Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Raven Timoshenko
Flying While Intoxicated The Threshold
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 05:52:00 -
[1]
In keeping with EVE's Paper-Rock-Scissors Principle of Combat, rather than hitting Nano-ships with the Nerf bat, how about introducing a new kind of ship specifically designed to deal with Nano-ships, but is pretty useless against anything else.
The Corvette is a cruiser size vessel, with 4 high slots, 4 Meds and 2 lows.
The Corvette fits medium guns which confers destroyer like bonuses 50% optimum range, -25% RoF, 10% bonus to Medium Turret tracking speed and 10% bonus to medium Hybrid Turret optimal range per level. However it has a rather lousy scan resolution to offset it being used as a frigate gank mobile. Secondly it provides bonuses to Webifying and also a speed Bonus. The Tank would be decent - better than a destroyer atleast, but not so great that it could stand up to a BC or larger ship.
This is a rough idea, but what do you think?
|
Paradoxataur
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 06:24:00 -
[2]
I'd like to see a battlecruiser sized interdictor of some sort geared towards this, as anti-nano would primarily benefit this role.
As of now, tackling class ships go in size from, Intereptor, Interdictor, Heavy Interdictor. We should probably introduce an interdictor for anti-nano, something that acts somewhat like a hugin, except a bubble that can have a script that can be used to create a dead-space like area instead of a pointed bubble. (In deadspace, you can't use your MWD.)
The ship should have a decent tank, but would easily be primaried by nano gangs... as this is not what they'd like to see.
I'd say call it a Blockade Cruiser (or something like that)
|
Jurgen Cartis
Interstellar Corporation of Exploration Nex Eternus
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 06:26:00 -
[3]
Two range bonuses on Frigate class weapons produces platforms with 50-100km range. Two range bonuses on Cruiser class weapons and you hit fleet ranges. There is a reason the Eagle and Vulture are the only Medium Weapon platforms that can perform at 150km+. This ship would pretty much render the Eagle, Munnin, Beam Zealot and other Cruiser-class snipers obsolete between the stacked range bonuses and the massive tracking increase. -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth |
Aidan Ordway
The Reappropriation Committee
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 06:48:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Jurgen Cartis Two range bonuses on Frigate class weapons produces platforms with 50-100km range. Two range bonuses on Cruiser class weapons and you hit fleet ranges. There is a reason the Eagle and Vulture are the only Medium Weapon platforms that can perform at 150km+. This ship would pretty much render the Eagle, Munnin, Beam Zealot and other Cruiser-class snipers obsolete between the stacked range bonuses and the massive tracking increase.
While I support this idea, I agree with Jurgen that the optimal range would eliminate the roles these other ships play. In all honesty, a Corvette shouldn't need an optimal range bonus for weapons. Heck, even tracking bonuses will be rather useless considering the speeds they fly at. Instead consider giving them weapon bonuses similar to other ships, but giving them a webbing bonus to range and strength. This way they can catch a nano-ship before it gets away, and slow it down enough so that normal weapons can actually hit it.
|
Raven Timoshenko
Flying While Intoxicated The Threshold
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 07:58:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Raven Timoshenko on 19/06/2008 08:04:39
Originally by: Aidan Ordway
Originally by: Jurgen Cartis Two range bonuses on Frigate class weapons produces platforms with 50-100km range. Two range bonuses on Cruiser class weapons and you hit fleet ranges. There is a reason the Eagle and Vulture are the only Medium Weapon platforms that can perform at 150km+. This ship would pretty much render the Eagle, Munnin, Beam Zealot and other Cruiser-class snipers obsolete between the stacked range bonuses and the massive tracking increase.
While I support this idea, I agree with Jurgen that the optimal range would eliminate the roles these other ships play. In all honesty, a Corvette shouldn't need an optimal range bonus for weapons. Heck, even tracking bonuses will be rather useless considering the speeds they fly at. Instead consider giving them weapon bonuses similar to other ships, but giving them a webbing bonus to range and strength. This way they can catch a nano-ship before it gets away, and slow it down enough so that normal weapons can actually hit it.
Sounds reasonable, so lets say we remove the range bonuses, beef up its tackling capabilities but keep its tracking bonuses, since it would have to track fast enough to hit a Nano doing a transversal orbit. Even if the tracking bonuses are not so great - maybe 1 in 3 shots will miss - atleast it means that it can effectively keep nano-ships at bay. RoF penalty will remain simply because we would need to offset it being used as a uber-frigate killer.
Oh and since it only has four slots, its not going to be out DPSing a cruiser- maybe even then 4 Med Turrets can only be fit if the pilot has decent skills.
|
Raven Timoshenko
Flying While Intoxicated The Threshold
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 12:55:00 -
[6]
/bump
|
Zirconium Blade
Ass Pounding Space Monkeys
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 19:06:00 -
[7]
How about a cruiser that had a bonus to make a standard t2 web have a range of 40km? Crazy idea? Maybe. But they could be Minmatar Recons! And we could call them the Rapier and the Huginn!
Oh wait...
|
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 19:29:00 -
[8]
Call me crazy, but isnt an Interceptor supposed to be catching all these fast ships?
Buff ceptors tbh.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
I'm the Juggernaut, *****! |
Shiv Ertai
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 00:32:00 -
[9]
Why not a specialized mod for this corvette that disrupts MWDs only.
The mod would do X% MWD speed boost reduction with a stacking penalty to multiple mods.
Web's atm are and on/off for speed (and need to be nerfed) so that's not the way to go (besides... we already have everyone and their mom flying Rapiers and Hugins.
Thread derail: Webs should have a 2km optimal for their full strength and 10km falloff or something.
|
Marcus Gideon
Excessive Force
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 00:41:00 -
[10]
Or... *repeats self from other Nano threads*
What if Webs only affected AB? AB make you faster by pushing you along. Webs are like Tractors, and drag you back so you're slower.
MWD make you faster by jumping you ahead of yourself. Technically you'd slip out of the Web the first time you jumped. Whereas the Scramblers are meant to disrupt onboard computers with locking onto the destination. So why not let Scramblers have the same effect Webs do, only against MWD. They throw off the MWD computers, making you jump less often, and thus end up slower.
This wouldn't call for any kind of new ship, only a modification to current modules. And ~I~ think it's pretty balanced anyways.
|
|
Lego Maniac
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 01:31:00 -
[11]
you know, this new ship class sounds good for nanoing...
it's "rough ideas" like these that people don't think all the way through that are looked right over by CCP
|
Del Narveux
Dukes of Hazard
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 02:57:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Zirconium Blade How about a cruiser that had a bonus to make a standard t2 web have a range of 40km? Crazy idea? Maybe. But they could be Minmatar Recons! And we could call them the Rapier and the Huginn!
Oh wait...
So, by the same logic, you would agree that only Caldari recons should get ECCM and only Amarr recons get cap boosters, right?
Anyway, at the OP that might work but Im not sold on requiring a specialized t2 ship to neutralize nanos. Again, anti-nano should have similar fitting requirements as other special-weapon counters like ECCM and tracking enhancers, e.g. some sort of medslot EW. _________________ [IMAGE REMOVED] -- aka Cpt Bogus -- Is that my torped sig cloaking your base?
|
Raven Timoshenko
Flying While Intoxicated The Threshold
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 06:00:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Del Narveux
Originally by: Zirconium Blade How about a cruiser that had a bonus to make a standard t2 web have a range of 40km? Crazy idea? Maybe. But they could be Minmatar Recons! And we could call them the Rapier and the Huginn!
Oh wait...
So, by the same logic, you would agree that only Caldari recons should get ECCM and only Amarr recons get cap boosters, right?
Anyway, at the OP that might work but Im not sold on requiring a specialized t2 ship to neutralize nanos. Again, anti-nano should have similar fitting requirements as other special-weapon counters like ECCM and tracking enhancers, e.g. some sort of medslot EW.
Well the thing is I was thinking more on the lines of a T1 Cruiser.. something which fits a specialized role like a Black Bird. A Med slot enhancer for say a webbing range, getting rid of the speed bonus. The Corvette at best on its own can hold a Nano ship at bay, it wll require additional DPS ships to take it down.
|
Raven Timoshenko
Flying While Intoxicated The Threshold
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 06:02:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Anubis Xian Call me crazy, but isnt an Interceptor supposed to be catching all these fast ships?
Buff ceptors tbh.
Yes this MAY work, unfortunately recons like the curse eat Inties for breakfast. Following the maxim that when you are in range of the enemy, the enemy is in range of YOU, a inty attempting to web a curse generally finds itself well within the range of the Curse's NOS and then its good bye cap and good by inty.
|
Raven Timoshenko
Flying While Intoxicated The Threshold
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 06:08:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Marcus Gideon Or... *repeats self from other Nano threads*
What if Webs only affected AB? AB make you faster by pushing you along. Webs are like Tractors, and drag you back so you're slower.
MWD make you faster by jumping you ahead of yourself. Technically you'd slip out of the Web the first time you jumped. Whereas the Scramblers are meant to disrupt onboard computers with locking onto the destination. So why not let Scramblers have the same effect Webs do, only against MWD. They throw off the MWD computers, making you jump less often, and thus end up slower.
This wouldn't call for any kind of new ship, only a modification to current modules. And ~I~ think it's pretty balanced anyways.
There is one major problem: Since Warp Scrams will be doing the job Webs were meant to do, and since Nano-gangs are almost exclusively MWD, Webs become obsolete, plus it frees up one mid slot on a tackler.
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 07:41:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Marcus Gideon Or... *repeats self from other Nano threads*
What if Webs only affected AB? AB make you faster by pushing you along. Webs are like Tractors, and drag you back so you're slower.
MWD make you faster by jumping you ahead of yourself. Technically you'd slip out of the Web the first time you jumped. Whereas the Scramblers are meant to disrupt onboard computers with locking onto the destination. So why not let Scramblers have the same effect Webs do, only against MWD. They throw off the MWD computers, making you jump less often, and thus end up slower.
This wouldn't call for any kind of new ship, only a modification to current modules. And ~I~ think it's pretty balanced anyways.
what about warp bubbles ? suddenly they would turn into AoE webs for all practical purposes. --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed ! |
Astria Tiphareth
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 13:06:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Originally by: Marcus Gideon Or... *repeats self from other Nano threads*
What if Webs only affected AB? AB make you faster by pushing you along. Webs are like Tractors, and drag you back so you're slower.
MWD make you faster by jumping you ahead of yourself. Technically you'd slip out of the Web the first time you jumped. Whereas the Scramblers are meant to disrupt onboard computers with locking onto the destination. So why not let Scramblers have the same effect Webs do, only against MWD. They throw off the MWD computers, making you jump less often, and thus end up slower.
This wouldn't call for any kind of new ship, only a modification to current modules. And ~I~ think it's pretty balanced anyways.
what about warp bubbles ? suddenly they would turn into AoE webs for all practical purposes.
Quoting Marcus' reply for context. They would only do that if everyone still used MWDs. If on the other hand, people got out of the mindset that they're required and tried a little variety, like say, AB, then it's a whole different game. Indeed, changes like what Marcus proposes are what shake games up and force people to change habits. That has both good and bad effects. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation or alliance, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... |
Zirconium Blade
Ass Pounding Space Monkeys
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 13:23:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Del Narveux
So, by the same logic, you would agree that only Caldari recons should get ECCM and only Amarr recons get cap boosters, right?
This doesnt really make sense, and doesn't follow logic at all. You're saying the Falcon should have ECCM instead of ECM bonuses and every ship has the ability to fit a jammer?
Originally by: Del Narveux
Anyway, at the OP that might work but Im not sold on requiring a specialized t2 ship to neutralize nanos. Again, anti-nano should have similar fitting requirements as other special-weapon counters like ECCM and tracking enhancers, e.g. some sort of medslot EW
I find this kinda funny since the minnie recons are specialized T2 ships... That already exsist.
Originally by: Raven Timoshenko
Well the thing is I was thinking more on the lines of a T1 Cruiser.. something which fits a specialized role like a Black Bird. A Med slot enhancer for say a webbing range, getting rid of the speed bonus. The Corvette at best on its own can hold a Nano ship at bay, it wll require additional DPS ships to take it down.
Newsflash, if the Corvette requires additional DPS to take out a nano'ed ship, it cant have any dps at all.
|
Raven Timoshenko
Flying While Intoxicated The Threshold
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 13:32:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Zirconium Blade
1) This doesnt really make sense, and doesn't follow logic at all. You're saying the Falcon should have ECCM instead of ECM bonuses and every ship has the ability to fit a jammer?
2) I find this kinda funny since the minnie recons are specialized T2 ships... That already exsist.
3) Newsflash, if the Corvette requires additional DPS to take out a nano'ed ship, it cant have any dps at all.
1) Thats not what he said and you know it. 2) So.. the only way to take down a Nano is to train up to a t2 Minmatar ship? hence leaving all other races by the way side? Great. 3) So... a Curse with Noses and drones has no DPS? How about a Black Bird? Your argument here is that if a counter-nano ship exists, it should not have DPS? Unlike even a Blackbird which can fit launchers or a Curse that can fit drones?
|
Zirconium Blade
Ass Pounding Space Monkeys
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 13:43:00 -
[20]
1) My point is there is no direct comparision logic because MWD-Web and ECM-ECCM are completely different in form and function.
2) It doesnt take that long to train up a new race's T2 cruisers (I fly caldari, crosstrained minnie) and takes even less time to find someone who flies them to fly with you.
3) You yourself suggested that Originally by: Raven Timoshenko The Corvette at best on its own can hold a Nano ship at bay, it wll require additional DPS ships to take it down.
A nano ship has no tank, only speed. A few well placed shots will take it out. So, if the Corvette cannot take it out itself, it cannot have the ability to put out any DPS.
|
|
Raven Timoshenko
Flying While Intoxicated The Threshold
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 13:52:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Raven Timoshenko on 23/06/2008 13:54:36
Originally by: Zirconium Blade 1) My point is there is no direct comparision logic because MWD-Web and ECM-ECCM are completely different in form and function.
2) It doesnt take that long to train up a new race's T2 cruisers (I fly caldari, crosstrained minnie) and takes even less time to find someone who flies them to fly with you.
3) You yourself suggested that Originally by: Raven Timoshenko The Corvette at best on its own can hold a Nano ship at bay, it wll require additional DPS ships to take it down.
A nano ship has no tank, only speed. A few well placed shots will take it out. So, if the Corvette cannot take it out itself, it cannot have the ability to put out any DPS.
1 & 2) So while each race can field an effective nano-ship, only the minmatar can field an effective counter to it? That makes sense.
3) So SOME DPS is equal to NO DPS? Love to know your reasoning here.
|
Zirconium Blade
Ass Pounding Space Monkeys
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 13:55:00 -
[22]
Each race can field an effective anti nano ship. Heavy Neuts, Sniping come to mind. Are we only talking about 1v1 here?
If your target has no regenerative tank, only a slight buffer tank, even 10 DPS will eventually kill it.
|
Leviathan9
Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 14:04:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Leviathan9 on 23/06/2008 14:05:40 Energy Neuts + Rapier/Huginn/Bhaalgorn/Hyena/Any other ship with web bonus or neut bonus = Dead rapier... there sorted no need for Corvies. ----------------------------
|
Raven Timoshenko
Flying While Intoxicated The Threshold
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 14:48:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Leviathan9 Edited by: Leviathan9 on 23/06/2008 14:05:40 Energy Neuts + Rapier/Huginn/Bhaalgorn/Hyena/Any other ship with web bonus or neut bonus = Dead rapier... there sorted no need for Corvies.
So to counter a Nano, you basically deploy another Nano? In which case why don't we scrap destroyers since technically they are meant to counter frigates.
Problem NOT solved.
|
Zirconium Blade
Ass Pounding Space Monkeys
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 14:55:00 -
[25]
The tools are there, it is up to you to make use of them.
We don't need another ship.
Adapt or die?
|
Merroki
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 18:16:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Raven Timoshenko In keeping with EVE's Paper-Rock-Scissors Principle of Combat
While I agree that having things work for their designated purpose is a good thing, there's an important distinction between a subtle advantage, and a cheese/gimmick. I just don't see Eve being a primarily rock paper scissors type game, as that usually implies an entire series of cheesy/gimmicky methods that grant an extremely high success rate by design. Like saying lasers do 90% damage to minmatar but 10% damage to gallente, and hybrids do 10% to minmatar but 90% damag to amarr ships. zzzzz....
Originally by: Zirconium Blade Adapt or die?
Use brains or GTFO? Just because there are tools to counter does not mean nanos isn't currently breaking half the nuances of the game.
|
Zirconium Blade
Ass Pounding Space Monkeys
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 18:19:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Merroki
Just because there are tools to counter does not mean nanos aren't currently breaking half the nuances of the game.
FYP, and I think thats exactly what it means, actually.
|
Leviathan9
Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 18:40:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Leviathan9 on 23/06/2008 18:44:26
Originally by: Raven Timoshenko
Originally by: Leviathan9 Edited by: Leviathan9 on 23/06/2008 14:05:40 Energy Neuts + Rapier/Huginn/Bhaalgorn/Hyena/Any other ship with web bonus or neut bonus = Dead rapier... there sorted no need for Corvies.
So to counter a Nano, you basically deploy another Nano? In which case why don't we scrap destroyers since technically they are meant to counter frigates.
Problem NOT solved.
I didn't say that, Bhaalgorn isn't a nano ship.. ships with energy neuts don't have to be nano, i fit one on my mega and it rids of nano's fine. Inty with a web does fine. (Do not say inties are nano ships cos they're not)If you really want to counter nano that badly, nerf OD's, Inerts, Nanos.. Cos most nano ships were never even designed with speed in mind for speed tanking, its just become such a viable tactic to speed tank that everyone nano's ships now.. ----------------------------
|
Marcus Gideon
Excessive Force
|
Posted - 2008.06.23 21:19:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Astria Tiphareth
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Originally by: Marcus Gideon Or... *repeats self from other Nano threads*
What if Webs only affected AB? AB make you faster by pushing you along. Webs are like Tractors, and drag you back so you're slower.
MWD make you faster by jumping you ahead of yourself. Technically you'd slip out of the Web the first time you jumped. Whereas the Scramblers are meant to disrupt onboard computers with locking onto the destination. So why not let Scramblers have the same effect Webs do, only against MWD. They throw off the MWD computers, making you jump less often, and thus end up slower.
This wouldn't call for any kind of new ship, only a modification to current modules. And ~I~ think it's pretty balanced anyways.
what about warp bubbles ? suddenly they would turn into AoE webs for all practical purposes.
Quoting Marcus' reply for context. They would only do that if everyone still used MWDs. If on the other hand, people got out of the mindset that they're required and tried a little variety, like say, AB, then it's a whole different game. Indeed, changes like what Marcus proposes are what shake games up and force people to change habits. That has both good and bad effects.
At least SHE likes my idea...
---
Five Green Dots - One Red Dot = Happy Drones |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |