they have stacked up over time. Firstly I believe the main reason was Amarr's "gank" ability was reduced when the higher stacking penalty was introduced for the damage modules. The low slots on many Amarrian ships allowed for an insane amount of firepower to be brought to bare on their enemies by simply filling the low slots with the damage modules. This produced very overpowered ships, such as the very common "gankageddon". Unfortunately, Amarr were left with no real alternate options when this change was introduced, though their ships were still effective enough at this point. The second main reason is damage types. EM and Thermal are the only damage types Lasers can deal, which is a problem due to a change that occurred to the Energized Adaptive Nano Membranes, with the additional help of the Armour Compensation skills. This helped the Armour tankers, who already had quite high natural resists to EM, bring that even higher. The main problem was that before, with the active, specific tanks, EM was mostly ignored as it was already a higher resist, however with the passive omni-tanks, EM was raised as well as the others, causing a bit of a problem for Amarr. Amarr ships still work ok in PvP of course, however like I said, in many cases an equally skilled person in a different races ship would come out on top. PvE has been mostly unaffected by these changes though. Amarr are still very good at killing Blood Raiders and Sanshas, and less good at killing Angels and Guristas, with being ok at Serpentis. Overall however I suggest perhaps trying out at least a frigate of the other races anyway, and choose which one you like playing best. However if you plan to PvP solely, and looking for the best stats, Minmatar or Gallente seem to be the way to go. Amarr are looking at a possible boost here and there though, but there have been no specifics released and no date set for this to happen. --- ---
Amberly Coteaz Amarr Null Horizon	Posted - 2007.03.03 12:10:00 - [4] Very limited to EM/Thermal damage types Poor tracking speed on close range guns Very heavy grid requirements on long range weapons Quite a few ships have capacitor issues I think that covers the reasons most stated for Amarr being 'inferior'. Of course on the plus side your ships go PEW PEW PEW, which makes up for everything else imo. Fit a destroyer with as many different types of frequency crystal can you can and see how pretty it looks
Murehz	Posted - 2007.03.03 12:19:00 - [5] I'm not sure if this help at all but I'm personally changing TO Amarr FROM Gallente. They may not be the greatest ships atm but they suit my style of play and I find them fun. IMO thats what you should base what ships you fly on, not whether or not they make you pwn anything in sight (although this can admitidly sometimes be fun).
The Hanz Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.03.03 12:26:00 - [6] Originally by: Amberly Coteaz Very limited to EM/Thermal damage types Poor tracking speed on close range guns Very heavy grid requirements on long range weapons Quite a few ships have capacitor issues I think that covers the reasons most stated for Amarr being 'inferior'. Of course on the plus side your ships go PEW PEW PEW, which makes up for everything else imo. Fit a destroyer with as many different types of frequency crystal can you can and see how pretty it looks And you were rediculously powerful for a number of years. Now learn what it feels like to be on the bottom of the totem pole and train another race if you don't like it. Grid requirements? Good thing you have more grid than other ships.
Kerdrak Amarr 3B Legio IX Freelancer Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.03 12:34:00 - [7] Originally by: Amberly Coteaz Grid requirements? Good thing you have more grid than other ships. Usually amarr ships have to fit more turrets than other ships for being effective. ________________________________________ First atheist amarr on EVE
DarkElf Caldari Veto. Academy	Posted - 2007.03.03 12:42:00 - [8] if you've read so much about how they suck then i'm sure ppl weren't just saying "amarr sucks", they obviously gave reasons so read them tbh. to summarise: omni tanks are very common and screw amarr (primary EM dmg) cap struggles on gank setups can't tank well and do decent dmg which most other races can with some ships at least amarr still aren't bad tbh and have some very good ships. the sad thing is that most of their decent ships don't use lasers. curse and pilgrim are awesome because they are drone/nos boats. altho the abaddon is an awesome ship if used correctly DE
Nir The Doldrums	Posted - 2007.03.03 13:10:00 - [9] Originally by: The Hanz Grid requirements? Good thing you have more grid than other ships. You obviously don't fly Amarr. If you did you'd know that the few extra grid they get are meaningless as soon as you start fitting a full rack of turrets. And higher cap just looks good on paper, in reality it is meaningless. Armageddon has the same peak cap recharge as a Scorpion for example.
