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)
TigerWoman	Posted - 2008.01.30 20:55:00 - [121] this is not enough but a start. without the changes to the ships this is pretty much not worth testing. ty - still loosing my faith.
Contralia Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.01.30 20:56:00 - [122] Of all ships, the Pilgrim and Curse definitely need some evaluation. You've got a pair of ships whose bonuses and specialties go to drones (Characteristically un-Amarr) Nosferatu (Noticeably nerfed) and Tracking Disruption (50% nerfed by the scripts change) In the meantime, the bonuses on the Pilgrim and Curse have not been adjusted. The Nos nerf was particularly cruel to the Amarr recons, becuase a sizable portion of their survivability was based on the nos serving in two roles simultaneously: First to help break the targets tank, and secondly to allow the Pilgrim to run a stronger than usual tank compared to the class, fed with energy taken from the hostile. Most Pilrim pilots these days (and there are damn few of them left, after the changes) tend to run neuts now instead of nos, with the hope of at least having a chance of breaking the hostile tank, having giving up on tanking completely. Another factor to consider is balance relative to the other recons. While at the initial release, the recons were well balanced, changes in the meantime have left the Amarr fallen far behind. Falcon: ECM was nerfed, but the Falcon was boosted to compensate. Still quite capable of taking 4-6 battleship class hostiles out of a fight. Rapier: No changes since release. Arazu: No changes since release. Pilgrim: Nos and TD nerfs, significantly affecting ability to break a hostile tank, maintain your own, and reduce hostile DPS on turret boats. No compensating boost or adjustment to the ship. If you're calling the Amarr the no-midslot gank race in your dev blogs, perhaps that makes sense for these boats to be changed to more of a pure gank-recon setup. There are admittedly no ships currently filling that role. One thought that comes to mind is something akin to marauder type bonuses -- Give the Pilgrim 2 turrets, doing the damage of 4, (or maybe 3 doing the damage of 5) and leaving room for 2 utility slots for a pair of neuts. The pilgrim in its intial version tended to run pure nos, no turrets, and relied on drones and a guaranteed non-tank on the hostile to get kills. This allows it to turn more to the traditional Amarr laser-beams-of-divine-justness role. Meanwhile, the Curse, as a Knanid boat, shifts even further toward missiles and damage and tank, akin to the Sacrilege and Damnation bonuses.
J Valkor Blackguard Brigade	Posted - 2008.01.30 20:58:00 - [123] Originally by: Goumindong Because tech 2 short range weapons can be a standard pvp fit for every other field command ship.[/quote I'm only making fun of him for claiming certain "standards." I do agree HAMs need their PG reduced.
Cpt Fina Mutually Assured Distraction	Posted - 2008.01.30 20:58:00 - [124] These changes makes sense. And for once you guys are making changes with small steps at a time, just as you should do. Good job zulu!
Malena Shiva	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:02:00 - [125] Surely there is a better way to give Amarr some love other than to nerf the other races? Just seems bass ackwards to me to take stuff AWAY from 3 other races in order to make one race "better" WTF? Why do all the races have to be the same? When the shield tanking bonusses, especially the minmatar ones, sucked tail, did you nerf the other 3 races? No, you boosted the shield tank bonus itself from 5 to 7.5 or 10 to 12.5. Reduce the cap usage, or do something that is exclusive to Amarr. How does reducing resists coincide with the desire to make combat last longer? By reducing resists, you are making combat even shorter.
TigerWoman	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:07:00 - [126] Edited by: TigerWoman on 30/01/2008 21:08:58 Edited by: TigerWoman on 30/01/2008 21:07:41 Quote: Just seems bass ackwards to me to take stuff AWAY from 3 other races in order to make one race "better" WTF? Why do all the races have to be the same? take stuff AWAY from 4 races in order to make one race "better" WTF? not only amarr do em damage.... matar emp ammo, em misslies..... fixed edited: typos, 1 add
Gypsio III Darkness Inc. Blood Blind	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:09:00 - [127] Quote: This can easily be fixed by fixing the power grid of HAMs I don't favour a HAM fitting reduction. I'm happy that HAMs should be harder to fit than HMLs, because they're "better" - hence their general superiority in PVP. AFAIK, the only real problems with fitting HAMs occurs on the Cerb and NH (and Drake, if you want an active tank), suggesting that the problem is really one of Caldari PG. In any case, there is a reduced chance of "unintended" ramifications if we tweak a few ships, rather than tweaking a module which can be fitted to many ships. Also, even if you half the PG of HAMs, then the NH still has PG problems. I'm not too keen on the NH's missile precision bonus either - it's kinda pointless in PVP, a missile explosion velocity bonus might be an interesting alternative.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:11:00 - [128] I think this might be a good first step towards fixing amarr. I hope to see the upcoming amarr ship fix blog soon aswell. /lyria Amarr pvp Vids: Inq - I Inq - II
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:14:00 - [129] 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. Why would only taking away resistances from armor tip the scale quite a bit, when armor already has an extra 10% resistance in one category over shields? Moreover, given that everyone uses armor tanking in PvP instead of shield tanks, don't you think this indicates that whatever the current balance is, it needs some tipping?
Nyxus Amarr GALAXIAN	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:16:00 - [130] Zulu - have you guys tried something like: 1)Increase cpu and grid use on EANM IIs 2)Decrease CPU needs of active hardeners below that of EANM IIs. 3)Decrease cap use of active hardeners drastically to that of DCs. 4)PROFIT!!!!!! A large part of the general Amarr damage issue surfaced when omni tanking became not only viable, but a better alternative to tri-hardened tanks. An adjustment making tri-hardened tanks more attractive than omnis would probably go a long way to making damage types more equitable and wouldn't be as drastic. Nyxus PS- PLEASE look at base racial resist bonuses. They currently add the resists to the base instead of taking a percentage like they should. Sig removed, lacks Eve-related content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes The Gallente ideals of Freedom, Liberty and Equality will be met by the Amarr realities of Lasers, Armor and Battleships.

Ulstan	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:18:00 - [131] Anyway, thanks for the blog and that you are looking at amarr issues. I eagerly await a futher blog where specific ship fixes are outlined. In my opinion, the most 'gimped' ships in EVE are the omen, ferox, apoc, maller, moa, and prophecy. As you can see, they are all either amarr ships or the abject line of caladari split weapons systems ships. Amarr ships are beautiful they should fight well also. ;)
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:18:00 - [132] EANMs being the basic armor tank isnt a bad thing. Granted, it would be nice if hardeners were easier to fit, but lasers being bad against general armor is not terrible[due to the areas in which they shine being gang warfare where EHP mattters most]
Fourthorseman Griefer VersaTech Interstellar Ltd. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:20:00 - [133] Love for Amarr is great and all that but can I just have my sig image back? .....
Cailais Amarr VITOC	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:20:00 - [134] Oh look...another nerf to the Curse. Brilliant. Well done. C. Improved Low Sec Idea!!
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:21:00 - [135] Originally by: Gypsio III Quote: This can easily be fixed by fixing the power grid of HAMs I don't favour a HAM fitting reduction. I'm happy that HAMs should be harder to fit than HMLs, because they're "better" - hence their general superiority in PVP. AFAIK, the only real problems with fitting HAMs occurs on the Cerb and NH (and Drake, if you want an active tank), suggesting that the problem is really one of Caldari PG. In any case, there is a reduced chance of "unintended" ramifications if we tweak a few ships, rather than tweaking a module which can be fitted to many ships. Also, even if you half the PG of HAMs, then the NH still has PG problems. I'm not too keen on the NH's missile precision bonus either - it's kinda pointless in PVP, a missile explosion velocity bonus might be an interesting alternative. Yea, the thing is that HAMs arent generally better than HMLs in pvp. But this isnt the thread to discuss that.
R0ot Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:25:00 - [136] Originally by: Alski Originally by: R0ot Wtf, please explain how you come about with the thought of lasers doing explosive damage, HOW?! A Laser hitting a solid material will vaporise the material into gas, the laser then has to pass through the gas to hit its target, in the process creating more gas and energizing the gas into a plasma, the plasma becomes superheated and rapidly expands causing an explosion. </geek> Well by that justification all missiles should do explosive damage, since when they hit the target they explode. And all lasers would do it to, not just explosive crystals. What i'm saying is the idea of an specific "explosive crystal" is just stupid. ------------------------------------------------------------------
Vadimik	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:27:00 - [137] Pilgrim is in dire need of tender loving. If you ask me: Give pilgrim +20%/level to nos/neut range.
Roy Batty68 Caldari Immortal Dead	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:27:00 - [138] This is a bad idea. You're proposing to "fix" one race by changing every ship in the game? Sorry to be a harsh critic, but it seems like someone did some risk analysis and then chose the option with the least benefit and the most risk. Supposed to be the other way around fellas. In my limited experience with amarr, it's about fitting issues and cap use. I'd start there. Nerf shields and boost minmatar more than you boost amarr?? How do you guys come up with this stuff? But of course now you're just reading my sig...
darkmancer	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:28:00 - [139] To solve the amarr problem your boosting explosive? T1 shield already have 20 less resistance, making 10 "points" of resistance much more valuable to shields than armour. Instead of hitting base resistance, why not reduce the em bous on invuns or DCU's? Remove the 12.5% em resist on the DCU 2 and stick 1% on the other 3. Or take off 7.5% of invun fields so shield get an em hole unless an em specific hardner is fitted. --------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong
Adunh Slavy Ammatar Trade Syndicate	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:30:00 - [140] Altering PG requirements of lasers, reducing them, boosting the cap regen rate on all Amarr ships and a slight increase in laser optimal range and dmg would be better IMO. Just because a solution may seem elegant, doesn't mean it's a good solution. The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)

Caligulus Legion of Lost Souls	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:38:00 - [141] Edited by: Caligulus on 30/01/2008 21:43:44 Edited by: Caligulus on 30/01/2008 21:41:03 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. While in the spirit of balance in this particular aspect wouldn't it be wise to make shield base EM resistance 10%? Armor's explosive resistance (it's weakest stat) has this aspect. I've had it explained to me that the initial reason for this (base EM stat being 0%) was based on the shield regeneration rate and shield boosting capabilities vs armor repping amount. If that's so isn't a 10% reduction out of line with that formulaic ratio? Further more, shield tanking already suffers immensely in PvP combat based on the loss of propulsion warfare modules. I think you should consider that rational further. ------------------------------------------------- ** You're out of your mind! ** Well that's between me and my mind.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:45:00 - [142] Quote: I'm happy that HAMs should be harder to fit than HMLs, because they're "better" - hence their general superiority in PVP. AFAIK, the only real problems with fitting HAMs occurs on the Cerb and NH (and Drake, if you want an active tank), suggesting that the problem is really one of Caldari PG. I don't particularly care if the fix is to reduce HAM fitting costs or increase a select few caldari missile boats PG, but the inability of caldari missile boats to actually equip good missile setups for PvP annoys me.
Caligulus Legion of Lost Souls	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:46:00 - [143] Originally by: Corrupt Panda So ... in this Amarr fix: Caldari get a 10% boost to EM and Exp damage with missiles. Gallente get a 10% boost to EM and Exp damage with drones. Minmatar get a 10% boost to EM and Exp damage with ... everything. 20% if you count EMP ammo. Amarr get a 10% boost to EM damage with lasers. This is not an Amarr fix. This is a stealth Minmatar boost. This is another excellent point. This isn't assisting the Amarr issue at all. Explosive crystals of some sort would have been the easiest variable to manipulate without so many ignored ripple effects. ------------------------------------------------- ** You're out of your mind! ** Well that's between me and my mind.
ashura'ka	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:46:00 - [144] its taken you this long to come up with this? as others have said its fitting requirements on beams that i have an issue with . every other race i play i can fit both type of guns and not have much of an issue. as it is i have ships with empty mid slots because im out of grid trying to fit beams and a decent tank...notice i said decent tank. i cant even fit a mwd its so bad. i have awu lvl 3. i need lvl4 or 5 just to fit a half ass tank? forget that. i would of liked to have seen a reduction on fitting beams to start with on test server and go from there. instead we get this.
General StarScream Borg Collective hive mind	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:49:00 - [145] ahahaa lol does the people that come up with this play the game? lol i mean sheild tanking is alot better than armor tanking. try to fit a best sheild tank with the most uber mods on a raven, and then do the same on a mega with armor. ye you get like 50% better defence. Gallente has been nerfed to hell, i dont see anyone whining about the drones not recharging there sheild when called back, but still your sheild gets fixed if you dock in the station. Gallente only do Kin/Therm and most people have that at 80% and em at 70% tottal bs to even say that people tank for em. Cap problems? lol what about gallente they use alot of cap as well for there wepons, it seems that the fourm ****s that whine to boost there own race, do alot of dam to the game, since they all just say to improve there own race but not all the races like Caldri was uber powerfull, for pvp befor the torp change now they just way overpowerd, with the any dam type most dam, and best tank, and now they thinking about Imporving amarr wich is allready super good at most stuff. when you hear people say give me exp on my beam. you hear em say give hybrids Exp or em dam? no they dont say ** about that. what about passive tanks, oh look my Hac can passive tank 2 full gank megas at range while not using any cap at all, weeee. Those whom make thees changes should play the game. Please resize signature to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
General StarScream Borg Collective hive mind	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:54:00 - [146] 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. Ahaha Zulupark, what ya fitt for a tank? not everyone use the retared omi tanks, alot of people fit active armor tanks, wich give a base line of 73% em wich will be the lowest of the res on the armor tank. so now you give the best guns in eve more power? do you even play anything else than a fully officer fitted Raven on the test server? Please resize signature to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:57:00 - [147] Originally by: General StarScream 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. Ahaha Zulupark, what ya fitt for a tank? not everyone use the retared omi tanks, alot of people fit active armor tanks, wich give a base line of 73% em wich will be the lowest of the res on the armor tank. so now you give the best guns in eve more power? do you even play anything else than a fully officer fitted Raven on the test server? Yes, a lot of people are idiots or fit specificially against enemies they know they will be fighting. You cant balance around idiots and good meta choices.
Captain Campion Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2008.01.30 21:57:00 - [148] cap is really the problem, I don't see any other races with the bonus: "10% bonus to the length of time you can shoot" because it's silly!!
Clinically Gallente Cold-Fury Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.30 22:08:00 - [149] So nerf + boost at the same time: brilliant, that'll sort 'em out! ________________ Welcome to EvE Online Forums, would you like to: [ ] Whine about ganking [ ] Complain about updates [ ] Post an anti-nerf petition [X] Remove your operating system
Jaala Creed Minmatar Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2008.01.30 22:11:00 - [150] If people would look at it from an objective standpoint: 1.) All armor tanks(incl Amarr's) are 10% nerfed vs EM damage. 2.) All shield tanks are 10% nerfed vs Explosive damage. People forget that even though this is a DPS boost for Amarr, its also a nerf for them. As such, these things shouldnt be called a nerf, more a re-balance of resistances.



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.