| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3351
   |
Posted - 2013.10.08 06:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
This is a resurrection of some old threads here.
More uses for destroyer hulls
Squad Command Ships
Command Destroyers
The basic premise of this idea is simple and narrow:
Tech 2 Destroyers that are geared towards fitting and efficiently using Warfare links and "holding their own" in combat.
Whether they are slower/faster, lighter/tougher, defensive/offensive etc. than normal destroyers I'll leave up to you guys and the developers.
Why?
- there are people grumbling that with the upcoming warp speed changes and the much talked about nerf to off-grid links coming SOON (tm) skirmishers and fast flying fleets won't have a reasonably viable option to look towards without significantly slowing the whole fleet down.
- It gives Faction Warfare players an option to bring into the smaller complexes (may or may not be a good thing).
- it does fill a gap and won't step on too many toes.
--- Regular Battlecruisers will remain as the "cheap but beefy" option for "kitchen sink" fleets that want links,
--- Command ships will remain as the "big fleet" ships (due in large part to their tanking and extra link abilities)
--- Tech 3 Command Ships will be better suited for HAC/Cruiser/Attack Battlecruiser gangs (due to their mixture of mobility and tank... and they're going to be rebalanced at some point anyways).
- it provides a clear line of progression for budding Command Ship pilots.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3357
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 14:35:00 -
[2] - Quote
Bumping back to the first page!
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3370
|
Posted - 2013.10.09 01:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:If your frigate & destroyer skirmish fleet in FW can't have command ships due to speed and gate restrictions, theirs can't either.
If you believe that warfare links are overpowered you should be rejoicing about the ability to hit & run without the hindrance of an overpowered game mechanic, not looking for ways to keep the overpowered mechanic in your small, nimble fleets.
Don't get me wrong... I have a love-hate relationship with regards to warfare links. I dislike them on principle... but they have often given me edges in engagements I had no business surviving, much less winning. And I don't see them being removed anytime soon given that several ships are specifically centered around them (I would personally like to see them removed almost altogether).
That said... the reason I have brought up (see: rehashed) this idea is because I do believe that similar and/or balanced (but not equal) options should be available to [almost] every combat style in EVE.
Sure, you can nano-fit a T3 for a frigate/destroyer gang... but it won't keep up in warp and certainly won't be able to fly or employ similar tactics the rest of the gang can... making it more of a target than it already is. Then there is a "price tag" issue (bringing a ship worth more than the entire gang several times over would be a no-go for most).
Now I personally like what others have said here where these ships would be limited to fitting 1 Warfare Link with no ability to fit any more. Given the power of boosting that would be a fair trade-off and force people to consider what bonus they would find most important; speed, longer points/webs, tank, etc.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3372
|
Posted - 2013.10.09 04:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
I think that goes a little beyond the scope of the thread here (sorry if that sounds like a cop-out... they're actually interesting ideas but would require another thread).
All I'm proposing here is a Tech 2 Destroyer than can run a limited amount of Warfare Links, nothing more or less.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3375
|
Posted - 2013.10.09 06:17:00 -
[5] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Well, what are you prepared to sacrifice over what a T1 destroyer offers?
I'm working on the assumption that there is a heck of a lot of gear that you have to squeeze into that hull in order to allow it to fit warfare links in the first place.
Would a "light command ship" work with only 75% of the DPS and tank of the T1 destroyer equivalent?
I'd personally be fine with giving up a fair bit of DPS and either speed or tank. I'm under no illusion that this ship would not have to give up something to gain its specialty.
I'm merely hesitant to give more precise details as everyone has an idea on what it should be (though, there seems to be a consensus growing here that it shouldn't be able to fit more than 1 or 2 links)... and I'm just trying to sell the concept itself.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3385
|
Posted - 2013.10.11 00:48:00 -
[6] - Quote
Shameless self-bumping.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3470
|
Posted - 2013.10.19 18:30:00 -
[7] - Quote
Bumping back to the top.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3531
|
Posted - 2013.10.27 08:13:00 -
[8] - Quote
Maliandra wrote:I also think this thread highlights one of the biggest problems with this forum: How certain members who have a reputation for being smart/logical/whatever seem to have their ideas supported to the Nth degree while those who do not are either ignored or scolded.
I'll address this as I sometimes get accused of shooting down ideas for no reason...
When I look at an idea I go through a mental check list...
1. What does this idea do?
2. Why is it needed?
3. Is it consistent with other aspects of EVE as it currently is (i.e. does it fit into the core principles, lore, and progression of things?)
4. Does it step on the toes of another ship, module, mechanic, or tactic?
5. Can it be "exploited?" (see: does Malcanis' Law apply? Will this cause more ill effects than good? If yes, refer to 2 and 4).
Most ideas that people present here fall apart after the first step. It's not that the ideas are BAD... it's just that there is often little supporting them beyond the idea itself.
Theorycrafting and imagining are good. God knows I've come up with more than a few insane ideas myself... but I sit on them and try to see if they can work, in their most raw and simplistic form, within the context of what EVE is today.
And presentation is actually important when trying to convince others that there might be some merit to an idea (see: don't use "As we all know..." or "This idea is awesome!" or "Here are all the good things that MIGHT happen with this..." etc.).
With regards to these "Light" Command ships (using my own criteria)...
1. It gives people a low entry point for having links themselves (helping the poorer, newer players) while at the same time providing a faster, more mobile platform for more experienced players in frigate/destroyer gangs.
2. The coming warp speed changes will make Command Ships and T3s too slow for sub-cruiser gangs... and will be acutely felt by frigate and destroyer gangs when links are finally made on-grid-only.
3. Links and Command Ships already exist within EVE. As much as I dislike them personally, they aren't going anywhere.
And having a ship that can field links that is not quite a Frigate but not quite a Cruiser fits well into the same position as current Command Ships (which exist between Cruisers and Battleships)
4. It won't step on the toes of the current Command Ships if limited to 1 link (or two with no bonuses). It also won't affect T3s as they will be nowhere near as tanky. And regular Battlecruisers also won't be affected as they will be much cheaper than a T3 or Command Ship, but also far tankier than this ship.
5. The pitfall with this is, as you pointed out, it will be more likely to see links in action everywhere.
To address the problem with number 5...
- it muffles the arguments against on-grid links. There are a few "doomsdayers" that say an end to off-grid links will mean they can't take on bigger blobs that also have links (because T3s and Command Ships would be too slow to kite). While most do write such predictions off (as they ARE often insane)... there is some truth to it. Skirmishers and kiters won't have viable link options.
Mind you... kiters and skirmishers will still be able to do what they do... but they won't have similar 1 to 1 effectiveness ratio that the bigger, slower, more bulky gangs have.
- most PvPers worth their salt have a link alt somewhere the same way most proper fleets also already have them. This won't change anything at the "large" level. In fact... it will actually help to decentralize fleets more (no more, "oops, the Command Ship is dead and everyone just lost 15% of their tanks... bail guys!").
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3645
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 23:49:00 -
[9] - Quote
One last bump.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3649
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 05:45:00 -
[10] - Quote
Kirkwood Ross wrote:Aren't nano T3 cruisers suppose to be light command ships?
The problem with T3s (even in a nano-configuration) is that they can't match the [coming] warp speed or current agility of Frigates or Destroyers even with the necessary rigs (they are basically Tech 2 Cruisers in this respect).
Plus they are relatively large compared to these types of ships making them automatic and easy to hit primary targets (though, to be fair, any Command-type ship will be primaried).
The purpose of this idea is to offer a ship that can keep up with skirmish tactics both in-warp and on-grid.
Moreover... Tech 3 ships have yet to be rebalanced... and there is a good chance that many of their current configurations will be nerfed to the point where they will not be able to provide support for anything smaller than cruisers.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
| |
|