Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Thor Xian
EarthForce E.A.R.T.H. Federation
|
Posted - 2007.07.03 23:31:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Nerogk Shorn pshh, there are enough large ships. I say introduce more smaller ships. We see enough battleships as it is, and they truly aren't that fun to fly.
Small ships outnumber large ships ****loads to one. I want my Juggernaut. ________________________________________ ~Fleet Admiral Thor Xian, Strategic Commander
Meet the Overlord |
Colonel Drego
Caldari Angels of the Apocolypse
|
Posted - 2007.07.03 23:55:00 -
[32]
The mini-dreadnought Monitor-class is easily the best idea for a ship class to fill this gap. However, the ability to go into seige-mode would be overdoing it, that should be a fullscale dread only ability. As for it's role, the ability to tear down POS in high security without the need of a large blob of battleships would certainly be valid. It could also find some creative use in gangs and fleets i'm sure. Two XL weapon points, a modest tanking ability, and the ability to use gates would certainly make these ships valuable and powerful tactically while not possessing any ability to be a solo ship.
___________________________________________ New pilot's typical first mission |
Ahz
|
Posted - 2007.07.04 01:15:00 -
[33]
I'm against it.
Putting something in between battleships and capitals will only encourage more pilots to make the leap to cap ships. Right now it's about three months of dedicated training (BS 5, ASC 5 plus either dread-specific or carrier specific level 5 training) to get into cap ships with nothing much new to show for it but a big payoff at the end.
If you break that up by offering a pay off (new ship class) in the middle, it will result in more players being willing to put in the investment.
Cap ships will become as common as battleships.
I'd honestly like to see a tier II dread rather than a ship between BS and cap.
|
Tammarr
|
Posted - 2007.07.04 01:37:00 -
[34]
The 'mini dread' sounds like a fabolous idea. 2 XL turrets/launchers +2xutility, not to many slots for tank 4/3 or 3/4?. And add a new siege module(the mechanics are already there...) with less damage mod, say 200% or something for being sieged and no bonous to tanking ability.
|
LUH 3471
|
Posted - 2007.07.04 01:43:00 -
[35]
yes give us some uber half capital dominix which can use jumpdrive and gates with build in capital nos and disco lights
|
Spenz
Gallente Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.07.04 03:33:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Spenz on 04/07/2007 03:32:40 Dunno if you had 2 weapons slots, would you put NOS in them?
I would say give them 2 XL turrets and maybe 1 utility hi-slot; make it as slow as a raven; give it a modest tanking ability (say 5 low slots for the amarr/gallente and 5 mid slots for caldari), a max target lock of 4 targets, slighty better sig res than a dread, 3 mid/low slots for anything else (depending on race), and a 25 m3 dronebay for light defense. Oh yeah and NO jump drive. Monitors could hardly travel long distances.
Hardly a solomobile and gives people options when training for a dread (and if they dont want to fly one or cant afford a dread gives them a secondary option when involved in the POS grind).
It would also flesh out the XL tier, give purpose to Adv. Spaceship command, render hi-sec POS's vunerable, and would give an affordable solution for smaller alliances who cant afford mass dread fleets but still have to deal with POS's.
Win Win baby
If I had an Alt I would probably post with it... |
Arakidias
Murky Inc. FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.04 05:59:00 -
[37]
The role of the heavy siege vessel and anti-capital ship has already been filled by the dreadnought. A ship with 1-3 XL guns/launchers but no siege mode would probably do less damage than a good battleship. What's the use?
If you can somehow develop a weapon system that would work on capitals but not on POS'es then perhaps an anti-capital ship might be useful. But otherwise, it'd just fill the same role as a dread.
|
Alekzander
Caldari Retribution Corp.
|
Posted - 2007.07.04 08:24:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Colonel Drego Edited by: Colonel Drego on 03/07/2007 00:53:24 Edit: Had a thought as to how to make these ships hard hitters, but far from accurate. Perhaps bonuses that reduce the tracking, but increases overall damage per hit, though actual numbers escape me.
The other idea for this would be an entire new class of weapons just for these ships, again largers than BS level but smaller than capital, but this seems as though it would be far less likely to actually take place.
To expand on this... Or let them fit a single capital class weapon with some sort of precision/tracking bonus to make them more accurate on this ship than a capital ship. The rest of the high slots would allow standard BS weapons (but no more than 4) and possibly 1-2 utility slots for a total of 6-7 high slots.
Obviously the only way to do this is some sort of grid/cpu reduction bonus, but not enough that it allows for more than one capital weapon, though leaving enough to fit the rest of the ship out decently.
|
Amoilin
|
Posted - 2007.07.04 08:59:00 -
[39]
I like the idea, but i think it should be geared more towards logistics.
Give them enough drone bay to fit a few fighters, enough high slots for a ganglink, a capital remote rep, and capital energy transfer.
They should be tougher than battleships, but not able to use a capital repair module.
Skills required could be battleship 4, drone interfacing 5, ASC 4, and the ship skill.
1200 m^3 capacity, 10,000 cap, 11,000 base hull, with armor and shield varying according to race.
95% reduction in the cpu and powergrid requirements of capital remote logistics.
99.9% penalty to Energy Vampire Modules (we don't need another nossing drone boat)
|
Spenz
Gallente Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.07.04 09:24:00 -
[40]
Well that sounds like an escort carrier to me. There could be TWO new ship classes, a Monitor and an Escort Carrier.
Your right about the XL turrets not doing enough damage, however, this ship is meant to fill the role of hi-sec POS takedown, which cannot by any means be filled by a dread. Maybe give it siege mode, but like one person said, without the tanking bonus.
Personally I dont see any real way of taking down a well equipt hi-sec POS with a battleship fleet. Even with large numbers of battleships a medium tower still takes an ungodly amount of time to wear down. Remove the capital ships and give the ability of the defenses to focus fire intelligently (Starbase defense control) and I see how some guy could pop 30 or so battleships with the base defenses before A.) the turrets die or B.) the shield goes down and/or the tower goes into reinforce.
So there is the Escort carrier idea, and the Monitor idea. Both should be able to use jumpgates like freighters, but not have jump drives since a freighter doesnt carry one. Both existed IRL for specialized purposes that would make sense in EVE as well.
Discuss, but think it over.
If I had an Alt I would probably post with it... |
|
Lucre
STK Scientific M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.07.04 10:39:00 -
[41]
Thing which always griped me slightly (but only slightly!) was that Eve "Battlecruisers" aren't, they're heavy cruisers. Battlecruisers historically (yes, I know - hush!) were battleship-sized (or larger) ships with BS guns but which sacrificed armour for speed.
Tactical speed in Eve doesn't mean a lot for BS or Dread (save the occasional remaining nanoship). But I wonder if there's a niche for a capital battlecruiser which trades defences for strategic mobility?
Take a dread. Leave the armament intact but nerf its tank by reducing some combo of cap, recharge, resistance or slots. But significantly increase its jump range, agility and tactical speed. Maybe even have a jump range "better than carrier" and accompany it with "strike carrier" classes which again trade toughness for that enhanced jump range.
Then make them cheaper than dreads so people are more prepared to risk them. Could bring a whole new capability to "roaming", especially with the new POS and station vulnerabilities... |
n0thing
omen. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.07.04 11:39:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Namingway I think if/when T2 Bs are intoduced, that will do more than even gap covering.
Especially if the Amarr get a BS version of the Curse, which will then proceed to solo-drain a titan's cap.
If T2 BS will ever be the CS equivalent, that will vastly outclass CSes like AFs are now. And HACs to certain extent, even more.
Not to mention BS Sized/resisted Curse will solo any fleet up to 5 ships of any size. Apart from maybe 5 Rooks...but even then they wont have damage.
Imo, T2 BS should be made to be useless anywhere but in fleet with gang mods. Good hp, HAC resists. 2-3 weapon slots. Rest gang mods. No bonuses for weapons, only gang/hp/resistance bonuses.
---
|
Aleranie
|
Posted - 2007.07.04 11:49:00 -
[43]
Simple, make it limited to 1 xl gun, and make its siege mode require same skills but only give the damage bonus without the associated tanking effects. maaaaaybe give it a jump drive.
But heres how you make it a niche thing. Give it a ridiculously slow base speed, so that in order to go anywhere it has to use a mwd to get to even regular battleship speeds. Also, it takes forever to allign, get to warp like a freighter does.
It becomes usefull as a gate-sniper, but you can't bring it along with fleets easily. doing so requires a lot of support. It is also a sitting duck if any situation goes pear shaped.
Also: another idea to make logistics ships awesome: add a "remote microwarp drive" highslot module.
|
Akashyi
|
Posted - 2007.07.06 16:02:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon I just want BS with PG reductio nof 95% for X-Large guns.
Not very good agasint other smaller ships but devastatign againt capitals. Imagine a tempest with 6x X Large arties :P
Yeah and that wouldnt be even remotely overpowered..... unless it costs 10b
|
Dark Squall
Caldari Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.07.06 17:37:00 -
[45]
Imo the best gapfiller between the Battleship and Capital Ships is a Flag Command Ship based on bs hull.
Just like the command ship that is the T2 versions of BC's.
But in Battleships they get limitions as in firepower. Flag ships designed to be a REAL command ship. Instead of getting insane firepowah etc. bonus, They should get gang bonus like a titan does. Able to fit more then 3 gangmodules, a INSANITY of tanking abilities. Insane skill requirement.
A PURE FC battleship. Great for fleetbattles ( as in defending/attacking a hostile home system ) So the FC hops in his/her shiny battleship comes with the fleet and gives out orders as usaully but instead of doing dmg he/she will give out gang/fleet bonus to all, able to call targets for a long period of time. And/OR also give it a special radar system so it can tell wich ships are using what kind of EW. That would be the ultimate T2 BS.
Not a solo pwn mobile machine but a " mobile " command center. For better organizing fleets etc. And not like FC got popped and podded and ppl getting confused because the FC dont got insight of the battle anymore. But in a ship like that the FC shouldnt have a problem.
Just my 2 cents of idea.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Guardians of the Dawn Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.06 17:54:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Akashyi
Originally by: Kagura Nikon I just want BS with PG reductio nof 95% for X-Large guns.
Not very good agasint other smaller ships but devastatign againt capitals. Imagine a tempest with 6x X Large arties :P
Yeah and that wouldnt be even remotely overpowered..... unless it costs 10b
naa it wont. If it tanks only barely more than a T1 BS it will be much easier to kill than a carrier. So it can be viable at a price tag of 1 bil I would say.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Guardians of the Dawn Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.06 17:56:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Dark Squall Imo the best gapfiller between the Battleship and Capital Ships is a Flag Command Ship based on bs hull.
Just like the command ship that is the T2 versions of BC's.
But in Battleships they get limitions as in firepower. Flag ships designed to be a REAL command ship. Instead of getting insane firepowah etc. bonus, They should get gang bonus like a titan does. Able to fit more then 3 gangmodules, a INSANITY of tanking abilities. Insane skill requirement.
A PURE FC battleship. Great for fleetbattles ( as in defending/attacking a hostile home system ) So the FC hops in his/her shiny battleship comes with the fleet and gives out orders as usaully but instead of doing dmg he/she will give out gang/fleet bonus to all, able to call targets for a long period of time. And/OR also give it a special radar system so it can tell wich ships are using what kind of EW. That would be the ultimate T2 BS.
Not a solo pwn mobile machine but a " mobile " command center. For better organizing fleets etc. And not like FC got popped and podded and ppl getting confused because the FC dont got insight of the battle anymore. But in a ship like that the FC shouldnt have a problem.
Just my 2 cents of idea.
We already have plenety of GANG bonuses ships.. and no one uses the damm Modules. How many BC, carriers do you see aroudn with gang warfare modules?
naa gang bonuses are not fun and very few people worry about them, and would be a plain repetition of the CS.
Need to be a more specific role. Like Anti POS assault ships (to kill structures). Liek a Normal BS, with a bit more resists, but 20% more damage per level against structures.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |