| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Salvia Olima
Carnivale.
Merciless.
2
   |
Posted - 2011.10.06 10:45:00 -
[31] - Quote
SpaceSquirrels wrote:Defensive ships that have 0 offensive capabilities.
A special Corvette-class would be nice - a few pods can dock in it so you can move other players (or your alts) too,
not just your pilot. Also fitted with a 30sec ECM-burst as a role bonus but no weaponry at all.
|
Potato IQ
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.06 10:55:00 -
[32] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Potato IQ wrote:Headerman wrote:T3 frigates Pretty please If they can release t3 frigates without obsoleting the current line of frigates i'd welcome them. But they cant
I would like an Aston Martin, but canGÇÖt afford one a too expensive. In the future, maybe, but until then IGÇÖll drive a lesser car. Cost is always a factor, so your statement is bollocks as there will always be customers for cheaper models
|
Meditril
T.R.I.A.D
4
|
Posted - 2011.10.06 13:00:00 -
[33] - Quote
List of ships missing in EVE:
T3-Frigates alias Tactical Frigate: Should be not more powerful than an AF or EW but it should be more flexible. For example they should have many low/med/high slots but they should have a limit on how many modules can be put online at once. With this you could tactically change your ship within a few minutes to adapt to a different situations. Imagine you have a ship with 5 moduls for low, med and high slots but in total you can only have 8 modules online at the same time.
Nomadic Ships: Ships which support nomadic life style for a small set of ppl including some limited manufacturing and refining capabilities.
Shield Generator Ships: Similar to Homeworld where you can use ships to create a bubble around another ship for protection. This constellation should be able to jump together as one etc. so that you effectively can protect transport ships. Together with this change jump bridges should be removed. I want to see convoys in low-sec and 0.0! |
Wylee Coyote
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2011.10.06 14:24:00 -
[34] - Quote
Cipher Jones wrote:Quote:In keeping with the 'roles over ships' point;
The above fix is unnecessary and manually firing defenders has been the foremost reason (imo) no one ever uses them as it is a contradiction to how all other missiles work (in game). If a ship can fit a missile launcher, it can load defenders, that should not be changed. What should be changed is that defenders become autofiring, using the ship's maximum targeting distance (including skills/mods), the ship's signature resolution (including skills/mods) to dictate the time to auto lock-on, but the missile's maximum possible travel distance (including skills/mods/ship bonuses) to determine when the missile launcher filled with defenders begins to fire at incomming missiles. This means that every race can have multiple ships/ships classes available as a dedicated missile defense boat if they so chose. Watching a falcon and 2 Caracal Navy Issues nullify an entire drake blob would be fun. Epic lulz for sure. Which is why it won't happen. A true catch 22.
Like a couple of arbitrators/curses/pilgrims can do now to an all turrets fleet? Under my proposal ships being countered by defenders could still move closer to (hopefully) take advantage of their missiles' low signature radius to get them to their targets before the defender missile equiped ships can lock onto their missiles (like turret ships can move closer to negate a tracking disruptor's negative range bonus). |
Satav
Latinum Exports
42
|
Posted - 2011.10.06 15:27:00 -
[35] - Quote
Jennifer Starling wrote:Medium sized T1 industrial with 200,000 m3 cargo space and able to transport rigged ships.
Love this idea.
|
Anne Arqui
Diamonds in the Rough Enterprises
24
|
Posted - 2011.10.06 15:40:00 -
[36] - Quote
Satav wrote:Jennifer Starling wrote:Medium sized T1 industrial with 200,000 m3 cargo space and able to transport rigged ships. Love this idea.
/wants too, would be a very welcome addition to any industrial player's fleet! |
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.06 16:27:00 -
[37] - Quote
A mining ship with similar drone bay and bonuses to a navy vexor would be cool. Couldn't give it as much ore munching power as the hulk, obviously, but it'd be nice to see the miners able to fight back against marauding velators. |
SpaceSquirrels
Scordite Excavating Xenaphobe
7
|
Posted - 2011.10.06 16:53:00 -
[38] - Quote
Like to see a mobile POS kinda thing/hideout as others have mentioned above. Similar to an orac except you dont need two accounts rather find a spot get into your exploration/combat ship and once you leave it can cloak up or semi defend it's self kinda deal. |
Teh Frog
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.06 17:43:00 -
[39] - Quote
I would like to see a dedicated Gas Mining ship. Something that could do both the work of a covert ops ship (although not as well) as well as field a a rack of bonused gas miners. |
Aesiron
Deep Excavation
Army of Dark Shadows
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.06 18:11:00 -
[40] - Quote
Tech 2 / Navy issue Harbinger
I always liked the Harbinger as a Battlecruiser and it bothers me why there are two Prophecy T2 ships and no Harbinger T2s. The Tech 2 or Navy Issue Harbinger should have more specific bonuses than the T1 variant. It should focus on either fast fire rates, anti-frigates, good tracking, etc etc. I would also like to see the navy issue skin for this lol. The same should apply for other BCs.
|
Inquisitor Magneto
Bishop Intergalactic Ventures
The Interstellar Contract Agency
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.06 18:45:00 -
[41] - Quote
Ships need to be redone in as follows. T1 to T2 to T3 with mission or moon mining to build. Missions should bring forth ship parts not scraps
Current T3 ships should be renamed to N1 as to aspect new tech ships. These ships should then be able grow further like so N1 to N2 to N3.
Moon mining ships should be allowed to mine moons instead of having to wait for a corp who has a pos in low or null sec.
To mine a moon you need a charter as well as high standing in the empires region you wish to mine.
Missions should not only give isk but ship parts favored to the faction you do missions for. Missions should have puzzle difficulty to gain these parts along with the isk if completed in a timely manner.
What ever happen to the ship contest winner ship. why has it been put on a shelf and not implemented into eve.
|
Arbiter Reformed
Saiph Industries
SRS.
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.06 19:03:00 -
[42] - Quote
The reality is game balance should come first and ships like tier 2bc shouldn't have been introduced without buffing cs. Any extra battlecruisers would be rediculous, I think new ships should be focused around new features rather than upset current ballance, t3 frigs would be nice tho, but should be far more.specialised than current t3 |
Herping yourDerp
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
116
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 01:25:00 -
[43] - Quote
cruiser/BC sized stealth bombers that have bombs that only really dmg battleship and cap ships.
a ship that can be made to shield tank for amarr
an armor ship for caldari
|
Garviel Tarrant
The Black Ceasars
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 03:34:00 -
[44] - Quote
A T2 with the Harbinger Hull.
I don't mind what it would be, i just know that i would fly it.
Hell just a T2 variant of all the tier 2 BC would be awesome, both in looks and functionality. |
Potato IQ
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 08:34:00 -
[45] - Quote
I look at CS as the next tier BC, so canGÇÖt see the point of adding to the class. Why not have the developers decide on a model change. Carthum Conglomerate suddenly announces the Damnation hull is to be replaced by the harbinger one. Line of thinking is make the stronger standard BC the weaker CS as far as an offensive role is concerned
Absolution GÇô Prophecy hull
Damnation GÇô Harbinger hull
Nighthawk GÇô Ferox hull
Vulture GÇô Drake hull
Astarte GÇô Brutix hull
Eon GÇô Myrmidon hull
Sleipnir GÇô Cyclone hull
Claymore GÇô Hurricane hull
Attributes stay the same. Cosmetic change that effectively adds 4 new ships. Simples
|
KFenn
Percussive Diplomacy
15
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 08:59:00 -
[46] - Quote
Meditril wrote:Shield Generator Ships: Similar to Homeworld where you can use ships to create a bubble around another ship for protection. This constellation should be able to jump together as one etc. so that you effectively can protect transport ships. Together with this change jump bridges should be removed. I want to see convoys in low-sec and 0.0!
This is one of the most intriguing ideas I've heard in a long time... force industrials to travel via gates but give them a dedicated support ship....
Could be abused by PvPers, but it's possible for you to just disallow the use of remote modules/weapons in the shield. I honestly think this is something that should be looked in to.
Commanding Officer of the Treacle Tart Brigade
SLAPD Director |
KFenn
Percussive Diplomacy
15
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 09:02:00 -
[47] - Quote
Potato IQ wrote:I look at CS as the next tier BC, so canGÇÖt see the point of adding to the class. Why not have the developers decide on a model change. Carthum Conglomerate suddenly announces the Damnation hull is to be replaced by the harbinger one. Line of thinking is make the stronger standard BC the weaker CS as far as an offensive role is concerned
Absolution GÇô Prophecy hull
Damnation GÇô Harbinger hull
Nighthawk GÇô Ferox hull
Vulture GÇô Drake hull
Astarte GÇô Brutix hull
Eon GÇô Myrmidon hull
Sleipnir GÇô Cyclone hull
Claymore GÇô Hurricane hull
Attributes stay the same. Cosmetic change that effectively adds 4 new ships. Simples
The problem is, the Abso is basically a beefy Harbinger, The Nighthawk is a beefy Drake, The Sleipnir is more like an insanely tanky Hurricane. (with regards to primary weapons systems and ship bonuses)
However the Astarte and Eos are the right way round.
EDIT: Whoops, double post >_>
Commanding Officer of the Treacle Tart Brigade
SLAPD Director |
Zoe Alarhun
Drunken Space Irish
16
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 10:54:00 -
[48] - Quote
Dedicated exploration ship with bonuses to Code breaking, analyzers, probes and some decent damage and tank to run sites with. T3's are pretty good stand in's but it would still be nice to have ship with bonuses geared towards exploration (like the promo ship, echelon - on steroids) |
Boma Airaken
Seekers of a Silent Paradise
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 11:38:00 -
[49] - Quote
No new ships. Or maybe another set of T2 battlecruisers to go with my idea of COMMAND SHIPS WITH OFFENSIVE LINKS. There is no reason we shouldn't have "assault commands" that run damage/tracking/falloff links. |
D'mitri Ahriman
Solenus Directive
Rieos Coalition
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 11:45:00 -
[50] - Quote
Maybe T3 destroyers? They're pretty close to cruiser class hulls in terms of size, but it would give reason to finally train the destroyers skill. Also, it wouldn't make the T1 destroyers obsolete, because they already are.  |
Steve Ronuken
Cossette Moana
13
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 12:11:00 -
[51] - Quote
SpaceSquirrels wrote:Defensive ships that have 0 offensive capabilities. Rather think of a ship like shield frigates or drones that linked together in homeworld to provide a shield around the fleet or a ship. Not logi which is active support.
Or say a cruiser that shoots down incoming missiles for the entire fleet like a phalanx cannon we see nowadays.
Actually one of the really cool ships in the homeworld series have a repellent drive that pushed ships out to a certain radius. (Think of pushing frigates or small ships outside tackle range)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=12091
|
Anna Angust
State War Academy
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 12:42:00 -
[52] - Quote
Would be nice to have tiered weapons on ships, so as anything bigger than a BC had 2 sets of high slots, one for ship sized weapons and the other for the next size down.
EG: having a Rev fitting with 3 cap sized guns in its primary slots ( along with the siege mod ) and then 6 - 8 large turret slots in its secondary slots. Meaning that to use the dread you do not need to sit with a bulls eye painted on you until out of siege, and giving you the chance to use dread to kill things other than POS |
Ruah Piskonit
PIE Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 13:24:00 -
[53] - Quote
we don't need new ships, we need to balance and define what we have.
Its posts like this that drives CCP to rush poorly thought out ships and concepts into the game - Black Ops, Moms, EAFs. . . |
Potato IQ
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 13:34:00 -
[54] - Quote
KFenn wrote:The problem is, the Abso is basically a beefy Harbinger, The Nighthawk is a beefy Drake, The Sleipnir is more like an insanely tanky Hurricane. (with regards to primary weapons systems and ship bonuses)
Erm, I know and kind of the point I was making
The lesser DPS BC hull is the best at CS level. Think this is a good set up as means you can look at a different design if you want to go cheap or expensive. So do the opposite. The best DPS hull at BC level becomes the truer support CS. The current attributes are mirrored from current ships used into these new hulls. OK, so not really a new ship, but better than the lazy same hull approach at CS level than was taken
|
Infil Traitor
Republic War Correspondency
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 13:54:00 -
[55] - Quote
I would think a Siege Monitor class vessel designed to bombard POSes would make sense, especially as a way to threaten highsec towers. These ships would be geared towards dealing a large quantity of DPS to stationary targets, but be significantly handicapped so as to need careful support.
*Use the T2 battlecruiser hulls as a model, and allow them to mount 2 Capital-scale turrets (or launchers in the case of the Caldari variant),
*Allow them to enter some variation of siege cycle for a considerable damage bonus (equivalent to a handfull of battleships)
*Give them a 90% penalty to tracking or explosion velocity to reduce their utility against non-stationary targets (the guns/missiles are stripped down to fit onto the smaller hull) as well as a very low sensor strength, both to minimise the possibilities of misuse in station games etc.
*Reduce the number of slots considerably below those available on the tech1 hull. These ships should be lightly tanked, and should require significant support if they come under fire.
|
pussnheels
Vintage heavy industries
85
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 14:23:00 -
[56] - Quote
Ask your self what role should this ship fullfil
I probably see a dedicated gasminer in the form of a t2 noctis
Maybe we will see pirate faction battlecruiser
with some luck a expansion on the current t3 submodules
or maybe with some real luck a medium freighter that is the middle of a industrial and a freighter
could be a dedicated fuelcarrier tho or a ammo carrier
forget a t3 battleship that will probably betoo overpowered and unbalacing and not to forget the perfect gankmagnet
just my thoughts
I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
SpaceSquirrels
Scordite Excavating Xenaphobe
7
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 14:54:00 -
[57] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:SpaceSquirrels wrote:Defensive ships that have 0 offensive capabilities. Rather think of a ship like shield frigates or drones that linked together in homeworld to provide a shield around the fleet or a ship. Not logi which is active support.
Or say a cruiser that shoots down incoming missiles for the entire fleet like a phalanx cannon we see nowadays.
Actually one of the really cool ships in the homeworld series have a repellent drive that pushed ships out to a certain radius. (Think of pushing frigates or small ships outside tackle range)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=12091
Except that we dont need more missiles as they cause more lag and can't be graphicd out. Guns make more sense as they "can" miss and less lag. |
SpaceSquirrels
Scordite Excavating Xenaphobe
7
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 14:56:00 -
[58] - Quote
Infil Traitor wrote:I would think a Siege Monitor class vessel designed to bombard POSes would make sense, especially as a way to threaten highsec towers. These ships would be geared towards dealing a large quantity of DPS to stationary targets, but be significantly handicapped so as to need careful support.
You mean like what dreads where intended for? |
Mina Sebiestar
Mactabilis Simplex Cursus
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 15:24:00 -
[59] - Quote
While i support all possible fixes and balances of current stuff in game even more i want to see this game evolve to something more and i don't mean walking in stations.
i want new era of ships not faction variant of this and that,all of current ships to become obsolete but upgradable to new standard,at least twice of ships than we have now.
new ways of space travel/mining/fuk new eden new galaxies/races/playable pirate races/dramatic empire territory flux.
Not this decade old gridlock in stagnant lore without evolution bar sleepers that are barely touching the scope of what i'm thinking.
As far as ships go i would like to see Tornado and T3 BS in general,there are like 14 BS(there is like 617 frigs) in game and all they do is pos bash and for carebear's e-pen swiping around they need some flavor. |
Infil Traitor
Republic War Correspondency
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 16:07:00 -
[60] - Quote
SpaceSquirrels wrote:Infil Traitor wrote:I would think a Siege Monitor class vessel designed to bombard POSes would make sense, especially as a way to threaten highsec towers. These ships would be geared towards dealing a large quantity of DPS to stationary targets, but be significantly handicapped so as to need careful support.
You mean like what dreads where intended for?
In a way, but I was considering something more limited which would be allowed into highsec. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |