Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3819
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 10:11:28 -
[121] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:problem with this is it will almost always make the t3 worse than (particularly in your example) a t1 cruiser. at best there will be one or two t3s with a single viable set up and the rest of the line just crap :/
like i said best thing for t3 is to be about equal but different than the t2 cruisers I feel like you could adjust this by tweaking the bonuses and base stats on the ships. Like, there's no reason a tanking module has to just provide resists, it could also provide base HP or something as well. The values could also be tweaked so that, for example, you can get 2 bonuses that are greater than a T1 ship's but not equivalent to the 4 specialized bonuses a T2 hull gets. The general idea being that you don't really want to pick just one thing to be good at, you want to do something like be like T2 ship X but with Y attribute, like an EWar Cruiser with a lot more tank, or a Logi ship that's faster than normal or something like that. To me it feels like the two main problems with T3s in general are the high natural EHP they get from T3 resists, and the extra bonuses they get over a T2 ship. For the T3Ds it's the basic hull bonuses combined with the mode swapping, and for the T3Cs its the ability to pick five different bonuses, all of which are about at the level of a T2 ship's bonuses, which allows you to basically min-max something that's better than a T2 ship because you can pick and choose to a large extent and because most of the bonuses aren't actually worse than a T2 hull, especially the overall effect of the tank subsystems on a naturally tanky T3 hull.
the problem is doing two things meh is almost never as good as doing one thing well. maybe there is some sweet spot that could balance this but no way in hell CCP hits it. lol
BLOPS Hauler
|
Cade Windstalker
896
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 15:56:33 -
[122] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: the problem is doing two things meh is almost never as good as doing one thing well. maybe there is some sweet spot that could balance this but no way in hell CCP hits it. lol
I dunno, we'll see. Like I said it was a spit-ball idea anyway. If I had a really amazing T3 fix that I was sure would work I'd carve it into a marble block and have it delivered to CCP headquarters...
PavlikX wrote:I support topic starter. BSs deserve more attention and love from CCP. There can be a lot of solutions, and main one - bring to them role bonus. Most of them simply have such bonus. It could be something similar to the BC - additional tracking and so on.
First off, read through the thread, BBes aren't in a bad place.
Second, the vast majority of T1 hulls do not have any sort of role bonus. The one exception is Battlecruisers because they've become basically My First Command Ship.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18676
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 18:10:37 -
[123] - Quote
Frankly T3C are going to need a lot of work (a hefty nerf). Several things stand out, reduction in fitting room, big reduction in tanking ability and the biggest and most controversial is the number of bonuses these ships get must be slashed. It should not have been left to fester for this long but I can see why they are putting it off, its not going to be easy and it will cause one hell of a flamewar. |
Cade Windstalker
900
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 18:24:02 -
[124] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Frankly T3C are going to need a lot of work (a hefty nerf). Several things stand out, reduction in fitting room, big reduction in tanking ability and the biggest and most controversial is the number of bonuses these ships get must be slashed. It should not have been left to fester for this long but I can see why they are putting it off, its not going to be easy and it will cause one hell of a flamewar.
Agreed on all points.
Lets also not forget that nerfing any of those things also affects the others, and on top of that they needed to fix the T1 and T2 ships to even have a decent baseline to nerf them down to.
As much as I agree that I wish they'd done it years ago, I also can't really fault them for not... I think it's probably going to cause more controversy than the cap changes. (in before 90 page threadnaught...) |
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 20:56:50 -
[125] - Quote
I tried to come up with a different T3C setup, but the idea was quite tldr (it took the the OP + 2 comments to write everything) and the thread closed because of inactivity before I had time to make an easier-to-read format...
If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!
But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
|
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5767
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 02:14:45 -
[126] - Quote
Instead of nerfing T3C we need new T3B - then it won't be an issue. Skip the T3C rebalance and focus on the other ships that need it instead.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3832
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 06:23:15 -
[127] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Instead of nerfing T3C we need new T3B - then it won't be an issue. Skip the T3C rebalance and focus on the other ships that need it instead.
yeah it's not like they are 0/2 when it comes to balanced t3s
BLOPS Hauler
|
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 09:37:37 -
[128] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Instead of nerfing T3C we need new T3B - then it won't be an issue. Skip the T3C rebalance and focus on the other ships that need it instead. Would those have the tank and weapons of dreads AND carriers? And a super weapon maybe? Probably with jump portal generating ability too? In a convenient hi-sec sized package?
Because if we follow the T3 ability line, this is most likely where we will end up. I'm not against escort carriers (BS with fighters) or anti-structure ships with capital sized weapons, but I can't imagine a T3BS not to be ridiculously overpowered.
If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!
But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
|
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
740
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 09:48:49 -
[129] - Quote
I've wanted escort/light carriers for years now :(
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3834
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 10:35:36 -
[130] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:I've wanted escort/light carriers for years now :(
we have those
chimera nid thanny and Archon
and if you mean something even smaller what niche is open they are needed to fill?
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
740
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 10:51:53 -
[131] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Kenrailae wrote:I've wanted escort/light carriers for years now :( we have those chimera nid thanny and Archon and if you mean something even smaller what niche is open they are needed to fill?
actually.... if you look those are called carriers.
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
Brok Haslack
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 13:22:54 -
[132] - Quote
Ok after some more thought:
We need a shield version of the Nestor to bring in some balance there. So we would need the Capacitor of an Amarrian vessel, with the Shield Tanking of a Minmatar battleship.
That Amarrian Capacitor would also help the Vargur ( which is a little weak on Capacitor for a self-repper. Lovely shields, decent shield boosters now on the market, but you can't pump 'em for that long I have to say ).
Escort Carriers ( smaller than the big ones ) could be fun. Flights of 7 drones in a special Battleship? Only 5 turrets to make up for it?
For close-quarters you have 2 options:
- Mixing guns. An APOC with 4 beams & 4 pulses, and better shields than now ( due to Minmatar input ), could help a lot here. Possibly still be T1 too, although I suspect that they'd make it T2 and give it a 20% damage bonus as well as extra shields. Vargur Shields are nice. We need more Vargur Sheilds.
- The Nightmare chassis ( or some-such ), with 5 gun slots. 3 beams, 2 pulses, dead baddies. Also viable. Maybe lose a mid-slot or two to do it. The Nightmare already has a good shield set-up ( almost Vargur-like ).
.
The Ammatar Mandate could provide this stuff in theory, for those who like to keep in story-line.
.
The Vindi should be re-named the Thunderchunky too.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3834
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 13:38:04 -
[133] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Kenrailae wrote:I've wanted escort/light carriers for years now :( we have those chimera nid thanny and Archon and if you mean something even smaller what niche is open they are needed to fill? actually.... if you look those are called carriers.
yet they fill the same role
is it that you just want the name "light carrier" on a ship or is there a niche that they are needed for?
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3834
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 13:40:15 -
[134] - Quote
Brok Haslack wrote: Escort Carriers ( smaller than the big ones ) could be fun. Flights of 7 drones in a special Battleship?
we used to have 10 but it was hard on the server so they cut it in half and doubled the effective DPS
BLOPS Hauler
|
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 14:37:52 -
[135] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Kenrailae wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Kenrailae wrote:I've wanted escort/light carriers for years now :( we have those chimera nid thanny and Archon and if you mean something even smaller what niche is open they are needed to fill? actually.... if you look those are called carriers. yet they fill the same role is it that you just want the name "light carrier" on a ship or is there a niche that they are needed for? According to the original design from the contest in 2010, these should be BS sized carriers. I imagine them with the ability to control 1 light or support fighter squad, while can hold maybe 3. Able to move free in hi-sec but can't use accel gates, to prevent using them in incursions and on missions. Maybe a refitting ability, so they can be used as a kind of mobile base. Remote rep/boost bonuses, no ewar resistance, no command burst, no entosis link, no whatever else you usually put on carriers that would make these ridiculously OP.
Niche roles for these could be - cheap and fairly weak mobile bases to store modules and refit other ships - BS sized logistic ships: more range and efficiency than cruisers, probably primary at all times - anti-structure platforms in hi-sec maybe? or you need fighter bombers for that?
If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!
But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
|
Wolfgang Jannesen
The Evesploratory Society
71
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 14:40:19 -
[136] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Kenrailae wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Kenrailae wrote:I've wanted escort/light carriers for years now :( we have those chimera nid thanny and Archon and if you mean something even smaller what niche is open they are needed to fill? actually.... if you look those are called carriers. yet they fill the same role is it that you just want the name "light carrier" on a ship or is there a niche that they are needed for? According to the original design from the contest in 2010, these should be BS sized carriers. I imagine them with the ability to control 1 light or support fighter squad, while can hold maybe 3. Able to move free in hi-sec but can't use accel gates, to prevent using them in incursions and on missions. Maybe a refitting ability, so they can be used as a kind of mobile base. Remote rep/boost bonuses, no ewar resistance, no command burst, no entosis link, no whatever else you usually put on carriers that would make these ridiculously OP. Niche roles for these could be - cheap and fairly weak mobile bases to store modules and refit other ships - BS sized logistic ships: more range and efficiency than cruisers, probably primary at all times - anti-structure platforms in hi-sec maybe? or you need fighter bombers for that?
That's exactly what carriers already are, aside from requiring capital skills instead of battleship. What role will these fill that carriers dont already?
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3834
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 14:47:20 -
[137] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Kenrailae wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Kenrailae wrote:I've wanted escort/light carriers for years now :( we have those chimera nid thanny and Archon and if you mean something even smaller what niche is open they are needed to fill? actually.... if you look those are called carriers. yet they fill the same role is it that you just want the name "light carrier" on a ship or is there a niche that they are needed for? According to the original design from the contest in 2010, these should be BS sized carriers. I imagine them with the ability to control 1 light or support fighter squad, while can hold maybe 3. Able to move free in hi-sec but can't use accel gates, to prevent using them in incursions and on missions. Maybe a refitting ability, so they can be used as a kind of mobile base. Remote rep/boost bonuses, no ewar resistance, no command burst, no entosis link, no whatever else you usually put on carriers that would make these ridiculously OP. Niche roles for these could be - cheap and fairly weak mobile bases to store modules and refit other ships - BS sized logistic ships: more range and efficiency than cruisers, probably primary at all times - anti-structure platforms in hi-sec maybe? or you need fighter bombers for that?
oh yeah that doesn't seem broken at all. not only do they have RR but they can kick out 1kdps and refit off each other. just like the old carriers that were broken beyond belief only this time they will be even cheaper to field
again i didn't ask what role would be given to them i asked what role needs filling
high dps super logi is not something eve needs
the roles you listed are already filled by other ships in eve
orca/nestor the T2 logi is BB logi any BB or ABC
BLOPS Hauler
|
Cade Windstalker
913
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 16:58:50 -
[138] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:oh yeah that doesn't seem broken at all. not only do they have RR but they can kick out 1kdps and refit off each other. just like the old carriers that were broken beyond belief only this time they will be even cheaper to field
again i didn't ask what role would be given to them i asked what role needs filling
high dps super logi is not something eve needs
the roles you listed are already filled by other ships in eve
orca/nestor the T2 logi is BB logi any BB or ABC
Don't forget that BS-sized drone boat is already taken by any Gallente, Guristas, or SOE Battleship. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18687
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 18:08:57 -
[139] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:oh yeah that doesn't seem broken at all. not only do they have RR but they can kick out 1kdps and refit off each other. just like the old carriers that were broken beyond belief only this time they will be even cheaper to field
again i didn't ask what role would be given to them i asked what role needs filling
high dps super logi is not something eve needs
the roles you listed are already filled by other ships in eve
orca/nestor the T2 logi is BB logi any BB or ABC Don't forget that BS-sized drone boat is already taken by any Gallente, Guristas, or SOE Battleship.
Also geddon. |
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 22:12:04 -
[140] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:oh yeah that doesn't seem broken at all. not only do they have RR but they can kick out 1kdps and refit off each other. just like the old carriers that were broken beyond belief only this time they will be even cheaper to field
again i didn't ask what role would be given to them i asked what role needs filling
high dps super logi is not something eve needs
the roles you listed are already filled by other ships in eve
orca/nestor the T2 logi is BB logi any BB or ABC Don't forget that BS-sized drone boat is already taken by any Gallente, Guristas, or SOE Battleship. Also geddon. I don't know what roles still missing from the game. Could you name a few please? Also, is it really necessary for every ship to have a niche role? Can't we make something to increase the variety, or because it's an interesting idea? What niche role do the attack battle cruisers have? Having oversized weapons is a niche? Why don't we have destroyers with medium guns and battleships with capital guns then?
If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!
But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
|
|
Arcturus Ursidae
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
32
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 22:49:36 -
[141] - Quote
The new carrier fighter functionality is good and interesting but there is a big gap in skills between battleships and carriers. There is probably some value providing a bridge ship that starts to make use of fighter skills while still not having the full complement of capital skills.
Whether it fills a niche is a different question. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3842
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 00:03:47 -
[142] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote: I don't know what roles still missing from the game. Could you name a few please? Also, is it really necessary for every ship to have a niche role? Can't we make something to increase the variety, or because it's an interesting idea? What niche role do the attack battle cruisers have? Having oversized weapons is a niche? Why don't we have destroyers with medium guns and battleships with capital guns then?
adding ships for the sake of adding ships causes nothing but balance issues.
just look at how OP you tried to make it
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3842
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 00:06:01 -
[143] - Quote
Arcturus Ursidae wrote:The new carrier fighter functionality is good and interesting but there is a big gap in skills between battleships and carriers. There is probably some value providing a bridge ship that starts to make use of fighter skills while still not having the full complement of capital skills.
Whether it fills a niche is a different question.
so it comes out you want a ship with the perks of a carrier but none of the restrictions.
while on papper it may look like it takes a significant amount longer to fly a capital the gap is not that big between a well skilled BB and getting into a Dread. one of the things that makes eve great is how things happen slowly the lack of instant gratification is what makes achieving something worth while
BLOPS Hauler
|
Arcturus Ursidae
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
32
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 00:54:34 -
[144] - Quote
I think expanding use of good gameplay functionality is a good thing and that to a certain extent new shiny ships sell subscriptions.
As for skills the cost is large and the training time is fairly large, you also pretty much need the lot before stepping into one.
Previous posters idea was probably overpowered doesn't mean there isn't some value there in the idea. |
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:48:28 -
[145] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: adding ships for the sake of adding ships causes nothing but balance issues.
just look at how OP you tried to make it
Even if this 5 minute concept is OP, it wasn't intentional. I tried to remove everything that belongs to the capitals only, the ship refitting ability seems to be natural for carriers, that's why I wanted to keep it. Even the fighter support ability is reduced. The only real extra is the ability to move in hi-sec, but with the inability to use accel gates, these are almost completely limited to PVP.
If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!
But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3842
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 02:17:11 -
[146] - Quote
Arcturus Ursidae wrote:I think expanding use of good gameplay functionality is a good thing and that to a certain extent new shiny ships sell subscriptions.
As for skills the cost is large and the training time is fairly large, you also pretty much need the lot before stepping into one.
Previous posters idea was probably overpowered doesn't mean there isn't some value there in the idea.
your right we should also have a BB sized dooms day
carriers as they are right now are a ship built to support capital fleets and supers by removing sub caps off the field. this is balanced by their vulnerability to other capitals. you give this functionality to a sub cap and you will have a monster even if you limit it to only one fighter group. Don't get me wrong i see where you are coming from. I was disappointed when they decided not to give fighter bombers to carriers when they did the pass. These are a lot of fun to use but there are not many times i can go out in my wyvern; but i recognize why carriers could not use these and understand that sometimes balance has to come before gameplay.
issues ballance wise right off the bat
even one flight of light fighters can get to 1kdps with out giving up much in the form of tank or dps
these things would totally make standard carriers useless particularly if they were the standard ~150 mill of a battleship. you could field far more of these for the same price and they would be able to kill off the fighters of any carrier with ease.
they would hard counter any other drone boat making drone boats far less viable in most areas of the game
another issue is the NSA either these ships can't use it meaning they will be largely useless in small numbers or they can making them the new go to ship for gate camping WT.
the only way i could see these being balanced at all is if there were heavy restrictions placed on them
sig and speed slightly worse than normal BBs
tank of T1 cruiser
reduced fighter HP
this would mean you would have to warp these in at range and use them similar to ABCs
even then a few hyper-spacial rigs and they will still mow down small and solo gangs in LS, be use widely in HS wars and be a nightmare in large numbers.
that said when you have to put heavy penalties onto an idea you probably should rethink the idea in the first place
BLOPS Hauler
|
Cade Windstalker
921
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 04:27:05 -
[147] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:I don't know what roles still missing from the game. Could you name a few please? Also, is it really necessary for every ship to have a niche role? Can't we make something to increase the variety, or because it's an interesting idea? What niche role do the attack battle cruisers have? Having oversized weapons is a niche? Why don't we have destroyers with medium guns and battleships with capital guns then?
It's not necessary that everything have a distinct role, but it should have a niche or something that sets it apart in a useful fashion.
Something that simply looks 'interesting' isn't really inherently worth the dev time, it has to be something actually new and probably not broken. The ABCs serve a useful role, a small ship with medium guns doesn't really have the same utility and potential.
Same goes for a BS sized ship with Fighters. There just isn't enough space between a BS and a Carrier in terms of price or DPS for that to be useful or interesting in a non-broken way. |
Brok Haslack
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2017.02.27 07:36:13 -
[148] - Quote
In Star Wars Rebels there is a Tiny Carrier that can simply drop 1 flight of light fighters. It's a well thought out boat for deploying Tie's a long way from home. 4 ties, dropped from below the ship. With a couple of main guns. Simples.
A support Carrier could have 4 tubes, and simply launch 4 light fighters. Whilst being BS size.
Interesting.
I figured that a heavy drone boat ( 7 drone capability specialist ) would have a similar punch, but if CCP were to allow limited Fighter Tubes in high sec that could also do the job.
:) |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3849
|
Posted - 2017.02.27 08:16:44 -
[149] - Quote
not only would that require reworking the fighter code but you would have less DPS than a drone boat with V drones.....
4 fighters is 500 DPS in a max DPS fit. that is counting the missile salvos they are also far easier to remove from the fight than heavy drones and you lack the utility of using smaller drones like a drone boat would
and again
no to any ship with more than five fighters its bad on the servers.
Keep shooting ideas though
i want to fly this IDEA but i don't think there is a way it can fit into eve
BLOPS Hauler
|
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
741
|
Posted - 2017.02.27 09:31:45 -
[150] - Quote
Thing is there are about 20 different ways to do this.
Could go T1 new BS hull, T2 BS, capital, hell there are even ways a BC hull argument could be made....
Then you would decide on NSA on subcap hull possibilities or no
Then there are arguments for everything from 1 tube to 5.....
Then you have all the arguments for how does it behave... does it sit and tank, does it try to avoid a fight, etc etc etc.....
What that all really means is by the time you get done looking at all those options there is someone who is going to have a problem with every single one. Rather than nitpicking the particulars of one out of a multitude of ways this concept could work, why not just a 'Do it CCP' or 'Don't do it CCP'?
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |