Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada Fade 2 Black
14
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 14:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
Was thinking that under the Carrier category there should be two types of carrier, the Triage Carrier (What we have now), and a Combat Carrier. Basically you can fly a Triage Carrier aka big logistics and can sit out of Triage mode for less reps and more supplied DPS for fleet via Fighters or go for full reps in Triage mode. Then the Combat Carrier which is fully focused on Damage, not using Capital Weapons as it would compete way to much with the Dreadnoughts.
Caldari Example of a Combat Carrier:
Caldari Carrier Ship Bonus: 10% bonus to Cruise and Torpedo Damage per level 15% bonus to Cruise and Torpedo velocity per level 5% bonus to all Shield resistances per level 99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules Can deploy 1 additional Fighter or Drone per level 200% bonus to Fighter control range
Slot Layout:
High: 8 [0 Turrets Hardpoints / 7 Launcher Harpoints] Medium: 6 Low: 2 Rigs: 3 [400 Calibration] Drone Bay: 80,000m3
Amarr Example of a Combat Carrier:
Amarr Carrier Ship Bonus: 10% bonus to Large Laser Turret damage per level 15% bonus to Large Laser Turret optimal range per level 5% bonus to all Armour resistances per level 99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules Can deploy 1 additional Fighter or Drone per level 200% bonus to Fighter control range
Slot Layout:
High: 8 [7 Turrets Hardpoints / 0 Launcher Harpoints] Medium: 2 Low: 6 Rigs: 3 [400 Calibration] Drone Bay: 80,000m3
Minmatar Example of a Combat Carrier:
Minmatar Carrier Ship Bonus: 10% bonus to Large Projectile Turret, Cruise and Torpedo damage per level 15% bonus to Large Projectile Turret optimal range, Cruise and Torpedo velocity per level 5% bonus to Shield Boost amount per level 99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules Can deploy 1 additional Fighter or Drone per level 200% bonus to Fighter control range
Slot Layout:
High: 8 [4 Turrets Hardpoints / 4 Launcher Harpoints] Medium: 5 Low: 3 Rigs: 3 [400 Calibration] Drone Bay: 90,000m3
Gallente Example of a Combat Carrier:
Gallente Carrier Ship Bonus: 10% bonus to Fighter Drone hitpoints and damage per level 15% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret optimal range per level 5% bonus to Armour Repair amount per level 99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules Can deploy 1 additional Fighter or Drone per level 200% bonus to Fighter control range
Slot Layout:
High: 8 [7 Turrets Hardpoints / 0 Launcher Harpoints] Medium: 3 Low: 5 Rigs: 3 [400 Calibration] Drone Bay: 100,000m3
Good or bad idea?
Covert Ops T2 Carrier (Covert Ops Command Hub): https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=178093 |
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
51
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 14:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sounds rather interesting. There was a post about some tactical carriers few moments back and I was looking at that and hoping for something like this even I think that as the carriers are mainly support units I somehow think that it would be cool to have loads of defensive weapons on the carriers so that they would protect your allies also. What ever they would be then. Just an idea. Turrets would work just fine also
|
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada Fade 2 Black
15
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 14:32:00 -
[3] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:Sounds rather interesting. There was a post about some tactical carriers few moments back and I was looking at that and hoping for something like this even I think that as the carriers are mainly support units I somehow think that it would be cool to have loads of defensive weapons on the carriers so that they would protect your allies also. What ever they would be then. Just an idea. Turrets would work just fine also
Yeah i saw that thread i didnt wana post it in there i wanted to build fresh start off of it Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
2286
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 14:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:Was thinking that under the Carrier category there should be two types of carrier, the Triage Carrier (What we have now), and a Combat Carrier. Basically you can fly a Triage Carrier aka big logistics and can sit out of Triage mode for less reps and more supplied DPS for fleet via Fighters or go for full reps in Triage mode. Then the Combat Carrier which is fully focused on Damage, not using Capital Weapons as it would compete way to much with the Dreadnoughts.
Gallente Example of a Combat Carrier:
Gallente Carrier Ship Bonus: 10% bonus to Fighter Drone hitpoints and damage per level 15% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret optimal range per level 5% bonus to Armour Repair amount per level 99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules Can deploy 1 additional Fighter or Drone per level 200% bonus to Fighter control range
Slot Layout:
High: 8 [7 Turrets Hardpoints / 0 Launcher Harpoints] Medium: 3 Low: 5 Rigs: 3 [400 Calibration] Drone Bay: 100,000m3
Good or bad idea?
Can I have your babies?
+10 internetz Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk! |
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada Fade 2 Black
17
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 23:09:00 -
[5] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:
Can I have your babies?
+10 internetz
lol Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
Ryuu Shi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 23:27:00 -
[6] - Quote
Your ideas on these combat carriers sound awesome and the stats seem very well though out except maybe adding 1 more low slot for caldari, 1 mids for amarr, 15% on drones/fighter and 10% large hybrids for gallente. Minmatar is perfect. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada Fade 2 Black
18
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 23:45:00 -
[7] - Quote
Thanks for all the great replies so far guys. Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
Galphii
Clandestine Vector THE SPACE P0LICE
123
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 00:26:00 -
[8] - Quote
The idea of an 'assault carrier' has been around for a while, and yes, they're awesome and should be made X |
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada Fade 2 Black
21
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 02:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
Ryuu Shi wrote:Your ideas on these combat carriers sound awesome and the stats seem very well though out except maybe adding 1 more low slot for caldari, 1 mids for amarr, 15% on drones/fighter and 10% large hybrids for gallente. Minmatar is perfect.
Caldari Example of a Combat Carrier:
Caldari Carrier Ship Bonus: 10% bonus to Cruise and Torpedo Damage per level 15% bonus to Cruise and Torpedo velocity per level 5% bonus to all Shield resistances per level 99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules Can deploy 1 additional Fighter or Drone per level 200% bonus to Fighter control range
Slot Layout:
High: 8 [0 Turrets Hardpoints / 7 Launcher Harpoints] Medium: 6 Low: 3 (Changed from 2) Rigs: 3 [400 Calibration] Drone Bay: 80,000m3
Amarr Example of a Combat Carrier:
Amarr Carrier Ship Bonus: 10% bonus to Large Laser Turret damage per level 15% bonus to Large Laser Turret optimal range per level 5% bonus to all Armour resistances per level 99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules Can deploy 1 additional Fighter or Drone per level 200% bonus to Fighter control range
Slot Layout:
High: 8 [7 Turrets Hardpoints / 0 Launcher Harpoints] Medium: 3 (changed from 2) Low: 6 Rigs: 3 [400 Calibration] Drone Bay: 80,000m3
Minmatar Example of a Combat Carrier:
Minmatar Carrier Ship Bonus: 10% bonus to Large Projectile Turret, Cruise and Torpedo damage per level 15% bonus to Large Projectile Turret optimal range, Cruise and Torpedo velocity per level 5% bonus to Shield Boost amount per level 99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules Can deploy 1 additional Fighter or Drone per level 200% bonus to Fighter control range
Slot Layout:
High: 8 [4 Turrets Hardpoints / 4 Launcher Harpoints] Medium: 5 Low: 4 (Changed from 3) Rigs: 3 [400 Calibration] Drone Bay: 90,000m3
Gallente Example of a Combat Carrier:
Gallente Carrier Ship Bonus: 15% bonus to Fighter Drone hitpoints and damage per level (changed from 10%) 10% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret damage per level (changed from Optimal bonus to Damage bonus) 5% bonus to Armour Repair amount per level 99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules Can deploy 1 additional Fighter or Drone per level 200% bonus to Fighter control range
Slot Layout:
High: 8 [7 Turrets Hardpoints / 0 Launcher Harpoints] Med: 4 (changed from 3) Low: 5 Rigs: 3 [400 Calibration] Drone Bay: 100,000m3
Did you mean something like this? Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
393
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 02:34:00 -
[10] - Quote
I generally like the idea of giving players more choices, but I'm going to have to disagree here. As a capital ship, it is very expensive and cumbersome. It's rather nice for the current carriers to be able to switch between full combat and full triage right in the middle of battle, even if a particular fit will be geared more toward one or the other. It's just not practical to expect someone to tow two carriers around just so they have both an attack and a triage option which they have to switch ships to achieve. It works better in sub-caps because they are cheaper and easier to move around.
I'd like to see dreadnoughts take on a secondary role which they can switch between that and their current. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
531
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 02:45:00 -
[11] - Quote
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:Ryuu Shi wrote:Your ideas on these combat carriers sound awesome and the stats seem very well though out except maybe adding 1 more low slot for caldari, 1 mids for amarr, 15% on drones/fighter and 10% large hybrids for gallente. Minmatar is perfect. Gallente Example of a Combat Carrier: Gallente Carrier Ship Bonus: 15% bonus to Fighter Drone hitpoints and damage per level (changed from 10%) 10% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret damage per level (changed from Optimal bonus to Damage bonus) 5% bonus to Armour Repair amount per level 99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules Can deploy 1 additional Fighter or Drone per level 200% bonus to Fighter control range Slot Layout: High: 8 [7 Turrets Hardpoints / 0 Launcher Harpoints] Med: 4 (changed from 3) Low: 5 Rigs: 3 [400 Calibration] Drone Bay: 100,000m3 Did you mean something like this? This change to the gallente idea makes it deal around 2500DPS before damage mods, it was very nice at 2000DPS before damage mods. The optimal bonus was fine as was the fighter bonus. The extra slot is nice though. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada Fade 2 Black
21
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 02:47:00 -
[12] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Grunnax Aurelius wrote:Ryuu Shi wrote:Your ideas on these combat carriers sound awesome and the stats seem very well though out except maybe adding 1 more low slot for caldari, 1 mids for amarr, 15% on drones/fighter and 10% large hybrids for gallente. Minmatar is perfect. Gallente Example of a Combat Carrier: Gallente Carrier Ship Bonus: 15% bonus to Fighter Drone hitpoints and damage per level (changed from 10%) 10% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret damage per level (changed from Optimal bonus to Damage bonus) 5% bonus to Armour Repair amount per level 99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules Can deploy 1 additional Fighter or Drone per level 200% bonus to Fighter control range Slot Layout: High: 8 [7 Turrets Hardpoints / 0 Launcher Harpoints] Med: 4 (changed from 3) Low: 5 Rigs: 3 [400 Calibration] Drone Bay: 100,000m3 Did you mean something like this? This change to the gallente idea makes it deal around 2500DPS before damage mods, it was very nice at 2000DPS before damage mods. The optimal bonus was fine as was the fighter bonus. The extra slot is nice though.
Ok so slot changed but leave damage and optimal as it was, sweet, thanks mate
Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted
331
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 06:26:00 -
[13] - Quote
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:OP So, hang on, this thing can have its fighters and almost as many capital weapons as a Titan? Meanwhile, a dread has to go into siege to do more damage than this thing...
Yeah, I'm not feeling that.
The concept is fine, you should leave to numbers, bonuses and slots to the people who do it for a living. It would also make your posts more reader friendly, less crap to scroll past and all that. MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada Fade 2 Black
22
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 06:42:00 -
[14] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote:Grunnax Aurelius wrote:OP So, hang on, this thing can have its fighters and almost as many capital weapons as a Titan? Meanwhile, a dread has to go into siege to do more damage than this thing... Yeah, I'm not feeling that. The concept is fine, you should leave to numbers, bonuses and slots to the people who do it for a living. It would also make your posts more reader friendly, less crap to scroll past and all that.
Mate please read what was in the original post, "not using Capital Weapons as it would compete way to much with the Dreadnoughts."
It has been designed to use Large Weapons not Extra Large.
Also thank you for this piece of advice "The concept is fine, you should leave to numbers, bonuses and slots to the people who do it for a living. It would also make your posts more reader friendly, less crap to scroll past and all that." Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
Joelleaveek
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
197
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 07:12:00 -
[15] - Quote
I like these concepts alot. I think if you are going to give the minmatar carrier both projectile and missile bonuses then the caldari carrier should also have hybrid bonuses. I think it would be better to have one or the other though. |
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada Fade 2 Black
22
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 07:22:00 -
[16] - Quote
Joelleaveek wrote:I like these concepts alot. I think if you are going to give the minmatar carrier both projectile and missile bonuses then the caldari carrier should also have hybrid bonuses. I think it would be better to have one or the other though.
Edit: I missed the 4/4 hardpoints. Split weapons are generally not liked because you need need 2 different damage mods and you won't have the slots for it.
Take a look at the Typhoon, armour tank it with 1 ballistic control and 1 gyrostabiliser and have x4 torps, x4 800mm AC's and 5 Ogres you have 1280 DPS, so please dont tell me split weapon systems are bad.
EDIT: Btw i hate Hybrid weapons on Caldari they are a Missile race, (i wish CCP kept to their original idea of Naga being a Torp Boat) Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted
331
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 07:23:00 -
[17] - Quote
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:Hakan MacTrew wrote:Grunnax Aurelius wrote:OP So, hang on, this thing can have its fighters and almost as many capital weapons as a Titan? Meanwhile, a dread has to go into siege to do more damage than this thing... Yeah, I'm not feeling that. The concept is fine, you should leave to numbers, bonuses and slots to the people who do it for a living. It would also make your posts more reader friendly, less crap to scroll past and all that. Mate please read what was in the original post, "not using Capital Weapons as it would compete way to much with the Dreadnoughts." It has been designed to use Large Weapons not Extra Large. Also thank you for this piece of advice "The concept is fine, you should leave to numbers, bonuses and slots to the people who do it for a living. It would also make your posts more reader friendly, less crap to scroll past and all that." Giving it large weapons will make it an anti sub-cap capital. That's not something that's needed. If anything capitals should become a little more vulnerable to sub-caps, allowing less powerful entities to have a chance at taking on the big coalitions. Given goons are now trying to pit everyone in a slowcat, there are going to be even more capitals taking the field than ever. How does making life harder for sub-cap pilots improve the situation? MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada Fade 2 Black
24
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 09:19:00 -
[18] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote:Grunnax Aurelius wrote:Hakan MacTrew wrote:Grunnax Aurelius wrote:OP So, hang on, this thing can have its fighters and almost as many capital weapons as a Titan? Meanwhile, a dread has to go into siege to do more damage than this thing... Yeah, I'm not feeling that. The concept is fine, you should leave to numbers, bonuses and slots to the people who do it for a living. It would also make your posts more reader friendly, less crap to scroll past and all that. Mate please read what was in the original post, "not using Capital Weapons as it would compete way to much with the Dreadnoughts." It has been designed to use Large Weapons not Extra Large. Also thank you for this piece of advice "The concept is fine, you should leave to numbers, bonuses and slots to the people who do it for a living. It would also make your posts more reader friendly, less crap to scroll past and all that." Giving it large weapons will make it an anti sub-cap capital. That's not something that's needed. If anything capitals should become a little more vulnerable to sub-caps, allowing less powerful entities to have a chance at taking on the big coalitions. Given goons are now trying to pit everyone in a slowcat, there are going to be even more capitals taking the field than ever. How does making life harder for sub-cap pilots improve the situation?
Hmmm, "Given goons are now trying to pit everyone in a slowcat, there are going to be even more capitals taking the field than ever. How does making life harder for sub-cap pilots improve the situation?"
Here is how you deal with the situation... Black Ops Corporation, aka Gureillia Warfare. Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
Bakuhz
Luna Oscura University
6
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 09:37:00 -
[19] - Quote
Interesting suggestion,
and i dont think it would be to OP people need to review combat vissions
for everything there is a solution in eve i like the raw plan you worked out,
further @ Hakan MacTrew
dude please get a live and stop tearing everyones posts flaming everything is a bad idea and does not make you popular with the big kids!!! Guess you were bullied in school alot and now try to make up for it in a internet game safely taunting from behind your screen feeling godlike.
piece of advice ''Get a life'' and construct your posts with a more friendly nature bringing up good and bad points in the end it will work better and well respected by the readers
so that was a piece of your own pie bet you dont like it either fi its pointed towards you?
now back to the real stuff i like the ships purpose and it still has a weakness my team would shred it beyond repair in blink of an eye.
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Bakuhz#kills |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted
333
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 12:14:00 -
[20] - Quote
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:Here is how you deal with the situation... Black Ops Corporation, aka Gureillia Warfare. I wasn't asking how to fight it, I'm pointing out your idea makes fighting it harder. Capitals are not meant to have an easy time fighting sub-caps and vise-versa. You could still attain a similar level of DPS by using Drone Control Units and giving a bonus to drone and fighter damage. It is a carrier afterall, the Dreadnaughts should be the gun platforms. I would however suggest that a damage or durability bonus to fighters only be applied while on grid with the actual carrier. Otherwise you could end up with all sorts shenanigans.
Bakuhz wrote:@ Hakan MacTrew dude please get a live and stop tearing everyones posts flaming everything is a bad idea and does not make you popular with the big kids!!! Guess you were bullied in school alot and now try to make up for it in a internet game safely taunting from behind your screen feeling godlike. piece of advice ''Get a life'' and construct your posts with a more friendly nature bringing up good and bad points in the end it will work better and well respected by the readers so that was a piece of your own pie bet you dont like it either fi its pointed towards you? Try reading a few more of my posts. You will notice that they start quite civil and well mannered. When I am replied to as though I'm a spoilt brat, I tend to respond in kind.
When idea's like "Magic boxes used to create planets out of space dust," or "Covert ops carriers, that can use covert cyno's," come up I voice my opinion that they are not good ideas.
In my view, a capital that has BS level firepower with the addition of 10 fighters is not a good idea.
As for the "Get a life, you were bullied at school, etc..." It's an interesting assumption, but your off the mark. I was bullied occasionally but not particularly. I don't need to berate others to make myself feel better. I don't need to flash killboards to show off my epeen. And last I checked, EvE isn't a popularity contest.
I do try try to point out the good and the bad in suggestion. MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |
|
Joelleaveek
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
197
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 13:53:00 -
[21] - Quote
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:Joelleaveek wrote:I like these concepts alot. I think if you are going to give the minmatar carrier both projectile and missile bonuses then the caldari carrier should also have hybrid bonuses. I think it would be better to have one or the other though.
Edit: I missed the 4/4 hardpoints. Split weapons are generally not liked because you need need 2 different damage mods and you won't have the slots for it. Take a look at the Typhoon, armour tank it with 1 ballistic control and 1 gyrostabiliser and have x4 torps, x4 800mm AC's and 5 Ogres you have 1280 DPS, so please dont tell me split weapon systems are bad. EDIT: Btw i hate Hybrid weapons on Caldari they are a Missile race, (i wish CCP kept to their original idea of Naga being a Torp Boat)
So the Typhoon works great when you have all skills know to man maxed out, therefore split weapons are good. They have also stated they are going to change the Typhoon to a pure missile platform. Also there is currently a fairly even split between missile/hybrid platforms in the Caldari lineup. The Naga would have been a terrible joke as missile platform, its fantastic with rails. |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
2287
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 14:27:00 -
[22] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote: Giving it large weapons will make it an anti sub-cap capital. That's not something that's needed.
Wrong.
This is exactly what is needed. We don't care for rifters online.
Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk! |
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada Fade 2 Black
24
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 21:48:00 -
[23] - Quote
Joelleaveek wrote:So the Typhoon works great when you have all skills know to man maxed out, therefore split weapons are good. They have also stated they are going to change the Typhoon to a pure missile platform. Also there is currently a fairly even split between missile/hybrid platforms in the Caldari lineup. The Naga would have been a terrible joke as missile platform, its fantastic with rails.
But i likesplit weapon systems, one because it is wacky just like all the minmatar, two im so sad that they are going to ruin the PHOON by making it pure missles, now i love missiles, but the PHOON was wacky, unique and awesome.
On the other topic, i hate Railguns since their nerf, but then again i used to fly the old style Rail Rokh 3 years ago on another account when Railss were good. Torp Naga was mad, you could get Dreadnought DPS on it (im meen Dreads DPS when they dont use siege module), you fit 3 rigor catalyst rigs and one tarrget painter and woot torps beat the shyte out of cruises and above. Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
396
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 00:13:00 -
[24] - Quote
While I'm already not in favor of splitting the carrier into two separate roles (I'm not 100% opposed) I'd like to point out something:
I think that the point Hakan MacTrew made about the OP's proposed design being too good against sub-caps is entirely valid. I did a quick EFT on DPS numbers and discovered that even with the damage bonus, it would lose DPS on choosing to use weapons instead of drone control units (this was tested with the Caldari ship using tech 2 launchers and tech 1 torpedoes).
Perhaps the damage bonus should be increased even further, to like 25% per level. Trust me, it has a LONG way to go before it competes with dreadnoughts. But then it should also have role bonuses (read: penalties) which increase the signature resolution of the weapons and decrease their tracking, or the Caldari version would have increased explosion radius and decreased explosion velocity. How much? Well it should place them at least high enough to have trouble shooting battleships, but I'm not going to say they need to be like capital weapons.
And finally, yes it's important to understand that CCP makes the final decision on attributes, and will almost certainly make drastic, sweeping changes to any of our designs they actually use. But that doesn't mean it isn't helpful to try to design and balance attributes. There are many reasons why I encourage everyone to actually put tangible attributes into their designs, including but not limited to the following: 1.) it gives you practice understanding what you're doing, so you'll make better design choices before you submit them for player review 2.) it helps you to understand the net result of your calculations, or for other players to tell you about it if you don't 3.) it helps other players to give you a greater depth in feedback 4.) it helps you to compare your ship with existing ships and contrast them, and perhaps better understand how your own design would work, were it implemented -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada Fade 2 Black
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 01:43:00 -
[25] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:While I'm already not in favor of splitting the carrier into two separate roles (I'm not 100% opposed) I'd like to point out something:
I think that the point Hakan MacTrew made about the OP's proposed design being too good against sub-caps is entirely valid. I did a quick EFT on DPS numbers and discovered that even with the damage bonus, it would lose DPS on choosing to use weapons instead of drone control units (this was tested with the Caldari ship using tech 2 launchers and tech 1 torpedoes).
Perhaps the damage bonus should be increased even further, to like 25% per level. Trust me, it has a LONG way to go before it competes with dreadnoughts. But then it should also have role bonuses (read: penalties) which increase the signature resolution of the weapons and decrease their tracking, or the Caldari version would have increased explosion radius and decreased explosion velocity. How much? Well it should place them at least high enough to have trouble shooting battleships, but I'm not going to say they need to be like capital weapons.
And finally, yes it's important to understand that CCP makes the final decision on attributes, and will almost certainly make drastic, sweeping changes to any of our designs they actually use. But that doesn't mean it isn't helpful to try to design and balance attributes. There are many reasons why I encourage everyone to actually put tangible attributes into their designs, including but not limited to the following: 1.) it gives you practice understanding what you're doing, so you'll make better design choices before you submit them for player review 2.) it helps you to understand the net result of your calculations, or for other players to tell you about it if you don't 3.) it helps other players to give you a greater depth in feedback 4.) it helps you to compare your ship with existing ships and contrast them, and perhaps better understand how your own design would work, were it implemented
Great input mate, thanks really aprreciate it,
1.) it gives you practice understanding what you're doing, so you'll make better design choices before you submit them for player review 2.) it helps you to understand the net result of your calculations, or for other players to tell you about it if you don't 3.) it helps other players to give you a greater depth in feedback 4.) it helps you to compare your ship with existing ships and contrast them, and perhaps better understand how your own design would work, were it implemented
With this do you mean i should post full stats of each proposed ship, as in lets say the calari one for example, show PG, CPU, High, Med, Low, Hardpoints, Rigs, Shield Stats, Armour Stats, Hull Stats, Propultion Stats, Targeting Stats, Ship Bonuses, you mean do this?
If so il get right on it and release ship names and full stats for them, i might even do some Orthoganal Projection Drawings of the proposed Ship Hull Designs. Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
397
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 03:10:00 -
[26] - Quote
If you think those stats are useful to you or anyone else, then yes. Even if you don't use all of the stats, or don't build all of them, it reminds you of what your ships have that is different from other similar ships.
I like to make complete stat layouts for a ship on a text document or spreadsheet which I keep on my computer, and I show the relevant parts in my posts. That way I'm not presenting too much for them to look at, but I can provide additional info if they ask for it, and the attributes I do show are more complete and less fallible.
Another important part of this sort of ship design is remembering that what we put in here isn't to present to CCP, it's to present to the players who read it. CCP checks here to see what's popular, not what looks pretty. They're in the business to make us happy. So if you want CCP to take anything away from your designs, you need to sell it to the players.
Making images of proposed ships can do a lot to sway people one way or the other - a pretty ship design makes people want to fly it while an ugly ship design makes people not want to read the rest of your post. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada Fade 2 Black
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 03:18:00 -
[27] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:If you think those stats are useful to you or anyone else, then yes. Even if you don't use all of the stats, or don't build all of them, it reminds you of what your ships have that is different from other similar ships.
I like to make complete stat layouts for a ship on a text document or spreadsheet which I keep on my computer, and I show the relevant parts in my posts. That way I'm not presenting too much for them to look at, but I can provide additional info if they ask for it, and the attributes I do show are more complete and less fallible.
Another important part of this sort of ship design is remembering that what we put in here isn't to present to CCP, it's to present to the players who read it. CCP checks here to see what's popular, not what looks pretty. They're in the business to make us happy. So if you want CCP to take anything away from your designs, you need to sell it to the players.
Making images of proposed ships can do a lot to sway people one way or the other - a pretty ship design makes people want to fly it while an ugly ship design makes people not want to read the rest of your post.
Thanks again mate :) Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
Frost 3
Desertus Caterva The Interstellar Trade n Terror Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 04:51:00 -
[28] - Quote
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:Was thinking that under the Carrier category there should be two types of carrier, the Triage Carrier (What we have now), and a Combat Carrier. Basically you can fly a Triage Carrier aka big logistics and can sit out of Triage mode for less reps and more supplied DPS for fleet via Fighters or go for full reps in Triage mode. Then the Combat Carrier which is fully focused on Damage, not using Capital Weapons as it would compete way to much with the Dreadnoughts.
Caldari Example of a Combat Carrier:
Caldari Carrier Ship Bonus: 10% bonus to Cruise and Torpedo Damage per level 15% bonus to Cruise and Torpedo velocity per level 5% bonus to all Shield resistances per level 99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules Can deploy 1 additional Fighter or Drone per level 200% bonus to Fighter control range
Slot Layout:
High: 8 [0 Turrets Hardpoints / 7 Launcher Harpoints] Medium: 6 Low: 2 Rigs: 3 [400 Calibration] Drone Bay: 80,000m3
Amarr Example of a Combat Carrier:
Amarr Carrier Ship Bonus: 10% bonus to Large Laser Turret damage per level 15% bonus to Large Laser Turret optimal range per level 5% bonus to all Armour resistances per level 99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules Can deploy 1 additional Fighter or Drone per level 200% bonus to Fighter control range
Slot Layout:
High: 8 [7 Turrets Hardpoints / 0 Launcher Harpoints] Medium: 2 Low: 6 Rigs: 3 [400 Calibration] Drone Bay: 80,000m3
Minmatar Example of a Combat Carrier:
Minmatar Carrier Ship Bonus: 10% bonus to Large Projectile Turret, Cruise and Torpedo damage per level 15% bonus to Large Projectile Turret optimal range, Cruise and Torpedo velocity per level 5% bonus to Shield Boost amount per level 99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules Can deploy 1 additional Fighter or Drone per level 200% bonus to Fighter control range
Slot Layout:
High: 8 [4 Turrets Hardpoints / 4 Launcher Harpoints] Medium: 5 Low: 3 Rigs: 3 [400 Calibration] Drone Bay: 90,000m3
Gallente Example of a Combat Carrier:
Gallente Carrier Ship Bonus: 10% bonus to Fighter Drone hitpoints and damage per level 15% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret optimal range per level 5% bonus to Armour Repair amount per level 99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules Can deploy 1 additional Fighter or Drone per level 200% bonus to Fighter control range
Slot Layout:
High: 8 [7 Turrets Hardpoints / 0 Launcher Harpoints] Medium: 3 Low: 5 Rigs: 3 [400 Calibration] Drone Bay: 100,000m3
Good or bad idea?
sounds interesting but to be honest this role is already covered by dreads carriers true place is a mix of damage from fighters/bombers and capitol level logistics |
Lapine Davion
Outer Ring Applied Logistics
540
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 07:41:00 -
[29] - Quote
There are two tiers for carriers. They're called "Carriers" and "Supercarriers". Don't worry about posting with your main! -áPost with your brain! "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." |
Ruareve
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
99
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 07:55:00 -
[30] - Quote
The idea of a combat carrier is indeed intriguing and I like the BS sized weapons being an option. However, what you are creating is basically a super BS or an undergunned dreadnought. I'm not sure there is a need for such a ship in the game.
When talking about a change to carriers the question is what role or ability needs to be added.
Carriers already offer the option of offense or defense based on layout. Layout can be changed on the fly as well so I think carriers already fill a utility role in a capital fleet.
Is there room for a utility role in a subcap fleet though?
The answer is probably not given all the different utility options already out there.
I think if any class of ship needs some looking at the Dreadnought should be next up on the list. The original intent of a dreadnought was a smaller ship with big guns. It would be nice to see a capital class ship mounting supercap sized weapons. Something needs to be done about supercap proliferation and a true dreadnought might just be the answer. Yet another blog about Eve- http://ruar-eve.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |