EVE Search - Corvettes : The baby Capital Ship

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Corvettes : The baby Capital Ship

» 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)
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.07.14 02:08:00 - [1] Somebody asked in ships and modules about this and I like the idea of corvettes in general. So here is my submission which is slightly modified from my actual post in that thread. I'd like a corvette class similar to the way they were in Wing Commander. They would have 7-8 high slots and feature Medium turrets or missiles. However, they would indeed be capital ships requiring a new skill 'Corvettes' which would be rank 12. They would feature 22k - 25k drone space and their bonus would be 1 turret/missile bonus and a jump fuel bonus. Their jump range would be 10% below a dreadnought. They would feature battleship class HP and should cost no more than 450-500mil to make. So, to sum it up.... Size of a battleship, armament of a battlecruiser, ability to field up to 5 fighters, and short range jump driving with optimized jump drive fuel use. Tertiary bonuses could include gang module -99% cpu reduction That will be all! Skill requirements would be racial cruiser 5, BC 5, advanced ship command 5, command ships 1, science 5, jump drive op 1, mechanic 5, navigation 5 Team Minmatar
Dutarro	Posted - 2006.07.14 02:16:00 - [2] Interesting idea. Tech 2 battleship maybe? We don't have any of those yet.
Horza Otho	Posted - 2006.07.14 02:17:00 - [3] /signed
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.07.14 02:19:00 - [4] Edited by: Kaylana Syi on 14/07/2006 02:20:37 Originally by: Dutarro Interesting idea. Tech 2 battleship maybe? We don't have any of those yet. I'd take that as a tech 2 battleship! But it'd have to drop BC 5 from the requirements, pick up a few normal t2 requirement skills and add racial BS 5. To be honest... I'd like a new ship class with new ship models but like I said I'd take it if I could as a t2 BS. Team Minmatar
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.14 12:44:00 - [5] Corvettes are smaller than frigates. Try "Monitor" for a class name. Or "I win Eve" Because that's what ALL these Warship idea amount to. When BoB brings 100 to a fight, you can't compete with BS, and you have NO way of striking back when your POSyards are wrecked. The ship of the line in Eve MUST remain the battleship.
Ishullana	Posted - 2006.07.14 15:02:00 - [6] so a battleship with crap guns and fighters with all the problems of moving that cap ships have? no thanks
Dutarro Kydance Radiant Industries	Posted - 2006.07.14 15:19:00 - [7] Originally by: Maya Rkell Corvettes are smaller than frigates. Try "Monitor" for a class name. Or "I win Eve" Because that's what ALL these Warship idea amount to. When BoB brings 100 to a fight, you can't compete with BS, and you have NO way of striking back when your POSyards are wrecked. The ship of the line in Eve MUST remain the battleship. If BoB were to bring 100 Titans to a fight they would surely win as well, but they can't .. and why not? because the construction and skill training requirements for a Titan are enormous. Likewise, the ship proposed here won't break game balance as long as its construction and skill requirements are made suitably high.
Mihail d'Amour	Posted - 2006.07.14 17:19:00 - [8] Eventually they will be able to field that many, although from all I've read 15 will probably suffice. And a corvette is smaller than a frigate. They are designed to be small, fast, light, and cheap. ---------------------------------------------- In nomine Domine, quod erat malum
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.14 17:27:00 - [9] a torpedo boat destroyer would be better for EVE imo, fast but fragile. 3 high slots 3 launcher slots and bonues for using torpedos. basicly it would be a heavy bomber whos purpose is to kill capitol ships but is so fragile that it cant travel alone.
Mihail d'Amour	Posted - 2006.07.14 17:31:00 - [10] Make it citadel torpedo launcher... ship could carry maybe 10 rounds, very fast, very nimble, very dead if it gets hit. ---------------------------------------------- In nomine Domine, quod erat malum
Albrecht Wassenar Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.14 17:37:00 - [11] Originally by: Mihail d'Amour Make it citadel torpedo launcher... ship could carry maybe 10 rounds, very fast, very nimble, very dead if it gets hit. sighs too bad this isnt a stick sim, otherwise going in on an attack run in one of those would be a blast. ------------------------------------- "I am your shield. I am your sword." Join "TKI-net" in game or our website
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.14 18:20:00 - [12] Originally by: Mihail d'Amour Make it citadel torpedo launcher... ship could carry maybe 10 rounds, very fast, very nimble, very dead if it gets hit. sounds like the "BroadSword" bombers from Wing Commander. "get clear of the blast wave"
Noriath	Posted - 2006.07.14 18:32:00 - [13] There is no need for such a thing as a bomber in Eve, because you can also just shoot down a capital ship with light guns if you have enough of them. Eve has a little problem with fightings capital ships because it completly ignores the fact that there comes a point where smaller weapons aren't effective, no matter how many of them you have. Shooting a real life battleship with 3 million revolvers will never destroy it. In Eve it would though. Because of that there is no need for bombers, just bring more of the same old same old and it will kill anything.
