Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
BlackJack Bauer
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 19:59:00 -
[1]
I haven't been playing long but I have to say, eve is an amazing game, I'm learning something new every day, usually at the expense of a firey death. The one thing I don't like (which isn't much of a thing at all i guess) is the ship classes.
I'm no naval historian and realize eve is it's own game, but I started to think about it when someone told me that EVE Battleships aren't capital ships. Did a double take on that, but I guess "capital" in eve means "can't use star gates"?
As I look further the whole scheme just seems mish-mashed. Dreadnaughts equal to carriers?
I know it will never change and can even accept the idea that the current scheme is one of the things unique about eve, but if I had my way the scheme would look like this:
Titans = Motherships
Dreadnaughts (new ship class) = Supercarriers
Battleships (the current Dreadnaughts) = Carriers ---
Tech 1 Battlecruisers (the current battleships, *gasp* raven as a BC *gasp*) /Tech2 BCs "Command Ships"/Marauders/Black Ops
Heavy Cruisers (Current T1 BCs)/ Heavy Assault Cruisers (New tech2 BC class), "Spec Ops" (heavy cruiser sized versions of black ops ships)
Crusiers (no change)/ "Medium Assault Cruisers" (MACs, current HACs), Recons (no change)
Light Cruisers (new class)/Tech2 Light Assault Cruisers (LACs)
Destroyers (no change) /Covert Operations Ships
Frigates (no change)/Tech 2 "Destroyer Escorts" (current AFs.
Now, there's no reason to change things really, but when ccp changed the "Moms" it got me to thinkning about it, Eve's ship classes could make more sense imo.
|
William Cooly
Sol Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 20:04:00 -
[2]
ITT: Someone tries to take EVE too literally. -
I troll stupid people. |
Black Dranzer
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 20:06:00 -
[3]
Originally by: BlackJack Bauer Titans = Motherships
Dreadnaughts (new ship class) = Supercarriers
Battleships (the current Dreadnaughts) = Carriers
I have no idea what you just said.
|24 Hour Plex|Mining Makeover| |
Merouk Baas
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 20:07:00 -
[4]
Why would the dreadnaughts be equated with carrier-type ships? Their function is to shoot their big guns, not to carry fighter wings.
The term "Mothership" isn't a naval term, and has connotations of being a civilian ship (a mothership is a big ship that carries an entire civilization around - it's purpose is to be a civilian planet).
Anyway, PVP'ers have to memorize the names and capabilities of individual ships anyway, because (and especially for recon ships) not all ships in a class have similar capabilities. So, not sure that they'd care about ship designations.
|
Culmen
Caldari Blood Phage Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 20:09:00 -
[5]
Heres one thing that always bugged me.
Battlecruisers historically were supposed to be ships with Cruiser Armor, but Battleship Guns.
Battlecruisers in Eve are ships with Cruiser Guns, but Battleship Grade Tanks.
Anyone else find that weird? and further more why do i even need a sig? |
Boltorano
Fourth Circle Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 20:09:00 -
[6]
EVE's system certainly makes a lot more sense to me than say, Freespace, where destroyers are capital ships and the largest ship class except for the Juggernaught.
|
RiskyFrisky
Under the Table Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 20:13:00 -
[7]
Son, I am disappoint. -
|
Merouk Baas
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 20:13:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Merouk Baas on 03/12/2010 20:13:13
Originally by: Culmen Battlecruisers historically were supposed to be ships with Cruiser Armor, but Battleship Guns.
Battlecruisers in Eve are ships with Cruiser Guns, but Battleship Grade Tanks.
Anyone else find that weird?
It is weird, but hard to fix, given that if they make a cruiser with enough grid to put BS guns on, people will use the grid for armor tanking.
|
Ira Theos
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 20:18:00 -
[9]
Your problem is that you are trying to make sense out of nonsense...
|
Culmen
Caldari Blood Phage Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 20:20:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Culmen on 03/12/2010 20:20:51
Originally by: Merouk Baas Edited by: Merouk Baas on 03/12/2010 20:13:13
Originally by: Culmen Battlecruisers historically were supposed to be ships with Cruiser Armor, but Battleship Guns.
Battlecruisers in Eve are ships with Cruiser Guns, but Battleship Grade Tanks.
Anyone else find that weird?
It is weird, but hard to fix, given that if they make a cruiser with enough grid to put BS guns on, people will use the grid for armor tanking.
Well the obvious solution would be to give them a stealth-bomber-esc fitting bonus.
But I just find the situation odd, not bad. I'm not asking for a change. and further more why do i even need a sig? |
|
Jenn aSide
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 20:22:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Jenn aSide on 03/12/2010 20:21:58
Originally by: Merouk Baas Edited by: Merouk Baas on 03/12/2010 20:10:35
Why would the dreadnaughts be equated with carrier-type ships? Their function is to shoot their big guns, not to carry fighter wings.
???
He's talking about relative size of the ships, not about fighter wings or such.
|
BlackJack Bauer
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 20:26:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Boltorano EVE's system certainly makes a lot more sense to me than say, Freespace, where destroyers are capital ships and the largest ship class except for the Juggernaught.
Thats true. Eves ship classes aren't horrible compared to a lot of games, still don't like "sub-capital battlehsips" :)
|
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 20:29:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Jackie Fisher on 03/12/2010 20:30:02
Originally by: Culmen Heres one thing that always bugged me.
Battlecruisers historically were supposed to be ships with Cruiser Armor, but Battleship Guns.
Battlecruisers in Eve are ships with Cruiser Guns, but Battleship Grade Tanks.
Anyone else find that weird?
Its not weird if you are familiar with the historic roots and development of the Battle Cruiser. Their roots were very much of a cruiser (they were initially known as Dreadnought Armoured Cruisers) and having battleship sized guns was as much a coincidence of timing rather than a defining characteristic. So the Eve version of a BC as a large powerful cruiser is reasonably close to historical.
Joint Venture Conglomerate |
Sria Lan
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 20:36:00 -
[14]
Originally by: BlackJack Bauer I'm no naval historian
Found your problem.
Seriously eve does 1000x better job than most other science fiction in terms of shipclasses being parallel to rl ships. A quick glance at your post means that you're either a troll or have absolutely NO idea what real life ships of different types are or were ever used for.
Directed toward the battlecruiser comment, you're mostly right but a bit backwards. Battlecruisers were initially designed as fast battleships, ie ships with nearly the size and firepower potential of a battleship but much faster and more agile. Unfortunatly this was usually accomplished by stripping off armor, leading to most battlecruisers getting headshotted in their first battle and dying in facepalmingly embarrassing form (the British bcs were especially bad). Most battlecruisers were eventually converted into light carriers or even cargoships.
|
Dr Ngo
Amarr Outer Ring Executives DUST Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 20:49:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Dr Ngo on 03/12/2010 20:50:02
Originally by: Jackie Fisher Its not weird if you are familiar with the historic roots and development of the Battle Cruiser. Their roots were very much of a cruiser (they were initially known as Dreadnought Armoured Cruisers) and having battleship sized guns was as much a coincidence of timing rather than a defining characteristic. So the Eve version of a BC as a large powerful cruiser is reasonably close to historical.
This was true with newer battlecruisers and was probably along the lines of the initial idea (however there was a sort of MOAR GUNZ attitude around Europe at the time). However the majority of these 'new' battlecruisers were scrapped or changed when it became clear that carriers were the new daddy big ****s of the ocean. Suddenly their heavier guns and armor (which protected mostly from level ie seaborne strikes) became a liability when fighting squadrons of highly mobile and well armed fighters and torpedo bombers. This is why the largest modern ships (other than carriers) you're likely to see in a modern navy are cruisers.
Edited for grammar - M.D. |
Onictus
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 21:17:00 -
[16]
Fun fact:
Today's Ticonderoga class cruisers are built on Spruance class Destroyer hulls
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 21:40:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Kyra Felann on 03/12/2010 21:46:05
Originally by: Black Dranzer
Originally by: BlackJack Bauer Titans = Motherships
Dreadnaughts (new ship class) = Supercarriers
Battleships (the current Dreadnaughts) = Carriers
I have no idea what you just said.
Same here. That made no sense.
You're obviously correct that the ship classes don't directly relate to real ship classes. For instance, a dreadnought is (well, was, really) a type of battleship IRL. Your post, however, makes no sense. Also consider that this is a game, and EVE space ships are not going to have an exact one-to-one correlation with real-world wet-navy ships.
Honestly, what bugs me the most is the fact that battleships, capital ships, and even cruisers generally only fit one size of weapons instead of most fictional space ships, which have tons of weapons, point defense, etc. I can see why this is from a gameplay balance perspective, but it still bugs me. It just seems silly that a battleship would only have 5-8 large guns (plus drones).