Aerowen Brutor tribe	Posted - 2007.03.03 16:01:00 - [10] and they got this nasty "energy weapon capneed 5% reduced" bonus. wow every amarrpilot pays an extrabonus simply to be able to use turrets that are in no way better then the others, mostly inferior. so infact all amarrships got one bonus less. (compare EOS to DAMNATION and u can see the true amarrjoke) dmgtype, cap and slotlayout issues have already been mentioned. overall amarrs just a bad choice.

Dannyy Gilded Goose Brokerage	Posted - 2007.03.03 16:17:00 - [11] They are fine. The energy use reduction bonus for lasers balances their relatively high energy use. The tracking bonus for hybrids balances their built-in lower tracking. The (second) damage bonus for projectiles balances their built-in lower damage. Notice anything looking remarkably like consitency here by any chance ? Lasers have the best base damage modifier, they best base tracking, but the highest base relative fitting requirements and the highest relative cap consumption. The ship they get used on are designed to compensate for that, otherwise we'd have everyone fitting lasers on tempests and megathrons like we had in 2003. Now, the problem with these laser ships is twofold: - some of them lack the energy use reduction bonus or the grid needed to be able to fit decently. - the overall damage suffers from the relatively high EM and thermal damage resistances commonly encountered in pvp. The first issue is only half an issue imo. The energy is not valid concern since not all Minmatar or Gallente ships get the bonus they require to compensate for their weapons' deficiencies either. The fitting requirement concern has some merit. The issue with the damage is valid for long range turrets, but definately not for short range ones. So, one could simply increase the damage modifier on beams slightly to compensate for the relatively low value of the EM damage. That'd be all I'd change tho, except for some grid requirement decrease on small beams maybe.
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.03.03 16:36:00 - [12] Edited by: madaluap on 03/03/2007 16:34:00 Originally by: Aerowen and they got this nasty "energy weapon capneed 5% reduced" bonus. wow every amarrpilot pays an extrabonus simply to be able to use turrets that are in no way better then the others, mostly inferior. so infact all amarrships got one bonus less. (compare EOS to DAMNATION and u can see the true amarrjoke) dmgtype, cap and slotlayout issues have already been mentioned. overall amarrs just a bad choice. Lets see: Hybrid weapon: 80% damage, capusage 1 Laser weapon: 100% damage, capusage 2 Now lets add bonusses. +25% blaster damage -50% capusage Hybrid weapon: 100% damage, capusage 1 Laser weapon: 100% damage, capusage 1 I am not saying they do the same dps, but very simply said thats what the bonus does. Why whine about the capusage and @ the same time whine @ the abbadon because it doesnt have this bonus. yes atm ammar is inferior, but serieusly: "who freacking cares". People flew megapulse dominix, gankageddon "i melt y000000" and laserthoraxes. Ammar was damn badass and finnaly its a bit harder and than they "suck" and are totally "crap" again. Ammar doesnt suck, but some ships need some good fixing. (omen springs to mind). Bottomline: yes ammar needs some fixing, but why forget the past so fast? If you read forums you nearly start believing that ammar has been crap for 2 years straight. Thinking about being crap for 2 years straight, i can remember gallente _________________________________________________ Breetime A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Morreia	Posted - 2007.03.03 17:10:00 - [13] Originally by: madaluap Edited by: madaluap on 03/03/2007 16:34:00 Originally by: Aerowen and they got this nasty "energy weapon capneed 5% reduced" bonus. wow every amarrpilot pays an extrabonus simply to be able to use turrets that are in no way better then the others, mostly inferior. so infact all amarrships got one bonus less. (compare EOS to DAMNATION and u can see the true amarrjoke) dmgtype, cap and slotlayout issues have already been mentioned. overall amarrs just a bad choice. Lets see: Hybrid weapon: 80% damage, capusage 1 Laser weapon: 100% damage, capusage 2 Now lets add bonusses. +25% blaster damage -50% capusage Hybrid weapon: 100% damage, capusage 1 Laser weapon: 100% damage, capusage 1 I am not saying they do the same dps, but very simply said thats what the bonus does. Why whine about the capusage and @ the same time whine @ the abbadon because it doesnt have this bonus. yes atm ammar is inferior, but serieusly: "who freacking cares". People flew megapulse dominix, gankageddon "i melt y000000" and laserthoraxes. Ammar was damn badass and finnaly its a bit harder and than they "suck" and are totally "crap" again. Ammar doesnt suck, but some ships need some good fixing. (omen springs to mind). Bottomline: yes ammar needs some fixing, but why forget the past so fast? If you read forums you nearly start believing that ammar has been crap for 2 years straight. Thinking about being crap for 2 years straight, i can remember gallente I agree with the majority of this but if your going to post about Amarr and use the word Amarr that often at least learn to spell it... please.
DarkElf Caldari Veto. Academy	Posted - 2007.03.03 17:28:00 - [14] yeah i agree that amarr over underpowered atm but they are still making up for the gankageddon days tbh. they will have their time again some day. just the way it goes DE
MrDisposable Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2007.03.03 17:54:00 - [15] Originally by: Dannyy They are fine. The energy use reduction bonus for lasers balances their relatively high energy use. The tracking bonus for hybrids balances their built-in lower tracking. The (second) damage bonus for projectiles balances their built-in lower damage. Notice anything looking remarkably like consitency here by any chance ? Lasers have the best base damage modifier, they best base tracking, but the highest base relative fitting requirements and the highest relative cap consumption. The ship they get used on are designed to compensate for that, otherwise we'd have everyone fitting lasers on tempests and megathrons like we had in 2003. Now, the problem with these laser ships is twofold: - some of them lack the energy use reduction bonus or the grid needed to be able to fit decently. - the overall damage suffers from the relatively high EM and thermal damage resistances commonly encountered in pvp. The first issue is only half an issue imo. The energy is not valid concern since not all Minmatar or Gallente ships get the bonus they require to compensate for their weapons' deficiencies either. The fitting requirement concern has some merit. The issue with the damage is valid for long range turrets, but definately not for short range ones. So, one could simply increase the damage modifier on beams slightly to compensate for the relatively low value of the EM damage. That'd be all I'd change tho, except for some grid requirement decrease on small beams maybe. It boggles the mind how many times these arguments that amarr are fine need to be shot down. Hybrids(blasters) have MUCH better tracking than pulses (2x faster)and pulses have a lower base damage mod (-16%) than blasters. Not to mention they are easier to fit. Pulse have better range (slightly more than 2 times (optimal+1/2 falloff)) Hybrids (rails) have much better range (56km vs 69km (optimal +50%falloff) and fitting requirements while tracking at approx 63% of beams while having a slightly lower dmg mod (-10%) and rof (-6%) IN both cases hybrids take less than 1/2 of lasers cap. So Blasters + Higher dmg Faster tracking * Fitting Less cap Pulses + range Railguns+ Range * fitting less cap usage Beams + Higher dmg better tracking *=most important stat for weapon type As you can see lasers my not be super-gimped, but they are outclassed by hybrids. OF course all this is before you even factor in ship bonuses which MAJORLY skew things. ______________ BoB Alts "This isn't about Dev misconduct.... ban the Ctrl+q'rs! They are the real problem behind it ALL!!!!!" "Devs stole BPOs for the good of eve."
Keruli Amarr Frontier Combine Inc	Posted - 2007.03.03 18:06:00 - [16] Edited by: Keruli on 03/03/2007 18:04:06 dbl post
Keruli Amarr Frontier Combine Inc	Posted - 2007.03.03 18:07:00 - [17] Quote: Lets see: Hybrid weapon: 100% damage, capusage 1 Laser weapon: 80% damage, capusage 3 Now lets add bonusses. +25% blaster damage -50% capusage Hybrid weapon: 125% damage, capusage 1 Laser weapon: 80% damage, capusage 1,5 i corrected it for you, and btw dont even get me started on fitting and tracking issues...
goodby4u Logistic Technologies Incorporated Free Trade Coalition	Posted - 2007.03.03 18:12:00 - [18] Amarr are fine the way they are tbh,they have their crappy ships and good ones,just as any other race. __________________________________________ Yes it is great being amarr. I am minmatar,fly amarr,use gellente drones and am in caldari space.
MrDisposable Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2007.03.03 18:28:00 - [19] Originally by: goodby4u Amarr are fine the way they are tbh,they have their crappy ships and good ones,just as any other race. Your right... laying out your ideas in-depth in a conversation is just plainly overrated. Why should we intelligently discuss things when there is such a simpler way? Your wrong. Amarr are gimped tbh. ______________ BoB Alts "This isn't about Dev misconduct.... ban the Ctrl+q'rs! They are the real problem behind it ALL!!!!!" "Devs stole BPOs for the good of eve."
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.03.03 18:35:00 - [20] Originally by: Dannyy T The energy use reduction bonus for lasers balances their relatively high energy use. The tracking bonus for hybrids balances their built-in lower tracking. The (second) damage bonus for projectiles balances their built-in lower damage. Notice anything looking remarkably like consitency here by any chance ? Hybrids have 10% worse tracking than Autocannons which have twice the tracking of pulse lasers. That is not "worse tracking". Similarly, only one blaster ship[or two, i think one of the frigs gets one] gets a tracking bonus. The Megathron. Autocannons do 11% less damage than pulses. When downfitting, they actualy do the same amount of damages as pulses. The large pulses do the same amount of DPS as the smallest blasters. They also have the best damage types. Its so much so, that abesnt gun damage bonuses, it is more beneficial to fit autocannons over pulse lasers for any reason. Better fitting, better damage, better cap use. Quote: Lasers have the best base damage modifier, they best base tracking, but the highest base relative fitting requirements and the highest relative cap consumption. The ship they get used on are designed to compensate for that, otherwise we'd have everyone fitting lasers on tempests and megathrons like we had in 2003. This is false. They have the second best base damage modifier on their top teir weapons. They have the worst base damage modifier on their second teir weapons, they have the worst base tracking, the highest relative fitting requirements and the highest cap consumption. The ships they get do not compensate for that the reason that we had everyone fitting lasers in 2003 was a seperate design issue that revolved around low hit point ships and unstacking penalized damage mods. Both of these issues have been fixed, damage mods were made stacking penalized and now there is no reason to fit 8 heat sinks on the botton of your armageddon. As well we have gone through at least two hit point boosts. And we have gone through a range nerf of lasers themselves Quote: Now, the problem with these laser ships is twofold: - some of them lack the energy use reduction bonus or the grid needed to be able to fit decently. - the overall damage suffers from the relatively high EM and thermal damage resistances commonly encountered in pvp. The first issue is only half an issue imo. The energy is not valid concern since not all Minmatar or Gallente ships get the bonus they require to compensate for their weapons' deficiencies either. The fitting requirement concern has some merit. The issue with the damage is valid for long range turrets, but definately not for short range ones. So, one could simply increase the damage modifier on beams slightly to compensate for the relatively low value of the EM damage. That'd be all I'd change tho, except for some grid requirement decrease on small beams maybe. The first is definitly a valid concern since the assertion that minmatar get a damage bonus to make up for their pitiful DPS is absurd as is the assertion that Gallente gets a bonus to make up for its tracking. Minmatar get an extra damage bonus on ships that have less turrets than their competitors(cyclone/brutix excluded, due to brutix being utterly broken). And there is no gallente tracking consistancy on any level. This gets especialy strange as you say that there is an issue with the damage of Beam weapons. Beam weapons fulfill the same margin as blasters. That is like saying blasters do too little damage. Ironically, the thing about long range weapons is that in the long range, the most important attribute is range and in the short range, the most important attribute is damage. The only exception to this is the battleship level with tech 2 guns loaded with scorch. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"

Rania Serlia World Order The Imperial Order	Posted - 2007.03.03 18:41:00 - [21] What's so bad about the amarr? Just about any ship without a drone damage bonus.
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2007.03.03 18:45:00 - [22] Amarr has gallente envy. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune
Phyrexia Tarzig	Posted - 2007.03.04 21:11:00 - [23] Curse is an awesome ship. Philosophy by Gallente. Engineering design by Caldari. Constructed by Minmatar workers. Great Amarr ship.
Bangoura Minmatar Privateers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.04 22:20:00 - [24] I'm thinking of training for Amarr just because they're so damn gorgeous. Strange maybe I know, but I'm sick of ugly ships.
Nir The Doldrums	Posted - 2007.03.04 22:24:00 - [25] Originally by: LUKEC What is amarr good at? <- mining? Rokh is a way better miner than the Apoc just fyi. Not that anyone cares of course, I'm just saying Amarr aren't even good at mining anymore.
