| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3470
   |
Posted - 2013.10.19 18:30:00 -
[61] - 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. |
Rendiff
Funk Soul Brothers
High Rollers
33
|
Posted - 2013.10.19 19:31:00 -
[62] - Quote
Excellent idea |
Zappity
Kurved Space
564
|
Posted - 2013.10.19 19:42:00 -
[63] - Quote
Here's the relevant section of the Declarations of War podcast (#58) I mentioned earlier. I am going to post the full version in W&T to stir things up again. Links have gone a bit quiet lately.
AK: When they come on the field are you considering making further changes to the ships themselves to provide more mobility options for command ships?
Fozzie: WeGÇÖre gonna be making a lot of changes as we go with them. IGÇÖm pretty happy with the mobility of command ships. It would be nice someday to add a smaller ship that is capable of providing links than the ones we have. At the moment the strategic cruiser is the most agile ship you can possibly bring links with. Having something smaller you can bring with a faster fleet would be nice. But I donGÇÖt think weGÇÖre going to be making command ships themselves any more agile.
AK: A new destroyer would be interesting, a tech 2 destroyer that could fit some kind of command thing would be interesting.
Fozzie: IGÇÖm definitely not able to promise anything but thatGÇÖs the kind of thing that could very well happen someday.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Major Killz
La Fraternite
256
|
Posted - 2013.10.19 20:26:00 -
[64] - Quote
No! Just no.Tech 1 cruiser and frigate logistics was, is a bad idea and so is your idea. Some ships with certain abilities/bonuses SHOULD be limited, specialized and EXPENSIVE.
Gang-linked destroyers, cruisers and or frigates is just a terrible idea. If a certain mechanic proves to be VERY POWERFUL you don't increase it's effectiveness, ease of access and reduce its cost. Logistics, gang-links, tracking disruptors and remote sensor dampeners are BADZ...
- Killz
Combat Log: http://www.youtube.com/user/kdsalmon/videos
- Pantaloon II: Violins (Jun 23, 2013) |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Forsak3n.
635
|
Posted - 2013.10.19 22:39:00 -
[65] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:No! Just no.Tech 1 cruiser and frigate logistics was, is a bad idea and so is your idea. Some ships with certain abilities/bonuses SHOULD be limited, specialized and EXPENSIVE.
Gang-linked destroyers, cruisers and or frigates is just a terrible idea. If a certain mechanic proves to be VERY POWERFUL you don't increase it's effectiveness, ease of access and reduce its cost. Logistics, gang-links, tracking disruptors and remote sensor dampeners are BADZ... Tech 1 logistics cruisers repair at about half the rate of tech 2 logistics cruisers at max skills, and have a bit shorter rep range, logistics frigates are much weaker and shorter range. I think the balance is pretty good. I don't see a problem with destroyer command ships, as long as their bonuses are weaker than battlecruiser command ships.
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. |
ghost williams
ANGEL FLEET
1
|
Posted - 2013.10.20 01:03:00 -
[66] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:This is a resurrection of some old threads here. More uses for destroyer hullsSquad Command ShipsCommand DestroyersThe basic premise of this idea is simple and narrow: Tech 2 Destroyers that are geared towards fitting and efficiently using Warfare links while "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 relatively "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 won't replace the Orca as link support as it won't have mining link bonuses or the extra "bells and whistles"... but will provide a relatively cheap link-support platform for small, less wealthy mining groups. - it provides a clear line of progression for budding Command Ship pilots.
I would support more types of Destroyers. I could finally get some of my members to use them.
|
Meyr
SiN Corp
75
|
Posted - 2013.10.27 06:41:00 -
[67] - Quote
Well done, Shah. Great idea!
Personally, I support the 'One Link' version, as I want FC's to make trade-offs in their fleet composition. This is not to say that you could not stack effects, but it brings inherent limitations.
Making them considerably tankier, but limiting their DPS (something like 6 high slots, with 4 or 5 bonused turrets/launchers/moderate drone bay and lose a high slot) seems a reasonable compromise that would allow them to enhance small-ship fleets without turning them into OP solo beasts.
Additionally, I'd like to see a form of T2 Destroyer that was actually capable of hunting T2 Frigates with a reasonable chance of success against most of them - reduce the DPS of the T1 versions by about 15-20%, but increase their tank by about 50%. They'd still out-DPS most frigate hulls, have a weaker tank than AF's, with less straight-line speed, and more mass than most frigate/destroyer hulls. Minimum mid-slot count would be three (Amarr pilots everywhere would cheer), but not more than 5, I don't want to unintentionally create an E-War monster.
Thoughts? |
Maliandra
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2013.10.27 06:59:00 -
[68] - Quote
Eh...
Destroyer V is very easy to train. Dessies are cheap, and even a T2 one will only raise in price so much. You're gonna have every fleet with one of these command ships the way I see it.
So, no.
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.
This idea right now has over 40 likes and almost 0 posts that are against it. I do believe if some random person made this post, it would have a tiny portion of those likes and a lot of criticism/insults in the thread.
Not to blame you OP, it's not your fault most people who post here are closed-minded sheep. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3531
|
Posted - 2013.10.27 08:13:00 -
[69] - 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. |
Meyr
SiN Corp
76
|
Posted - 2013.10.28 06:29:00 -
[70] - Quote
Actually, I've been wanting something besides Interdictors for a very long time. If this is the avenue we have to pursue in order to achieve a true Hunter of T2 frigates, so be it. The destroyer class, as a whole, has, with the exception of the Sabre, Thrasher, and Catalyst, suffered for years, wallowing in mediocrity, almost able to do the jobs they were designed for, but only with regards to T1 opponents. Almost every T2 will, in no uncertain terms, clobber any destroyer hull into last week (don't even mention a PVP blaster Catalyst - if you even gave it an angry look, it'll turn into salvage). Even the Helios, when it didn't simply run away. The new Eris just makes an even more fragile glass cannon.
The Sabre can put up a good fight, when it's well flown, Thrashers can sometimes work, but that's about it. They can't be all about Catalyst ganks or Minmatar hulls. We need something that can actually have a chance of chasing down and either driving off or destroying interceptors and some AF's. |
|
|
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA
C0VEN
149
|
Posted - 2013.10.28 07:42:00 -
[71] - Quote
+1 |
wurblewind
The Synenose Accord
Celestial Imperative
14
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 02:09:00 -
[72] - Quote
Ok, how did this get thrown back to page 3? Time for me to sign I suppose. 
Keep low, fly fast, die well. |
Alyssa Haginen
State War Academy
Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 04:06:00 -
[73] - Quote
I see this destroyer boosting being used the most in FW. This is part of a larger plan to keep boosts for the people that wanted off grid boosting removed who are also the original off grid boosters. The most common fit for this ship will be nanos and a cloak and its main position will be inside faction warfare plexs as far off the beacon as it get while still providing links. For that reason I dont like the idea but a good compromise would be to have the warfare links subsystem on t3's increase your warp speed to 6au if possible. |
William Darkk
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 18:42:00 -
[74] - Quote
I endorse this idea. Frigate fleets are cool and need a full set of tools. |
Antillie Sa'Kan
Forging Industries
Silent Infinity
137
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 19:00:00 -
[75] - Quote
I approve of this product and/or service. |
Pic'n dor
Epsilon Lyr
Nulli Secunda
16
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 23:27:00 -
[76] - Quote
Friendly bump |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3645
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 23:49:00 -
[77] - 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. |
Kirkwood Ross
Golden Profession
54
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 01:46:00 -
[78] - Quote
Aren't nano T3 cruisers suppose to be light command ships? |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
594
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 03:21:00 -
[79] - Quote
Kirkwood Ross wrote:Aren't nano T3 cruisers suppose to be light command ships?
This. Less skill-intensive, too.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
378
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 03:31:00 -
[80] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Kirkwood Ross wrote:Aren't nano T3 cruisers suppose to be light command ships? This. Less skill-intensive, too.
500-600mil for tankless on-grid(when they finally fix OGB) command ship in frig/desty gang? No ty.
Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |
|
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
599
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 04:07:00 -
[81] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:This. Less skill-intensive, too.
500-600mil for tankless on-grid(when they finally fix OGB) command ship in frig/desty gang? No ty.[/quote]
Well, I guess there's always Command Ships. 
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3649
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 05:45:00 -
[82] - 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. |
Scuzzy Logic
Midnight Elites
Partners of Industrial Service and Salvage
70
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 16:04:00 -
[83] - Quote
Rykki Atruin wrote:+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!
Well, not counting the fact warfare links kind of have a prohibitive entry requirement... |
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
Kiki's Delivery Service.
27
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 23:30:00 -
[84] - Quote
This is considered a 'do want' in my books. |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
356
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 09:28:00 -
[85] - Quote
Topic is still relevant bump.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Red Teufel
Mafia Redux
Phobia.
285
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 13:02:00 -
[86] - Quote
+1 you have my support |
Seranova Farreach
510
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 16:13:00 -
[87] - Quote
so tanky, fast, warfare linked dessys? +1 for possable new dessy hull.
i would personally also like to see BC or BS logi ships (no, not the lame nestor)
and sub-capital Carrier like Battleships... like how we have bastion+maurauders for "Mini Dreads"
_______________________
http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg
|
Red Teufel
Mafia Redux
Phobia.
285
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 19:39:00 -
[88] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:so tanky, fast, warfare linked dessys? +1 for possable new dessy hull.
i would personally also like to see BC or BS logi ships (no, not the lame nestor)
and sub-capital Carrier like Battleships... like how we have bastion+maurauders for "Mini Dreads"
naw overlaps with what already works extremely well. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
621
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 19:46:00 -
[89] - Quote
i think T3's will end up being more mobile and are already more mobile than Command ships and fill that mobile link role already ..
Command processors may well end up as a rig or low slot aswell.
also dessies just don't have the tank too justify the training time and expense for this role even in small gangs they would still be killed too quickly.
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic
AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Mrchafe
Zero Frequency
Disavowed.
5
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 02:17:00 -
[90] - Quote
+1 original post
6 gun Dessie's 2 active links
Command ship bonus to reduce CPU and power grid use of links at lvl5 to 0 and a 2% bonus to link strength like the t3. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |