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 [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page

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."

Caol UK Corp Rare Faction	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:06:00 - [2] <3 Amarr
Fulmen Amarr Caldari Deep Space Ventures	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:08:00 - [3] Edited by: Fulmen on 30/01/2008 17:08:16 Boost Amarr!!! oh wait, you are! We've (us whiny Amarr) been waiting for this so long, I bet that no matter what you do, it will be antclimactic. However, any change is better than no change, so keep up the good work.
Zarch AlDain The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:14:00 - [4] Simple and effective, a much better change than the previous EANM one! I approve of the idea of making a few changes and then evaluating them rather than rushing in all guns blazing too - and it's nice to see NPCs getting some lovin' (by reducing player resistances) as they have had a hard time with rigs and hp buffs. Zarch AlDain
Kyoko Sakoda Caldari Ghost Festival	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:15:00 - [5] Actually doesn't seem like that bad of an idea. ^_^
Caligulus Legion of Lost Souls	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:16:00 - [6] 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. ------------------------------------------------- ** You're out of your mind! ** Well that's between me and my mind.
ExcellciuM Exair Holding Corporation	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:16:00 - [7] Nerf amarr, boost caldari I guess this is good news for all those amarr players out there.
Xioden Acap Lightspeed Enterprises Burning Horizons	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:19:00 - [8] Originally by: Caligulus I fail to see how modifying the explosive damage resistance on the raven increases Amarr damage. By introducing explosive damage crystals! Although thats kind of pointless since explosive is the shield tankers highest resist anyway, and once your past that they more or less melt anyway regardless of what you shoot them with.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:19:00 - [9] 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.

ExcellciuM Exair Holding Corporation	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:22:00 - [10] Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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. Maybe whilst your messing with caldari shield tanks you could modify the Nighthawks weird armour resistances and move them to shields.

Elmicker The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:30:00 - [11] Stealth minmatar boost. Minmatar's most common damage type: Explosive. Minmatar's most damaging ammo: EMP. Won't help amarr much, though. They still can't fit ships worth a damn or fire for longer than a minute or two.
Athena Attom Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:31:00 - [12] In before Cosmo 'whine a lot' Raata
ExcellciuM Exair Holding Corporation	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:32:00 - [13] I think i prefered the blog about the roids tbh.
Elmicker The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:34:00 - [14] Oh, i also forgot to mention the whole "We're ignoring the issue and just doing a massive gameplay mechanic change in the hope it'll solve itself." Here's a tip, free of charge. The initial carrier blog was following this strategy. The mineral compression nerf followed this strategy. Scripts follow this strategy. None of the above achieved their objective. Perhaps it's time to directly address the mechanics that're broken? You know, like, switching em/therm around and lowering cap use?

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:35:00 - [15] 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.

Athena Attom Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:35:00 - [16] Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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. Yes just like the 5 fighters idea. Logic + CCP = failed idea. What exactly did you listen to with regards to peoples whining? Just damage types? Cap, fitting, etc. Still not touched; damage poorly attempted at fixing.
Mika Meisk Caldari	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:35:00 - [17] Nice too see that you have reached the tinkering stage. I don't really get why you decreased the explosive resistance on the zealots armor though? This is nice and all and its good you take small steps. But you will take a closer look at the t1 cruisers of amarr using lasers, as well as the other "gimp"-mobiles as well I hope? //Mika
Zaphroid Eulthran Minmatar Imperial Visions	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:36:00 - [18] So Amarr arnt doing enough damage.. so make everything else weaker? This only affects Amarr vs Player ships unless you plan on reducing npc resistances as well. Also this "solution" hurts those people who do shield tank (like me) when lasers never had much of a problem vs shields. Not only does it make shields more vunerable to lasers it makes them more vunerable to everything else as well. You had the problem nailed, so why this off the wall solution? Hi-Sec Industry NEEDS Mini Freighters <- not T2 bazillion ISK alliance toys

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:38:00 - [19] 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.

Miyamoto Shigesuke Macrohard Foundation	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:42:00 - [20] Edited by: Miyamoto Shigesuke on 30/01/2008 17:42:23 Originally by: CCP Zulupark Amarr simply sit there and charge their lasers, secure in their knowledge that God is on their side. You know that this does not make sense Originally by: CCP Zulupark By far the largest problem is that armor tanking is quite a lot more popular than shield tanking. You say this then nerf shield tanking more. Simply brilliant!

Mika Meisk Caldari	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:43:00 - [21] A question as well: Have you a design goal for amarr, as you stated they are supposed to gank and tank. For battleships this methodology is actually rather ok. The slow lumbering beasts combined with large optimal range offsets the capuse and the dps compared to other races. On the cruiser level, amarrs extra optimal doesn't really have any effect since amarr cruisers can't control range, they are too slow to outpace the other nimble and fast cruisers, and amarr long range weapons are the shortest range of all the long range weps. Have you given this any though? //Mika
Elmicker The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:45:00 - [22] Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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. 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. 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. 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.
Chronos VIII Amarr Infinitus Odium The Church.	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:50:00 - [23] Sorry Zulu, but to me you havent really put much thought into this "boost". It doesnt adress any amarr problems but stealth boosts minmatar Chronos

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:50:00 - [24] 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.

Francis Inch Amarr Lightyear Inc	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:54:00 - [25] Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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. I definately agree this is the major factor in the equation, but there are still a number of fitting issues with Amarr - too many of the beams are too harsh on grid to fit and make comparable set ups to the ships of other races. A little attention to these at the same time, or at least phased in shortly after would, in my view, solve much of it. While everyone would always love more mid slots, I can see why this would lose the flavour of the ships and if I could fit less powergrid upgrades to boost my damage, then I'd be be comfortable with the tanking vs EW trade off that Amarr face, or maybe even look to fitting some sensor boosters etc. As it is, I can hardly fit some of the guns on their own, let alone in a balanced set up, which is not as significant an issue for most other races weapons. All in all though, this is a great step forward and it's nice to see CCP not nibbling at the edges of it just to avoid upsetting other race players - the resists were the major issue and it's right that they are addressed without tweaking something that could tilt the balance in an unknown direction.
Alexander Knott Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:55:00 - [26] Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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. If armor tanking is overwhelmingly more popular than shield tanking, why is this true? It would seem that the player base has spoken on which form of tanking it feels is superior. ----- "I like to loot, especially going to the can of the battleship, sometimes there is a surprise inside, sometimes there is only carp..."
Bahamir Minmatar	Posted - 2008.01.30 18:01:00 - [27] I like the idea, i just hate the games that see an issue with something and just PUMP it, then its bigger than the other race/class and pump the second one, and everyone finish with 99.975% resistances and x80 damage. There are people that never understand that "just pumping a race" is the same that "nerfing the other 3 races".
Caiman Graystock Quantum of Solace	Posted - 2008.01.30 18:03:00 - [28] Edited by: Caiman Graystock on 30/01/2008 18:04:03 So to boost amarr, we gots to nerf everyone else? :D Ah well, I can live with that, better than boosting them and having to do it with everyone else and getting into that kind of cycle.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.01.30 18:04:00 - [29] Originally by: Alexander Knott Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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. If armor tanking is overwhelmingly more popular than shield tanking, why is this true? It would seem that the player base has spoken on which form of tanking it feels is superior. Shield tanking is superior. That is not the question. The question is "what is the best use of the slots I have?" and shield tanking, while superior to armor tanking, is not superior to other uses of the med slots for the most part. All that means is that when performing different tasks, different slots are more or less valuable. Over a certian number of med slots or low slots are unnecessary to a long ranged passive tanked ship. This is why the Armageddon is pretty good, because 3 meds, no big deal, they are sensor boosters anyway, but the extra low is another damage mod or plate, which is hugely important. But if you take the tempest, with 5/6, it cant armor tank effectivly because it needs damage mods in a passive gank setup, it cant shield tank effectivly because it doesnt have enough med slots to fill with ewar, and split tanking is less effective because EANMs do not benefit shield resistances and plates dont benefit shield hit points which reduces the synergy between stacking tanking mods.[in the same way that adding an MAR to a drake with an invuln results in the same EHP on both, but a drake with a shield booster would tank a lot better due to the synergy between the shield resists and the shield booster]
Marn Prestoc Minmatar Spartan Industries Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.01.30 18:04:00 - [30] Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad idea. There is no racial problem, its select ships. All you've done is increased the performance of lasers vs all armour tanks: eanm, tripple hardened and t2 (as well as shield tanks slightly). Well done at boosting a hole race when the problems are with certain hulls / modules. -



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: 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.