| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Selim
   |
Posted - 2004.09.04 15:45:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Selim on 04/09/2004 15:51:16
So we currently see fleets of Battleships and Interceptors, with interceptors locking down enemy battleships and killing the interceptors, with battleships doing the heavy work.
With the new ships coming into play, like the support cruisers, assault ships, point defence cruisers, battlecruisers, destroyers and bombers, are we going to start seeing true combined arms in fleet battles? I hope so.
I hope for a scenario looking much like this:
A few battleships providing raw firepower, acting as capital ships.
Battlecruisers performing the same as battleships.
Cruisers augmenting the firepower and providing some defence against enemies that get close.
Frigates acting as quick strike attack craft that also web and warp scramble.
Interceptors guarding the battleships, battlecruisers and cruisers from enemy frigates, but also especially warp scrambling.
Bombers providing heavy attack power against battleships and battlecruisers, and cruisers too.
Assault ships providing an effective screen against enemies that get too close to the battleships, as well as moving close and engaging the enemy.
Support cruisers are the interesting ones. Right now a battleshp can still provide the support service much better, and cheaper to lose (with insurance), although at much shorter ranges. If support cruisers could stay far behind the battleship lines at their max range, they could probably avoid being engaged by battleships, but they'd need a dedicated frigate escort to fight off interceptors, while the cruiser performs its support duties on friendlies.
Point cruisers are interesting, I forsee them being close to friendly support, spewing out defenders to destroy enemy missiles, and perhaps disrupting turret fire as well, we will see when they come out.
Destroyers being a large portion of the fleet, being the main frigate killers as well as being able to stand up to cruisers.
I'd think a combined arms fleet of large size would consist of:
6 battleships
4 battlecruisers
10 cruisers
3 support cruisers
2 point defence cruisers
12 destroyers
10 frigates (replace with more inty/bomber/assault frigs if your fleet is consisted entirely of tech 2 frigs)
8 bombers
8 assault frigates
10 interceptors
The only question is, will this be the way it all turns out? I really hope so, and I hope a combined arms fleet destroys an all-battleship or all-cruiser fleet any day. I hope a combined arms fleet will be more cost effective as well.
I just hope the support cruisers are cost-effective enough, the bombers are powerful enough, and everything like that.
Is this the sort of thing that the devs are aiming for? Because if it is, thats a great thing, I just hope that it all works out.
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2004.09.04 15:45:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Selim on 04/09/2004 15:51:16
So we currently see fleets of Battleships and Interceptors, with interceptors locking down enemy battleships and killing the interceptors, with battleships doing the heavy work.
With the new ships coming into play, like the support cruisers, assault ships, point defence cruisers, battlecruisers, destroyers and bombers, are we going to start seeing true combined arms in fleet battles? I hope so.
I hope for a scenario looking much like this:
A few battleships providing raw firepower, acting as capital ships.
Battlecruisers performing the same as battleships.
Cruisers augmenting the firepower and providing some defence against enemies that get close.
Frigates acting as quick strike attack craft that also web and warp scramble.
Interceptors guarding the battleships, battlecruisers and cruisers from enemy frigates, but also especially warp scrambling.
Bombers providing heavy attack power against battleships and battlecruisers, and cruisers too.
Assault ships providing an effective screen against enemies that get too close to the battleships, as well as moving close and engaging the enemy.
Support cruisers are the interesting ones. Right now a battleshp can still provide the support service much better, and cheaper to lose (with insurance), although at much shorter ranges. If support cruisers could stay far behind the battleship lines at their max range, they could probably avoid being engaged by battleships, but they'd need a dedicated frigate escort to fight off interceptors, while the cruiser performs its support duties on friendlies.
Point cruisers are interesting, I forsee them being close to friendly support, spewing out defenders to destroy enemy missiles, and perhaps disrupting turret fire as well, we will see when they come out.
Destroyers being a large portion of the fleet, being the main frigate killers as well as being able to stand up to cruisers.
I'd think a combined arms fleet of large size would consist of:
6 battleships
4 battlecruisers
10 cruisers
3 support cruisers
2 point defence cruisers
12 destroyers
10 frigates (replace with more inty/bomber/assault frigs if your fleet is consisted entirely of tech 2 frigs)
8 bombers
8 assault frigates
10 interceptors
The only question is, will this be the way it all turns out? I really hope so, and I hope a combined arms fleet destroys an all-battleship or all-cruiser fleet any day. I hope a combined arms fleet will be more cost effective as well.
I just hope the support cruisers are cost-effective enough, the bombers are powerful enough, and everything like that.
Is this the sort of thing that the devs are aiming for? Because if it is, thats a great thing, I just hope that it all works out.
|
Riddari
|
Posted - 2004.09.04 15:52:00 -
[3]
I'm not sure about the viability of the regular tech 1 cruisers once we have specialized versions.
Sure a bbird or two but beyond that? Doubt it
¼©¼
a history |
Riddari
|
Posted - 2004.09.04 15:52:00 -
[4]
I'm not sure about the viability of the regular tech 1 cruisers once we have specialized versions.
Sure a bbird or two but beyond that? Doubt it
¼©¼
a history |
Harry Voyager
|
Posted - 2004.09.04 16:55:00 -
[5]
You're talking about a blob of 73 ships there.
Do you really think that size of a force is ever goign to see any combat, aside from a mass lagfest?
Harry Voyager
|
Harry Voyager
|
Posted - 2004.09.04 16:55:00 -
[6]
You're talking about a blob of 73 ships there.
Do you really think that size of a force is ever goign to see any combat, aside from a mass lagfest?
Harry Voyager
|
RGPunisher
|
Posted - 2004.09.04 18:11:00 -
[7]
 Originally by: Selim
Edited by: Selim on 04/09/2004 15:51:16
Point cruisers are interesting, I forsee them being close to friendly support, spewing out defenders to destroy enemy missiles, and perhaps disrupting turret fire as well, we will see when they come out.
In order for that to happen there needs to be a change to defenders, so tha they also go after missiles not aimed at the person firing the defenders.
=S=
RG_Punisher
"Wanting to be someone else is a waste of the person you are."-Kurt Cobain. |
RGPunisher
|
Posted - 2004.09.04 18:11:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Selim
Edited by: Selim on 04/09/2004 15:51:16
Point cruisers are interesting, I forsee them being close to friendly support, spewing out defenders to destroy enemy missiles, and perhaps disrupting turret fire as well, we will see when they come out.
In order for that to happen there needs to be a change to defenders, so tha they also go after missiles not aimed at the person firing the defenders.
=S=
RG_Punisher
"Wanting to be someone else is a waste of the person you are."-Kurt Cobain. |
Istvaan Shogaatsu
|
Posted - 2004.09.04 19:11:00 -
[9]
Your hypothetical fleet is composed of 73 ships.
Ask yourself this: Would your fleet fare well against 73 battleships?
|
Istvaan Shogaatsu
|
Posted - 2004.09.04 19:11:00 -
[10]
Your hypothetical fleet is composed of 73 ships.
Ask yourself this: Would your fleet fare well against 73 battleships?
|
King4ever
|
Posted - 2004.09.04 19:21:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu
Your hypothetical fleet is composed of 73 ships.
Ask yourself this: Would your fleet fare well against 73 battleships?
|
King4ever
|
Posted - 2004.09.04 19:21:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu
Your hypothetical fleet is composed of 73 ships.
Ask yourself this: Would your fleet fare well against 73 battleships?
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.09.04 19:30:00 -
[13]
i really wish that a combined arms fleet will be used in the near future, but im afraid it wont...
a battleship in eve is the ultimate ship. it can do anything better then any other ship. for combined arms fleet to work, the battleship role must be changed from ultimate to not so ultimate.
one way to do this is to give each and every class a special and designed role, no more "all ships can be everything"...
but anyway, we will never see what you hope for in eve ever, it would require some serious planning and good balancing, which eve lacks. better hope for it to happen in another game...
"We brake for nobody"
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.09.04 19:30:00 -
[14]
i really wish that a combined arms fleet will be used in the near future, but im afraid it wont...
a battleship in eve is the ultimate ship. it can do anything better then any other ship. for combined arms fleet to work, the battleship role must be changed from ultimate to not so ultimate.
one way to do this is to give each and every class a special and designed role, no more "all ships can be everything"...
but anyway, we will never see what you hope for in eve ever, it would require some serious planning and good balancing, which eve lacks. better hope for it to happen in another game...
"We brake for nobody"
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2004.09.04 20:24:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Riddari
I'm not sure about the viability of the regular tech 1 cruisers once we have specialized versions.
Sure a bbird or two but beyond that? Doubt it
probably right.
anyway forget my 'hypothetical' fleet, I agree its ****in huge but just scale it down a bit. I want to see specialized fleets be able to take on battleships of near equal numbers.
I'll be honest - I think battleships are way too cheap for what they can accomplish, and are way too easy to get. Its impossible to change this now, unfortunately, so we're seeing the advanced ships come in... but are they effective enough to use instead of a battleship with guns? No. They're not even cost effective, since they're tech 2 and with crap insurance for tech2 (which i agree with btw) and huge price, you're losing about the same amount with a tech2 cruiser as you would with a tier2 battleship thats insured.
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2004.09.04 20:24:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Riddari
I'm not sure about the viability of the regular tech 1 cruisers once we have specialized versions.
Sure a bbird or two but beyond that? Doubt it
probably right.
anyway forget my 'hypothetical' fleet, I agree its ****in huge but just scale it down a bit. I want to see specialized fleets be able to take on battleships of near equal numbers.
I'll be honest - I think battleships are way too cheap for what they can accomplish, and are way too easy to get. Its impossible to change this now, unfortunately, so we're seeing the advanced ships come in... but are they effective enough to use instead of a battleship with guns? No. They're not even cost effective, since they're tech 2 and with crap insurance for tech2 (which i agree with btw) and huge price, you're losing about the same amount with a tech2 cruiser as you would with a tier2 battleship thats insured.
|
Istvaan Shogaatsu
|
Posted - 2004.09.04 20:56:00 -
[17]
Well, that's because the devs screw these things up with increasing frequency. You know, they make ships that are "intended" for something but not really better at it than other ships are. Heh heh.
|
Istvaan Shogaatsu
|
Posted - 2004.09.04 20:56:00 -
[18]
Well, that's because the devs screw these things up with increasing frequency. You know, they make ships that are "intended" for something but not really better at it than other ships are. Heh heh.
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 09:16:00 -
[19]
yup 
"We brake for nobody"
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 09:16:00 -
[20]
yup
"We brake for nobody"
|
Boonaki
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 09:37:00 -
[21]
support cruisers are useless in fleet battles. They will be to expensive to just die in (locking time + time it takes to click all 8 guns).
Fear the Ibis of doom. |
Boonaki
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 09:37:00 -
[22]
support cruisers are useless in fleet battles. They will be to expensive to just die in (locking time + time it takes to click all 8 guns).
Fear the Ibis of doom. |
JoCool
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 09:55:00 -
[23]
Well had a team of 3 people on chaos before it went down, an super long range Apoc and a Tempest supported by a Scorp to heal, dampen and rangeboost us. We were able to fight battleshipseffectively from 70km (RSD own) up to 130km, dishing out insane damage at medium range and still good at maximal you wouldn't usually expect. I suppose, if the support cruisers will be cheap to build by having low t2 requirements and we'll get 100km warp-in points, they'll be very useful. Remember that they can heal from more than 30km, with further warp-in points they'd probably be quite effective.
|
JoCool
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 09:55:00 -
[24]
Well had a team of 3 people on chaos before it went down, an super long range Apoc and a Tempest supported by a Scorp to heal, dampen and rangeboost us. We were able to fight battleshipseffectively from 70km (RSD own) up to 130km, dishing out insane damage at medium range and still good at maximal you wouldn't usually expect. I suppose, if the support cruisers will be cheap to build by having low t2 requirements and we'll get 100km warp-in points, they'll be very useful. Remember that they can heal from more than 30km, with further warp-in points they'd probably be quite effective.
|
Cadman Weyland
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 09:56:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Cadman Weyland on 05/09/2004 09:58:24
Iceblock said "a battleship in eve is the ultimate ship. it can do anything better then any other ship. for combined arms fleet to work, the battleship role must be changed from ultimate to not so ultimate."
I agree with him for a change  Eve has far too many BS, that are capble of doing too many things. The BS needs to be reduced to a simple heavy gun platform if other ships are ever to take part in a Combined fleet action.
I guess the problem with Eve is too many folk got BS too early, proving they are way to easy to mine for, train for and then fly. Unfortunately its probably too late to change this without a mass walkout of players annoyed their fav ship was changed.
Director of Empire Ops and Chief Carebear |
Cadman Weyland
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 09:56:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Cadman Weyland on 05/09/2004 09:58:24
Iceblock said "a battleship in eve is the ultimate ship. it can do anything better then any other ship. for combined arms fleet to work, the battleship role must be changed from ultimate to not so ultimate."
I agree with him for a change Eve has far too many BS, that are capble of doing too many things. The BS needs to be reduced to a simple heavy gun platform if other ships are ever to take part in a Combined fleet action.
I guess the problem with Eve is too many folk got BS too early, proving they are way to easy to mine for, train for and then fly. Unfortunately its probably too late to change this without a mass walkout of players annoyed their fav ship was changed.
Director of Empire Ops and Chief Carebear |
DeFood
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 10:33:00 -
[27]
Combined arms is NOT going to happen, at least to the degree intimated. The real problem with the theory is that it assumed that player corps operate under limited funds with unlimited pilots. Which is closer to how armies in the realworld work. i.e. you ahve lots of troops that you need to cheaply equip.
In EVE the constraints are the opposite way around :- very few, but mostly well funded pilots.
Thus, EVE combat does not seek out combat groups that maximise effectiveness for minimum monetary input, EVE combat encourages the development of combat groups that maximise effectiveness for a minimum number of pilots, with no monetary constraint.
i.e. In EVE, a group of the top line Battleships will always defeat an equivalently sized group of mixed ships.
|
DeFood
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 10:33:00 -
[28]
Combined arms is NOT going to happen, at least to the degree intimated. The real problem with the theory is that it assumed that player corps operate under limited funds with unlimited pilots. Which is closer to how armies in the realworld work. i.e. you ahve lots of troops that you need to cheaply equip.
In EVE the constraints are the opposite way around :- very few, but mostly well funded pilots.
Thus, EVE combat does not seek out combat groups that maximise effectiveness for minimum monetary input, EVE combat encourages the development of combat groups that maximise effectiveness for a minimum number of pilots, with no monetary constraint.
i.e. In EVE, a group of the top line Battleships will always defeat an equivalently sized group of mixed ships.
|
voidvim
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 11:31:00 -
[29]
I think selim 'combine arms' fleet is the way forward for EvE in the long run. If CCP uses pilote own stations to make tech II parts cheap so the insurance is the same as tech I ships I think we could see a 'combine arms' fleet becoming the norm. CCP needs to use a lot of carret and a little bit stick imho with a few right chnages to move eve in that direction.
|
voidvim
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 11:31:00 -
[30]
I think selim 'combine arms' fleet is the way forward for EvE in the long run. If CCP uses pilote own stations to make tech II parts cheap so the insurance is the same as tech I ships I think we could see a 'combine arms' fleet becoming the norm. CCP needs to use a lot of carret and a little bit stick imho with a few right chnages to move eve in that direction.
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 14:18:00 -
[31]
well, ccp should try to make combined fleets ultimate then one fleet of battleships. all battleship fleets will bore us players out after a while, and ccp dont want that do they? 
"We brake for nobody"
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 14:18:00 -
[32]
well, ccp should try to make combined fleets ultimate then one fleet of battleships. all battleship fleets will bore us players out after a while, and ccp dont want that do they?
"We brake for nobody"
|
Shevar
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 15:05:00 -
[33]
Originally by: JoCool
Well had a team of 3 people on chaos before it went down, an super long range Apoc and a Tempest supported by a Scorp to heal, dampen and rangeboost us. We were able to fight battleshipseffectively from 70km (RSD own) up to 130km, dishing out insane damage at medium range and still good at maximal you wouldn't usually expect. I suppose, if the support cruisers will be cheap to build by having low t2 requirements and we'll get 100km warp-in points, they'll be very useful. Remember that they can heal from more than 30km, with further warp-in points they'd probably be quite effective.
Yeah they only need 110 reactors, and the other components in comparable ammounts. And 66 morphite orso...
So they arent cheap, 50m orso to built one without profit for the production guy.
--------
-The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
|
Shevar
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 15:05:00 -
[34]
Originally by: JoCool
Well had a team of 3 people on chaos before it went down, an super long range Apoc and a Tempest supported by a Scorp to heal, dampen and rangeboost us. We were able to fight battleshipseffectively from 70km (RSD own) up to 130km, dishing out insane damage at medium range and still good at maximal you wouldn't usually expect. I suppose, if the support cruisers will be cheap to build by having low t2 requirements and we'll get 100km warp-in points, they'll be very useful. Remember that they can heal from more than 30km, with further warp-in points they'd probably be quite effective.
Yeah they only need 110 reactors, and the other components in comparable ammounts. And 66 morphite orso...
So they arent cheap, 50m orso to built one without profit for the production guy.
--------
-The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
|
R Dan
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 16:31:00 -
[35]
well then rather than nerf the BS simple add better ships in - then the BS is not so uber and you wont get player walk outs - just make these ships VERY expensive and nothing more than a BIG gun platform
while I'm on the topic, it would be nice to have 3 new ship classes: Carrier, Dreadnaught and Titan (soon tm of course :P)
It would also be good if atleast the Dreadnaught (as well as the titan) could fit a jump drive. and the carrier hold small ships like player frigates/ints etc
Bite me....for i taste good :)
|
R Dan
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 16:31:00 -
[36]
well then rather than nerf the BS simple add better ships in - then the BS is not so uber and you wont get player walk outs - just make these ships VERY expensive and nothing more than a BIG gun platform
while I'm on the topic, it would be nice to have 3 new ship classes: Carrier, Dreadnaught and Titan (soon tm of course :P)
It would also be good if atleast the Dreadnaught (as well as the titan) could fit a jump drive. and the carrier hold small ships like player frigates/ints etc
Bite me....for i taste good :)
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 16:36:00 -
[37]
Yes, one of the big problems is indeed that battleships are way too easy to get. Also, there is way too much money floating around. Its stupidly easy to equip a fleet of battleships.
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 16:36:00 -
[38]
Yes, one of the big problems is indeed that battleships are way too easy to get. Also, there is way too much money floating around. Its stupidly easy to equip a fleet of battleships.
|
JoCool
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 21:37:00 -
[39]
Edited by: JoCool on 05/09/2004 21:41:53
Better than having thousands of frustrated casual gamers not being able to achieve enough wealth for one of their primary goals.
Battleships with named stuff are still hard to get and very expensive and it's even harder for your wallet to loose them in combat. Unless you're a powergamer doin' Eve 10 hours the day. But then again, imo, powergamers deserve that (nope, I'm no powergamer, glad when I can afford a single set of named launchers)
|
JoCool
|
Posted - 2004.09.05 21:37:00 -
[40]
Edited by: JoCool on 05/09/2004 21:41:53
Better than having thousands of frustrated casual gamers not being able to achieve enough wealth for one of their primary goals.
Battleships with named stuff are still hard to get and very expensive and it's even harder for your wallet to loose them in combat. Unless you're a powergamer doin' Eve 10 hours the day. But then again, imo, powergamers deserve that (nope, I'm no powergamer, glad when I can afford a single set of named launchers)
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |