EVE Search - Y no sleeper ships for players?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Y no sleeper ships for players?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Songbird 38	Posted - 2011.11.19 23:36:00 - [1] - Quote we kill them by the 1000's - surely there enough wreckage leftovers to back engineer them Obviously they're armor + hull only and have higher than normal resists - have missile and lazor bonuses - it's like super amarr we should really be able to have them as some t2.5 ships :)
Duchess Starbuckington Starbuckington Manor 20	Posted - 2011.11.20 00:22:00 - [2] - Quote And these would fill what nich+¬, precisely?
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 94	Posted - 2011.11.20 00:28:00 - [3] - Quote Songbird wrote: we kill them by the 1000's - surely there enough wreckage leftovers to back engineer them Obviously they're armor + hull only and have higher than normal resists - have missile and lazor bonuses - it's like super amarr we should really be able to have them as some t2.5 ships :) I'm pretty sure that reverse engineered sleeper ships are called Strategic Cruisers.
Arthur Frayn Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 37	Posted - 2011.11.20 00:35:00 - [4] - Quote Thinking that sleeper ships are uber compared to player ships is ridiculous. You're not taking into account that T1 and T2 player ships are all capable of the same abilities and more. We can get to 80%+ resistances on everything even with T1 ships when fit correctly. We have all the e-war abilities. We have awesome weapons - we can dictate range and damage type with ease. Sleeper ships are uber compared to your average mission rats, but they're still far crappier than players. If I had no choice but to fly the kind of ships I can solo kill in L4 world's collide, I'd biomass my character today.
Aessaya Fairlight Corp Rooks and Kings 11	Posted - 2011.11.20 00:53:00 - [5] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: Songbird wrote: we kill them by the 1000's - surely there enough wreckage leftovers to back engineer them Obviously they're armor + hull only and have higher than normal resists - have missile and lazor bonuses - it's like super amarr we should really be able to have them as some t2.5 ships :) I'm pretty sure that reverse engineered sleeper ships are called Strategic Cruisers. This. Sleeper ships per se also cannot be piloted by pod pilots simply because they all are drones. Ah, you seek meaning?-áThen listen to the music, not the song.
Songbird 38	Posted - 2011.11.20 01:06:00 - [6] - Quote I just like the idea of breaking away from the established hull armor shield. If it's hull and armor only it's a different ship. I love the stealth bombers and tier 3 B-cruisers because they break the rules - BS weapons on frigates and cruisers - how cool is that :) And yeah I know t3 cruisers come from sleepers - i lived in a WH for a while :). I'd just love to see ships that completely ignore shields and focus on heavy armor . As for what niche they would fill ? What niche do pirate ships fill - they've parallel roles to the ships of the empires, they're sometimes 100's of times more expensive(frigates for instance) and they have somewhat superior performance. I just feel that the majority of the eve community goes for shields - no speed penalties , dead space shield boosters , invuln fields that offer blanket protection - low slots available for damage modules boosting every 4 -5 seconds instead of every 12, boost amps and so on. I'd love to see "faction" ships that are all about armor.
Kilobar The Suicide Kings Test Alliance Please Ignore 25	Posted - 2011.11.20 01:50:00 - [7] - Quote I feel a head ache coming on after reading this thread.
JitaJane Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 53	Posted - 2011.11.20 04:44:00 - [8] - Quote I been saving the parts from every spider drone I kill but still can't build one.....
Arthur Frayn Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 37	Posted - 2011.11.20 09:58:00 - [9] - Quote Songbird wrote: I'd love to see "faction" ships that are all about armor. You must've missed the memo on these ships: Navy Armageddon Navy Apocalypse Navy Megathron Navy Dominix Fleet Typhoon Bhaalgorn Vindicator Machariel (whoops, it has 5 mids, therefore it MUST be shield tanked! )
Cedo Nulli Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 5	Posted - 2011.11.20 10:10:00 - [10] - Quote OPs thread ended at "t3 cruisers mate ?" so then he tries to spin the whole thing into wanting armor tanked ships and like previous posted there are plenty of those. Op needs to start living more healthy and less "Whoah my hand is sooo big" substances.
Songbird 38	Posted - 2011.11.20 15:58:00 - [11] - Quote Arthur Frayn wrote: You must've missed the memo on these ships: Navy Armageddon Navy Apocalypse Navy Megathron Navy Dominix Fleet Typhoon Bhaalgorn Vindicator Machariel (whoops, it has 5 mids, therefore it MUST be shield tanked! ) Hmm - you're right - all these are armor ships. For some reason however they're more often used in their shield version . Very weird. And the fits? All damage mods and tracking enhancer - awful awful fits. I think the one armor ship I haven't seen fit for shield is the proteus , mostly because most configs have 3 mids, but I'm sure a lot of people tried - what with hybrids pitiful range ... Anyway - I don't wanna replace any of the existing ships - I just want to add more and more ships to my vast collection. I don't see why people would object to the idea - the more ships the more options in the game - the richer the game experience :).
Aessaya Fairlight Corp Rooks and Kings 13	Posted - 2011.11.20 19:11:00 - [12] - Quote Arthur Frayn wrote: Songbird wrote: I'd love to see "faction" ships that are all about armor. You must've missed the memo on these ships: Navy Armageddon Navy Apocalypse Navy Megathron Navy Dominix Fleet Typhoon Bhaalgorn Vindicator Machariel (whoops, it has 5 mids, therefore it MUST be shield tanked! ) You, sir, don't get the point. Sleeper ships do not have shields at all. Even their health bars on the NEOCOM display only two instead of the usual three. JitaJane wrote: I been saving the parts from every spider drone I kill but still can't build one..... You're still missing the most important part - the blueprint for it. Ah, you seek meaning?-áThen listen to the music, not the song.
Potamus Jenkins The Lucky Bible Company 2	Posted - 2011.11.20 19:13:00 - [13] - Quote Songbird wrote: Arthur Frayn wrote: You must've missed the memo on these ships: Navy Armageddon Navy Apocalypse Navy Megathron Navy Dominix Fleet Typhoon Bhaalgorn Vindicator Machariel (whoops, it has 5 mids, therefore it MUST be shield tanked! ) Hmm - you're right - all these are armor ships. For some reason however they're more often used in their shield version . Very weird. And the fits? All damage mods and tracking enhancer - awful awful fits. I think the one armor ship I haven't seen fit for shield is the proteus , mostly because most configs have 3 mids, but I'm sure a lot of people tried - what with hybrids pitiful range ... Anyway - I don't wanna replace any of the existing ships - I just want to add more and more ships to my vast collection. I don't see why people would object to the idea - the more ships the more options in the game - the richer the game experience :). uh. shield tanked navy geddon huh. mind blowing
Spr09 Purdue Engineering and Technology Talocan United 14	Posted - 2011.11.20 19:51:00 - [14] - Quote ow, my head... i thought i might laugh at this thread at first, but now i want to cry from these questions D:
Arthur Frayn Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 37	Posted - 2011.11.20 22:01:00 - [15] - Quote Aessaya wrote: You, sir, don't get the point. Sleeper ships do not have shields at all. Even their health bars on the NEOCOM display only two instead of the usual three. I know this. My point was: when you armor tank, your shield bar might as well not even be there either. Since the op is saying he wants a ship with an uber armor tank with high resists on everything, he should look at the armor based ships we already have and fit one himself.
Nor Tzestu Wings of Strength Innovia Alliance 18	Posted - 2011.11.21 01:39:00 - [16] - Quote Potamus Jenkins wrote: Songbird wrote: Arthur Frayn wrote: You must've missed the memo on these ships: Navy Armageddon Navy Apocalypse Navy Megathron Navy Dominix Fleet Typhoon Bhaalgorn Vindicator Machariel (whoops, it has 5 mids, therefore it MUST be shield tanked! ) Hmm - you're right - all these are armor ships. For some reason however they're more often used in their shield version . Very weird. And the fits? All damage mods and tracking enhancer - awful awful fits. I think the one armor ship I haven't seen fit for shield is the proteus , mostly because most configs have 3 mids, but I'm sure a lot of people tried - what with hybrids pitiful range ... Anyway - I don't wanna replace any of the existing ships - I just want to add more and more ships to my vast collection. I don't see why people would object to the idea - the more ships the more options in the game - the richer the game experience :). uh. shield tanked navy geddon huh. mind blowing It's all the rage when you want to **** away 250mil isk in a level 4. Or you can go baller and do the Navy POC. Nothing says ownage like a 450mil hull going down in the first room of world's collide. Basically the Mach is normally shiled tanked, the Navy Domi can be shield tanked well and the Vindy for incursion fleets. The rest are hardcore armor boats unless your a total masochist who has more isk than sense.
Adam Kirwen The Eleusinian Mystery Cult 3	Posted - 2011.11.21 02:21:00 - [17] - Quote Songbird wrote: Anyway - I don't wanna replace any of the existing ships - I just want to add more and more ships to my vast collection. I don't see why people would object to the idea - the more ships the more options in the game - the richer the game experience :). I'll tell you why people will object: More ships means more balancing catastrophes from CCP. As things are, there are plenty of ships that nobody flies. Fix those before adding new ones.
Daniel L'Siata Echelon Conflict Resolution. Dragoons. 27	Posted - 2011.11.21 02:55:00 - [18] - Quote Songbird wrote: Arthur Frayn wrote: You must've missed the memo on these ships: Navy Armageddon Navy Apocalypse Navy Megathron Navy Dominix Fleet Typhoon Bhaalgorn Vindicator Machariel (whoops, it has 5 mids, therefore it MUST be shield tanked! ) Hmm - you're right - all these are armor ships. For some reason however they're more often used in their shield version . Very weird. And the fits? All damage mods and tracking enhancer - awful awful fits. I think the one armor ship I haven't seen fit for shield is the proteus , mostly because most configs have 3 mids, but I'm sure a lot of people tried - what with hybrids pitiful range ... Anyway - I don't wanna replace any of the existing ships - I just want to add more and more ships to my vast collection. I don't see why people would object to the idea - the more ships the more options in the game - the richer the game experience :). Are you high? Please, fly those ships at me some time.
Alexa Coates The Scope Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2011.11.21 03:17:00 - [19] - Quote If anything, I want to capture a talocan hull and rig it, t3-esque, to my likings. The more says they're bare hulls with nothing in them. I mean, they look cool, and there is one for every size, so why not?
Jack Miton Lapse Of Sanity Narwhals Ate My Duck 7	Posted - 2011.11.21 10:22:00 - [20] - Quote why you so stupid? same reason there are no jove ships...
illirdor The Grey Eagle Society 0	Posted - 2011.11.21 21:37:00 - [21] - Quote Jack Miton wrote: same reason there are no jove ships... And what reason is that ??
GavinCapacitor CaeIum Incognitum 4	Posted - 2011.11.22 14:55:00 - [22] - Quote And in this thread: "why are there no ships that don't have shields like I want" and "hurr durr navy apocalypse is usually shield tanked"
Songbird 38	Posted - 2011.11.22 17:31:00 - [23] - Quote "hurr durr navy apocalypse is usually shield tanked" lol - I don't know about navy apoc but here's the link for navy geddon, admittedly for incursion fleets, still - look at the numbers they have for the ship: NAvy geddon 950 DPS from conflag (no implants) +300 DPS from garde IIs 102k EHP. It is doing quite well for an "all armor" ship. If you ask me it's doing better than it's armor version. I wanted a ship line that would have only armor - a ship line that when fit with shield extender will have 0 resists across so the fit will be useless . A ship line that would make you proud to be armor tanker ! Also I was looking for variety. Not saying it has to be out there with the winter expansion - just in few months or in a year it could be a nice new direction or branch for the armor guys to get into.
GavinCapacitor CaeIum Incognitum 4	Posted - 2011.11.22 20:58:00 - [24] - Quote Songbird wrote: Arthur Frayn wrote: You must've missed the memo on these ships: Navy Armageddon Navy Apocalypse Navy Megathron Navy Dominix Fleet Typhoon Bhaalgorn Vindicator Machariel (whoops, it has 5 mids, therefore it MUST be shield tanked! ) Hmm - you're right - all these are armor ships. For some reason however they're more often used in their shield version . Very weird. [snip] Songbird wrote: "hurr durr navy apocalypse is usually shield tanked" lol - I don't know about navy apoc but [snip] Yeah, uh huh. Songbird wrote: I wanted a ship line that would have only armor - a ship line that when fit with shield extender will have 0 resists across so the fit will be useless . A ship line that would make you proud to be armor tanker ! Also I was looking for variety. Not saying it has to be out there with the winter expansion - just in few months or in a year it could be a nice new direction or branch for the armor guys to get into. People seem to have this idea that more variety is intrinsically better. When what usually happens is everyone does what works the best (or the current meta) and the rest is just more useless crap to sort through and use in lolfits. Never mind whatever the hell it means to "proud to be an armor tanker". You might as well be RP'ing at that point. Except a ship with no shields and living things on it would be completely unworkable from a lore standpoint.
Jack Miton Lapse Of Sanity Narwhals Ate My Duck 7	Posted - 2011.11.22 22:10:00 - [25] - Quote illirdor wrote: Jack Miton wrote: same reason there are no jove ships... And what reason is that ?? facepalm
Songbird 38	Posted - 2011.11.23 01:35:00 - [26] - Quote Quote: "hurr durr navy apocalypse is usually shield tanked" lol - I don't know about navy apoc but [snip] Yeah, uh huh. I looked through the web site and checked out the fits but I didn't find one for navy apoc so then I opened EFT and made my own. It uses 4 heatsinks, 2 TE and has 915 DPS at 27+16km with conflag Actually has more EHP than the navy geddon - 113k, and no 5 sentry drones, but the point still stands - it is a valid fit for both shield and armor. Argumentatively these are pve fits and shield is the pve king, but shield is also the king of fast mobile small pvp gangs. I feel that armor is second best somehow and I wanna change that. I think a frig, stealth bomber, cruiser and BS in armor only version will be a great addition. Quote: People seem to have this idea that more variety is intrinsically better. When what usually happens is everyone does what works the best (or the current meta) and the rest is just more useless crap to sort through and use in lolfits. I think all the people that said that variety is the spice of life were just fools. If you ask me, why is there even anything else than drake? According to you anything that's different from drake is lolfit - useless crap to sort through. In fact we should give everyone in eve the standard drake and then turn it into first person shooter. Variety is definitely bad. Choice ? Who might ever want that in their game.
GavinCapacitor CaeIum Incognitum 5	Posted - 2011.11.23 07:55:00 - [27] - Quote Songbird wrote: Quote: "hurr durr navy apocalypse is usually shield tanked" lol - I don't know about navy apoc but [snip] Yeah, uh huh. I looked through the web site and checked out the fits but I didn't find one for navy apoc so then I opened EFT and made my own. It uses 4 heatsinks, 2 TE and has 915 DPS at 27+16km with conflag Actually has more EHP than the navy geddon - 113k, and no 5 sentry drones, but the point still stands - it is a valid fit for both shield and armor. Argumentatively these are pve fits and shield is the pve king, but shield is also the king of fast mobile small pvp gangs. I feel that armor is second best somehow and I wanna change that. I think a frig, stealth bomber, cruiser and BS in armor only version will be a great addition. Oh dear me. Look at dat eft warrior. Never mind the original point was simply that when someone showed you several 'armor ships' you said they are usually shield tanked. Which is entirely false. I then pointed out on of the the more ridiculous ones, and here we are. Yes, given battleships fittings you could probably make any battleship have a good enough shield tank for PvE. That does not however make it optimal/a good idea/completely ****** (pick 3). So good on you eft warrior. You will make that fit 'work' and it will never be used in eve to boot! huzzah! Songbird wrote: Quote:** People seem to have this idea that more variety is intrinsically better. When what usually happens is everyone does what works the best (or the current meta) and the rest is just more useless crap to sort through and use in lolfits. I think all the people that said that variety is the spice of life were just fools. If you ask me, why is there even anything else than drake? According to you anything that's different from drake is lolfit - useless crap to sort through. In fact we should give everyone in eve the standard drake and then turn it into first person shooter. Variety is definitely bad. Choice ? Who might ever want that in their game. Oh dear, I seem to have been parodied in a most rude manner! And on top of that it seems to be a most horrendous logical fallacy. Something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Then again, I am not sure why I am pointing all this out, anyone can see this is a clearly specious argument. You know perfectly well I never said anything such as "anything that is different from [a] drake is [a] lolfit" or that we should "turn it [eve] into a first person shooter.". P.S. I don't think you know what "Argumentatively" means.
Songbird 38	Posted - 2011.11.23 12:49:00 - [28] - Quote Dear you , maybe I didn't specify that the ships are usually tanked for shield specifically in incursion fleets, in which you care about DPS and tracking. Here's a little fact - there's usually 2 to 3 times more shield fleets than armor. The one saving grace of armor fleets is the legion which has high enough resists and small enough signature to be able to mount 3 damage mods and still have a decent tank. Most of the "armor" ships when fit as shield have enough space for 4 damage mods(armor fits are lucky to get 2 or 3), since their tank goes in the midslots. Again, the invuln field with it's 30% blanket resists(37 for navy version) allows ships to get over 70% resists across with 1 DC, 3 modules and a rig slot. It could be argued that pve with logistic support is a tiny part of eve, but then again pvp with faction ships is not that common either(well except for frigs and cruisers maybe). Anyway incursion fleets running typically armor ships as shield is just a stupid and circumstantial example. The only argument that needs to be made is that more choices is better than less choices. I'm sure that good or bad people will find uses for the ships. And if by chance the new sleeper frig is the new dramiel I'm sure there's a dev out there sharpening his nerf bat just for extreme cases like this.
GavinCapacitor CaeIum Incognitum 5	Posted - 2011.11.23 14:21:00 - [29] - Quote Songbird wrote: Dear you , maybe I didn't specify that the ships are usually tanked for shield specifically in incursion fleets, in which you care about DPS and tracking. Here's a little fact - there's usually 2 to 3 times more shield fleets than armor. The one saving grace of armor fleets is the legion which has high enough resists and small enough signature to be able to mount 3 damage mods and still have a decent tank. Most of the "armor" ships when fit as shield have enough space for 4 damage mods(armor fits are lucky to get 2 or 3), since their tank goes in the midslots. Again, the invuln field with it's 30% blanket resists(37 for navy version) allows ships to get over 70% resists across with 1 DC, 3 modules and a rig slot. It could be argued that pve with logistic support is a tiny part of eve, but then again pvp with faction ships is not that common either(well except for frigs and cruisers maybe). Anyway incursion fleets running typically armor ships as shield is just a stupid and circumstantial example. I would argue that, and that is a stupid and circumstantial example. Also, if you are bolding that text to prove you know what "argumentatively" means, then I have some bad news for you.. Songbird wrote: And if by chance the new sleeper frig is the new dramiel I'm sure there's a dev out there sharpening his nerf bat just for extreme cases like this. Who said anything about t3 frigates? I thought this thread was about you wanting ships that would make you "proud to be an armor tanker". Stay on topic, bro. Songbird wrote: I'm sure that good or bad people will find uses for the ships. How many people do you know that use the t1 impel? Songbird wrote: The only argument that needs to be made is that more choices is better than less choices. That is not necessarily true. More choice is not intrinsically better. Using my example from before, no one uses an impel to haul things for the most part because if you have amarr industrial 1 you can fly a bestower which has more cargo space (the important quality of an industrial) and there is not very big cost difference. The only reason to use an impel would be something like thinking it looks cool, or desperately needing to move something (that fits in an impel) a couple minutes faster over a very long route. Sure, there are things that could be done to fix this (bestower requires amarr industrial IV for instance) but right now the impel is just a waste of space. I know you don't like hearing that because it goes against your preconceived notions about choice and life in general, and that thinking is hard for you, but its true.
Cyniac Twilight Star Rangers Black Thorne Alliance 52	Posted - 2011.11.23 14:26:00 - [30] - Quote Aessaya wrote: You, sir, don't get the point. Sleeper ships do not have shields at all. Even their health bars on the NEOCOM display only two instead of the usual three. I always wondered about this. I know sleepers only have two health bars. But... Is it because they don't have shields? Because they don't have armor? Or because (gasp) they don't have hull? I'm tempted to think that they have shields and an armor/hull hybrid (i.e. their armor is their hull) there of course one way to test it but I've never done it in great detail... anyone know for sure?
GavinCapacitor CaeIum Incognitum 5	Posted - 2011.11.23 18:37:00 - [31] - Quote Cyniac wrote: Aessaya wrote: You, sir, don't get the point. Sleeper ships do not have shields at all. Even their health bars on the NEOCOM display only two instead of the usual three. I always wondered about this. I know sleepers only have two health bars. But... Is it because they don't have shields? Because they don't have armor? Or because (gasp) they don't have hull? I'm tempted to think that they have shields and an armor/hull hybrid (i.e. their armor is their hull) there of course one way to test it but I've never done it in great detail... anyone know for sure? http://i40.tinypic.com/68eo74.jpg regards
Aessaya Fairlight Corp Rooks and Kings 14	Posted - 2011.11.23 21:40:00 - [32] - Quote Cyniac wrote: Aessaya wrote: You, sir, don't get the point. Sleeper ships do not have shields at all. Even their health bars on the NEOCOM display only two instead of the usual three. I always wondered about this. I know sleepers only have two health bars. But... Is it because they don't have shields? Because they don't have armor? Or because (gasp) they don't have hull? I'm tempted to think that they have shields and an armor/hull hybrid (i.e. their armor is their hull) there of course one way to test it but I've never done it in great detail... anyone know for sure? Armor and Structure, as the above poster confirmed. I, personally, think, that sleepers (or whoever created them, actually), noticed, that armor performs much better in combat than shields and have decided to scrap the shield generators altogether in favor of stronger armor plating and/or more nanite pumps to keep the armor repaired. And to use the energy required to run shields somewhere else, like for bigger weapons. Armor needs energy only to repair it, but shields impose constant drain on ship's powergrid and reactor (invisible to capsuleer pilot, because it is handled automatically, yet certain modules suggest the link between those two, namely SPR and CPR modules). Ah, you seek meaning?-áThen listen to the music, not the song.
Warzon3 Perkone Caldari State 5	Posted - 2011.11.23 23:49:00 - [33] - Quote Aessaya wrote: Vimsy Vortis wrote: Songbird wrote: we kill them by the 1000's - surely there enough wreckage leftovers to back engineer them Obviously they're armor + hull only and have higher than normal resists - have missile and lazor bonuses - it's like super amarr we should really be able to have them as some t2.5 ships :) I'm pretty sure that reverse engineered sleeper ships are called Strategic Cruisers. This. Sleeper ships per se also cannot be piloted by pod pilots simply because they all are drones. I.e. unmanned spacecraft without any life support whatsoever. we dont need life support thats what your egg is for
BlahBlahBlah McChode State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2011.11.24 09:41:00 - [34] - Quote You're dangerous I like that.

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.