EVE Search - Amarr "Boost" suggested ideas

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Amarr "Boost" suggested ideas

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.21 02:27:00 - [31] Edited by: Goumindong on 21/09/2007 02:27:51 Or you could just balance the ships http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=568374
Mr Li Suicidal Mercenaries	Posted - 2007.09.21 02:43:00 - [32] EM needs to become a worthwhile damage type. Theoretically, a Zealot can do 465 raw DPS. But, with standard armor omni tanks EM resists are extraordinarily high. EM damage takes a massive hit and that 465 raw DPS is much, much lower. the same is true for projectiles against shields, but there is one major difference: some projectile ammo does more EM than EXP damage. This has been stated before, and i'll reiterate it because the point sticks: Minmatar can do more EM damage than EXP and Gallente have the option to do more kinetic than thermal (anitmatter) with their blasters. lasers are the only turret which this switch in damage types does not occur. I'm not saying that crystals should do more thermal than EM damage, but the value of therm damage doesn't have to be so small compared to therm and sometimes, it wouldn't break backstory for a crystal or two to do more thermal than EM.
Ath Amon	Posted - 2007.09.21 03:46:00 - [33] only thing i will change for lasers atm is the cap usage but for beam weapons only and not by much... 10-15% fitting is not that good but for minnies for example is bit worse (arties and beam have very similar fitting requirements with minnies that have less pg) crystal with higher therm was an ok proposal before new t2 ships... using missiles actually imo resolved the "laser dmg problem" of amarr (at least for ships smaller than bs and anyway t2 bs are coming) also amarr got some nice boosts too recently in form of tracking and nos nerf (bad for curse but good for all other ships) in the end i think with recent changes amarr are pretty ok... there are some ships that need a bit of work but last changes alredy helped with most of the old amarr troubles Originally by: Diana Merris Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
Becka Call	Posted - 2007.09.21 03:48:00 - [34] Give Amarr ships a bonus to mounted cap recharges. cap power relays, and CCC rigs.
Rudy Metallo The Bastards	Posted - 2007.09.21 05:10:00 - [35] 25% cap consumption reduction on all lasers (equivalent to having level 5 in a certain area now), and given a damage/tracking etc bonus. Rather than a slight boost in damage to EM, a nerf on armor EM resistance. My reasoning? Shield (natural) Resists - 0 + 60 + 40 + 20 = 120 Armor (natural) Resists - 60 + 10 +25 + 35 = 130 See the incongruency? So take 10% off EM resist to armor, the incongruency in fixed and Amarr get a boost. Before you claim that this is nerfing Armor tanking - know that I too tank armor, and still think that this is a fair resolution. On Shield weakness, EM, they have 0 resistance, while armor has 10% resist to explosive. Say what?
goodby4u Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.21 05:15:00 - [36] No the best way to counteract high cap use is adding in an additional skill that gives 10% reduced cap per lvl,mainly so amarr are still the race of sp.. As for the bonus drop it for whatever the ship asks for... And zealot YES. __________________________________________ Yes it is great being amarr. I am minmatar,fly amarr,use gellente drones and am in caldari space.
ForumPosterAlt HERRO KITTY	Posted - 2007.09.21 05:47:00 - [37] Its the ships that suck not lasers. They need more mids, fewer lows, better bonuses. All amarr dps boats should have the capacitor usage bonus. Apocalypse needs to not be stupid. Etc. Because posting on the forums is serious business.
Jordan Musgrat Convergent Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.09.21 09:06:00 - [38] I still disagree. Some of you just have this idea in your head that the zealot should do x dps, and be able to do y and z. Nothing is broken about this ship. People fly it all the time, and do just fine... Also, if you fit for ganking, yes it can take on a BC. If you fit for tanking, I have yet to see a 7 slot tank that sucks, even with T1 resists. ----------- Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0...
Firkragg Blue Labs Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.21 09:32:00 - [39] I semi agree that the zealot as a ship is fine. The problem though is that however good it looks on paper in the real world its damage ends up sub par due to everyone having high em resists. My ideal solution is increase laser damage and keep cap the same. This would still mean that amarr are doing em like CCP seem to want, it also means you dont have the balancing issues that would probabaly arise from nerfing armour em resists.
Rudy Metallo The Bastards	Posted - 2007.09.21 10:40:00 - [40] Edited by: Rudy Metallo on 21/09/2007 10:43:45 Originally by: Firkragg I semi agree that the zealot as a ship is fine. The problem though is that however good it looks on paper in the real world its damage ends up sub par due to everyone having high em resists. My ideal solution is increase laser damage and keep cap the same. This would still mean that amarr are doing em like CCP seem to want, it also means you dont have the balancing issues that would probabaly arise from nerfing armour em resists. Most people use DC's on their ships anyway, that ytakes your EM resist right back up to 60% anyway. And then you've got the omni tank everyone uses. Tbh when it comes down to it on the bigger ships, it's the difference between 70% and 75% EM resist. And, if you look at the math, this is balancing it. Armor tankers have that extra 10% in explosive (compared to EM 0% in shields), so shouldnt we have a -10% in another area to balance it? The most natural would be EM. Quote: Its the ships that suck not lasers. They need more mids, fewer lows, better bonuses. All amarr dps boats should have the capacitor usage bonus. Apocalypse needs to not be stupid. Etc. A lack of mids and an excess of lows is what Amarr is. They have little to no Ewar capability and a ***in' tan, which is supposed to be complimented with some DPS. Want more mids? Train Minny or Caldari. Slot layouts should not be changed (except for the zealot getting that extra turret). Quote:** Amarr should be the SP race Wrong, Minmatar are the SP race I think you'll find. Say what?
Amy Wang	Posted - 2007.09.21 10:53:00 - [41] Edited by: Amy Wang on 21/09/2007 10:54:20 Originally by: ITTigerClawIK Its been disscused many times by verius people so i thought id bring the most commonly suggested ideas into one thread and see witch "Boost" is more populer if i have missed some then please let me know and i shall add. 1.Reduction in Cap useage for all lassers thus takeing away the need for a cap bonus on every single Amarr ship and givieng a damage bonus in insted or armour bonus 2.Damage swap so that lassers do more Thermal Damage with Lassers than EM thus still doing a large amount of damage to shields but also a rather large amount of damage to shields, of course there is also the fact that this will conflict with the fact that Gallente are the race that is ment to be specialiseing with Thermal damage. 3.Overall Damage boost to lasers overcomeing some of the naturally high EM and therm resists to be on mostly on par with the damage output of other weapon types, 4.Reduction on base EM and thermal resistance's on most ships but mostly base EM Please disscus your thoughts and opinions on the ideas and post your own bellow and please try to keep to constructive and insightfull content not just one liners PS: i have not mentiond crysts that do kenetic dmg for one very good reason, LASERS DONT EXPLODE its an energy based weapon please remember that and CCP have made it clear already that it will not make such charges for lasers 1. Ship bonuses are meant to overcome natural weaknesses of the weapons (except for gallente where it mostly buffs already good weapons even more but then again high dps is meant to be their racial trait). Saying laser should get cap reduction built in and a "useful" second bonuses on laser boats instead is like saying to buff projectile weapons rof by 25% and give minmatar ships a "useful" bonus instead of the standard rof one. 2. That change wont do much for Gallente directly, neither good or bad but it would make thermal the primary damage type by far which would lead to thermal being hardened more on all tanks which in turn would reverse the positive effect that change intended for amarr while at the same time nerf gallente indirectly. Hey, now that I think of it that doesnt sound to bad :P But CCP wont do it to keep some kind of balance between damage types, thermal is already the most common used damage in the game after all (hybrids, gallente drones and lasers to a lesser extend as well). 3. Not going to happen, lasers already eat shields and have great dps, omni armor tanks are a problem but so are omni shield tanks for projectile guns which btw have far less dps and optimal range (read: even less dps again) then lasers 4. Resistance distribution with the strengths and weaknesses of shield and armor is well thought out and its highly unlikely to get changed imho, the real problem is that shield tanks are less attractive in pvp then armor tanks because the important pvp modules go in the med slots which leads to more armor omni tanks then shield omni tanks around, but I really dont see a way of changing that without radically changing game mechanics or ship designs.
Ziena Amani	Posted - 2007.09.21 12:15:00 - [42] Originally by: Amy Wang Edited by: Amy Wang on 21/09/2007 10:54:20 1. Ship bonuses are meant to overcome natural weaknesses of the weapons (except for gallente where it mostly buffs already good weapons even more but then again high dps is meant to be their racial trait). Saying laser should get cap reduction built in and a "useful" second bonuses on laser boats instead is like saying to buff projectile weapons rof by 25% and give minmatar ships a "useful" bonus instead of the standard rof one. Heh, hardly so. The 5% Rof/lvl is hardly just a compensation for a weakness of weapon system as itself, more like a compensation for a lesser amount of turrets on the ship, compared to its contenders in a class. Heck, just compare unbonused FMP II with AC 220 II. 31.2 dps vs 28.3, at perfect skills, but FMP is harder to fit(132/19 PG/CPU vs 110/22), eats 2.1 cap/s, has worse damage types and less tracking. Granted ACs have laughable optimal, but they're quite on par with lasers.. to say the least. Oh, yeah, lasers don't use ammo.. but wait, it's just t1(anyone still flies with this?) and you're bound to carry millions of isk in a form of lenses with you. And before you start moaning how expensive Barrage M is.. you might want to check the price on Scorch M ;) Originally by: Amy Wang 3. Not going to happen, lasers already eat shields and have great dps, omni armor tanks are a problem but so are omni shield tanks for projectile guns which btw have far less dps and optimal range (read: even less dps again) then lasers Except projectiles can vary damage types(not as convenient as missiles, but nevertheless).. Far less dps, yeah, like.. 10%? While often having rof/damage bonus to compensate for that, while lasers have cap use boni.
Aferah	Posted - 2007.09.21 12:48:00 - [43] Originally by: Jordan Musgrat I still disagree. Some of you just have this idea in your head that the zealot should do x dps, and be able to do y and z. Nothing is broken about this ship. People fly it all the time, and do just fine... Also, if you fit for ganking, yes it can take on a BC. If you fit for tanking, I have yet to see a 7 slot tank that sucks, even with T1 resists. hmmmm, you do fly zealot, right ?
Almarez Setenta Corp	Posted - 2007.09.21 17:08:00 - [44] The only issue I have left with Amarr is the cap usage of lasers. The EM/therm split is fine. If the damage split was reversed then people would just tank even more against thermal and laser users would be no better off. So back to cap usage. It is rediculous that ships with the cap usage bonus to lasers use only slightly less cap on lasers at level 5 than they would if they just fit hybrids. The hybrids provide better tracking, higher damage mod, and greater falloff with the only disadvantage being lower optimal. I wouldn't have an issue with the cap usage of lasers and the subsequent cap usage bonus if lasers were better in most regards (as compared to hybrids/projectiles) so that you could replace the usual damage/tracking mods with cap stuff. Also, can we please get a mod that goes in high slot that reduces the cap usage of lasers/hybrids (or just lasers since they are the ones that really need it) since the NOS nerf basically makes the utility high slots of Amarr turret boats useless. What playing Amarr feels like.
Kirov VIII	Posted - 2007.09.22 00:13:00 - [45] CCP need to work & solve this problem quickly ! Amarr are stuck for enough time. We need play like another race in this game. We have no reductions on the price if we have a character amarr.