-----WARNING SIGNATURE BELOW-----
Originally by: CCP Ginger Ships have crews, most pod controlled frigates do not, above that they have crews of varying sizes. Hope that helps.
|
Ohanka
Caldari The Lone Patrol Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 23:11:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Ohanka on 03/12/2010 23:15:30 Edited by: Ohanka on 03/12/2010 23:12:34 this is just confusing....
Eves classing system makes much more sense and tries to remain somewhat true to life than say, star wars, where Corvettes are 3 times longer and 5 times stronger than a Frigate. or a Destroyer is 1.6 KM long and has much more firepower than a Cruiser or star trek where all they have are Cruisers...
one thing that has always irked me about EvE is the frigates, they seem more like Heavy Fighters than frigates, example, look at the Condor, when i first saw that ship i assumed it would be a fighter, not a frigate. also Stealth Bombers and Interceptors need renaming, sound too much like fighters, not frigates.
|
ILikeMarkets
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 23:27:00 -
[19]
Really the only thing that Im not a big fan of is the difference in power between caps and subcaps with no visible stepping stone in between. A mini-carrier or next level of battleships would be pretty awesome.
Not looking at it from an SP standpoint but rather an isk standpoint, it would be nice to a ship to the capital class as the BC to the BS. Take all the stats of a carrier, cut em in half. Tada- subcapital class. Cheaper, weaker, less training.
|
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 00:11:00 -
[20]
Naw in Eve its perfect sense because Battleships are oftenly enrolled being escort ships for said capitol ships who cannot in most senses protect themselves from any non capitol ships. Couple with the fact that battleship rarely are they escorted themselves which concludes that battleships are not considered ever to be the center of the fleet and probably never will, a command or battlecruiser has more centric power than a battleship does.
Only thing a battleship is good for is being ship of the wall or filling in the gaps of the wall it when multitude of dreadnaughts are involved instead.
Carriers are supporting anti-ship of the wall and serve better being behind it. Super carriers same role bigger target range of what they can punch out. Dreadnaughts are seige platforms capable of being in the wall but do not fare well against ships far smaller than it.
Titans are just mobile bases a ship of the fleet and foolhard to go anywhere alone where a battleship can otherwise are more survivable solo. Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 1SEPT10
|
|
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 00:25:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Ohanka Edited by: Ohanka on 03/12/2010 23:15:30 Edited by: Ohanka on 03/12/2010 23:12:34 this is just confusing....
Eves classing system makes much more sense and tries to remain somewhat true to life than say, star wars, where Corvettes are 3 times longer and 5 times stronger than a Frigate. or a Destroyer is 1.6 KM long and has much more firepower than a Cruiser or star trek where all they have are Cruisers...
one thing that has always irked me about EvE is the frigates, they seem more like Heavy Fighters than frigates, example, look at the Condor, when i first saw that ship i assumed it would be a fighter, not a frigate. also Stealth Bombers and Interceptors need renaming, sound too much like fighters, not frigates.
The Point defense mods for homeworld gave them the same treatment, due to thier size and mass they behaved alot more like dog fighters than the heaveir cruiser cousins but oh boy did they realy bring in the hurt with thier corvette and fighte escorts. Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 1SEPT10
|
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 01:08:00 -
[22]
Eve Frig is more like a real corvette, go from there and it seems to work.
The Real Space Initiative - V6 (Forum Link)
|
Killstealing
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 01:12:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Nova Fox Edited by: Nova Fox on 04/12/2010 00:20:03 US Navy here. Some current generalizations Frigate - supposed to be retired few stragglers with to unique of a role to get rid of ie minesweeping, and that new class that got lobbied the hell out of the LCS ship which is brown navy ship well in range of alot of cold war anti ship tech. Tenders - Logistics Destroyers - antisurface or below Cruisers - antisurface or above Battleships - retirement home, short range support ship. Too man power intensive for its effect at a crew of 3k for a ship that can barely reach 50 miles in effective control. Modern Cruisers saw this ship class to its retirement Carrier - Capital Ship, heavily escorted, long range support ship, single most important factor in area of control
On another side note:
Naw in Eve its perfect sense because Battleships are oftenly enrolled being escort ships for said capitol ships who cannot in most senses protect themselves from any non capitol ships. Couple with the fact that battleship rarely are they escorted themselves which concludes that battleships are not considered ever to be the center of the fleet and probably never will, a command or battlecruiser has more centric power than a battleship does.
Only thing a battleship is good for is being ship of the wall or filling in the gaps of the wall it when multitude of dreadnaughts are involved instead.
Carriers are supporting anti-ship of the wall and serve better being behind it. Super carriers same role bigger target range of what they can punch out. Dreadnaughts are seige platforms capable of being in the wall but do not fare well against ships far smaller than it.
Titans are just mobile bases a ship of the fleet and foolhardy to go anywhere alone where a battleship can otherwise are more survivable solo.
Either way eve at least doesnt allow itself to suddenly retire an entire class of ships because something new showed up. Like how carriers where once thought to be the laughing stock of the us navy in real life until pearl harbor happened.
battleships used to be really effective but now that the focus is on mobility and intel instead of being ****in big and having loadsa guns cruisers rule supreme yes
but **** yeah Ship of the Line
|
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 11:41:00 -
[24]
Now drop in a nuclear reactor, add autoloaders to decrease the manpower requirments by one third, and a couple, couple of cruise missile arrays, working as planned railgun batteries with the free electron laser systems and the new super capaictor hull deflector and microwave based shields. Top all of this off with a nice coating a trimmeran hull designs with a sleeked down radar and visual cross section and sprinkle on some mordern electronics suite including GPS and advanced firing computer and you might have a formidable warship worthy of a mordern naval warfighting and able to match a carriers area of control and possibly even retire the carrier in this manner. Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 1SEPT10
|
|
CCP Navigator
C C P C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 12:55:00 -
[25]
Moved from General Discussion to Ships & Modules.
Navigator Senior Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online
|
|
Merouk Baas
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 13:10:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Nova Fox ship of the wall
There is no wall. There hasn't been a wall in a while, even in RL.
|
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 21:37:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Merouk Baas
Originally by: Nova Fox ship of the wall
There is no wall. There hasn't been a wall in a while, even in RL.
Thinking in 3 dimensional terms here since thats how space operates. Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 1SEPT10
|
Mavnas
|
Posted - 2010.12.05 04:59:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Kyra Felann Honestly, what bugs me the most is the fact that battleships, capital ships, and even cruisers generally only fit one size of weapons instead of most fictional space ships, which have tons of weapons, point defense, etc. I can see why this is from a gameplay balance perspective, but it still bugs me. It just seems silly that a battleship would only have 5-8 large guns (plus drones). It'd be neat if they added superficial extra gunfire as an optional effect, just to make the battles look better.
I gave a lot of thought to what a spaceships game would look like if I designed it. There's a lot of differences between it and EVE, but one of the main things I thought is that you could have different size hardpoints. This opens up a lot of variety in ships. So like imagine if Battleships could fit 6 large guns, and Battlecruisers had very similar hulls but could fit 2 large guns and 10 medium guns (Or however many it would take to give them similar DPS, but at shorter range and much better chance to apply it to cruiser-sized ships). Then you refuse to give most ships drone bays (make that a ship class-defining feature), and bam! you have two ships in the same class that play radically different roles.
You could make anti-frigate ships that are bristling with small guns even though other ships the same size would have a smaller number of medium guns.
Quote: one thing that has always irked me about EvE is the frigates, they seem more like Heavy Fighters than frigates, example, look at the Condor, when i first saw that ship i assumed it would be a fighter, not a frigate. also Stealth Bombers and Interceptors need renaming, sound too much like fighters, not frigates.
The frigate name is the one that bugs me most. The most EVE Online-like game I've played is Pirates of the Burning Sea, which is kind of like EVE if it had a traditional class/level system and was set in the Caribbean. (Also, if it sucked.) In that game for most classes their endgame ships are frigates. The only bigger combat ships are rated ships of the line. (And yes I realize, pre-modern ship classes don't quite fit.)
Quote: Thinking in 3 dimensional terms here since thats how space operates.
I was personally thinking Ship of the Plane, but that sounds equally stupid. Plus, I'm not sure a plane would be as effective in 3D combat as a line was in 2D.
|
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2010.12.05 05:03:00 -
[29]
Before capital ships came to Eve, it was correct.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
Word of Chaos |
SebbyTheFreak
Caldari Vagrant Troubadours of the Vast Expenses
|
Posted - 2010.12.05 08:38:00 -
[30]
Like has been said, for a very long time, Battleships were the largest ship class.
Name designation stick, time change. If the Landkreuzer was released, a sherman would still have been a tank.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |