open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Abaddon Changes Proposal
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Author Topic

Nyxus
Amarr
Fat J
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2006.08.02 17:41:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Nyxus on 02/08/2006 23:47:02
Originally by: Tuxford
I love how you guys can take stats from a test server that is few months out of date and then panic over them.

The thing is instead of assuming stats and then panic about them you should actually be thinking about what kind of stats they need to have to be balanced.


The challenge was issued by Tux. The Scrapheap answered for the Maelstrom. It's time the Amarr Overlords answered as well for the Abaddon. Tux has stated that of all the Tier 3 ships, he is most scared of the Abaddon. I don't blame him, at first glance the stats will either render it uber or useles. Even if it's uber, it renders the Apoc and Geddon useless in it's current form as it currently outclasses both by a fair margin. What the Amarr fleet needs at this point is a BS that complements our current ships and provides some variety to our fleets. Judging from the bonuses given and layout, this ship is supposed to see primarily fleet use in a long range setup similar to a Megathron, an Artie Tempest or the upcoming Rokh.

Abaddon needs a name change

This may seem small, but it's not. Part of the cries about wanting a droneship isn't just because droneships are uber, it's because the name of our Tier 3 is of the King of the Locust Demons, who is allowed in End Times to torment the people of the Earth for a week. TBH that's a drone ship. If you want a turret ship name, try something like Moloch - Demon of Unwilling Sacrifice, Devourer of Children. This way the shipname and intended purpose of the ship is not at odds.

Bonus Change

The Abaddon seems to be a fleet ship. The issue is that without the bonus to cap use for lasers, the ROF bonus is almost a punishment. With 3 HS IIís and BS lvl 5 a full load of Tachyís takes 102 cap/sec to fire. That requires more than 2 cap injectors just to fire your guns. Honestly making an alt JUST to carry around cap boosters so you can shoot your weapons is not fun. At all. Please give the Abaddon a straight bonus to damage instead of the ROF. It means that we will have great volley damage, not need such a ridiculous amount of cap to fire, and not render the Geddon completely useless by usurping itís place as the DPS boat. Yes, I know that the Abaddon will lose a bit of DPS but volley damage is king in fleets and it provides a different niche for the Abaddon to fill instead of making the Geddon entirely obsolete.

Slots and Layout

With an armor resist bonus, this ship is meant to armor tank. Honestly, it doesn't need 8 lows since 1 low is already freed up from the 25% resist bonus. Mids are much more important for pvp, and especially long range pvp, but even moreso since the Abaddon will *HAVE* to have a cap injector just to fire guns. Therefore change the slot layout slightly to 8/5/7 so it has an extra mid slot over the Apoc to make room for the required injector/injectors.

Proposal - Change slot layout to 8/5/7

Nyxus
Amarr
Fat J
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2006.08.02 17:42:00 - [2]
 

Fittings

There is a problem here. As listed, the base grid of the proposed Abaddon is 22000, which sounds like a lot. With skills that is 27,500 grid. The problem is that a rack of Mega Beam IIís need 25,740 grid. A rack of Tachy IIís need 29,700 grid. A large repper requires 2000 grid and a large cap booster needs 1750 grid. Without the cap bonus to laser use you *HAVE* to have a cap booster, probably 2. A large repper would be nice as well. If we assume 1 cap booster and 1 large repper or 2 cap boosters you need at least 30,000 grid for Megabeams and 33,500 grid for Tachys. With AWU 5 the Abaddon should be able to fit at least 8 Megabeams, a cap booster and a rep without a fitting mod @ AWU 5. To fit Tachyís a cap booster and a repper it is fair to require an RCU II. In order to make this fit the Abaddon needs a grid of at least 24,800 base (or just say 25,000 for ease) so that with max skills it has 31,000 Grid (1000 grid extra for plates, other slots) with Megabeams and 35,937.5grid with an RCU to fit Tachyís (2000 grid extra for plates and other slots).

CPU Ė at base of 590 itís a bit tight for tachyons and decent loadout. Just bump it to 615tf base for a bit easier fitting. If I am tight on grid and need a grid mod for Amarr thatís fine, but honestly I shouldnít have to fit a grid mod AND a cpu mod when other BS have 1 issue but not both.

Proposal Ė Change Abaddon base fitting stats to 25,000 grid and 615tf cpu


Shields and Armor

No changes here, 6800 armor and 5600 shields is right on target.

Capacitor

The base capacitor is fine. Because firing your guns is going to be absolutely insane on this vessel, it needs a boost to recharge time. 1000sec just wonít cut it. That is only 8.5 cap per second. It needs to be AT LEAST 700 seconds base which nets about 12 cap/sec. Really 500 base cap is closer to what would be needed, with skills giving about 17 cap/sec and even that wonít be but a candleís flicker in a hurricane to the amount of cap that this ship needs to be able to fire even just itís lasers, let alone run a repper.

Mass, Sig Rad, Speed, and Scanner

This is all pretty standard for an Amarrian ship, about right tbh.

Cargo Space

525 is WAY WAY too small for a ship that is going to live and die by cap boosters. As I have said before, needing an alt in a bestower just to haul cap boosters for you everywhere you go is not fun, or good gameplay. Please increase the base cargo space to 700, preferably 750. Even at a reduced size, cap boosters arenít small. Personally, the Maelstrom and Abaddon need a 700 size bay. Acís and cap boosters for the Maelstrom, and LOTS of cap boosters for an Abaddon.

Drone Bay

Drone bay looks fine, no suggestions there.

Amarr have no variation in ships or damage types.

Here is the one big Amarrian gripe with our battleships, and the new Tier 3ís as well. Itís why you have heard so many cries of ďWe want a droneship!one!!!Ē. We have no variation. If you see a geddon, you pretty much know itís loadout. An Apoc has one or two variations, thatís it, and pvp Apocís are pretty rare at this point because they donít do anything special. When you look at the new Tier 3 ships being released, they add to their racial lines, filling in gaps and increasing the variety of the ships. Often these variations such as the droneships and missile ships have the ability to vary damage types, something that Amarr desperately need at this point.


Nyxus
Amarr
Fat J
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2006.08.02 17:42:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Tuxford
It (Abaddon) has the option of more damage than an Armageddon or a better tank than an Apocalypse. The problem starts however when it tries to do both at once.


The problem is simply that any large laser turret will be unsustainable, even with an injector, if you try to run a tank. This means that in order to have a better tank you need to be using weapons that donít require capacitor. Projectiles on an Amarr boat is simply disgusting, appalling and a travesty. The mere idea makes any true Amarrian Overlord blanche artfully while motioning urgently to a scurrying slave for an airsick baggie. This leaves only missiles. That works out well, as backstory has depth for Amarr + Caldari working together (Khanid) and many Amarr ships already have missile bonuses or at least launcher slots (Apoc, Inquisitor, Omen, Curse, etc). If you look at the Abaddon, it even appears to be Amarrian design influenced by the blockie stylings of the Caldari shipbuilders.

Proposal Ė Make the Abaddon have 8 turrets and 7 launchers.

This allows a great variation in setups for the Abaddon. It allows it to tank with missiles or gank with lasers, while not rendering the Geddon or Apoc obsolete. It allows Amarr a ship that can vary itís damage while being noticeably weaker than a Raven as it does less DPS than a raven with MUCH less overall range as it lacks any missile bonuses.

7 Missile Abaddon vs Raven DPS

Conclusion

This concept keeps to the backstory, allows some variation in Amarr ships and weaponry while being decidedly inferior to Caldari. Itís something interesting and ďfull of suprisesĒ that Amarr can fly. It also allows the ship to do as Tuxford has suggested: Gank or Tank, but not both at the same time. It is decidedly Amarrian, and can fill a variety of roles as needed.

Most importantly, it provides a new niche for Amarr pilots to train for, and some variety in their shiptypes.

TAO- (Thanks from the Amarr Overlords)

Nyxus

PS Ė if you disagree with something here, please state why you disagree and back it up either with dev quotes, calculations, or logical reasoning. Saying ďno, I donít want you to have my toys/ I donít wanna train anything else whaaaaaĒ is not constructive or helpful to other members of the board or the Dev Team.



Jaeuhl
Posted - 2006.08.02 18:03:00 - [4]
 

Solid analysis.

I agree with a lot of the points you've made though I fear that should the t3 amarr BS be allowed to fit 7 missile launchers it would become what the incredibly effective passive ferox setup would be for missions. Plus with the added resistances it would increase the missile trade you would begin to see more caldari influence throughout empire...and as much as I would love an amarrian drone BS I don't see it happening anytime soon.

From the current stats alone it would seem only advanced pilots would be able to pilot it efficiently or even at all with the rof/anti cap need. I see it has a niche but quite honestly I don't want to them these camped somewhere and just alpha striking every primary target on warp in whilst the tacklers keep them at 2.4 km/s. Like a mini deathstar recharging for the next volley.

Though it seems the design is for long range sniping, my guess is if they do not make changes to accomodate the heavy cap need ppl will be forced to fit mega beams or even mega pulses to off set the hungry cap need. Still making it useful but as you mentioned makign the other 2 BS's dinosaurs.

Regardless of what happens and as much as I hate to say it, if it's just not efficient enough to fly it will become my next mining BS just because it's prettier than the apoc.

I guess it will just take a bit more testing. Though I am hopeful.

/signed

Madcat Adams
Amarr
Romulan Technologies Limited
Posted - 2006.08.02 18:08:00 - [5]
 

Intriguing idea, but personally would still prefer a drone boat. Smile Lets hope Tux takes a look at this.

As I recall, the stats we have seen showed a 100m3 drone bay for the Abaddon. Increase that just a bit, to say 150m3. This would allow not only a set of heavys, but leave room for spares or some other type of situational drones. This would be a larger drone bay than the geddon, but then never been clear on why such a smaller ship has a much larger drone bay than the Apoc, let alone the monster that the Abaddon will be.

Nyxus
Amarr
Fat J
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2006.08.02 18:16:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Madcat Adams
Intriguing idea, but personally would still prefer a drone boat. Smile Lets hope Tux takes a look at this.

As I recall, the stats we have seen showed a 100m3 drone bay for the Abaddon. Increase that just a bit, to say 150m3. This would allow not only a set of heavys, but leave room for spares or some other type of situational drones. This would be a larger drone bay than the geddon, but then never been clear on why such a smaller ship has a much larger drone bay than the Apoc, let alone the monster that the Abaddon will be.


TBH I would rather have a droneboat as well. Giant Arbi 4tw. Judging by the Gallente cries and the first pass design of the Abaddon, I don't think we are going to see one. At least there is a prior trend for unbonused missiles, Caldari influenced Amarrian ship design, and a way to tank the Abaddon without using projectiles or stepping on the Raven's toes. Although I don't see how the Caldari can say much since they are getting an 8 turret sniper in the Rokh.

100m3 drone bay seems about right to me. At 150m3 The Abaddon will surpass the geddon in all ways: drones, guns, dps, fitting, layout. I don't want to see the geddon useless so that is why I have advocated the 100m3 dronebay and Damage bonus rather than the ROF.

Volley damage would be at least something different than the Geddon or Apoc.

Stephar
The High Priest
Posted - 2006.08.02 18:16:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Nyxus
Proposal Ė Make the Abaddon have 8 turrets and 7 launchers.

I really like this suggestion. The thing that irks me the most is the Abaddon looks like a two-minute wonder. Tux said it can be used to tank, but I fail to see how. This change would help a ton... but it may be necessary to reduce the number of launchers to something like 4. The difference in cap consumption between full launchers and full tachs is extreme, and balancing it for tachs may give it too much when fitting launchers.

Overall, great post!

Nyxus
Amarr
Fat J
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2006.08.02 18:21:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Jaeuhl
Solid analysis.

I agree with a lot of the points you've made though I fear that should the t3 amarr BS be allowed to fit 7 missile launchers it would become what the incredibly effective passive ferox setup would be for missions. Plus with the added resistances it would increase the missile trade you would begin to see more caldari influence throughout empire...and as much as I would love an amarrian drone BS I don't see it happening anytime soon.

From the current stats alone it would seem only advanced pilots would be able to pilot it efficiently or even at all with the rof/anti cap need. I see it has a niche but quite honestly I don't want to them these camped somewhere and just alpha striking every primary target on warp in whilst the tacklers keep them at 2.4 km/s. Like a mini deathstar recharging for the next volley.

Though it seems the design is for long range sniping, my guess is if they do not make changes to accomodate the heavy cap need ppl will be forced to fit mega beams or even mega pulses to off set the hungry cap need. Still making it useful but as you mentioned makign the other 2 BS's dinosaurs.

Regardless of what happens and as much as I hate to say it, if it's just not efficient enough to fly it will become my next mining BS just because it's prettier than the apoc.

I guess it will just take a bit more testing. Though I am hopeful.

/signed


Well, an Abaddon with 7 launchers does pretty crappy dps. To compensate for that low dps it would have to tank REALLY well. You could passive tank with plates or active tank with reppers and hardners and the Armor Resist Bonus. It could armor tank better than anything else in the game which is supposedly one of the Amarr specialities. Gank or Tank.

The Capacitor changes are pretty important. If the ROF bonus stays, you could only fire tachy's on an abaddon for 2 minutes before you are out of cap booster charges. And that's assuming you have 2 cap boosters. The change to a damage bonus would help that.

Nyxus

Dixon
Caldari
Hells Donkeys
Posted - 2006.08.02 18:24:00 - [9]
 

Quote:
The Capacitor changes are pretty important. If the ROF bonus stays, you could only fire tachy's on an abaddon for 2 minutes before you are out of cap booster charges. And that's assuming you have 2 cap boosters


and that's assuming you don't have a cap recharge rate... and that you're actually going to use tachs outside fleets, where you will most likely be killed within 2 minutes..

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2006.08.02 18:25:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Shadowsword on 02/08/2006 18:26:48

Some of your proposals would defenitely make the ship overpowered.

Cap recharge:
Cutting 30% of the recharge time is just insane, it means with a standard pve setup as much sustainability than an Apoc, or close to it, while an apoc need a bonus to the cap to do it. My arma fleet setup can't sustain firing for more than 2-3 minutes, but the only time it became a problem was firing on a conquerable station. Usually the battle is done and one side warped away before I go under 30% cap.
Why should it be different for that ship?


Fitting: you don't NEED a large rep in fleet battle, because if you're primary, you won't have time for a lot of cycles. For repairs in a safe spot a medium or even small rep is enough. You don't NEED a cap booster either, in a fleet fit. One or two cap relays will be enough to bring the cap usage a lot closer to the Arma's.

I agree on the damage bonus over a RoF bonus and additionnal missile slots, however.

8/5/8? That's TWO slots over an apoc, not one, overpowered.

Agent2 Holtze
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2006.08.02 18:27:00 - [11]
 

Let's get the ship before the whine begins!

I got some neet ideas that's gonna make this ship a wonder.

Dupac
Subite
Posted - 2006.08.02 18:28:00 - [12]
 

Yep - well done - nice piece of work.

I like the volley damage idea as well - atm I'm very concerned that the cap usage on tachs will make this ship a lame duck :(

Not to hijack your thread but I'd have to say I'm amazed that after the many pages of commentary, some of it well reasoned and sensible, there has been no decent response to the concerns expressed by many players over amarr ships and more specifically weapons balance Sad

I don't expect much official response to your excellent post unfortunately.

Captin Biltmore
Imperial Shipment
Posted - 2006.08.02 18:29:00 - [13]
 

First off: No amarr ship should ever, EVER have more missile slots than a raven...ever. Amarr only dabble in missiles, caldari are the kings. I wouldn't be opposed to 5 missile slots though.

Second: You hit pretty much everything else dead on, I have always said that you must be really careful when designing a Tachyon boat, because if you give it the grid to fit a rack of Tachs, then a megapulse setup would be way overpowered. However, on this ship you can't use lasers and tank at the same time, so it would be funny to watch someone put 8mp and 2-3 large armor rep's on...

Third: I have been screaming for a Damage bonus instead of a ROF bonus.

Lastly: I'd settle for this, all of your suggestions, but 5 missile slots (for versitility), and a damage bonus instead of ROF, with your fitting layout.

As a side note: I would prefer a drone ship, 6x6x7 layout, or 7x5x7 layout even... BUT this ship would give me an excuse to train Large Beam Spec 5 Twisted Evil

Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2006.08.02 18:32:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 02/08/2006 18:47:59
Originally by: Nyxus

Therefore change the slot layout slightly to 8/5/7 or 8/5/8 if it has an extra slot over the Apoc to make room for the required injector/injectors.



i believe 20 slots is to be the limit for a tier 3 bs and i suspect tux meant a 8-4-8 setup when he wrote this "one more medslot" stuff. as it really doenst make a lot of sense otherwise.



Originally by: Nyxus

Proposal Ė Make the Abaddon have 8 turrets and 7 launchers.

This allows a great variation in setups for the Abaddon. It allows it to tank with missiles or gank with lasers, while not rendering the Geddon or Apoc obsolete. It allows Amarr a ship that can vary itís damage while being noticeably weaker than a Raven as it does less DPS than a raven with MUCH less overall range as it lacks any missile bonuses.



this sounds like a real nice idea to me.



regarding your fitting suggestions:
i dont think the stats posted so far have gotten a seal of approval from tux as of yet. so that stuff is propably still upto change. unless he just decides to ignore the abaddon and leave it as it is.

edit: didnt really bother to go and check out your cap/fitting ideas in great detail but some of it looks like it would be too much. also: if it gets the 8 lowslots there should be enough room for an rcu or 2 for the tachyon + injector+plates setups. megabeams + repper should fit without an rcu though.

Foulis
Minmatar
Spartan Industrial Manufacturing
SMASH Alliance
Posted - 2006.08.02 18:47:00 - [15]
 

The turret/launcher proposal isn't a bad idea, but I'd say drop it down to an 8/6 mix to further distance it from the raven/phoon. The turrets should be an option if you're going for tank and should make the ammar cry a bit when they realize they have to train ANOTHER weapons system. Eheehe, welcome to our world!

Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2006.08.02 18:52:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Foulis
The turret/launcher proposal isn't a bad idea, but I'd say drop it down to an 8/6 mix to further distance it from the raven/phoon. The turrets should be an option if you're going for tank and should make the ammar cry a bit when they realize they have to train ANOTHER weapons system. Eheehe, welcome to our world!


we already have launchers on some ships so i dont think theres much the minnies have to train that we can skip. aside from some of the shield related skills maybe. but we get to learn projectiles/hybrids instead for our mallers. :)

Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2006.08.02 19:23:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Nyxus

Proposal Ė Make the Abaddon have 8 turrets and 7 launchers.
...
7 Missile Abaddon vs Raven DPS



some more thoughts on that:

hmmm the difference in grid/cpu requirements of lasers/launchers could be a problem there. for the launcher setup it would need more cpu which could be used for sth else on the laser setup. and as it will need loads of grid for the lasers it would have a lot of leftover grid when using launchers. grid that could be used for tanking but may be more than it really should have for that purpose.

also 6 launchers seem like enough...even though without some bonus for them the damage will be rather sucky as you graph shows. but then again they should be used to accomodate the tanking role not the gank role of the ship.





Nyxus
Amarr
Fat J
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:01:00 - [18]
 

Let me respond to a few of these missile things, then go back to Dixon's capacitor issue.

Originally by: Captain Biltmore
First off: No amarr ship should ever, EVER have more missile slots than a raven...ever. Amarr only dabble in missiles, caldari are the kings. I wouldn't be opposed to 5 missile slots though.


If this is true then the Rokh should be limited to 5 turrets. After all, no Caldari ship should ever have the same turret slots as an Amarr ship since they only dabble in turrets. Right?

Wrong.

The Rokh is a shining example not following previous design and racial limitations. It has the same number of turrets as an Apoc, but can't do quite the same damage even though it has the same number of turrets. This is the same reason why I would love to have a drone BS, but agree that it shouldn't outshine the Domi. In this instance a 7 launcher Abaddon with no bonus to missiles can not outdamage or outrange a Raven, but with 7 launchers get a lower dps yet be able to tank better. Well it can armor tank better.

For those of you asking for 5 or 6 turrets, look at this:

Missile Abaddon comparison to Raven

A 7 Missile Abaddon does considerably less damage than a Raven. It's gonna max out at 325 DPS or so. That isn't much. A 6 missile Abaddon is going to top out at around 290DPS. A raven is always going to have more dps because of it's bonuses. In addition an Abaddon in "Tank + Missile" mode is going to lack low slots and cpu for ballistics due to needing the tanking mods, where a Raven has lot's of lows left for them. I don't think 325 DPS for a ship in a tanking setup is too much, and that is realistic.

You also have to remember that going 50/50 on the Abaddon is going to hurt the tanking Abaddon to the point of unusablity. You *can't* really run more than a gun or so and tank on just 1 cap injector. The idea is that the Aba needs a 0 cap lower dps weapon system to use when it tanks. And we don't want it to obsolete the other 2 BS.

Originally by: Udyr Vulpane
believe 20 slots is to be the limit for a tier 3 bs and i suspect tux meant a 8-4-8 setup when he wrote this "one more medslot" stuff. as it really doenst make a lot of sense otherwise.


I am a numpty and got confused. Just dreaming of an 8/5/8 Abaddon I suppose. Very Happy What I said still stands, the Abaddon should be 8/5/7 since the Armor Resist bonus makes a low slot redundant, and we really need a bs with another midslot. 8/4/8 doesn't differentiate it from the Apoc enough and all the other Tier 3 bs have at least 6 so Amarr would still be behind. It's also another way of not obsoleting the Gedddon with it's 8 lows.

Originally by: Udyr Vulpane
hmmm the difference in grid/cpu requirements of lasers/launchers could be a problem there.


TBH I thought it was one of the balancing factors of the Missile version. It is quite likely with 7 launchers and a tank you will need a Co-Proc II just to get a decent setup. The extra grid would be good for plates, but really the extra grid doesn't help you fit anything elst that usefull.

Nyxus



Wodin Drukvik
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:07:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Wodin Drukvik on 02/08/2006 20:11:59
All of these seem like reasonable suggestions. As it currently stands there is no way to configure the ship for "tank" mode without completely abandoning lasers as a weapon system. 4 Dual Heavy Pulses on an Abaddon have the same cap consumption as 8 Megapulses on an Apoc. Needless to say, that's not exactly going to cut it for even a tanked ship, unless it's intended that the Abaddon be tanked only with no weapons at all(or with projectiles).The missile solution seems much more elegant.

With regards to the fitting problem: we assume that the two desired "no fitting mods" racks of weapons are Mega Beam Laser II and Siege Launcher II, with the 8/6 turret/launcher split.

8 MBLII: 348tf/25740MW
6 Siege Launcher II: 396tf/9925.2MW

The CPU gets tighter because many tanking mods are CPU-intensive, but the 615tf suggestion is reasonable, as it allows you to fit what would probably be the standard setup: 6 sieges(396 tf/9925.25MW), 1600/2xlar/2xEANMII/DC/Injector(30/110/60/15/40tf for the tank: 245tf, 500/4600/4/1/1750 for 6855MW ), leaving you with 127tf and 14470 grid to futz around with in the remaining 7 slots(2 lows/3mids/2highs).

If the original 7 launcher version stuck around, you'd have 61tf and 12816 grid to fit 6 slots(high/3mids/2lows) and would almost certainly end up using a CPU mod in one of the low slots.

In short, Nyxus' CPU/Grid numbers are spot on what the ship would need to be balanced with his other suggestions.

Nyxus
Amarr
Fat J
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:21:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Dixon
Quote:
The Capacitor changes are pretty important. If the ROF bonus stays, you could only fire tachy's on an abaddon for 2 minutes before you are out of cap booster charges. And that's assuming you have 2 cap boosters


and that's assuming you don't have a cap recharge rate... and that you're actually going to use tachs outside fleets, where you will most likely be killed within 2 minutes..


As the stats are now the Abaddon has 6375 total cap and a 750sec recharge time. That's about 8.5 cap/sec.

If Tachy's use 102 cap/sec your recharge time isn't going to get you much. Your total cap will last roughly 1 minute, assuming you are running nothing else. What I don't want to see is this.


<Fleet Commander> Warping us to a SS, get out now. Re-align immediately, we are going back in.
<Matari Pilot> Rgr that.
<Caldari Pilot> No problem
<Abaddon Pilot> Sorry guys, all the Abaddon's didn't make the warp. Give us a second to get some cap so we can warp to you.
<Fleet Commander> FFS guys! Why don't you use cap boosters you *&%^heads!??
<Abaddon Pilot> Sorry, we have fought to 3 minutes total tonight, we don't have any more.



And that scenario just doesn't sound like fun. 12 cap/sec or even 17 cap/sec isn't gonna make it all better, but it will help. As it stands the Abaddon will have a slower cap regen than the Apoc who has a bigger total capacitor. And the Abaddon will take *WAY* more capacitor than an Apoc.

Originally by: Shadowsword
Cap recharge:
Cutting 30% of the recharge time is just insane, it means with a standard pve setup as much sustainability than an Apoc, or close to it,

Fitting: you don't NEED a large rep in fleet battle, because if you're primary, you won't have time for a lot of cycles. For repairs in a safe spot a medium or even small rep is enough. You don't NEED a cap booster either, in a fleet fit. One or two cap relays will be enough to bring the cap usage a lot closer to the Arma's.


I don't give a rats arse about PvE tbh. If it has the sustainability of an Apoc mining that's great for you. Personally I use a barge if I am going to mine since that's what it is for. The Apoc is crap for PvE now anyway. Ravens/Domi's hunt better and barges mine better.

And no, you don't need a large rep in a fleet battle, but the Aba may need 2 cap injectors just to fire tachy's. 1750 cap injector grid vs 2000 large repper grid. Put 2 cap injectors on. Or a plate. Remember that is even *with* an RCU II to fit Tachy's. If you don't fit a cap injector you won't be able to warp with your fleet anywhere, and they are all going to be sitting around waiting for you.

Nyxus

Got my slottage numbers wrong, but the layout right. Aba needs 8/5/7 over 8/4/8. However if Tux goes crazy with the Amarr love and gives us 8/5/8 I won't complain either. Twisted Evil


Tiuwaz
Minmatar
No Paradise
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:23:00 - [21]
 

uhuh, you should be a little more realistic with those slots you throwing around


currently battleships have 19 slots, the tier 3 BS preliminary stats had 20 slots, and its quite likely that they'll end up with 19 again


but you are using 20/21 slot proposals 8/5/7 8/5/8

Wodin Drukvik
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:42:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Tiuwaz
uhuh, you should be a little more realistic with those slots you throwing around


currently battleships have 19 slots, the tier 3 BS preliminary stats had 20 slots, and its quite likely that they'll end up with 19 again


but you are using 20/21 slot proposals 8/5/7 8/5/8


Err, where are you finding that the Tier 3 battleships are going to end up with 19 slots? Everything I've seen suggests that the Rokh is 8/7/5, Maelstrom/Hyperion are 8/6/6, and the Abaddon is under discussion(ie 8/4/8 or 8/5/7). I assume Nyxus was just tossing out a joke with the 8/5/8 slot setup :)

Ithildin
Gallente
The Corporation
Cruel Intentions
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:59:00 - [23]
 

What can I say, really.

Excellent idea, Nyxus!

Must say I've got a few reservations against that amount of missiles, although two important notes:
1. The amount of slots matters little, it is what they do. In this case, provide a low-yield and low-capacitor damage source, promoting a tanking setup.
2. Abaddon, lord of locusts, suddenly fit in a bit better.

Stamm
Amarr
RHC
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:04:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Stamm on 02/08/2006 21:07:21
The Geddon > Apoc cap route gives around 5-6% extra cap, obviously excluding the Apoc bonus to cap.

Assuming the same progression, the Abaddon should have the same cap recharge time (923.9) and 5100 cap. Bearing in mind the Abaddon already has 1 cap nerf, a second would _compound_ it. At the same time you can't give it a cap nerf and then compensate for it by giving it a much higher cap regen.

It pretty much has to have the extra slot over the Apocalypse, assuming that, fitting lasers you're not only going to have to use cap boosters, but you'll have to consider using cap modules on PvP fits. Using 1 cap booster empties your cargo hold fast enough, 2 would be unworkable. So while the raw DPS does outdo a Geddon by a touch, we can't fit it like a geddon.

The missiles idea I love and hate. We'll be a poor mans raven. The raven can easily get the tank required for 0.0 BS spawns, the Abaddon will be able to do the same with 7 missile hardpoints rather than 6. We'll do significantly less damage and less range. And when we try to fit BCUs to compensate we're going to have to throw on a co-pro. Bearing in mind this is a Tier 3 ship, and the raven is a Tier 2, this is reasonable. The Amarrian tank will be nice, but we aren't going to do Raven damage.

I agree with the bonus change. Simple as that, for the reasons stated.

As for the slots, clearly Nyxus made a little bit of an error here.

What he meant to say was that it should have the same slots as an Apoc - not a geddon. And if there is an extra slot added, it should be a midslot, not a lowslot.

So it would be 8-4-7 or 8-5-7.

The rest of the stats are fine, of course the cargo capacity one is likely a dodgy stat and is more likely to be replaced with 700-750 m3.

The name for the ship he's got a very good point about. Abaddon = drones, Moloch = babbie eater.

Doing these changes will make the Apocalypse the best combination of lasers and armour. The Geddon the best combination of gank and hope nobody shoots you.

And the Abaddon the ship with lots of choices, but not realistic for high damage fleets - it'll have to use cap mods, which will bring it under the geddon for PvP damage. For a combination of lasers and armour the Apoc will come out on top because of the double cap advantage it has.

As for it being a big Arbitrator - great idea. The problem with this is that the 'king' of drones, the Gallente have their Tier 1 ship as their drone boat. The Abaddon would have to do more DPS than the Dominix, and be able to tank better. Which leaves Gallente as a whole lacking.

The only way to make realistically Amarr have a battleship drone boat would be for Gallente battleships to be rearranged, so that their drone boat was a higher tier. For the Geddon to be changed to the drone boat, and for the Abaddon to become the new geddon. A lot of changes, and probably not worth it - which frankly I'm sad about.

In summary though, I believe Nyxus's idea to be sound. He's proposing an Abaddon that is not overpowering, that doesn't obsolete both the Geddon and the Apoc, and that gives Amarr some more options.

Kaylana Syi
Minmatar
Coreli Corporation
Naraka.
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:05:00 - [25]
 

I wouldn't mind the Abaddon getting 7 missile slots, even 6 would be excellnt.

However,

The slot layout would definately have to be 8/4/7. If all Tier 3 BS get 19 slots there is no real reason why the abaddon shouldn't get atleast 6 missile points.

Stamm
Amarr
RHC
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:21:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Stamm on 02/08/2006 21:22:06
Originally by: Kaylana Syi
I wouldn't mind the Abaddon getting 7 missile slots, even 6 would be excellnt.

However,

The slot layout would definately have to be 8/4/7. If all Tier 3 BS get 19 slots there is no real reason why the abaddon shouldn't get atleast 6 missile points.


Do take into consideration the raven has effectively 7.5 slots (ROF bonus), so the Abaddon's 7 slots would still have it doing less (at less range, and with a longer lead in time). 6 missile slots isn't really a workable concept I think.

The extra slot for the Abaddon that Nyxus is talking about is, I believe, based on the assumption that the Tier 3s are to all get the extra slot. I'm very pleased to see people are sensible enough to be saying 'Hang on, let's not inflate stuff'.

If the Abaddon however doesn't get the 7 missile slots, then due to the fact it's got severely hampered capacitor then the extra slot would help compensate in some way.

Edit : But if it does get the 7 missile slots, then that extra 20th slot would probably give it too much of an advantage. I really cannot justify it.

Ithildin
Gallente
The Corporation
Cruel Intentions
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:27:00 - [27]
 

Not to forget, the Raven has 700 CPU while the proposed Abaddon has just over 600. With more CPU-intensive launchers to satisfy, the Abaddon would be running a wee bit tighter on CPU than the Raven. Although, admittedly, this is not taking into account the shield boosters' higher CPU need compared to armour repairers.

Stamm
Amarr
RHC
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:31:00 - [28]
 

That's two threads with people in more or less agreement.

Tuxford might be in danger of losing his job.

CCP CEO > Um. Tux. Sorry mate, we've had to replace you, cost cuts and stuff, the hamster feed is up in price etc. GL!
Tuxford > Oh noes!
CCP CEO > Right minimum wage clerical temp. See this forum? Just do whatever is said in a thread with at least 20 posts in it and no flaming.

Ithildin
Gallente
The Corporation
Cruel Intentions
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:34:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Stamm
That's two threads with people in more or less agreement.

Tuxford might be in danger of losing his job.

CCP CEO > Um. Tux. Sorry mate, we've had to replace you, cost cuts and stuff, the hamster feed is up in price etc. GL!
Tuxford > Oh noes!
CCP CEO > Right minimum wage clerical temp. See this forum? Just do whatever is said in a thread with at least 20 posts in it and no flaming.

Don't be silly, Tuxford's not the enemy nor is the community always right, even when in agreement. So far I've found him to be quite an agreable dev, even though he does put in things that I'm not always fond of.

Wodin Drukvik
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:34:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Ithildin
Not to forget, the Raven has 700 CPU while the proposed Abaddon has just over 600. With more CPU-intensive launchers to satisfy, the Abaddon would be running a wee bit tighter on CPU than the Raven. Although, admittedly, this is not taking into account the shield boosters' higher CPU need compared to armour repairers.


It actually works out quite well - I did the math earlier and it basically boils down to having 61CPU to fill 1 high, 1-2 lows and 3 mids. If you use active hardeners it gets more or less constrictive depending on how hoss you want the tank to be.

Like the Khanid MkII suggestions it's probably not going to happen, but it would be a lot of fun. :)


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only