Cosmo Raata Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.09.22 02:08:00 - [46] #1 Decrease Cap Usage on all Lasers by 50% #2 Change 10% bonus to Large Energy Turret capacitor use bonus to 5% maximum Capacitor Capacity per level or 5% reduction of capacitor recharge time bonuses This will make Amarr a Cap Race, as this change fixed the Sac, it will fix all Amarr ships except for the few I will now mention. Apoc - Needs new role (e.g. Cap bonus combined with Drone bonus) Zealot - 5th Turret Point Retribution - 2nd Med Slot Last fix is PG usage on Beams, Tachyon, Mega, Heavy, Focused & Quad. Smaller beams have already been tweaked. Damage is fine, there are more shield tanked ships now so EM is valuable again. CCP, you do these things and Amarr will be fine. These are easy to do fixes and dont cause an unbalance as there is no damage increase or some super unfair bonus given.
Xequecal	Posted - 2007.09.22 02:34:00 - [47] Originally by: Cosmo Raata #1 Decrease Cap Usage on all Lasers by 50% #2 Change 10% bonus to Large Energy Turret capacitor use bonus to 5% maximum Capacitor Capacity per level or 5% reduction of capacitor recharge time bonuses This will make Amarr a Cap Race, as this change fixed the Sac, it will fix all Amarr ships except for the few I will now mention. Apoc - Needs new role (e.g. Cap bonus combined with Drone bonus) Zealot - 5th Turret Point Retribution - 2nd Med Slot Last fix is PG usage on Beams, Tachyon, Mega, Heavy, Focused & Quad. Smaller beams have already been tweaked. Damage is fine, there are more shield tanked ships now so EM is valuable again. CCP, you do these things and Amarr will be fine. These are easy to do fixes and dont cause an unbalance as there is no damage increase or some super unfair bonus given. This is balanced on every Amarr ship except the Armageddon. With these changes, it would do 95% of the damage of a neutron blasterthron with 10x the range.
Cosmo Raata Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.09.22 02:39:00 - [48] Originally by: Xequecal Originally by: Cosmo Raata #1 Decrease Cap Usage on all Lasers by 50% #2 Change 10% bonus to Large Energy Turret capacitor use bonus to 5% maximum Capacitor Capacity per level or 5% reduction of capacitor recharge time bonuses This will make Amarr a Cap Race, as this change fixed the Sac, it will fix all Amarr ships except for the few I will now mention. Apoc - Needs new role (e.g. Cap bonus combined with Drone bonus) Zealot - 5th Turret Point Retribution - 2nd Med Slot Last fix is PG usage on Beams, Tachyon, Mega, Heavy, Focused & Quad. Smaller beams have already been tweaked. Damage is fine, there are more shield tanked ships now so EM is valuable again. CCP, you do these things and Amarr will be fine. These are easy to do fixes and dont cause an unbalance as there is no damage increase or some super unfair bonus given. This is balanced on every Amarr ship except the Armageddon. With these changes, it would do 95% of the damage of a neutron blasterthron with 10x the range. 10x the range huh? I fly both Amarr & Gallente, yet I still choose the Mega inspite of the range. Mega has better tracking, more armor, more hull, more med slots to hold a tackle. I dont get why everyone must jump in & say that amarr are fine when they either dont fly them, are brand new to the game or they just are content with what they have and they dont know any better. Amarr was promised a fix, Khanid isn't all of Amarr, therefore I presented a very logical "CCP" type of fix.
Beaver Patrol	Posted - 2007.09.22 04:38:00 - [49] screw lasers they are for lamers! Fix the Nos on amarr recons instead. NPC P.R Dept.
Bback	Posted - 2007.09.22 08:41:00 - [50] honestly a 5-10% reduction in PG need and 15% or so reduction in cap usage and amarr ships would be world easier to fit. it would let you fit techII, or another resist plate insted of a PG booster or cap recharger. the people saying 25% of cap usage AND 20% off PG are just silly. its a freaking laser beam...its going to take a boat load of energy to make it work...deal with it
ITTigerClawIK Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.23 12:37:00 - [51] First. Post updated Secondly. NOS on Amarr recons are fine its what they are ment to do, suck cap Thirdly.thankyou all for keeping comments constructive Forthly..........................Bump Sig space reclaimed in the name of me -courtesy of Tiggy ([email protected])
Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.09.23 13:00:00 - [52] Make the apoc and a cruiser (maller or omen) khanid or at least missile based, so basically missile spammers. Lower fitting reqs/cap use on lasers. Slightly lower laser DPS and give the rest of the amarr ships real bonuses instead of cap usage bonuses. --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
Ash'el Zeal Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2007.09.23 15:50:00 - [53] Originally by: Cosmo Raata #1 Decrease Cap Usage on all Lasers by 50% #2 Change 10% bonus to Large Energy Turret capacitor use bonus to 5% maximum Capacitor Capacity per level or 5% reduction of capacitor recharge time bonuses This will make Amarr a Cap Race, as this change fixed the Sac, it will fix all Amarr ships except for the few I will now mention. Apoc - Needs new role (e.g. Cap bonus combined with Drone bonus) Zealot - 5th Turret Point Retribution - 2nd Med Slot Last fix is PG usage on Beams, Tachyon, Mega, Heavy, Focused & Quad. Smaller beams have already been tweaked. Damage is fine, there are more shield tanked ships now so EM is valuable again. CCP, you do these things and Amarr will be fine. These are easy to do fixes and dont cause an unbalance as there is no damage increase or some super unfair bonus given. /Signed
ITTigerClawIK Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.25 13:05:00 - [54] gunna give this topic a quick bump Sig space reclaimed in the name of me -courtesy of Tiggy ([email protected])
Setana Manoro Gallente Firefly Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.25 13:50:00 - [55] Originally by: Wayward Hooligan On t1 ships shields have a total of 120 resist points. Armor has a total of 140 resist points. The difference is most likely to make up for shields having a natural regen. 1 - Remove 10% EM resist from armor across the board on all t1 ships and therefore their t2 versions as well. That directly boosts laser users but has NO effect on anyone else. It us a pure laser boost. 2 - Reduce cap usage of lasers such that they are still the highest cap using weapon per shot for like weapons but not using DOUBLE the cap. Neutron Blaster Cannon -vs- Mega Pulse -> Mega Pulse should use 25% - 50% more cap per shot. Currently its 18.2 -vs- 40 425mm Railgun -vs- Mega Beam -> Mega Beam should use 25% to 50% more cap per shot. Currently its 30 -vs- 65 This would keep lasers as the cap heavy turret system but it would make it less ridiculous. 3 - Remove cap use bonus from all ships with it and generally sort the ship bonus into better lines of ships. ex: Omen -> Proph -> Geddon => ROF bonus, Range bonus(pulled from Zealot) Maller -> Harb -> Abaddon => Damage bonus, Armor resist bonus Yes pls, give the geddon a range bonus. I'd just love a Mega Pulse II geddon that with scorch L has a optimal of 100km. :) I'm not neutral in RAGOON vs BOB, I just dislike both sides. :)
Irob Urore Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2007.09.25 13:50:00 - [56] didnt amarr just get a boost, wth is wrong with you people.
LUKEC Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.09.25 13:55:00 - [57] Originally by: Irob Urore didnt amarr just get a boost, wth is wrong with you people. Huh? You mean amarr is now the only race that still needs cap booster and already have too many medslots :P ?
Kazuma Saruwatari	Posted - 2007.09.25 14:04:00 - [58] Originally by: Irob Urore didnt amarr just get a boost, wth is wrong with you people. I'm sorry, but what boost? Oh the Caldari-err.. Khanid Mk2. Right. It still doesnt fix the main problem in most of the Amarr ships, which is their major suffering in terms of cap and fitting lasers. Whilst Amarr enjoys its cousin-boost in the form of missiles (OMG we have to train missiles now?!), it still doesnt fix the problem with lasers. - Odd Pod Out, a blog of EVE Online
Mrski Okupator Amarr The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.09.25 15:14:00 - [59] Originally by: Irob Urore didnt amarr just get a boost, wth is wrong with you people. And wth is the boost? Ah, you mean stripping lasers from a few ships? Yeah, I feel boosted. Go buy a clue, and I'll give you one for free. ___ Apocalypse Mining. Mine your way to heaven. What playing Amarr feels like. Shamelessly snatched from Almarez.
Relnala	Posted - 2007.09.25 15:53:00 - [60] I personally tend to fly my character that runs highly specialized gallente battleship pilots, and I tend to engage mostly other battleships. In my opinion, the apoc could really use a revamp. Turning it into a missile boat would be the best choice (Drone boat + cap bonus might be a bit crazy, especially if you leave it with enough grid / highslots to fit guns). The nos change recently WAS an amarr boost. CCP is probably doing things in small steps to make sure that they don't make an overwhelming change somewhere that completely ruins the balance of the game in favor of Amarr. Cap: In my opinion, reducing some of the cap usage on lasers would be a decent boost for them (I know how much cap they use even with ship-type level 5s and it can be a bit crazy, especially with damage mods on). Perhaps on like of 10-15% Short Range: Possibly increase the base damage mod on all amarr lasers and give them a slower ROF (gives them the same damage, and keeps the cap skills / ship bonus to cap usage relevent. Amarr guns already have decent tracking and range so (I'm looking at mega pulses compared to the much-whined about neutron blaster here. The Mega Pulse has 1.8x the range of a blaster, and the blaster only has 30% more tracking. Factor in the tracking bonus from the megathron and the ability to hit comes out to roughly proportional, better range on the Megapulse, better tracking on the Blaster. In all reality, that extra range is a HUGE bonus in combat, because a megathron can't really hit anything outside of say 22km with Null ammo (I'm in class right now so I can't login to see my exact range.) The neutron blaster has a higher damage multiplier and the same ROF, giving it a higher base damage, at reduced range and cap usage to say, the Armageddon. Both ships get a damage or ROF bonus, both have big drone bays. The Geddon gets an extra lowslot and the thron an extra mid. Midslots I'll admit are very useful, however I say the biggest comparison issue is that the Megapulse uses comparatively more PG to the base grid of a Geddon than a neutron blaster does in comparison to the Megathron. (I'll not compare the apoc because I think its broken, and I won't do the abaddon because I know the abaddons are amazing ships.) To be honest, I'm tired of being told that my ships are overpowered when I know quite well the weaknesses of my own ship. If I'm farther than 10km from my target the "ridiculous dps" that people complain about is considerably lowered and the advantage I had is considerably weakened in favor of my opponents. Simple fact: don't snuggle a megathron. All it can do is stand toe to toe and duke it out with you, so don't let it sit on you. (Throns have cap issues too by the way ;)) If you start the battle a good distance from him, even if he has a MWD to get to you, he's gonna take a battering on the way (both to his armor and his cap) so that extra range is really your friend. I don't think the Amarr battleships really need a bonus to damage, if used right they're very lethal on all terms. A PG reduction on the guns in range of 5-10% would be worth a shot though. EM Resists: I say go ahead and lower EM resists by 10% base on all armor tanking ships. This is a boost to both Amarr and Minmatar who use EMP ammo, while not really making much difference otherwise. Thermal Damage: I really hope they don't give anyone more of a reason to tank thermal because it will make thermal the predominant damage type in eve (where before you needed resists to all types unless you had great intel). Zealot: Give the zealot an extra turret and a bit of grid/cpu to fill it out. Don't really think it will change much for anyone else.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: 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.