| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| 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. |
Arya Regnar
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
300
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 06:35:00 -
[2] - Quote
I have been bitching about this ever since ongrid links were announced.
You are goddamn right I support this.
Skirmish needs to be fast.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
To mare
Advanced Technology
264
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 08:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
i like the idea, with upcoming changes bringing a command in a fleet of HAC will be almost impossible |
Velicitia
Emergent Avionics
1646
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 09:24:00 -
[4] - Quote
Sounds like a good solution for the "problems" that will come up with necessitating being on-grid with the fleet you're boosting.
+1
One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
The Volition Cult
616
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 09:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
+1
Having spoken to some people who primarily play medium sized frigate and destroyer fleets I can see a need for this moving forward. Good suggestion. |
Alara IonStorm
5389
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 09:59:00 -
[6] - Quote
I like this idea as say a third destroyer + T2 model. Perhaps a tankier version with high resists / rep bonuses in both T1 and improved in T2. Light Damage lower scale cruiser tank through bonuses to Destroyer sized mods kinda deal. Also fulfills the role of tank based Destroyers on the side.
I also separately like the idea of a torpedo armed Destroyer as well with racial Dmg bonuses. (That also being a principal weapon of historical Destroyers as well.)
Those would make great additions to the Destroyer line which isn't flushed out yet bringing it up to 4. 2 DPS based ones using alternate racial weapons, a fast light Frigate DPS one with a strong tank that can command fast skirmishing gangs and a Tier 3 one specialized for mid range small DPS support against Battlecruiser, Battleship and heavily tackled targets. (lacking range and accuracy bonuses like the Stealth Bomber.)
Final thought to Destroyers, I think the current DPS Destroyers in game that have 7-8 weapons should be halved and given a 100% bonus so they are cheaper, that and the introduction of a Meta mid ground drone. I'm rambling now. |
BiggestT
Serenity. CORP.
Diggers Inc.
69
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 10:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
In regards to faction warfare, this will be a nice touch. ANyone that hates link bonuses need not worry, just shoot the ship with the links  (they can't hide anymore).
Here is more info on how ongrid-only links will affect FW: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=284177
Introduction of M/L sites in FW would be ideal if we cannot get any smaller ships by the time offgrid boosting gets nerfed.
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
149
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 10:30:00 -
[8] - Quote
I like the idea! |
Ix Method
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
49
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 10:37:00 -
[9] - Quote
Just yes.
Travelling at the speed of love. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3357
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 14:35:00 -
[10] - 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. |
Jonas Nolm
Black Dragon Fighting Society
The Devil's Tattoo
0
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 16:42:00 -
[11] - Quote
I like the idea. |
Batelle
RisingSuns
173
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 16:48:00 -
[12] - Quote
make the bonuses not apply to any ships large than a cruiser.
Fighting is Magic |
Takari
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
258
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 16:51:00 -
[13] - Quote
This idea will always have my support!
"Roll the dice, don't think twice. This is the way of things.
Welcome to EVE." ~ CCP Falcon |
Rykki Atruin
IPC Logistics
4
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 17:06:00 -
[14] - Quote
+1
Since I'm a newbie in a corp full of other newbies (who can't fly CS yet) and we often explore/mission/roam in frigate/destroyer fleets I'm 100% behind the idea of a squad booster ship! |
Chuckmandoo
Tactical Soldiers
Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 17:16:00 -
[15] - Quote
Supported +1 |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
2691
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 17:22:00 -
[16] - Quote
I personally think Warfare Boosts are overpowered.... so I'm very hesitant about increasing their use.
At the same time, I think Fleet boosting dessies are a reasonable addition to the game where fleet boosting is already ubiquitous.
As such, I would highly recommend the following:
Command Dessie hulls get the ability to fit 2 Warfare links, as well as fitting reductions to make fitting them viable. They should NOT receive boosts to fitting command processors (meaning they can only use 2 links). Most importantly, they should NOT get any bonus to the strength of warfare links (just giving the basic links is plenty!).
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
677
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 17:30:00 -
[17] - Quote
Posting my support for a T2 Algos, Corax, Dragoon and Talwar.
I also support the idea OP is presenting. Something like this will definitely help allow more flexibility in fleets and maybe even allow smaller, lighter fleets a better chance when meeting with larger, heavier ones. |
MonkeyMagic Thiesant
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
2
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 19:47:00 -
[18] - Quote
Dunno about this specifically, but I'd like to see more T2 destroyers. Cruisers have so many options, doubly so with the flexibility of t3s. Frigs, ditto. Might be interesting to see more options in this ship size. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
281
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 19:57:00 -
[19] - Quote
MonkeyMagic Thiesant wrote:Dunno about this specifically, but I'd like to see more T2 destroyers. Cruisers have so many options, doubly so with the flexibility of t3s. Frigs, ditto. Might be interesting to see more options in this ship size.
I guess technically T3s with a Gravitational Capacitor can probably keep up with destroyers.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Luc Chastot
543
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 20:11:00 -
[20] - Quote
This might add a lot of flavor to FW pvp. CCP should avoid making these a necessity, though.
Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. |
Aesheera
Blacklight Recon
Strictly Unprofessional
417
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 20:25:00 -
[21] - Quote
Agreeing with more Destroyer variants, but not "light command ships".
Command destroyers, nah, T3's say hi if you want a lighter solution to actual command ships.
People simply need to actually start tanking them soon.
Primary since '07. GÖÑ
If It Bleeds, Kill It - II |
Katrina Oniseki
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
2179
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 20:52:00 -
[22] - Quote
Supported, but I suggest they only use a maximum of 1 link per hull while still being able to decently fit the rest of the hull.
There needs to be a reason to use heavier and slower ships. Two links is pushing the envelope, but I'll support that if it's as difficult to do as fitting twin bubblers on an interdictor. A single T2 destroyer should not be able to fit three links, ever.
Hull ideas:
Kaalakiota Corax (Black & Red)
Creodron Algos (Pearlescent Green/Blue)
Viziam Dragoon (Green & Gold)
Core Complexion Talwar (Black with Blue lights)
Ch+½j+ì Katrina Oniseki
~ (RDC) Chief Operations Officer
~ [I-RED] Director of Public Relations |
Jaz Antollare
Deadly Loneliness
33
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 21:40:00 -
[23] - Quote
I like this thread.
I support the idea about 1-2 links with medium bonuses.
It could be some thing like the entrance for the command bonuses specialization tree.
Imo they should go in the tankines instead of dps.
And its the room to make t2 adaptations of the new destroyer hulls!! |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
Cosmic Consortium
4159
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 22:04:00 -
[24] - Quote
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.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1665
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 22:42:00 -
[25] - Quote
I could support such a ship but under a few conditions.
The links would need to be unbonused, and the ship could only fit its racial links.
For instance a T2 Algos could fit armor and skirmish warfare links.
Under those conditions I would be ok if they could run 3.
Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3370
|
Posted - 2013.10.09 01:36:00 -
[26] - 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. |
Gigan Amilupar
Legion of Darkwind
28
|
Posted - 2013.10.09 01:49:00 -
[27] - Quote
So long as boosts are moved on grid at the same time or before this, then yes please.
+1 |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Forsak3n.
614
|
Posted - 2013.10.09 02:04:00 -
[28] - Quote
I'd like to see small ganglinks that can be fit to frigates and destroyers (only the ones that allow them of course) that would have offensive bonuses instead of defensive bonuses. There would be no need to focus fire on the light command ship to ensure the fleet is killable, so that might keep them alive longer. It would also be good for small skirmish fleets doing hit-and-run tactics. They could have a pretty short range too, like 25km or something. The big command ships can be all about massive fleets and whatnot, with their range being the whole grid.
Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
Cosmic Consortium
4160
|
Posted - 2013.10.09 04:04:00 -
[29] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Sure, you can nano-fit a T3 for a frigate/destroyer gang... but [issues]
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.
I would like to see command processors moved to a rig, allowing any ship to potentially perform a battle-cruiser role of bringing non-hull-bonused warfare link(s) if they so desire. The ability for a hull to fit warfare links would thus be equivalent to an extra rig slot and bonus warfare-link-only CPU. What penalties would be suitable for such a rig? Reduction in EHP, bloom in sig radius, penalty to CPU/PG? There is also the option of consuming 400 calibration, preventing the use of command processor rigs on T2 & pirate ships.
So for the moment assume that I support the idea of allowing flexible deployment of warfare links: what penalty would you be willing to accept in return for a Skirmish Warfare - Interdiction Manoeuvres warfare link? Consider the difference between an Oracle and Prophecy for example.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3372
|
Posted - 2013.10.09 04:29:00 -
[30] - 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. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |