Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
803
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 19:03:01 -
[1] - Quote
(Disclaimer: I have posted similar ideas in the past, but given the travel changes in Phoebe, I feel they're relevant again.)
Since time immemorium, the ranks of capital ships have had only four Dreadnoughts, one for each race. Until the recent changes to the Phoenix, all of them were roughly similar in that their bonuses were geared mainly towards combat ability and not towards tanking. However, now we have one Dreadnought, the Phoenix, with a bonus to tanking, and three pure combat Dreads.
My proposal is simple: Diversify Dreadnoughts. As things stand, we already have, after a fashion, three Attack Dreadnoughts and one Combat Dreadnought. I propose that we expand on the existing differences and add in some additional differences to take advantage of the Phoebe travel changes.
Specifically, I propose that the existing "Gun Dreadnoughts" lose one of their combat bonuses and gain a tanking bonus (armor resist amount for the Rev, armor/shield rep/boost amount for the Moros/Nag) to put them on par with the Phoenix in terms of tank. These, along with the Phoenix, would then become the "Combat Dreadnoughts." Their role would be much as the role of Dreads now: hard hitting, heavy tanking capital assets that are not easy to move and not easy to disengage once committed.
If the Combat Dreadoughts are the holdfast sluggers, the "Attack Dreadnoughts" are as close to hit-and-run capitals as you can get. This is what I had in mind:
1. Slot layouts similar to existing dreads, with one additional high slot and weapon hard point, and one less low or mid as appropriate. This means more weapons, but less room for tank/cap/damage mods. 2. Bonuses oriented purely towards combat. No tanking bonuses. Amarr bonuses towards capital lasers, Gallente bonuses towards capital blasters, Caldari bonuses towards capital rails, Minmatar bonuses towards capital missiles. 3. EHP and hull build costs more akin to carriers than to Combat Dreadnoughts. These ships are not meant to take the kind of pounding that Combat Dreads are. 4. Same Jump Drive stats as Combat Dreads. No extended jump range, no jump fatigue reduction, nothing. 5. Higher agility than Combat Dreads. While fully jump capable, these ships are built to take advantage of stargate travel which means getting into warp quickly. Something like 25%-40% lower align times, after skills. 6. A role bonus that reduces the duration and fuel requirements for siege modules by 50%. (i.e. 2.5 minute siege cycles) These ships are meant to get in, hit something quickly, then get out.
This would give Capital powers different options for Dreadnought use. Either slug it out in slower, tankier Combat Dreads, or execute a lightning strike with Attack Dreads. It'd also open up new possibilities for stargate-only dread attacks while maintaining the now-limited utility of Post-Phoebe jump drives.
Thoughts?
CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking.
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content.
|
FireFrenzy
Satan's Unicorns
101
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 09:25:43 -
[2] - Quote
While i almost always like anything that smacks of more ships i see one problem...
the entire point of a dreadnaught is to do as much dps as possible. That is its one and only goal, it doesnt do anything else other then apply as much dps as it can do until it gets hilariously ganked by either supers, other dreadnaughts, or an entire stack of subcaps. Hell i hear from my buddies in nullsec that some blocks dont even bother with local reps on their dreads since you cant rep fighter bombers anyways.
And then ofcourse what we really need is a new model for the swaglfar to get rid of that odd 150% bonus because the model was designed for 2 guns 2 missle hardpoints..
How do you envision this new "higher dps" dreadnaught not just flat out rendering the old ones obsolete? I get you envision a theoretical usecase for the "tanknaught" but i wonder if thats an actual use case and not a theoretical one. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
804
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 12:21:18 -
[3] - Quote
FireFrenzy wrote:How do you envision this new "higher dps" dreadnaught not just flat out rendering the old ones obsolete? I get you envision a theoretical usecase for the "tanknaught" but i wonder if thats an actual use case and not a theoretical one. Imagine two hostile POSes in nullsec. One is heavily guarded with static defenses, one is not. Combat Dreads would be the obvious choice for the first POS because you have to assume that they will need the strong tanking ability. For the other POS, either Dread could work: Attack Dreads, hoping to overpower the shield with sheer DPS before the defenders can rally a fleet, or Combat Dreads, expecting said defense fleet to form before you can finish the job.
Attack Dreads would also be more useful for stargate travel to approach such a "soft" target, while their comparatively weak tank would keep them from becoming roaming capital beasts.
In short, I envision Combat and Attack Dreads being used much like Combat and Attack Battlecruisers. Both have clearly defined roles even though you can, in a pinch, fill one's role with the other, albeit less effectively.
CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking.
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content.
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
326
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 12:26:05 -
[4] - Quote
So, attack dreadnaughts for everything because insurance and more DPS means fewer pilots needed to RF a tower in a single cycle, or kill a titan, etc. cool.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
804
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 13:57:13 -
[5] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:So, attack dreadnaughts for everything because insurance and more DPS means fewer pilots needed to RF a tower in a single cycle, or kill a titan, etc. cool.
By that token, Combat Battlecruisers should be completely obsolete because, hey, insurance and more DPS, right?
Keep in mind, what I described above has 33% more DPS than current dreads (4 XL weapons), but only half the buffer and fewer slots for tanking. Being able to kill something 33% faster isn't always helpful if you die 50% faster to incoming DPS.
Having said that, It occurs to me that having half the buffer, yet half the siege timer means that your opponent must effectively only apply the same DPS in order to kill you, which is not what I intended. OP edited to remove the siege timer role bonus.
CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking.
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content.
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1384
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 14:19:21 -
[6] - Quote
Whats the difference in bonus for a blaster focused dread and a rail focused dread? Are caldari getting their usual sniping bonus on that dread so it can be XL gun naga? |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
804
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 14:47:29 -
[7] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Whats the difference in bonus for a blaster focused dread and a rail focused dread? Are caldari getting their usual sniping bonus on that dread so it can be XL gun naga? Damage and either tracking or falloff.
CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking.
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content.
|
Davey Talvanen
Zero's Legion
5
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 14:50:04 -
[8] - Quote
Shouldn't minmitar get autocannon bonuses and Caldari get the missile bonuses and the gallente get flat out hybrid bonuses |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
804
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 14:54:34 -
[9] - Quote
Davey Talvanen wrote:Shouldn't minmitar get autocannon bonuses and Caldari get the missile bonuses and the gallente get flat out hybrid bonuses That's certainly a possibility, but I was going for diversification. Do Caldari not have railgun ships and Minmatar missile ships?
CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking.
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content.
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1384
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 14:58:33 -
[10] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Davey Talvanen wrote:Shouldn't minmitar get autocannon bonuses and Caldari get the missile bonuses and the gallente get flat out hybrid bonuses That's certainly a possibility, but I was going for diversification. Do Caldari not have railgun ships and Minmatar missile ships?
Because making it so 2 race have to cross train their capital weapon while the 2 others don't have to is a great idea... |
|
Eric Shang
Living Asylum
171
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 15:02:43 -
[11] - Quote
I donGÇÖt fly them but I would think if they re-balance them to just give them a set layout for each one with racial bonuses and then you could fit them as you see fit.
Maybe you want to fit a bait dread or a pure dps monster.
I think any change made to ships big or small should be made to make the ships more changeable to what you want to do with it and not forced into a corner that you have at them moment with capitals.
Member of The Bastards - http://www.the-bastards.net/
My Pirate Journey:
http://ericshangthepirate.wordpress.com/
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
804
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 15:27:26 -
[12] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:Davey Talvanen wrote:Shouldn't minmitar get autocannon bonuses and Caldari get the missile bonuses and the gallente get flat out hybrid bonuses That's certainly a possibility, but I was going for diversification. Do Caldari not have railgun ships and Minmatar missile ships? Because making it so 2 race have to cross train their capital weapon while the 2 others don't have to is a great idea... Why not exactly? Two races have to cross-train for T2 battleship weapons. Three if you count Heavy/Sentry Drones as primary weapons for the 'Geddon and the Domi. Considering that the training requirements for capital weapons are all but identical to the training requirements for T2 battleship weapons, I don't see the problem.
Now, split weapon ships, especially split weapon capitals, I think are a stretch. This is why I didn't propose any.
CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking.
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content.
|
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Cirrius Technologies O X I D E
346
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 15:46:07 -
[13] - Quote
Firstly, I am replying solely to the theory here since I have zero practical experience with dreads. Now... What if, instead of 2 different caps, there were 2 different siege modules? Only one could be fitted, possibly give it an onlining timer or something to prevent insta-swap between roles in a pos bash scenario, and each would have the effect of the OP. So, before fielding cap fleet you have to anticipate whether you will need dps or tank and fit accordingly, like always so nothing changes there, but dreads would be able to specialize more or generalize as well as having stronger refit abilities. Kinda like a T1.5 dread without all the problems of new ship balancing and seeding etc... As for Caldari getting going hybrid, personally I hate it. I don't like that hybrids are double represented in Tier 3 BCs while large missiles are still only available on BS hulls. To clarify, I'm not hating on the Naga, just the double hybrid hulls. I understand why missile caps are less good though, so maybe the different siege modules could give different weapon bonuses for Caldari. And maybe Minmatar too. The idea being that the high dps Phoenix could be hybrids while the battlewagon Phoenix is a missile spewing brick tank. That could just be my personal prejudices showing off though. Thoughts guys?
(Edit: Again, I don't have much practical dread experience, so if I'm missing a key mechanic about cap warfare that is why. ) |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Ace of Spades.
169
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 17:10:00 -
[14] - Quote
While i tend to favor that each class of ships should have a variant in the primary and secondary weapon system in options, for the Dreadnaught i dissagree, Both the Amarr and Gallente have drones as alternative weapon system. This would make them compete not only with dreads but also with carriers.
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
328
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 17:13:11 -
[15] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:James Baboli wrote:So, attack dreadnaughts for everything because insurance and more DPS means fewer pilots needed to RF a tower in a single cycle, or kill a titan, etc. cool.
By that token, Combat Battlecruisers should be completely obsolete because, hey, insurance and more DPS, right? Keep in mind, what I described above has 33% more DPS than current dreads (4 XL weapons), but only half the buffer and fewer slots for tanking. Being able to kill something 33% faster isn't always helpful if you die 50% faster to incoming DPS. Having said that, It occurs to me that having half the buffer, yet half the siege timer means that your opponent must effectively only apply the same DPS in order to kill you, which is not what I intended. OP edited to remove the siege timer role bonus. I think not. Mostly because dreads are expected to die anytime they go siege green and combat battlecruisers aren't used in a fundamentally suicidal manner.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
666
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 17:33:53 -
[16] - Quote
Not supported. Just balance the current dreads we have.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
14076
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 18:14:10 -
[17] - Quote
Dreads only have one job and that is to land as much firepower as possible.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
826
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 21:48:44 -
[18] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dreads only have one job and that is to land as much firepower as possible. So, dreads have only ever had one role, and will only ever have one role, regardless of however game mechanics or fleet tactics change? And there is only ever going to be one dread option per race concerning how to fulfill this one role, because, hey, there's only ever one way to fulfill a role that narrow and unchanging?
Okay.
CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking.
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2030
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 07:20:23 -
[19] - Quote
Dreadnoughts are supposed to be for shooting either stations or capital ships. But people whine when one performs slightly worse against stations even if it does better against ships and vice versa.
Why not fix the range issue with POS shields (so that no matter how short your weapon range is, you can get into optimal), then leave Moros highest DPS (and therefore "best" at station siege) with Naglfar best for blapping ships at long range or for getting in and out quickly (fastest align), also AC Naglfar would have best tracking, and leave the Phoenix and Revelation best at tanking. To further diversify them from each other, give Phoenix high DPS against stations (it'll be lousy against moving capitals but almost as much DPS vs stations as Moros and with way longer range) and give the Revelation good pulse laser tracking despite its slightly below par DPS.
Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance)
"What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |