EVE Search - Amarr Mk III: Applying the Lessons of Sansha

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Amarr Mk III: Applying the Lessons of Sansha

» 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 - 2007.11.10 16:12:00 - [1] Edited by: Goumindong on 10/11/2007 16:14:48 Introduction This thread is not going to look at what exactly is wrong with Amarr. It will provide no changes that may or may not "fix" amarr. It will not look into any ships that also need changing that arent Amarr. The purpose of this thread is to provide a study on ship design around the Sansha/Marauder template that has recently made its way onto Sisi and will be entering the game soon as a way to diversify ship types and roles. I will be drawing heavily on previous work i have done regarding ship roles and fittings, but if you are interested in general ship balance this is not the thread for you, though something like this, might be more up your alley. Though keep in mind that any general balance work that runs past a major balance patch can become obsolete for rather obvious reasons. You may also by wondering why i have not named the thread "Amarr Mk II" and that is because i have run my mouth on the subject rather frequently and already have produced a work, now obsolete by many patches, by that title. Anyway; on to the ideas. Differentiating Tank and Gank Tank ships and Gank ships perform different roles in this game. This is because of the dynamics of damage, range, and gang size, and how this all interplays. To be brief, because i said i wasnt going to wax poetic on any balance principles here; tanking is useless unless it corresponds with an ability to do some other vital function. Tanking ships with well scalable dps and decent primary dps end up better at ganking than ganking ships Tanking ships without decent primary dps are bad To be short. This means that tanking ships shine with split weapon systems. There i said it. Split Weapons: Really Not That Bad There is a myth that has been running around that ships which have split weapon systems are worse than ships without. This is false. There are a few ships which have split weapons systems that are bad, but this happens for reasons that are divorced from split weapons. However it is correct to say that split weaponed designed ships cannot save a bad ship. The Prime Mechanic The prime mechanic is a large special damage bonus on the primary turret type to produce a system of larger than typical effective high slots. This larger than typical effective high slot layout allows you to create split weapon ships that make up for the lower number of primary weapons by simply having more or produce interesting effects with heat. A good example of this in current design is the rupture and the typhoon. The Rupture is in a less extreme sense, the double damage bonus allows the ship to fit 2 extra missile launchers in the spare high slots. For the Typhoon, the ship has an extra weapon slot compared to its other tier 1 bretherin[yes, i am aware the ship has issues this thread isnt for that], and a huge drone bay, giving it versitility and decent damage when not fitting damage mods. The downside is of course... training time. Heat?!?!?! In a few developer blogs, it has been hinted that heat sluffs to offline modules easier and as well in a linear fashion which means that you can fit your ship in a manner that increases the amount of time you can overheat modules.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.10 16:12:00 - [2] The Ships O.K. Lets get down to this with an example by redoing the Tanking line and Ganking line of Battlecruisers, and then doing a short mockup[slots, drones, turrets, bonuses only, no fittings/commentary] of what the frigates, cruisers, battleships, and tech 2 ships might look like under the new system. The Gank Ship: Harbinger High Slots: 8 Med Slots: 3 Low Slots: 7 Drones: 25m3 Turrets: 4 Launchers: 0 Bandwidth: 25m3 Special Bonus: 85% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage Battlecruiser Bonus: 5% Bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage and 5% Bonus to Armor hit points per level. CPU: 325 Power Grid: 1200 Shield: 3516 Armor: 5469 Structure: 4076 [-10%] The ship has enough Grid and CPU at AWU 4 for 4 HPIIs, a MWD and 2 800mm RT plates. This makes it the Geddon equivelent in a Battlecruiser. Its low CPU makes fitting it with high CPU items difficult, and fitting anything in the utility high slots difficult. These are essentially blank slots for: Gang Mods: Offlined modules so you can overload the guns without them exploding. Fitting NOS/Neut/remote rep will be more or less impossible with the fitting profile. DPS is essentially unchanged, but the active drone bay needs to shrink to deal with the increased versitility and hit points. DPS shifts 6% towards the guns in order to accomidate this. Structure hit points are reduced slightly to accomidate the increased armor and the ships role as an "armor tanker" With high amounts of hit points and damage but limited ewar or tackle capability the Harbinger now provides something that the other Battlecruisers do not.[where as previously the Hurricane was pretty much better for every situation], and slightly higher turret DPS increases the ships ability to be fit for anti-support to overcome radios handicap[5 vs 6 base damage] Space and Fitting for Gang mods is another issue. The Tank Ship: Prophecy High Slots: 7 Med Slots: 4 Low Slots: 6 Drones: 75 m^3 Turrets: 3 Launchers: 3 Bandwidth: 50 m^3 Special Bonus: 100% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage Battlecruiser Bonus: 5% Bonus to Armor Resistances and 5% Bonus to Capacitor Size per level. CPU: 420 Powergrid: 1360 Shield: 3419 Armor: 4883 Structure: 4395 The large amount of CPU lets the ship fit its launchers. And the large drone bay rounds out the supplimentary dps. The ship would be capable of putting out a large quantity of DPS in a full tank mode[about 500] due to it having 9 effective high slots for damage and a large drone bay. [Compared to 8.75 on the current Harbinger and 9.25 on the new one]. But since the ship gets that DPS from so many different sources, adding 3 damage mods only increases the DPS to 684. This leaves it 8.5% behind the Harbinger using weapons that have travel time, and having less low slots available to tank, and less ability to overload weapons.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.10 16:14:00 - [3] The Tank Frigate: Punisher Slots: 4/3/3 Drones: 0 m^3 Turrets: 2 Launchers: 2 Special bonus: 50% bonus to Small Energy Turret Damage Frigate Bonus: 5% Bonus to Armor resistances, 5% bonus to capacitor size The Gank Frigate: Executioner Slots: 3/2/3 Drones: 0 m^3 Turrets: 2 Launchers: 0 Special bonus: 75% bonus to Small Energy Turret Damage Frigate Bonus: 5% Bonus to Small Energy Turret Damage, 5% bonus to Small Energy Turret Tracking The Tank Cruiser: Maller Slots: 5/4/4 Drones: 25 m^3 Turrets: 2 Launchers: 3 Bandwidth: 25 m^3 Special bonus: 100% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage Cruiser Bonus: 5% Bonus to Armor resistances, 5% bonus to capacitor size The Gank Cruiser: Omen Slots: 5/3/5 Drones: 15 m^3 Turrets: 3 Launchers: 0 Bandwidth: 15 m^3 Special bonus: 750% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage Cruiser Bonus: 5% Bonus to Armor Hit Points, 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage The Tank Battleship: Abaddon Slots: 8/4/7 Drones: 175 m^3 Turrets: 4 Launchers: 4 Bandwidth: 125 m^3 Special bonus: 100% bonus to Large Energy Turret Damage Battleship Bonus: 5% Bonus to Armor resistances, 5% bonus to capacitor size The Gank Battleship: Armageddon Slots: 7/3/8 Drones: 125 m^3 Turrets: 4 Launchers: 0 Bandwidth: 100 m^3 Special bonus: 100% bonus to Small Energy Turret Damage Cruiser Bonus: 5% Bonus to Armor Hit Points, 5% bonus to Large Energy Turret Damage
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.10 16:14:00 - [4] The Assault Frigate: Retribution Slots: 3/2/5 Drones: 0 m^3 Turrets: 2 Launchers: 0 Bandwidth: 0 m^3 Special bonus: 100% bonus to Small Energy Turret Damage Frigate Bonus: 5% Bonus to Small Energy Turret Damage, Bonus to be determind later when CCP fixes assault frigates Assalt Frigate bonus: 5% bonus to Small Energy Turret Damage, 10% Bonus to Small Energy Turret Optimal Range The Interceptor: Crusader Slots: 3/2/4 Drones: 0 m^3 Turrets: 2 Launchers: 0 Bandwidth: 0 m^3 Special bonus: 100% bonus to Small Energy Turret Damage Frigate Bonus: 5% Bonus to Small Energy Turret Damage, 5% bonus to Small Energy Turret Tracking Interceptor bonus: 5% bonus to Small Energy Turret Damage, 5% reduction in signature radius The Heavy Assault Cruiser: Zealot Slots: 5/3/7 Drones: 0 m^3 Turrets: 3 Launchers: 0 Bandwidth: 0 m^3 Special bonus: 75% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage Cruiser Bonus: 5% Bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage, 5% Bonus to Armor Hit Points Heavy Assault Ship bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage, 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Optimal Range The Heavy Interdictor Cruiser: Devoter Slots: 5/3/7 Drones: 0 m^3 Turrets: 3 Launchers: 0 Bandwidth: 0 m^3 Special bonus: 75% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage Cruiser Bonus: 5% Bonus to Armor Resistances, 5% Bonus to Capacitor Size Heavy Interdictor bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage, 5% bonus to range of Warp Disruption Fields The Field Command Ship: Absolution Slots: 8/3/7 Drones: 25 m^3 Turrets: 4 Launchers: 0 Bandwidth: 25 m^3 Special bonus: 75% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage Battlecruiser Bonus: 5% Bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage, 5% Bonus to Armor Resistances Command Ship bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage, 5% bonus to Armor Hit Points
Darahk J'olonar Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.10 16:27:00 - [5] Edited by: Darahk J''olonar on 10/11/2007 16:32:43 Edited by: Darahk J''olonar on 10/11/2007 16:32:21 Edited by: Darahk J''olonar on 10/11/2007 16:31:04 Edited by: Darahk J''olonar on 10/11/2007 16:29:33 Quote: The Gank Battleship: Armageddon Slots: 7/3/8 Drones: 125 m^3 Turrets: 4 Launchers: 0 Bandwidth: 100 m^3 Special bonus: 100% bonus to Small Energy Turret Damage Cruiser Bonus: 5% Bonus to Armor Hit Points, 5% bonus to Large Energy Turret Damage Tell me there is a mistake with all the bonuses here. If not then I will opt for the abaddon. K thnx bye. EDIT: After looking at this a little more why bother with the Geddon? Just have the Abaddon. Better armor, better high slots (4/4 for guns/missiles), better bonuses and better drone bandwith (5 hvy). You just made the Geddon more useless than the Apoc.
Mou'adib Gallente Ethical Dilemma	Posted - 2007.11.10 16:37:00 - [6] lol at this
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.10 16:41:00 - [7] Edited by: Goumindong on 10/11/2007 16:42:15 Actually the turrets on the Abaddon are in error, should be 3 turrets, 4 launchers. But even then if you couldnt find a use for that Armageddon you arent trying hard enough.
Valator Uel Caldari Pax Minor Asylum Total Comfort	Posted - 2007.11.10 17:03:00 - [8] That Abaddon is a monster! 6 effective guns + 4 missile slots = pwnage. Reduce the missile hardpoints to 2 so it has 8 weapon slots max. -----------------------------------------------------
Udyr Vulpayne Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.10 17:03:00 - [9] i like the general idea behind it but not all of the changes you did. maybe just apply the sansha/marauder style to the tankers as those are the ships that are really in need of a change. then give the tankers either those additional launchers to fill the now empty highslots or give them the fitting and cap for utility modules and turn them into ships with: high tank, about the same damage as now + added utility. also maybe include the role bonus for damage as one of the ship bonuses instead (20% damage per level instead of 100% role bonus). this would take one bonus from the ships but allow for better fitting/cap to run weapons and utility mods at the same time without making them too good imho. example prophecy: High Slots: 6 Med Slots: 4 Low Slots: 6 Turrets: 3 Battlecruiser Bonus: 5% Bonus to Armor Resistances and 20% Bonus to Laser Damage per level. + enough fitting and cap to use 3x utility modules
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.10 17:07:00 - [10] That would be an option, i like the split for the tankers a bit better, since they have fittings for the launchers you still have that option. Without the launchers you simply dont have the option. That being said, the DPS of the tankers today is beyond pathetic, it really needs to be increased As well, you would need another slot on top. You are forgetting the spare for the gang mod.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.10 17:09:00 - [11] Originally by: Valator Uel That Abaddon is a monster! 6 effective guns + 4 missile slots = pwnage. Reduce the missile hardpoints to 2 so it has 8 weapon slots max. That is the point. 8 guns + 25% damage bonus = 10 guns max. So 6 effective guns + 4 launchers = 10 weapons. BUT if you add a damage mod to an 8 gun +25% dmg bonus ship you get 10 guns x damage mod. If you add a damage mod to a 6 effective + 4 you get 6 guns x damage bonus. In short, you gain the versitility of launchers and a nice drone bay, but you lose the damage scalability found in single weapon systems.
Kadoes Khan	Posted - 2007.11.10 17:12:00 - [12] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 10/11/2007 16:42:15 Actually the turrets on the Abaddon are in error, should be 3 turrets, 4 launchers. But even then if you couldnt find a use for that Armageddon you arent trying hard enough. Think he meant this error: Quote: 100% bonus to Small Energy Turret Damage -=^=- "Someday the world will recognize the genius in my insanity."
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.10 17:14:00 - [13] Heh, i thought i had gotten those out when copy/pasting the template.
Deva Blackfire D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.10 17:26:00 - [14] Idea is good but... why you missed apoc? :D You mean its such crap that its beyond repair? ;p
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.10 17:50:00 - [15] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Idea is good but... why you missed apoc? :D You mean its such crap that its beyond repair? ;p What would it do in the tank/gank line? Otherwise you just end up with two tanks or two ganks with one being better than the other.
Yukisa	Posted - 2007.11.10 17:58:00 - [16] You know amarr has issues.. but the problem doesn't need to throw the entire game balance out of wack. These suggestions are too big for a fix, more like a complete redesign. Doing that while the game is 4 years and ongoing is plain silly. A few small changes here and there is enough to boost amarr. 1. Get rid of 10% bonus to energy weapon cap use per level on all amarr ships. All laser amarr ships get a "Role bonus: 50% reduction in energy weapon cap use". Then it gets 2 real bonuses, like every other ships in eve. Wasting 1 bonus to use a weapon system that isn't even better than existing weapons is plain gimped. Just this fix alone will boost amarr a great deal. The rest, can be small changes: Like boosting thermal dmg on crystals, lowering beam/tach grid requirements slightly, a few individual ship fixes here and there (apoc, zealot and pretty much all the t1 cruisers)..
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.10 18:02:00 - [17] Edited by: Goumindong on 10/11/2007 18:02:11 How about you read the first paragraph of the first post, is that too much to ask? Originally by: the first thing in this bloody thread This thread is not going to look at what exactly is wrong with Amarr. It will provide no changes that may or may not "fix" amarr. It will not look into any ships that also need changing that arent Amarr. The purpose of this thread is to provide a study on ship design around the Sansha/Marauder template that has recently made its way onto Sisi and will be entering the game soon as a way to diversify ship types and roles. Bold for emphasis. Also, you are wrong, but that is for another thread.
TigerWoman	Posted - 2007.11.10 18:14:00 - [18] an interesting suggestion - and i wondered if the devs included the sansha change to test how these changes would work to normal ships without getting to much attention. it was an interesting read and i think this could work. but i fear that all non-amarr pilots will cry, rabble and whine the second anything like this makes it to the testserver.
Ess Erbe Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2007.11.10 18:29:00 - [19] Originally by: Goumindong Special bonus: 750% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage Omen's quite the gank cruiser indeed .
Perry Amarr The X-Trading Company Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2007.11.10 18:31:00 - [20] I hate the Marauders and i would propably hate amarr if something like this happened. But good work nonetheless.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.10 18:32:00 - [21] Originally by: Perry I hate the Marauders and i would propably hate amarr if something like this happened. But good work nonetheless. why? How does the plated gank role change for say the Geddon with this change.
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.11.10 18:53:00 - [22] Edited by: madaluap on 10/11/2007 18:54:37 LOL, that ammount of firepower? 50% and 75% boosts to laser damage? With tankingbonus on top? This is madness! Less turrets doesnt justify it tbh... _________________________________________________ Breetime A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Perry Amarr The X-Trading Company Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2007.11.10 19:40:00 - [23] There needs to be more diverse fitting options between gank and tank ships in amarr designs, thats for sure. But giving amarr a third bonus is not the way to go, because lasers actually have an inbuild damage bonus, its just not very big (like 20% with range nerf on beams and range boost on pulses). Biggest problem for Laser Gank ships is beeing lower tier and thus beeing gimped statwise (Omen,Exec), or beeing higher tier and completely overshadowing the tank ships (Harbinger, Abaddon). My approuch would be to scrap the tier system.
Drenad	Posted - 2007.11.10 20:19:00 - [24] Really like the idea, eventough Im quite certain that ccp will never do such a dramatical change. Shame really.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.10 22:54:00 - [25] Originally by: Perry There needs to be more diverse fitting options between gank and tank ships in amarr designs, thats for sure. But giving amarr a third bonus is not the way to go, because lasers actually have an inbuild damage bonus, its just not very big (like 20% with range nerf on beams and range boost on pulses). Biggest problem for Laser Gank ships is beeing lower tier and thus beeing gimped statwise (Omen,Exec), or beeing higher tier and completely overshadowing the tank ships (Harbinger, Abaddon). My approuch would be to scrap the tier system. This is false, there is no inbuilt damage bonus on lasers. Beams have high damage because they have the lowest range of all long range weapons. Just like blasters have high damage for the same reason. Pulses do not have high dps. Originally by: madaluap Edited by: madaluap on 10/11/2007 18:54:37 LOL, that ammount of firepower? 50% and 75% boosts to laser damage? With tankingbonus on top? This is madness! Less turrets doesnt justify it tbh... Why not? It seems justified on the Sansha ships and marauders. Lasers dont have ammo so that doesnt really matter either[and change all is coming]. As well, lower than normal numbers of turrets clearly justifies the double damage bonus on ships such as the Hurricane, Tempest, and Rupture. So why is it not justified here?
Kazuma Saruwatari	Posted - 2007.11.10 23:04:00 - [26] The study in itself is good. What many people are afraid of is the massive overhaul for CCP this'll be for Amarr. If this gets on SiSi for testing, you know Amarr fliers will just upp up and silently leave in droves. - Odd Pod Out, a blog of EVE Online
Frothgar Caldari coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.10 23:04:00 - [27] Edited by: Frothgar on 10/11/2007 23:07:04 I think this is a very excelent well thought out idea. For Apoc I'd love to see that become the difinitive fleet sniper of the bunch. 5% bonus to optimal/level, 5% bonus to cap/level. 4 turrets. Something like 8/4/7 layout. One of the key points I particularly like is the ability to tie it all together with heat. Very good writeup and one of the best posts I've seen on the forums ever.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.10 23:29:00 - [28] Originally by: Kazuma Saruwatari The study in itself is good. What many people are afraid of is the massive overhaul for CCP this'll be for Amarr. If this gets on SiSi for testing, you know Amarr fliers will just upp up and silently leave in droves. Why would they leave? This doesnt even really change fitting considerations[for the most part] on ships that are actually used. The only one to worry about is the Abaddon, but which ship is tank and which ship is gank is immaterial. The Geddon could be the odd man out with gank and tank going to the Abaddon and Apoc. And in any scenario, the battleships themselves are easily convertible into isk or minerals, making any losses from changes low. Ships such as the Maller and Prophecy pretty much dont even lose turret dps while becoming more versitile Originally by: Frothgar Edited by: Frothgar on 10/11/2007 23:07:04 I think this is a very excelent well thought out idea. For Apoc I'd love to see that become the difinitive fleet sniper of the bunch. 5% bonus to optimal/level, 5% bonus to cap/level. 4 turrets. Something like 8/4/7 layout. One of the key points I particularly like is the ability to tie it all together with heat. Very good writeup and one of the best posts I've seen on the forums ever. Giving Lasers an Optimal bonus of nearly any kind will overpower them compared to their contemporaries. An apoc with a 25% optimal bonus, even when only fitting 2 tracking enhancers would simply out-perform all other snipers. It would do more dps and track better than a Megathron while having longer optimal range[192 vs 180]. That turn of events is unacceptable.
magnus amadeus Amarr Hammer Of Light	Posted - 2007.11.10 23:49:00 - [29] Originally by: Frothgar I agree in that DPS in terms of number of damage points output are quite good. However in practice its EM heavy and thermal secondary. Even a 25% DPS boost over any other weapon system ends up being about a 20-30% DPS deficiency over any other race's weapon systems against most any PvP target. Lets face it we're not exactly going up against ratting ravens with no EM hardeners in PvP @ 170km. The majority of fleet ships are armor tanked, and even the shield tanked ones fit 1 T2 EM hardener. At fanfest and on these forums, developers have recently shown a disliking for omni-tanks and base armor resistances (esp the minmatar ones). I think EM as a damage type will recover soon. _________________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you down with experience.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.11 00:08:00 - [30] Originally by: magnus amadeus ... Read the first bloody paragraph in the first bloody post. Then look at how effective turrets stack up. Heat is an example of how we can use the design elements to enable other options. Overheating isnt that powerful, such a layout only works on high slots in the above example, but determining that isnt the purpose of this design excercize. Removing slots and adding slots isnt really an issue, I am not sure why it is. Re: Specific changes: The Maller lost one slot it cant fit anyway[and the ship blows] and gained an effective slot. The Geddon gains 3 effective slots and its turret damage is increased to that of the Abaddon. The prophecy gains a whole bunch of effective slots, not just one. And it needs it, the Harbinger tanks better than it, and ganks better than it and ganks better than it while tanking better than it.

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.