Scordite	Posted - 2007.03.04 22:32:00 - [26] Originally by: Bangoura I'm thinking of training for Amarr just because they're so damn gorgeous. Strange maybe I know, but I'm sick of ugly ships. So you're saying that looking good while blowing up is better than looking bad while the other guy blows up, yes? ----------------------------------------------- The only legitimate use of the BLINK tag: Schr÷dinger's cat is [BLINK] not [/BLINK] dead.
Lithalnas Amarr Hadean Drive Yards Archaean Cooperative	Posted - 2007.03.04 22:41:00 - [27] well yeah, having a ship that looks like part of the male anatomy is much better than flying a space whale, a scrap heap, or a one winged monstrosity. ------------- Midshipman Lithalnas - Logistics Division - Hadean Drive Yards
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.03.04 22:53:00 - [28] Originally by: Lithalnas well yeah, having a ship that looks like part of the male anatomy is much better than flying a space whale, a scrap heap, or a one winged monstrosity. Ok not to say anything about gallente uberness, but male anatomy = thorax though _________________________________________________ Breetime A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.03.05 01:07:00 - [29] Originally by: madaluap Originally by: Lithalnas well yeah, having a ship that looks like part of the male anatomy is much better than flying a space whale, a scrap heap, or a one winged monstrosity. Ok not to say anything about gallente uberness, but male anatomy = thorax though Whatever, lefty. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Neuromandis EPSILON TEAM Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.03.05 01:19:00 - [30] I am not going to vote either "for" or "against" amarr here, but I see some confusion regarding weapon comparisons and would like some of you to consider this... All amarr weapons are pulled towards medium range. CCP seems to follow this formula: Increase range -> decrease damage, decrease tracking -Vice versa- decrease range -> increase damage, increase tracking damage, range and ammo all together are factored in for cap use to balance. So, pulses and beams actually should be the following way to fullfill the previous criteria of pulling to medium range: Beams should have shortest range of long range weapons, best damage, best tracking (I think this is the case) Pulses should have longest range of short range weapons, worst damage, worst tracking (ame here) As I don't have so much time on my hands, I am only going to examine beams here, pulses maybe later. The cap use is supposed to balance the fact that they use no ammo. Oh, and, -suprise!!- they DON'T use more grid. I may have missed something important here, correct me if I'm wrong, but compare this: 1400 mm artillery II grid 3750, damage modifier/second 0.3, range 48km, cap use 65 MegaBeam II grid 3750, damage mod/second 0.4, range 48km 450mm Rail grid 2625 (but 77cpu), damage mod/second 0.34, range 58km. cap use 35 I think that at this point it is obvious why I am using the Megabeams for comparison: They perform plainly better than artilleries, with same range but 33% more damage (balanced by the no cap use and sometimes double bonuses for minnies), but at very very expensive cap use. Grid is suprisingly the same!! so much for the "un*****bility" myth... So why am I going to be flamed now? Because people will say "but TACHYONS this or that..., or NOOB Megas are not the best beams... and stuff like that" Why megabeams? Because they ARE balanced against railguns and artilleries. So if you think amarr with tachyons are worse than caldari or minmatar with 450s or 1400s, use megabeams. Why? Because tachyons are OVERSIZED, and as such cannot be compared. They have MUCH better range AND better damage than arties, or put it in other words almost the range of rails with a lot, A LOT better damage. That's why you can't fit them. If you feel fitting and cap use are too dear a price to pay for them, use megabeams, nuff said, megabeams do not deserve the "I don't want to fit second best" treatment because they are just as good as the best arties or rails (actually better than arties because some minnies get double bonus to balance them and use no cap, and balanced with rails). This exact same picture follows for medium lasers and IIRC small too, with the exception that they don't get the "tachyon" class weapon to ignore, just compare best to best to best and you get the exact same picture: same range better damage same grid more cpu than arties, less range more damege more grid less cpu more cap than rails. The only point I see where amarr are gimped as far as I see is that the cap usage seems a tad extreme, even for the "cap race". As for the damage type argument, I have no objection either way - if public opinion feels another type/balance of damage would be better for lasers, I see no reason why not. What does this all mean? That the people that complain about damage type for lasers may have a point, also people that complain about cap usage, or ship boni. People that complain about fitting seem to be wrong, though, amarr have the best grid so their megabeams should fit just as fine as anyone else's. Their grid problems (they have the best grid) are the same as caldari's cpu problems (they have the best cpu).



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.