Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2227
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 05:46:51 -
[1] - Quote
I'm sure I've made this topic before, but it's probably locked by now and I'm very sure I failed to dig it up after a comprehensive search with the useless forum search tool.
The idea is to add an ORE ship to the game that is big and slow, and built for mining, but is very different from a barge. This ship would have lots of fitting slots and powergrid/CPU, much like combat-oriented battleships. The trade-off would be that it mines a bit slower than a barge and has less room to store the ore, while also being bulkier and a lot more expensive than the barge--price being comparable to a battleship of course.
Here's a possible layout for such a ship, though keep in mind that it is only a sketch and subject to change: 8 high slots, 6 turret hardpoints, 4 launcher hardpoints 6 mid slots, 5 low slots 75mb/s drone bandwidth, 125m3 drone bay +15% to thermal damage of missiles +10% to mining laser output 6000MW powergrid, 850tf CPU 1750m3 cargohold
At full mining output (6 lasers) and max skills, this ship can mine with the equivalent output of 9 mining lasers, slightly beating a Rokh and still coming out significantly under a Covetor--actually the mining battleship's output at max skill is equal to 3x Strip Miner I without any skill bonuses. Alternatively at maximum offense fit (4 launchers) and max skills, it has the equivalent damage output of 7.5 unbonused launchers shooting thermal plus a full flight of unbonused medium drones or three large drones. This ship provides fitting flexibility and encourages the player to fit for their specific needs.
The 6000MW powergrid is just enough to fit 4 torpedo launchers if you have powergrid management trained high enough, and with fewer or smaller launchers leaves plenty of powergrid for defensive or strategic options. The large cargohold isn't as big as an ore bay, but it can fit anything you want to put in it, such as ammunition--or you can expand it up to 8967m3 with t2 expanders and t1 rigs. And the thermal missile damage bonus provides a bit of the elusive thermal missile bonus that Gallente never have because they hate missiles.
This ship can assist with the defense of a mining fleet while also contributing to the mining, fight off sleepers in wormhole-space ore pockets, be a juicy yet perhaps difficult target in lowsec mining, run security missions and also mine in them, act as a bait ship, be used as a "hard mode" combat ship to show off (+í la Battle-Badger), be the ultimate PVE swiss army ship, spider-tank with other miners, be that one miner who fits a web/scram and large neuts to lay a nasty surprise on someone who picks at your jet-can, resist suicide ganks in highsec or troll CODE, transport/carry cargo for a nullsec strategic operation involving battleships while also contributing to the offense, run incursions with it for the lulz, you name it. The possibilities are virtually endless!
T3 Strategic Shuttle | T3 Flexible Battleship
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
904
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 06:16:50 -
[2] - Quote
"High tank!" Fly a skiff. "Decent DPS" Fly a skiff "Thwart CODE" Fly a skiff "Mining amount lower than a covetor" Still Skiff territory. "Bait people in nullsec" Battleskiff is awesome.
"Ability to fit 7.5 effective launchers, has 75 M3 bandwith with 125m3 bay, tackle, and BS level tanks without sacrificing mining yield due to the mining lasers only being in utility highslots"
Now you're begin silly. Pipe dream ahoy.
-1 |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2228
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 06:45:31 -
[3] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:"Ability to fit 7.5 effective launchers, has 75 M3 bandwith with 125m3 bay, tackle, and BS level tanks without sacrificing mining yield due to the mining lasers only being in utility highslots"
Now you're begin silly. Pipe dream ahoy. Good job not reading my post before shitposting on it. I guess it's what you're good at. I try to refrain from making personal attacks but it's really getting on my nerves when you, specifically you, will make a response to my post stating points that were already addressed in the post.
You have to sacrifice a third of the mining output to have max launchers.
Also all that crap you said about the Skiff doing all this is ignoring what the whole post is about: fitting options. Skiff is severely lacking in this territory.
