EVE Search - Some love for the Amarr, new Dev Blog by Zulupark

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Some love for the Amarr, new Dev Blog by Zulupark

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 16 post(s)

CCP Wrangler	Posted - 2008.01.30 16:56:00 - [1] The Amarr race has been longing for a bit of dev lovinÆ for some time now, depending on who you ask. In this Dev Blog Zulupark takes a look at the current state of the Amarr and what could be done to improve them. And whatÆs even better, we have some of this on our test server, Singularity, already! Read the Dev Blog Amarr oomph and other similar words and then get in and try it out so you can post your feedback here! Wrangler Community Manager CCP Games, EVE Online Email / Netfang "The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it."


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:19:00 - [2] Originally by: Caligulus Raven base resistances - Before changes Shields EM - 0%, Exp - 60%, Kin - 40%, Therm - 20% Armor EM - 60%, Exp - 10%, Kin - 25%, Therm - 45% - After changes Shields EM - 0%, Exp - 50%, Kin - 40%, Therm - 20% Armor EM - 50%, Exp - 10%, Kin - 25%, Therm - 45% I fail to see how modifying the explosive damage resistance on the raven increases Amarr damage. We have to maintain a balance between shield tanking and armor tanking. Only taking away resistances from the armor would tip the scale quite a bit and removing 10% from Explosive resistance on shields seems the logical thing to do.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:35:00 - [3] Originally by: Elmicker Won't help amarr much, though. They still can't fit ships worth a damn or fire for longer than a minute or two. I can hardly agree with that. It's quite easy to PVP fit a mean Amarr ship. I suggest you check out the changes on SISI.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:38:00 - [4] Originally by: Elmicker Perhaps it's time to directly address the mechanics that're broken? You know, like, switching em/therm around and lowering cap use? I think it's general consensus that one of the underlying problems for Amarr is that base EM resistances are too high. As I said, we're not adverse to more changes but we want to see how these changes pan out before we commit to doing even more changes.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:50:00 - [5] Originally by: Elmicker Hahaha, joke, right? Unless you have (contrary to the dev blog) changed fitting costs, it's still going to take 2-3x PG mods to get a decent fleet fit out of any one of the BSes. The tier 2 BS is still utter kack due to it only really having 1 bonus and no tank OR gank bonus. I could go on, but i'm not qualified to talk on amarr ships, i don't fly them often. I'll leave it to goumindong. He'll be along shortly. You're talking about a very limited way of fitting a ship. Also, I said in the blog we were looking at some Amarr ships. There will be a blog shortly about how/what ships we've balanced. Originally by: Elmicker So, as you think this is the best solution. What was the reasoning against swapping em/therm on the guns and lowering fitting costs? While this would still have left EM as the least useful damage type, it would actually have made Amarr useful in the mean time. Every race has "its" damage type. For Amarr that's EM. It just wouldn't make much sense to effectively remove one damage type from the game instead of trying to make it useful again. Also, what would then happen to EM drones and EM missiles? Originally by: Elmicker The problem with EM damage being useless lies not in the racial armour resists, but in the fact 90% of pvp fits are armour tankers. You SHOULD be looking at the spread of utility modules across low/med slots. You should be encouraging people towards shield tanks, not just beating the entire game with a nerf bat as you have in your last couple of pathetic attempts at "fixing" what you see as broken. Thank you. We'll take that into consideration.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.01.30 18:10:00 - [6] Originally by: Rob Erachar P.S. There is an error in the Blog. Currently a Zealot has a base EXP resistance of 80% and not 87.5%. Woops, fixed. Thanks. As to the other things you said: we're changing one thing at a time here, so I won't rule anything out.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.01.30 18:15:00 - [7] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Elmicker Won't help amarr much, though. They still can't fit ships worth a damn or fire for longer than a minute or two. I can hardly agree with that. It's quite easy to PVP fit a mean Amarr ship. I suggest you check out the changes on SISI. It was quite easy to pvp fit a mean Amarr before this change. The change doesnt change the fact that you can pvp fit a mean amarr ship. It doesnt change the ships that are bad. It doesnt make the ships more forgiving at low skillpoints[which its a twofold problem i can explain to you if you want, one deals with cap, and the second deals with the way damage and range contribute to each other]. It doesnt change the fact that laser ships are conductive to being laser bricks or bigger laser bricks. It doesnt change anything about Amarr except boost the relative damage of Amarr and Minmitar against everyone else. I said in my blog we were looking at balancing some Amarr ships. There will be a separate blog about that soon so you should perhaps reserve judgment until then ;)


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.01.30 18:25:00 - [8] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: CCP Zulupark I said in my blog we were looking at balancing some Amarr ships. There will be a separate blog about that soon so you should perhaps reserve judgment until then ;) If you were going to take the time to rebalance the Amarr ships, why change the em/ex ratios on shield and armor which changes even more things that are harder to control? I mean, you were going to go look at the ships anyway right? Why make a big sweeping change that has repurcissions all accross eves balance if you didnt have to? And i know you didnt have to because you just told me you were going to go and look at the ships and modules that are causing the problem that arent going to be fixed by this change. What we're talking about here is fixing the EM problem. Fixing ships for a specific race (in this case Amarr) is also being done. These two things are not mutually exclusive. If we just fixed the Amarr ships EM damage would still be a problem. If we just fixed EM damage, some Amarr ships would still be a problem. The blog on ship changes will come soon.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.01.31 09:37:00 - [9] Ok, back up. Now to answer some questions: Quote: Here's something I've never understood. Why does armor have 20% extra resists on baseline T1 compared to shields? Shields compensate for armor extra resistances by always having a natural recharge rate. Quote: This is a stealth Minmatar boost! This change boosts EM damage, no matter what faction is using it. Some Gallente ships get damage bonuses to EM drones, some Caldari ships get bonuses to EM missiles etc. Quote: What about the ships? We're working on a devblog about ship changes that we've been playing around with and will post it soon (hopefully before the weekend) Quote: You're nerfing shield tankers! I don't see we're nerfing anyone over anyone else. We've simply re-balanced a basic part of the game and the effects of that will touch on all ships in EVE. Quote: This isn't the Amarr boost you promised! This is a part of it. There are also some ship changes to come and a boost to the Amarr Ewar has also been formed. We'll post about that as soon as possible. We don't want to change too much, we understand people also want cap use reduction and less powergrid requirements and we're not saying that won't happen. Just that we don't want to do everything at the same time. That said, I urge you all to go on SISI, test the changes out for yourselves. Please keep posting comments and ideas :)


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.01.31 11:48:00 - [10] Originally by: Mila Prestoc Could you please answer this Zulupark, in your issues you say EM is to high on armour, when is EM to high with current real setups? EM is the highest natural armor resistance on all ships. That means that you don't have to fit any resistance modules to harden specifically against it in pretty much any scenario and by fitting the omni-tank modules you can bring that resistance up to a quite ridiculous level while still hardening the other resistance types decently.



CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.01.31 14:05:00 - [11] Originally by: Minerva Vulcan Originally by: Kaalise You do realise that a boost to all damage types necessitates a boost to EM damage? Yeah, it does if you want to be technical about it... However, he was being specific... and no Gallente ship that I've seen gets a singular bonus to EM drones. Caldari still doesn't get bonus to EM missiles... unless you count one single ship... the Kestrel, who gets 5% to Thermal, Explosive, and EM, and 10% to Kinetic. I know when flying a Kestrel my first thought is "damn I wish I did more damage with these EM missiles." At least a few Caldari ships get a ROF bonus, that is in fact a damage bonus and it applies to all types of missiles. Do you dispute that Gallente get a damage bonus to EM drones when they get a bonus to all drones? I think you're just trying to misunderstand my answer here.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.01.31 14:41:00 - [12] Originally by: Rastigan Edited by: Rastigan on 31/01/2008 14:36:45 Originally by: CCP Zulupark Do you dispute that Gallente get a damage bonus to EM drones when they get a bonus to all drones? I think you're just trying to misunderstand my answer here. EM drones are totally useless, to even suggest its usage to defend your argument is silly.. Please stop.... Thermal drones outdps EM drones even vs Sanshas. Why dont you dissect the problem instead of a ham fisted change ? The biggest problem is Battleships vs Battleships and their omni tank... That's the whole point, to make EM drones and EM missiles useful again.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.01.31 14:44:00 - [13] Originally by: Cailais CCP Zulupark, I think what people are after is a boost to Amarr: not an adjustment to every ship and race in the game. Applying a 'catch all' solution probably isnt going to work as there are far to many variables (as some have pointed out this solution actually improves some minmatar set ups aswell). C. You must have missed my post where I stated that we have another devblog coming out very soon that lists some boosts to specific Amarr ships and Ewar.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.01.31 14:49:00 - [14] Originally by: Elve Sorrow And his point is that EM drones will still be useless, because their BASE DAMAGE is lower. 1.38 * 24 (Praetor II) vs 1.92 * 24 (Ogre II) Thats, err, significant. Do Neutron IIs do ~45% more damage than Mega Pulse IIs? One change at a time. We're already looking at EM resistances, ships and ewar this patch. We've stated there's a lot of other options we're willing to look into once these have been tested thoroughly.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.01.31 15:15:00 - [15] Originally by: PeacefullNub CCP Zulupark So what do you think about laser jamming bug? Is it realy hard to fix it? I'm not a programmer so I really wouldn't have any idea.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.01.31 15:16:00 - [16] Originally by: Mila Prestoc Edited by: Mila Prestoc on 31/01/2008 14:56:16 Zulupark, do you forsee more EANM tanks? Or do you think people will accept shields and armour both being low EM resistance when using tripple active hardeners? Or do you think people will add a 4th hardener specifically for EM? I honestly can't predict it either way. That's why the changes are on SISI, to see what you, the players, do with it.

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.