EVE Search - The Amarr, boost, can a dev confirm?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

The Amarr, boost, can a dev confirm?

» 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)
IHurricane Sniggerdly	Posted - 2007.06.10 16:08:00 - [1] I am just wondering, i've been away for a few days and just read the devblog about the amarr boost. What I think of it does not matter, I am just wondering. Do you consider the Amarr "fixed" now? --------------------------------------------- There was never a genius, without a tincture of madness - Aristotle
Jonny 101 The League of Legitimate Nigerian Businessmen	Posted - 2007.06.10 16:18:00 - [2] I just wanted some cap changes so my pulse lasers dont take the cap equal to an active armor tank :P I mean they made some decent changes, I haveto admit it's funny when pulse lasers will hardly hit a huge ship sitting 0km from you :D Aaaanyways, who else thinks they should tweak the cap use of our guns a little bit? Personally i'm training up auto-cannons to get a change, not saying amarr is useless, just think our cap demmands are a little too extreme, I thought we were meant to be a great capacitor race, instead we're by far the worst. ------------------------------------------------ crash003 > 400k more lp and ill have a navy mega TheJacko > 400k lol TheJacko > ineed 250k The hidden face of turby
Ice Globe Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2007.06.10 16:34:00 - [3] Edited by: Ice Globe on 10/06/2007 16:33:36 I think they've done pretty well, Made our close-range weapons more effective, Encouraged people to fit armor hardeners rather than omni tanks, It still hasn't fixed the problem of cap, but amarr will always have this problem. If anything, I would recommend increasing the % cap reduction to weapons bonus on ships with that bonus. This will encourage people to fit lasers instead of projectiles, and make our "wasted" bonus more effective. ______________
IHurricane Sniggerdly	Posted - 2007.06.10 16:38:00 - [4] Yeah, they've made some decent changes. But I do not still consider the Amarr fixed, as for cap and ship bonuses. But I am just wondering if the devs consider them fixed. --------------------------------------------- There was never a genius, without a tincture of madness - Aristotle
king jks The Nine Gates Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.06.10 16:42:00 - [5] A very simple thing they could do is increase the bonus of Controlled Bursts to 10% per level, then everybody wins, not just us :D
Audri Fisher Caldari VentureCorp Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.06.10 16:48:00 - [6] I would say no, fitting issues for all sizes of beams has been the biggest dealbreaker for me, not tracking of pulses.
Deva Blackfire Viziam	Posted - 2007.06.10 17:05:00 - [7] Fix? There s some fix? Surely not the one that removes tank from half of my ships? Yeh... 2x eanm+dc t2 = 90cpu and 3 slots + 60% hull resist, 3x hardener t2 = 108cpu (after "fix") oops - it wont fit... 2x hard+dc t2 102 cpu(after fix) - doesnt fit. Well so it means most of my (i fot it with 0.0 cpu left) dont fit now. It is also blow to mega and deimos iirc. All other ships will happily mount 2x eanm + dc like always. I consider this "fix" a joke. And bad one. Back to training t2 blasters for my new shiny eos/astarte. They DO fit :)
Xoduse Gallente Beasts of Burden YouWhat	Posted - 2007.06.10 17:28:00 - [8] Originally by: Deva Blackfire I consider this "fix" a joke. And bad one. Back to training t2 blasters for my new shiny eos/astarte. They DO fit :) If you dont have T2 medium blasters for the astarte/eos then you are just riding complain train. Try fitting a mega with actual t2 turrets, then post. You end up with 0 cpu a whole lot faster and the EANM II nerf doesnt even make sense. Since when does a passive module use so much cpu? Except maybe a damage mod. ---------------------
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.06.10 18:22:00 - [9] Originally by: Xoduse Since when does a passive module use so much cpu? Except maybe a damage mod. Since using 3 of them (or better 2 + DC) is more effective than 3 active ones. Also, good luck fitting amarr ships without reactor controls.
Marcus Alkhaar Conisor Excavations Syndicate Antagonistic Assembly	Posted - 2007.06.10 18:51:00 - [10] Edited by: Marcus Alkhaar on 10/06/2007 18:52:12 remember that the named active hardeners will take less cpu too 3x named + DC is better than 3x EANM II + DC on Explosive, Kinetic and Thermic resistance the eanm II dont take cap though.
Valandril Caldari Resurrection R i s e	Posted - 2007.06.10 19:09:00 - [11] If lasers use more cap than hybrids then i'm connected with u in pain :( ---
ReePeR McAllem The Carebear Stare	Posted - 2007.06.10 19:30:00 - [12] Edited by: ReePeR McAllem on 10/06/2007 19:32:44 Originally by: Jonny 101 I just wanted some cap changes so my pulse lasers dont take the cap equal to an active armor tank :P I mean they made some decent changes, I haveto admit it's funny when pulse lasers will hardly hit a huge ship sitting 0km from you :D Aaaanyways, who else thinks they should tweak the cap use of OUR guns a little bit? Personally i'm training up auto-cannons to get a change, not saying amarr is useless, just think OUR cap demmands are a little too extreme, I thought WE were meant to be a great capacitor race, instead WE'RE by far the worst. Your Caldari, you will never be amarr, foolish mortal!!!!
Deva Blackfire Viziam	Posted - 2007.06.10 19:55:00 - [13] Originally by: Xoduse Originally by: Deva Blackfire I consider this "fix" a joke. And bad one. Back to training t2 blasters for my new shiny eos/astarte. They DO fit :) If you dont have T2 medium blasters for the astarte/eos then you are just riding complain train. Try fitting a mega with actual t2 turrets, then post. You end up with 0 cpu a whole lot faster and the EANM II nerf doesnt even make sense. Since when does a passive module use so much cpu? Except maybe a damage mod. Um - hi clueless person. I actually have gallente character that CAN NOT fly command ships, but is very good t2 blastermega pilot (can fly all gallente ships except for commands and titan - yes he can use moms). And my comment abt training for t2 blasters was about my main (yeh - Deva). I changed from pure amarr about 3 months ago thx to amarr suckiness (heretic anyone? sabre is way better - same for solo using amarr command ships). Next - where did i say that i have problems fitting eos/astarte? All setups i have ready (INCLUDING t2 guns) fit ok. Same for amarr commands. And learn to read: Quote: Well so it means most of my (i fot it with 0.0 cpu left) dont fit now. It is also blow to mega and deimos iirc. All other ships will happily mount 2x eanm + dc like always. Uhhh - look. I even stated that mega WILL have problems. What else did you want to say (that i didnt post already) except for trying to smack me?
Deva Blackfire Viziam	Posted - 2007.06.10 20:02:00 - [14] Originally by: Marcus Alkhaar Edited by: Marcus Alkhaar on 10/06/2007 18:52:12 remember that the named active hardeners will take less cpu too 3x named + DC is better than 3x EANM II + DC on Explosive, Kinetic and Thermic resistance the eanm II dont take cap though. You are forgetting something. Most people mounted 2x EANM + DC (3 slots, 90 cpu use) that gave abt 45% overall resist + 60% on hull. 3x named + DC was still very comparable to 2x eanm + DC - but second one used one less slot and used WAY less cpu. Now you can either use 2x EANM + DC (102 cpu after changes) for same effect as before (so they are only harder to fit on "tight fit" ships like mega/geddon - and those are the ones that get nerfed, because ships like domi or commands have lots of CPU left) OR you can use 3x hardener (108 cpu already) - which obviously do not fit on geddon/mega (use even MORE cpu than 2x eanm+DC). And thats fuxxored. You cant fit old low CPU fit (2xeanm+dc) nor you can use 3x hardener. ALSO 2x hardener + DC doesnt work either - it uses same CPU as 2x EANM + DC (post nerf). So in the end the "amarr boost" is the nerf to geddon and mega (+ other low CPU ships - zealot and prolly deimos - never used deimos tho so not too sure). Everyone will happily run old tanks and those ships will need to degrade to EANM + ANM + DC...
Dowey Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2007.06.10 20:06:00 - [15] why not put the 10% cap bonus, up to 15%?? could that possibly work? ---------------------------------------------- Can't nerf this, dun dun da dun!!!!
Marcus Alkhaar Conisor Excavations Syndicate Antagonistic Assembly	Posted - 2007.06.10 21:14:00 - [16] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: Marcus Alkhaar Edited by: Marcus Alkhaar on 10/06/2007 18:52:12 remember that the named active hardeners will take less cpu too 3x named + DC is better than 3x EANM II + DC on Explosive, Kinetic and Thermic resistance the eanm II dont take cap though. You are forgetting something. Most people mounted 2x EANM + DC (3 slots, 90 cpu use) that gave abt 45% overall resist + 60% on hull. 3x named + DC was still very comparable to 2x eanm + DC - but second one used one less slot and used WAY less cpu. Now you can either use 2x EANM + DC (102 cpu after changes) for same effect as before (so they are only harder to fit on "tight fit" ships like mega/geddon - and those are the ones that get nerfed, because ships like domi or commands have lots of CPU left) OR you can use 3x hardener (108 cpu already) - which obviously do not fit on geddon/mega (use even MORE cpu than 2x eanm+DC). And thats fuxxored. You cant fit old low CPU fit (2xeanm+dc) nor you can use 3x hardener. ALSO 2x hardener + DC doesnt work either - it uses same CPU as 2x EANM + DC (post nerf). So in the end the "amarr boost" is the nerf to geddon and mega (+ other low CPU ships - zealot and prolly deimos - never used deimos tho so not too sure). Everyone will happily run old tanks and those ships will need to degrade to EANM + ANM + DC... 3x named hardeners (amount is 24 cpu per hardener, as its 8 less than the named ones we got atm) + best named DC = 89 cpu. this is just assumptions ofc, and isn't valid, but likely to happen. anyway Deva, I've made a setup for my Blasterthron, which does fit post-patch, so I dont see a problem why others shouldnt be able to do the same, its a matter about being Creative. now quit moaning at me, amarr pod pilot
Deva Blackfire Viziam	Posted - 2007.06.10 21:41:00 - [17] Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 10/06/2007 21:41:18 Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 10/06/2007 21:40:12 Originally by: Marcus Alkhaar 3x named hardeners (amount is 24 cpu per hardener, as its 8 less than the named ones we got atm) + best named DC = 89 cpu. this is just assumptions ofc, and isn't valid, but likely to happen. anyway Deva, I've made a setup for my Blasterthron, which does fit post-patch, so I dont see a problem why others shouldnt be able to do the same, its a matter about being Creative. now quit moaning at me, amarr pod pilot You missed one important bit: you use 4 slots, where old setup used 3. As for flying amarr ships - you know what i think abt them. Not going back to that crap anymore until they get proper fix.
Marcus Alkhaar Conisor Excavations Syndicate Antagonistic Assembly	Posted - 2007.06.10 22:10:00 - [18] Edited by: Marcus Alkhaar on 10/06/2007 22:12:36 Originally by: Deva Blackfire Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 10/06/2007 21:41:18 Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 10/06/2007 21:40:12 Originally by: Marcus Alkhaar 3x named hardeners (amount is 24 cpu per hardener, as its 8 less than the named ones we got atm) + best named DC = 89 cpu. this is just assumptions ofc, and isn't valid, but likely to happen. anyway Deva, I've made a setup for my Blasterthron, which does fit post-patch, so I dont see a problem why others shouldnt be able to do the same, its a matter about being Creative. now quit moaning at me, amarr pod pilot You missed one important bit: you use 4 slots, where old setup used 3. As for flying amarr ships - you know what i think abt them. Not going back to that crap anymore until they get proper fix. well, the 4 slot tank is better than the 3 slot tank that is a fact. sure you can put an extra damage mod on, but that would put your CPU usage on 4 slots to 120 prepatch and 90'ish post-patch, using 3 hards + dc. ofcourse you lose a a bit em res and some damage from the damage mod, but it doesnt matter as your tank enhanced quite a bit. Using rigs will solve all the cpu problem, just fyi.
LUH 3471	Posted - 2007.06.10 22:23:00 - [19] Edited by: LUH 3471 on 10/06/2007 22:23:58 nt
Deva Blackfire Viziam	Posted - 2007.06.10 23:35:00 - [20] Originally by: Marcus Alkhaar well, the 4 slot tank is better than the 3 slot tank that is a fact. sure you can put an extra damage mod on, but that would put your CPU usage on 4 slots to 120 prepatch and 90'ish post-patch, using 3 hards + dc. ofcourse you lose a a bit em res and some damage from the damage mod, but it doesnt matter as your tank enhanced quite a bit. Using rigs will solve all the cpu problem, just fyi. Already using them. Check my setup you-know-where. And you will also see why using 4 slots instead of 3 will always gimp me: either i will lose damage or lose tank.
Hasak Rain Amarr	Posted - 2007.06.11 00:23:00 - [21] Edited by: Hasak Rain on 11/06/2007 00:30:57 Edited by: Hasak Rain on 11/06/2007 00:26:52 Originally by: king jks A very simple thing they could do is increase the bonus of Controlled Bursts to 10% per level, then everybody wins, not just us :D How does "everybody" win? Controlled Bursts only helps Amarr and Gallente and I don't think we need a change which will also boost Gallente at this point. All they have to do is tweak the laser cap consumption a bit but apparently, that is a drawback to the Amarr race in which they want to keep in or they would have done it. I am pretty happy about the Pulse tracking boost but I don't know how the EAN change will play out yet. I think they also said something about giving a bit more grid to a couple of ships. Besides the Pulse tracking boost, there is nothing there that has made me overly excited. Hopefully there is more to come because I don't think these tweaks alone are going to fix Amarr.
hylleX Spontaneous Defenestration Coalition of Carebear Killers	Posted - 2007.06.11 00:46:00 - [22] If this is it... worst boost evva!! :S Sure helps, but cap use needs to be fixed (especiallly beam lasers and also fittings for them). After that i would be pretty happy i suppose
Sonorra Baki Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.06.11 01:12:00 - [23] Im 35mil SP, and have now pretty much left my 15mil amarr SP behind, but, our issues are: EM dmg is our primary. Less options in setups (lmt. mids) Insane fitting reqs More suceptible to ew Insane Cap needs for guns. What did that EVER had to do with tracking??? I dont want more tracking! And with the EAN nerf,some of my only viable setups for amarr is now going down the drain now, and they wasnt even fielding a rep. I dont care if it makes my enemies 10% weaker to me... It just made me 20% weaker to everybody else! Surely it would be overpowered, should amarr EVER be able to fire and tank at the same time. This amarr fix, makes just as much sense, as if this was posted: "CCP Finally hear the cries from deimos pilots" After what seems an endless cry from deimos pilots on the forums, we now recognize that there is an issue with the deimos power output, and with its speed. Therefore we have decided to add 5m3 to its dronebay, and to add 10% speed to all ships ingame. and PS. I laughed at this: Quote: "Energized membranes in general have been needlessly hard to fit on frigates as they required 2mw power, so the requirement has been lowered to 1mw like most other "class-less" modules." Yes, because it was allways the insane 2mw that was keeping pilots from slapping a couple EANS2's on their frigs. Now surely frigs will use them alot more, as they only use 1/4 of an the entire CPU available on most frigs. This may not be work safe -Capsicum
Aerin Cloudfayr	Posted - 2007.06.11 02:21:00 - [24] Edited by: Hasak Rain on 11/06/2007 00:30:57 Edited by: Hasak Rain on 11/06/2007 00:26:52 Originally by: king jks A very simple thing they could do is increase the bonus of Controlled Bursts to 10% per level, then everybody wins, not just us :D Controlled bursts isn't the answer - it is part of the solution however. Leave Controlled Bursts as it is. Lasers are really an exclusively Amarran weapon, and as we can see - mounted on anything but Amarran ship technology they do use stupendous amounts of power. The ship energy usage bonus should be raised from 10% to 15% per level. at Amarr ship lvl 5, plus Controlled Bursts Lv5, the combined energy usage bonus would be 100%. This would make it stupidly encouraging to use Amarran ships. However, impractical as this may seem, there is the -100% CPU bonus for Lv5 CovOps Frigates. "...Amarr [Ship] Skill Bonus: 15% reduction in [Size] Turret capacitor need..."
45thtiger011	Posted - 2007.06.11 05:27:00 - [25] Originally by: Aerin Cloudfayr Edited by: Hasak Rain on 11/06/2007 00:30:57 Edited by: Hasak Rain on 11/06/2007 00:26:52 Originally by: king jks A very simple thing they could do is increase the bonus of Controlled Bursts to 10% per level, then everybody wins, not just us :D Controlled bursts isn't the answer - it is part of the solution however. Leave Controlled Bursts as it is. Lasers are really an exclusively Amarran weapon, and as we can see - mounted on anything but Amarran ship technology they do use stupendous amounts of power. The ship energy usage bonus should be raised from 10% to 15% per level. at Amarr ship lvl 5, plus Controlled Bursts Lv5, the combined energy usage bonus would be 100%. This would make it stupidly encouraging to use Amarran ships. However, impractical as this may seem, there is the -100% CPU bonus for Lv5 CovOps Frigates. "...Amarr [Ship] Skill Bonus: 15% reduction in [Size] Turret capacitor need..." redo your math's in EVE it's AxB=C not A+B=C cap usage with "Amarr ship lvl 5, plus Controlled Bursts Lv5" and amarr ship bonus at 15% works out at 81.25% reduction in cap use... anyway, i had a look over some of the guns stats in the item browser Neutron Blaster Cannon II Vs Mega Pulse Laser II Cap 18.2 Vs 40 (With amarr BS lvl 5 it's very close) Rof is equal Range 7.2Km Vs 24Km Damage mod 4.2 Vs 3.6 Tracking 0.0433 Vs 0.027 the other stats are reasonably similar a little more PG Vs a little Less CPU. i think a few of the problems with amarr might come down to people trying to use pulses like blasters. obviously (given the base optimal of pulse lasers) you probably won't do that much damage if you're rubbing hulls with someone the way you would if you were using blasters... And while these are BS guns the principle holds for smaller guns on smaller ships.
Marcus Alkhaar Conisor Excavations Syndicate Antagonistic Assembly	Posted - 2007.06.11 09:40:00 - [26] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: Marcus Alkhaar well, the 4 slot tank is better than the 3 slot tank that is a fact. sure you can put an extra damage mod on, but that would put your CPU usage on 4 slots to 120 prepatch and 90'ish post-patch, using 3 hards + dc. ofcourse you lose a a bit em res and some damage from the damage mod, but it doesnt matter as your tank enhanced quite a bit. Using rigs will solve all the cpu problem, just fyi. Already using them. Check my setup you-know-where. And you will also see why using 4 slots instead of 3 will always gimp me: either i will lose damage or lose tank. 4 slot tank > 3 slot tank in pure tankage outcome: you lose damage that is FINAL and thats not for discussion. the end
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Guardians of the Dawn Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.06.11 10:35:00 - [27] Stop complainign guys!! When tux long time ago said they woudl nerf EANM. What did you expected? Someway that ammar coudl keep them but not others? Grow UP! The neft MUSt be harsh.. IT MUST force people to not use it on at least a few of the current setups. That WILL resutl in several ships with EM resist at 60% and that si GREAT for ammar. Ammar needed boost against minmatar, gallente and AMMAR! The neft on EANM must affect all of them! Its not that bloody hard to fit 3 N type hardeners and 1 DC then fill the rest of your tank with repirers and plates... And that should be enough! because your enemies are nerfed too. Active shield tanking was not nerfed, but is so rarely used in combat out of ravens that the better it becomes, better for AMMAr that can eat them alive! They said EAMs fittings wil be reduced also. That and a bit more base cap on ammar ships should bring back status quo. If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Rib0 coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.06.11 10:49:00 - [28] Just for all the non-amarr pilots out their (myself included), could somone put some numerical values on the cap consumption of their weapons? I do realise that it is "alot" but how much actually is that?, i know my blaster rokh's guns use 34 cap/s - almost all of my capacitors pdu-enhanced output, meaning i rely 100% on cap injector for running my XL sb tank. The suggestion of increasing controlled bursts effect is very appealing to me, and im caldari
Marcus Alkhaar Conisor Excavations Syndicate Antagonistic Assembly	Posted - 2007.06.11 11:12:00 - [29] Edited by: Marcus Alkhaar on 11/06/2007 11:12:07 edit
Argen Tano	Posted - 2007.06.11 11:32:00 - [30] Edited by: Argen Tano on 11/06/2007 11:54:50 Edited by: Argen Tano on 11/06/2007 11:49:22 Originally by: Aerin Cloudfayr Lasers are really an exclusively Amarran weapon, and as we can see - mounted on anything but Amarran ship technology they do use stupendous amounts of power. The ship energy usage bonus should be raised from 10% to 15% per level. at Amarr ship lvl 5, plus Controlled Bursts Lv5, the combined energy usage bonus would be 100%. This would make it stupidly encouraging to use Amarran ships. However, impractical as this may seem, there is the -100% CPU bonus for Lv5 CovOps Frigates. "...Amarr [Ship] Skill Bonus: 15% reduction in [Size] Turret capacitor need..." Well, this raises another problem with amarr - wasted ship bonus... Now, at some point (waaaaay back, some 3 or 4 laser nerfs back) it made sense for amarr to have these gun cap reduction bonus. Because lasers where actualy good (yeah can you imagine?), so you were willing to live with the drawbacks, in order to use them properly (big benefits in some areas, for big sacrifices in others). Now, there's no point in sacrificing something like ship bonuses, as lasers don't give you anything, that you cant equaly, or better, do with other gun types (projectile apoc anyone?) for none of the drawbacks. Due to constant whining, they removed all the benefits of lasers, to bring them closer to other gun types in terms of dps/range etc, but left all the very real drawbacks in place. Only thing that's left, is the no ammo use benefit, but even that has been somewhat removed with the introduction of T2 crystal, that set you back some 10-20million per set (for large), and pop at random intervals mid-fight.

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.