T3 Strategic Shuttle | T3 Flexible Battleship
|
HiddenPorpoise
Under Dark Sins of our Fathers
310
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 06:50:38 -
[4] - Quote
He called your idea bad in a way that only works if he read it.
Also, your idea is bad and the skiff's fitting options are alarmingly wide if you dump convention. (it hull tanks oddly well) |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2228
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 06:56:32 -
[5] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:He called your idea bad in a way that only works if he read it. Yes, I am quite convinced that he is just trolling, because rather than just shoot blanks, he finds specifically the purpose of the thread and makes a post pretending to have missed the purpose entirely.
T3 Strategic Shuttle | T3 Flexible Battleship
|
HiddenPorpoise
Under Dark Sins of our Fathers
310
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 06:58:28 -
[6] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:He called your idea bad in a way that only works if he read it. Yes, I am quite convinced that he is just trolling, because rather than just shoot blanks, he finds specifically the purpose of the thread and makes a post pretending to have missed the purpose entirely. I'm going to back away slowly and report redundant thread now. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2229
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 07:00:03 -
[7] - Quote
This thread is not redundant. If you disagree, please show one other thread in the entire history of the EVE forums that has ever had the same topic. "Mining battleships" for higher yield than a barge don't count.
T3 Strategic Shuttle | T3 Flexible Battleship
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
905
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 07:04:04 -
[8] - Quote
Hm.. so it is, my bad on the launchers thing then.
Still, it's a ship that can retain an amazing amount of tank, several utility highslots, while still fielding (using your three unbonused strip miners numbers) more yield than a Skiff or Mackinaw with Exhumer 3. And more yield than a retriever, or procurer ofc.
While having skiff tank. And (with a 2-2-1 drone mix) skiff drone damage, and two utility highs, with enough powergrid to fit a full tank and twin heavy neuts on top without needing fitting mods. Not to mention the amazing fitting versitility offered by your amazingly generous fitting stats, a 8-6-5 slot layout.
Do you really consider the ever so slight reduction in yield compared to a very well skill skiff an appropriate tradeoff for all the advantages you have heaped upon this proposed ship?
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2229
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 07:10:08 -
[9] - Quote
It might need to have less yield, I'm not sure on the specific numbers. I mostly built its yield around the Rokh. Seemed reasonable to give it a bit more.
People don't mine in turret battleships much because even though they have decent yield, they're just difficult to fit, they run out of CPU too easily, and their cargohold is too small. But I guess I don't need to give this ship more yield than the Rokh, since it benefits from being far easier to fit with mining lasers due to its high CPU.
I don't see a problem with it having more damage than a Skiff, as a Skiff has very whimpy damage in terms of combat ships. This isn't supposed to excel at mining but rather is supposed to mine alright and still be capable of fighting. Also, it's a battleship, with bigger sig radius and less mobility than a Skiff.
T3 Strategic Shuttle | T3 Flexible Battleship
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
3293
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 08:57:00 -
[10] - Quote
"Swiss Army Knife" ships generally pay for their versatility by being worse at a thing than their specialized counterparts and have a tendancy to cost much more as well.
Do you really want a billion-ISK battleship that aligns like a battleship (if not an Orca), tanks like a battlecruiser (at best), mines like a Procurer and pews like a cruiser? |
|
Tiddle Jr
Galvanized Inc.
25
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 09:17:40 -
[11] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5367529#post5367529
Here is your topic and it's not locked.
And as already discussed there are no any solid reason to add mining battleship (these two words are like opponents) to the game.
- 1 once again. |
Iain Cariaba
913
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 09:26:31 -
[12] - Quote
Once again, I post the same reply:
No, you do not get to have this attached to this.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
|
Amak Boma
Dragon Factory
60
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 11:16:24 -
[13] - Quote
buy navy armageddon fit 8 ore cargoholds fit 2x t2 cargo rig and 1x t1 cargo rig 7 mining laser , u can put 2 cap rechargers 100mn ab and survey scanner add harvester mining drones
idea is good but still mining navy armageddon wins . |
Onyxa Lundra
GUBURUSH Tribal Empire
6
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 11:58:00 -
[14] - Quote
I rather want to see mining ship that bring more interaction to mining.So if it will be large mining ship(BS)...
I prefer if it had maybe option to fit just one mining laser,some kind of Massive strip miner. With will mine fast,but crunch the asteroid greatly with GREAT waste.Something like 300m3 mined ore from 1000m3 amout.
That will make u switch target enought often to make u sit at the PC and not afk mine,so it will be more interactiv. Also makes u search big rocks,so no bother rookie systems with small derbit rocks. Bigest rock in Hi-sec are enough small to still make u sit at PC. AFK mining on really huge rocks will be posible only in Wh or null space...but do you wanna take the risk? :-)
The rest of the hi-m-l slots should be enough adaptive for you to chose if you will be focused on mine yeld/dps/tank/bait or whatever, balanced by CCP :-)
Howgh!
|
Kiddoomer
ScrewWork Inc.
7
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 15:23:13 -
[15] - Quote
Onyxa Lundra wrote:I rather want to see mining ship that bring more interaction to mining.So if it will be large mining ship(BS)...
I prefer if it had maybe option to fit just one mining laser,some kind of Massive strip miner. With will mine fast,but crunch the asteroid greatly with GREAT waste.Something like 300m3 mined ore from 1000m3 amout.
That will make u switch target enought often to make u sit at the PC and not afk mine,so it will be more interactiv. Also makes u search big rocks,so no bother rookie systems with small derbit rocks. Bigest rock in Hi-sec are enough small to still make u sit at PC. AFK mining on really huge rocks will be posible only in Wh or null space...but do you wanna take the risk? :-)
The rest of the hi-m-l slots should be enough adaptive for you to chose if you will be focused on mine yeld/dps/tank/bait or whatever, balanced by CCP :-)
Howgh!
I too really want to see a bigger mining module, something that could one-cycle the asteroids in highsec, to make it tedious to use in there and make waste cycle (with maybe a "only full cycle yield ore"). And since it would be only fittable on a ship sized above the actual mining barges, the price and the skills requirement would put away many miners out of it to make the others mining ships still interesting.
|
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
204
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 16:14:28 -
[16] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote: I'm sure I've made this topic before
Then don't freaking post it? *sigh*
|
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces
191
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 16:31:46 -
[17] - Quote
doesn't matter what you fly or how much tank it has, they all eventually get ganked, ive seen tanked skiff bot fleet get ganked and mining battleships.
CCP loves gankers
"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
844
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 16:55:30 -
[18] - Quote
Same effective launchers as a Raven. More Drone bandwidth than a Raven. Larger cargohold than Raven. More drone bay space than a Raven. Can fit a full rack of launchers, just like a Raven.
On top of this, it has mining bonuses?
Unless we're talking a T2 battleship, no.
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Suddenly Spaceships.
216
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 18:43:34 -
[19] - Quote
Ugh,
no no NO!...
mining 'battleships' were a temporary solution until CCP sorted out the barges and mining in general - the hint is in the name:
Battleship
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2233
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 19:45:00 -
[20] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Same effective launchers as a Raven. Less, actually, and only in thermal. And the Raven has range bonuses to missiles also.
Having that damage versatility is really important and is what makes missiles a useful weapon system. They do less DPS than turrets in general unless they have an extra-large damage bonus of the single element type. Those bonuses are used to take away some of that versatility in order to provide turret-level DPS. Cruise missiles have on-paper DPS somewhere between mega pulse lasers and 425mm railguns, but in application generally hit quite a bit more weakly. 7 cruise launchers worth of thermal missiles will generally deal no more DPS than a rack of weapons on an Armageddon, and that's a drone ship. Raven is effective as a sniper, thus it has less effective DPS in most scenarios than other brawler battleships like the Megathron or Abaddon, for instance.
I might have the damage a little high, it could perhaps use some tweaking. But it is not as far out there as you make it seem.
Gabriel Karade wrote:Ugh, no no NO!... mining 'battleships' were a temporary solution until CCP sorted out the barges and mining in general - the hint is in the name: Battleship I rather like the name "mining battleship", as it most certainly is both for mining and for battle. If you were only going to mine and expected to have no battle, then you'd probably be better off with a barge. The mining battleship is for when you expect battle during mining, or at least feel that it is a distinct possibility.
T3 Strategic Shuttle | T3 Flexible Battleship
|
|
chaosgrimm
Universal Production and Networking Services
179
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 20:06:03 -
[21] - Quote
Doesnt a typhoon / typhoon fleet issue come very close to this already? |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2234
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 20:14:00 -
[22] - Quote
chaosgrimm wrote:Doesnt a typhoon / typhoon fleet issue come very close to this already? Typhoon has much higher missile DPS with any damage type, and more drones. It has much less mining output. The differences are rather strong I would say.
T3 Strategic Shuttle | T3 Flexible Battleship
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
846
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 20:28:43 -
[23] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:Same effective launchers as a Raven. Less, actually, and only in thermal. And the Raven has range bonuses to missiles also. Having that damage versatility is really important and is what makes missiles a useful weapon system. They do less DPS than turrets in general unless they have an extra-large damage bonus of the single element type. Those bonuses are used to take away some of that versatility in order to provide turret-level DPS. Cruise missiles have on-paper DPS somewhere between mega pulse lasers and 425mm railguns, but in application generally hit quite a bit more weakly. 7 cruise launchers worth of thermal missiles will generally deal no more DPS than a rack of weapons on an Armageddon, and that's a drone ship. Raven is effective as a sniper, thus it has less effective DPS in most scenarios than other brawler battleships like the Megathron or Abaddon, for instance. I might have
6*1.25 = 7.5
What was the number on your first post? Yes, 7.5. This also isn't a thread to discuss turret weapons vs. missiles, it's about a ORE mining battleship which is on par with other T1 battleships while providing more versatile bonuses and should not be implemented as such.
Why didn't you address the other points when compared to the Raven or are you just cherry picking arguments which you can take on? |
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra Gallente Federation
58
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 20:36:40 -
[24] - Quote
Best solo fight I ever had was a 45 minute pounding I got mining in a wormhole "doing it wrong" in a domi. An onyx, falcon and 2 ravens, drones doing nice damage but I had no points. Didn't stop mining even though they popped all my cans. GFs and kudos for being cheeky before the fast trip to null. Skiff does a bit of that, and would have gotten away. I'd probably have had less fun. I support having a mining battleship for working escort reasons, crossover experience, time consuming micromanagement with a decently small cargo, a reason for GFs, while being cheeky and mining. I made points in the other thread for a repurposed existing hull with simple bonuses for economic reasons because I also think that your proposed ship would be overpriced just for its newness and targeted just for kill value. A simple repurposing to a "mining escort" would keep price low, and be immediately available on the market. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2244
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 05:02:36 -
[25] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:6*1.25 = 7.5
What was the number on your first post? Yes, 7.5. This also isn't a thread to discuss turret weapons vs. missiles, it's about a ORE mining battleship which is on par with other T1 battleships while providing more versatile bonuses and should not be implemented as such.
Why didn't you address the other points when compared to the Raven or are you just cherry picking arguments which you can take on? Both the Raven and Typhoon have a rate of fire bonus of 5% per level. The equation for their DPS is 6/0.75 = 8 and the equation for the DPS on the mining battleship is 4*1.75 = 7. I had the number wrong initially but I fixed it. So the mining battleship has less DPS than either the Raven or Typhoon, and it has that DPS limited to thermal missiles with no other bonuses, while the Raven and Typhoon both have a second missile bonus while already getting higher paper DPS with any damage type.
I'm not cherry-picking your argument. I already agreed that I may need to nerf the damage a bit. I am countering your accusation that the ship is on par with a Raven or Typhoon, as it most certainly is not. Another thing you missed is that the Raven and Typhoon can both easily fit a full rack of torpedoes with plenty of powergrid left over for active tank, utility highs, prop mod, etc. while the mining battleship has little left over after the torpedo launchers. It could take advantage of its high CPU to fit an XL Shield Booster but that's about the biggest thing it has powergrid for without using powergrid boosting modules, and those won't give it much since it has a low amount to begin with. It also can't put utility modules in the high slots after fitting 4 torp launchers without cutting its mining power even further and into the realm of not even being worth the ship anymore.
So if you offer me a good argument as to why I should lower the thermal damage bonus, I will readily consider it. At this point I am just not convinced it is out of balance, and calling this ship on-par with the Raven isn't going to help your case.
T3 Strategic Shuttle | T3 Flexible Battleship
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3641
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 08:52:15 -
[26] - Quote
I removed some replies to and edited out part of the post they quoted and the posts that replied to them.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
846
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 09:42:44 -
[27] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:6*1.25 = 7.5
What was the number on your first post? Yes, 7.5. This also isn't a thread to discuss turret weapons vs. missiles, it's about a ORE mining battleship which is on par with other T1 battleships while providing more versatile bonuses and should not be implemented as such.
Why didn't you address the other points when compared to the Raven or are you just cherry picking arguments which you can take on? Both the Raven and Typhoon have a rate of fire bonus of 5% per level. The equation for their DPS is 6/0.75 = 8 and the equation for the DPS on the mining battleship is 4*1.75 = 7. I had the number wrong initially but I fixed it. So the mining battleship has less DPS than either the Raven or Typhoon, and it has that DPS limited to thermal missiles with no other bonuses, while the Raven and Typhoon both have a second missile bonus while already getting higher paper DPS with any damage type. I'm not cherry-picking your argument. I already agreed that I may need to nerf the damage a bit. I am countering your accusation that the ship is on par with a Raven or Typhoon, as it most certainly is not. Another thing you missed is that the Raven and Typhoon can both easily fit a full rack of torpedoes with plenty of powergrid left over for active tank, utility highs, prop mod, etc. while the mining battleship has little left over after the torpedo launchers. It could take advantage of its high CPU to fit an XL Shield Booster but that's about the biggest thing it has powergrid for without using powergrid boosting modules, and those won't give it much since it has a low amount to begin with. It also can't put utility modules in the high slots after fitting 4 torp launchers without cutting its mining power even further and into the realm of not even being worth the ship anymore. So if you offer me a good argument as to why I should lower the thermal damage bonus, I will readily consider it. At this point I am just not convinced it is out of balance, and calling this ship on-par with the Raven isn't going to help your case.
You could just fit Cruise missiles with 3x hardeners, 2x XL ASB, 3x BCU, DC II and 2 fitting mods in total with let's say 3x heavies and a flight of mediums. There might be some CPU left for tackle. Or you can fit RLML's and you can get a full combat fit against anything cruiser and below while maintaining the ability to have 3x bonused strip miners.
I still content that a ship which is bonused to both combat and mining should either be a T2 ship or bonused to only one of them. Either start by adjusting the combat ability of the ship down or take away the mining bonus and make the ship a combat ship. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2244
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 10:51:43 -
[28] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:I removed some replies to and edited out part of the post they quoted and the posts that replied to them. ISD Ezwal always prunes gently and with care. =)
Adrie Atticus wrote:You could just fit Cruise missiles with 3x hardeners, 2x XL ASB, 3x BCU, DC II and 2 fitting mods in total with let's say 3x heavies and a flight of mediums. There might be some CPU left for tackle. Or you can fit RLML's and you can get a full combat fit against anything cruiser and below while maintaining the ability to have 3x bonused strip miners. Any missile battleship can do that with RHMLs (you meant RHMLs right?) and I think that's just because RHMLs are overpowered. But you're right about it working pretty well with cruise missiles and 2x XL ASB. I'm interested to hear how the limited damage type pans out, if anyone with more experience using cruise missiles/torpedoes can give me input on how much of a handicap that really is. But also keep in mind that the ship can neither fit full mining nor full missiles. If it fits 4 cruise launchers and a full missile combat fit, it is still considerably weaker than a Raven while still only mining with 4.5 effective lasers and no mining laser upgrades. That would be mining at 90% of the speed at which a Venture mines (both with max skills).
I specifically elected for it to have the option to fit its combat damage almost as high as a combat battleship at the cost of mining yield in case the pilot decides it is necessary for the ship to be fairly effective in combat. I am thinking I was right about leaving its damage where it is, and perhaps giving it back that high slot and turret hardpoint. Even with 6 mining lasers, it still mines just 8% faster than a Retriever (both with max skills), and that puts its missile damage down to just 2 launchers (3.5 effective with thermal), leaving the better portion of its defenses in unbonused drones.
Adrie Atticus wrote:I still content that a ship which is bonused to both combat and mining should either be a T2 ship or bonused to only one of them. Either start by adjusting the combat ability of the ship down or take away the mining bonus and make the ship a combat ship. T2 ships are supposed to be specialized, CCP has stated this themselves. T1 is supposed to be more generalized and flexible, while T2 is supposed to have superior usage within a more specific niche. I don't know if it even goes with the T2 vein to make a T2 version of one of these.
As for flexibility in comparison with T1 ships: I am seeing more and more of a trend toward CCP making new or changing existing hulls toward a more shoehorned model, offering less flexibility to the pilot. I feel that it would make more sense to provide extra flexibility to T1 ships, and allow players to fit and fly them in unconventional ways should they choose to do so. As an example: the attack battlecruisers give only the turret powergrid role bonus to their native turret type. I would have them able to fit large turrets of all types. It would give them no major advantage over a combat battlecruiser's ability to fit medium turrets of any type.
T3 Strategic Shuttle | T3 Flexible Battleship
|
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
847
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 11:03:34 -
[29] - Quote
I meant RLML, Rapid Light Missile Launcher. Using cruises or heavies for self defence against anything small (primary roaming tools) is futile as you cannot apply the damage. If you get jumped by something which can overwhelm your tank befor eyou run out of ASB charges, then your damage application doesn't matter that much anymore as you are not going to survive more than a few volleys from larger weapon systems or you are being eaten alive by a pack of cruisers/stealth bombers.
I'm hard-pressed on finding a single subcapital which is tooled for two separate gameplay functions, mainly a combat miner. Nestor is the only one which has it's bonuses spread everywhere and as such is not really the most used ship due to not being focused at all.
The main question still is: what kind of use would there be for a ship outlined on the OP? If you want to mine alone, mine somewhere where you can't be easily disturbed. If you want to shoot rats, well, shoot rats in something designed for it. Gimping yourself to be below average on two things means you are better off doing it in two ships and swapping between them, especially if it's happening in a single system. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2244
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 11:13:53 -
[30] - Quote
I already gave an answer to that in the OP:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:This ship can assist with the defense of a mining fleet while also contributing to the mining, fight off sleepers in wormhole-space ore pockets, be a juicy yet perhaps difficult target in lowsec mining, run security missions and also mine in them, act as a bait ship, be used as a "hard mode" combat ship to show off (+í la Battle-Badger), be the ultimate PVE swiss army ship, spider-tank with other miners, be that one miner who fits a web/scram and large neuts to lay a nasty surprise on someone who picks at your jet-can, resist suicide ganks in highsec or troll CODE, transport/carry cargo for a nullsec strategic operation involving battleships while also contributing to the offense, run incursions with it for the lulz, you name it. The possibilities are virtually endless!
As for RLMLs, I don't see a problem as the ship only has 4 launcher hardpoints.
T3 Strategic Shuttle | T3 Flexible Battleship
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |