EVE Search - The Ultimate Amarr Whine Thread

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The Ultimate Amarr Whine Thread

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Meridius Dex Amarr Species 5618 R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.24 14:32:00 - [1] The more I read about it (and gain PvP experience) the more I'm convinced the Amarr problems are threefold (and all easily addressable without disturbing game balance - in fact, enhancing it): 1.) Lasers need a mathematical adjustment to cap use and/or damage. This needn't be dramatic, but it must be enough to address that... 2.) Ship Bonuses must be changed from these ridiculous laser cap use bonuses. As mentioned several times before, Amarr are the only race which must rely on a ship bonus just to use their racial weapons. This is unacceptable and Amarr should enjoy 'real' ship bonuses just like the other three races in EVE. 3.) Finally, and most importantly, MWD simply MUST be nerfed significantly. Another forum post (sorry, can't remember who/where) posited a change to MWD along the lines of: frig modules= 350% speed, cruiser modules= 300% speed, battleship modules= 250%. The most significant problem with Amarr ships (as much or more than lasers themselves) is the fact that there is no 'medium range combat' in EVE. All fights are either at long-range sniper or short-range blaster distances. MWD is the culprit for this and has drastically imbalanced PvP. The Devs have mentioned in the past that anytime any one module is being used by everyone in a game that it suggests there's a game imbalance. Well, guess what... -- Meridius Dex -- Amarr = EVE on Hard setting
Meridius Dex Amarr Species 5618 R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.29 03:07:00 - [2] Among the Trinity patch notes released so far, is there ANY indication that any of these issues are being addressed with the new update? -- Meridius Dex -- Amarr = EVE on Hard setting
Meridius Dex Amarr Species 5618 R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.12.04 00:58:00 - [3] I have to say I'm always heartened to see non-Amarr players affirming their own desire to see energy weaposn in this game fixed. They must understand how much better this game would be if an entire class of weapons were made at least a conceivable option again for ALL pilots. So why can't the devs? If EVE is all about complexity and innovation, strategy and problem-solving using fittings and modules, how can CCP continue to allow an entire subset of weapon modules to languish, often forsaken even by their own race? -- Meridius Dex -- Amarr = EVE on Hard setting
Meridius Dex Amarr Species 5618 R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.12.11 17:03:00 - [4] /signed I canceled my subscription last week after another frustrating loss in my gimped Amarrian ship. So if the devs do not respond to these genuine handicaps by sometime in late January when it runs out, that will do it for me. Thanks for wasting my time with a poorly-designed MMO, CCP. -- Meridius Dex -- Amarr = EVE on Hard setting
Meridius Dex Amarr Species 5618 R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.12.14 22:47:00 - [5] There have been a lot of ideas discussed here and a lot of debate. From where I sit, it seems we can distill 90% of what people are saying down to two or three things, upon which most everyone can agree: 1.) Base Resistances - Base EM resists on Shield/Armor should go from 0%/60% to something more like 15%/45%. EM is still the weakest resistance on shields and the strongest resistance on armor. The ratio is still there, but in one step the Omnitank issue would be addressed. You can keep your EANMs exactly the way they are. 2.) Reduce laser cap use - A lot of numbers have been thrown around and certainly CCP should run them all through their version of Big Blue to get as close as possible to what would be balanced and fair. But it looks like 25-30% is what many feel would be close. It would also open up energy weapons to at least be considered by other races, thus adding to the variety and innovation inherent to EVE gameplay. 3.) Change ship bonuses - After Point 2 is addressed, lose the cap bonuses and replace them with real ship bonuses. Is there anyone left anywhere in EVE that doesn't agree on this one by now? My own bonus assertion: 4.) Nerf MWDs. These modules are the sole reason there IS NO "medium range combat" in EVE. All fights are either at long-range sniper or short-range blaster distances. Scale MWD module attributes according to ship classes and reduce their ubiquity in PvP. MWD has drastically imbalanced EVE. I said it before and I'll say it again: The Devs have mentioned in the past that any time any one module is being used by everyone in a game that it suggests there's a game imbalance. Well, guess what... -- Meridius Dex -- Amarr = EVE on Hard setting
Meridius Dex Amarr Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.12.21 23:28:00 - [6] I also canceled my account a few weeks ago in disgust over this egregious imbalance. My paid game time runs out at the end of January. I wonder if any single dev will reply to this thread or otherwise address the Amarr issue by then? -- Meridius Dex -- Amarr = EVE on Hard setting
Meridius Dex Amarr Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.12.30 05:33:00 - [7] Edited by: Meridius Dex on 30/12/2007 05:34:23 I have to say one of the worst things I ever read about EVE was that the developers were avid participants in the game itself. It just deflated me when I heard it. Nothing could be a worse precursor for game imbalance than the 'brain trust' of any given MMO being prejudiced by their own narrow, personal viewpoints. Objectivity and a detached, macrocosmic worldview would always be far more desirable traits for a good developer. How many devs are speed tankers? How many are Gallente? How many on staff fly Assault Frigates? Clearly none fly Amarr - at least not without all maxed V-level skills. -- Meridius Dex -- Amarr = EVE on Hard setting
Meridius Dex Amarr Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.01.01 16:10:00 - [8] I'm going to keep reposting my talking points once every 15 pages or so until either a dev responds or this thread dies. Although there have been some additional points made about tracking and such (incidentally, why not improve the tracking of just Quad Beams, so they can at least have a role as anti-frig weapons?), the central points remain... From where I sit, it seems we can distill 90% of what people are saying down to two or three things, upon which most everyone can agree: 1.) Base Resistances - Base EM resists on Shield/Armor should go from 0%/60% to something more like 15%/45%. EM is still the weakest resistance on shields and the strongest resistance on armor. The ratio is still there, but in one step the Omnitank issue would be addressed. You can keep your EANMs exactly the way they are. 2.) Reduce laser cap use - A lot of numbers have been thrown around and certainly CCP should run them all through their version of Big Blue to get as close as possible to what would be balanced and fair. But it looks like 25-30% is what many feel would be close. It would also open up energy weapons to at least be considered by other races, thus adding to the variety and innovation inherent to EVE gameplay. 3.) Change ship bonuses - After Point 2 is addressed, lose the cap bonuses and replace them with real ship bonuses. Is there anyone left anywhere in EVE that doesn't agree on this one by now? My own bonus assertion: 4.) Nerf MWDs. These modules are the sole reason there IS NO "medium range combat" in EVE. All fights are either at long-range sniper or short-range blaster distances. Scale MWD module attributes according to ship classes and reduce their ubiquity in PvP. MWD has drastically imbalanced EVE. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Devs have mentioned in the past that any time any one module is being used by everyone in a game that it suggests there's a game imbalance. Well, guess what... UPDATE: With the upcoming speed nerf, perhaps there will be changes that bring a return to mid-range combat. Ideas recently discussed involve longer range webbing modules, allowing Amarr ships the ability to dictate more midrange fights. -- Meridius Dex -- Amarr = EVE on Hard setting
Meridius Dex Amarr Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.01.11 21:17:00 - [9] It has been posited in another thread that the upcoming 'boost patch' will contain long-overdue fixes to Amarr/lasers. Anyone have a dev quote on this? -- Meridius Dex -- Amarr = EVE on Hard setting
Meridius Dex Amarr Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.01.18 16:33:00 - [10] Great news, guys. A dev just responded.. to another thread on on Page 1 about ambulation. And it was after only 5 posts! I'm sure they'll be along any minute to post a reply here. -- Meridius Dex -- Amarr = EVE on Hard setting

Meridius Dex Amarr Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.01.23 14:36:00 - [11] Well, as promised, it's been over 15 pages since the last time I posted this. So I'm back with my short list of cast-iron solutions to the Amarr issue (all of which ought be ludicrously easy to test/implement - no complex mathematical astrophysics tasks required by CCP). I'll keep posting this as long as this thread is alive and the devs refuse to publicly comment on the clear, legitimate issues of Amarr - in particular, the severely gimped laser weapons. Although there have been some additional points made about tracking and such (incidentally, why not improve the tracking of just Quad Beams, so these oddball guns can at least have a role as anti-frig weapons?), the central points remain... From where I sit, it seems we can distill 90% of what people are saying down to two or three things, upon which most everyone can agree: 1.) Base Resistances - Base EM resists on Shield/Armor should go from 0%/60% to something more like 15%/45%. EM is still the weakest resistance on shields and the strongest resistance on armor. The ratio is still there, but in one simple step the Omnitank issue would be addressed. You can keep your EANMs exactly the way they are. 2.) Reduce laser cap use - A lot of numbers have been thrown around and certainly CCP should run them all through their version of Big Blue to get as close as possible to what would be balanced and fair. But it looks like 40-50% is what many feel would be close. It would also open up energy weapons to at least be considered by other races, thus adding to the variety and innovation inherent to EVE gameplay. 3.) Change ship bonuses - After Point 2 is addressed, lose the cap bonuses and replace them with real ship bonuses. Is there anyone left anywhere in EVE that doesn't agree on this one by now? My own bonus assertion: 4.) Nerf MWDs. These modules are the sole reason there IS NO "medium range combat" in EVE. All fights are either at long-range sniper or short-range blaster distances. Scale MWD module attributes according to ship classes and reduce their ubiquity in PvP. MWD has drastically imbalanced EVE. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Devs have mentioned in the past that any time any one module is being used by everyone in a game that it suggests there's a game imbalance. Well, guess what... UPDATE: With the upcoming speed nerf, perhaps there will be changes that bring a return to mid-range combat. Ideas recently discussed involve longer range webbing modules, allowing Amarr ships the ability to dictate more midrange fights. But, at this point, any reasonable nerf to speed can only (slightly) help Amarr. -- Meridius Dex -- Amarr = EVE on Hard setting
Meridius Dex Amarr Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.01.23 21:32:00 - [12] Originally by: Goumindong These solutions dont work at all, let alone being "cast-iron" I disagree. They are perfectly viable and ought be investigated by devs, if not immediately implemented. -- Meridius Dex -- Amarr = EVE on Hard setting
Meridius Dex Amarr Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.01.23 23:55:00 - [13] Originally by: Goumindong That's great, you're wrong. Some ships dont need new bonuses, some ships wont be fixed by new bonuses. Such, new bonuses cannot fix the ships. Only a few ships could be fixed by new bonuses, but those would then provide problems in other areas. How is fixing the EM ratio not the best way to address omnitanks (without having to change EANMs at all, I might add)? Why are all these tards so in love with that stupid 0/60 ratio? It's absurd. 15/45 would still leave EM as the weakest resistance on shield (while encouraging more shield tankers, something I read the devs would like to see more) and the strongest on armor. It just would not be as out of whack as it is now. Hell, even 10/50 would be an improvement. I still have not seen one legitimate counter-argument to the idea of changing the base resists for EM. Forget crystals with different damage types, shifting lasers more to thermal, etc, etc. That's all bunk. Change the base resistances, fix EM damage. Period. Simple. Problem solved. Move on. So you keep cap bonuses on those ships you think may still need it. That doesn't change the fact that laser cap use ought to be fixed - and long before now. Even if you keep many of the ship cap bonuses roughly the same and reduced the cap use on lasers by 30%, you'd have better balance than we do now. Goumindong, you seem avowed to keeping Amarr permanently gimped versus other races. That's fine if you have eleventy-billion skill points, as I'm sure you do. But just because you can fly them half-decently with maxed out skills doesn't mean they aren't seriously gimped all the same for the rest of us. There are three main problems with Amarr: 1. Lasers 2. Lasers 3. and Lasers The issue of mid-range combat being utterly nonexistent, in the age of MWD, comes next on that list. -- Meridius Dex -- Amarr = EVE on Hard setting
Meridius Dex Amarr Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.01.24 20:00:00 - [14] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Meridius Dex Goumindong, you seem avowed to keeping Amarr permanently gimped versus other races. That's fine if you have eleventy-billion skill points, as I'm sure you do. But just because you can fly them half-decently with maxed out skills doesn't mean they aren't seriously gimped all the same for the rest of us. Ill get to the rest of the post later. But i just wanted to quote this because its utterly hilarious. Glad you're entertained. I have not been by your replies, of course, as you have still not provided one intelligent, informed reply to any of my stated arguments. So far all you've provided is snide retorts with no substance. Besides, keep quoting me all you like - at least it keeps this thread bumped. -- Meridius Dex -- Amarr = EVE on Hard setting
Meridius Dex Amarr Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.01.24 23:02:00 - [15] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Meridius Dex Glad you're entertained. I have not been by your replies, of course, as you have still not provided one intelligent, informed reply to any of my stated arguments. So far all you've provided is snide retorts with no substance. Besides, keep quoting me all you like - at least it keeps this thread bumped. You have not provided an argument as to why you are correct. I have provided an argument as to why I am correct.[Specificially you stated originally that you were right, and i stated you were wrong, because adding bonuses will not fix most of the ships that need fixing, and many ships do not need bonuses. You then went on to say that EM resistance change was the answer without actually saying why] You also clearly havent been keeping up with the discussion that has been going on outside of this thread. Yep, as I suspected. No legitimate counter-arguments to any of my 3 main points. Just more dismissive arrogance, with nothing to back it up. Thought you were going to take me apart? And the primary discussion is in this thread - and I've read every post. -- Meridius Dex -- Amarr = EVE on Hard setting
Meridius Dex Amarr Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.01.30 22:27:00 - [16] God, I love the smell of vindication in the morning! The most recent devblog has made it clear that real changes are coming, starting with one of my own assertions: the base resistances on armor for EM damage WILL be changed. The devs decided on taking 60% down to 50% and I am grateful for the wisdom they've exhibited. (What do you have to say now, Goumindong?) The most recent devblog also is in line with several other points I and others made and it's good to hear they are looking at these smart choices and not the various dopey schemes to add different-damaging crystals and whatnot: http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=533 Reducing cap use of lasers and (possibly) rethinking some ship cap bonuses is what so many ohers have been saying for so long. That they will look into fitting issues and other problems is also encouraging. Booya! Let's get back in the fight, Servants of the Emperor! -- Meridius Dex -- Amarr = EVE on Hard setting
Meridius Dex Amarr Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.01.31 00:58:00 - [17] I know that Goumindong doesn't want to admit he was wrong and I'm sure he's thrilled - atop his mountain of skill points - to have things remain as they are, but the rest of us are grateful for even this initial change in the right direction. I find it intriguing that one possible solution to the omnitank issue might be to eliminate armor comp skills (and refund those SPs to players), further bringing EANMs down to earth. Not sure if CCP has that on the table, but I am thrilled nevertheless by the EM base resist change. It will improve all of EVE greatly. Now just cut laser cap use and look at some (or most) ship bonuses and we'll have all three of my central arguments acted upon. Fixing some fitting issues and looking at a handful of particlarly bad ships in the Amarr line (Omen, Maller, Apoc ..you know the rogue's gallery) and we'll be balanced for some time to come. To summarize the points I've been making throughout this thread: "1.) Base Resistances - Base EM resists on Shield/Armor should go from 0%/60% to something more like 15%/45%. EM is still the weakest resistance on shields and the strongest resistance on armor. The ratio is still there, but in one simple step the Omnitank issue would be addressed. You can keep your EANMs exactly the way they are." The dev blog informs that base EM on armor is being dropped to 50%, with no increase in shield EM resistance. This is even better than what I suggested! I guess CCP feel shield tankers don't need the buff. "2.) Reduce laser cap use - A lot of numbers have been thrown around and certainly CCP should run them all through their version of Big Blue to get as close as possible to what would be balanced and fair. But it looks like 40-50% is what many feel would be close. It would also open up energy weapons to at least be considered by other races, thus adding to the variety and innovation inherent to EVE gameplay." Zulupark indicates of the many ideas floated to fix Amarr, this is one of the primary ones they have identified and with which they agree. "3.) Change ship bonuses - After Point 2 is addressed, lose the cap bonuses and replace them with real ship bonuses. Is there anyone left anywhere in EVE that doesn't agree on this one by now?" Once again, the dev blog indicates that ships will be looked at and some "could need lovin'", but stops short of saying any of the ship bonuses would be changed. My bet is that this would depend largely on how much they reduce laser cap use - a little (no bonus changes) or a lot (50% reduction, new ship bonuses). My bonus assertion: "4.) Nerf MWDs. These modules are the sole reason there IS NO "medium range combat" in EVE. All fights are either at long-range sniper or short-range blaster distances. Scale MWD module attributes according to ship classes and reduce their ubiquity in PvP. MWD has drastically imbalanced EVE." No word in the dev blog, but with the upcoming speed nerf already been discussed, it's possible MWDs might also be reduced in their ubquity in EVE, thus allowing more of Amarr's fabled "mid-range combat". In closing, I feel very good about this dev blog and have re-upped my quarterly subscription. And Johnny, good things are happening. Let's tone it down a bit, OK? -- Meridius Dex -- Amarr = EVE on Hard setting

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.