Clais Monaige	Posted - 2006.07.14 18:53:00 - [14] I like the idea of a "baby carrier", but don't give em weapon/missile hardpoints, or at least not many (maybe 2-3). They're main purpose would be support through fighters and gang modules. Let em be that what frigs are for cuisers, imho. all in all just a suggestion of course _____________________________ - be excellent to each other -
Pattern Clarc Dark Destiny Inc.	Posted - 2006.07.14 19:15:00 - [15] Originally by: Maya Rkell Corvettes are smaller than frigates. Try "Monitor" for a class name. Or "I win Eve" Because that's what ALL these Warship idea amount to. When BoB brings 100 to a fight, you can't compete with BS, and you have NO way of striking back when your POSyards are wrecked. The ship of the line in Eve MUST remain the battleship. Whats the difference between bob fielding fleets of faction BS's and a more accessible bs which doesn't have bpo's restricted to the complexes bob own?
Cathandra	Posted - 2006.07.14 20:23:00 - [16] Originally by: Pattern Clarc Originally by: Maya Rkell Corvettes are smaller than frigates. Try "Monitor" for a class name. Or "I win Eve" Because that's what ALL these Warship idea amount to. When BoB brings 100 to a fight, you can't compete with BS, and you have NO way of striking back when your POSyards are wrecked. The ship of the line in Eve MUST remain the battleship. Whats the difference between bob fielding fleets of faction BS's and a more accessible bs which doesn't have bpo's restricted to the complexes bob own? The latter is more balanced and probably won't result in a monopoly.
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.14 20:44:00 - [17] Originally by: Noriath There is no need for such a thing as a bomber in Eve, because you can also just shoot down a capital ship with light guns if you have enough of them. Eve has a little problem with fightings capital ships because it completly ignores the fact that there comes a point where smaller weapons aren't effective, no matter how many of them you have. Shooting a real life battleship with 3 million revolvers will never destroy it. In Eve it would though. Because of that there is no need for bombers, just bring more of the same old same old and it will kill anything. Planetside suffered this exact same problem, any weapon could damage anything for the most part. sadly this cant be changed this far into the game's life and is only something that can be in from release or else i breaks many things(imagine the uproar from AF pilots if their guns became usless against Battlecruisers and bigger).
Cathandra	Posted - 2006.07.14 20:47:00 - [18] Edited by: Cathandra on 14/07/2006 20:48:09 How about if small weapons didn't effect titans/carriers/motherships? That wouldn't break anything would it? Oh and replace navigation 5 with destroyers 5
Dutarro Kydance Radiant Industries	Posted - 2006.07.14 22:19:00 - [19] Originally by: Noriath ...Eve has a little problem with fightings capital ships because it completly ignores the fact that there comes a point where smaller weapons aren't effective, no matter how many of them you have. Shooting a real life battleship with 3 million revolvers will never destroy it. In Eve it would though. The Bismarck, a state-of-the-art battleship in World War II, was critically disabled by a single tiny aicraft.
Noriath	Posted - 2006.07.14 23:17:00 - [20] Edited by: Noriath on 14/07/2006 23:22:10 Originally by: Dutarro The Bismarck, a state-of-the-art battleship in World War II, was critically disabled by a single tiny aicraft. A single tiny aircraft that hit the rudder of the ship with a torpedo of which every sinle tiny aircraft only carried one. So that just supports my point, in real life if you atack something with something small you need a special weapon to do it, while in Eve small weapons can kill large things just the same. Plus the hit on the rudder didn't destroy the ship in the least, it just diabled it, it was engaged by two british battleships and sunk after a battle that lastet several hours - plus there is still controvery over wether or not the germans flooded the ship themselved at the end of the battle. Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker Planetside suffered this exact same problem, any weapon could damage anything for the most part. sadly this cant be changed this far into the game's life and is only something that can be in from release or else i breaks many things(imagine the uproar from AF pilots if their guns became usless against Battlecruisers and bigger). I'm not even thinking that assault frigs shouldn't be able to damage battleships, what I'm thinking is that it should take capital ship weapons to destroy capital ships, and the only other way to do it would be acctual bombs, that are launched from ann acctual bomber. That would accurately reflect the reality of armored navel warfare, the only thing that was really threatening to the biggest ships was either another ship just as big, or small , fast torpedoboats and aircraft with bombs.
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.14 23:45:00 - [21] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 14/07/2006 23:45:24 Originally by: Dutarro Originally by: Maya Rkell Corvettes are smaller than frigates. Try "Monitor" for a class name. Or "I win Eve" Because that's what ALL these Warship idea amount to. When BoB brings 100 to a fight, you can't compete with BS, and you have NO way of striking back when your POSyards are wrecked. The ship of the line in Eve MUST remain the battleship. If BoB were to bring 100 Titans to a fight they would surely win as well, but they can't .. and why not? because the construction and skill training requirements for a Titan are enormous. Yes, but titans take MONTHS and tens of billions to make. We're talking a ship which will take no longer than two weeks and 500 mil. There's a big difference of scale. And BoB can allready field 40+ capital fleets. Pattern Clarc, several. For one, the number of faction BS is subject to a fairly low hard cap of 2-3 per week per complex. There would be no such cap on warship production. Second, the advantage of a faction BS is not immense - no more than 10-15% - over a normal BS without very expensive equipment. These Warships would have an advantage in the order of 100%, and more - PLUS the fast movement ability of jump drives. Noriath, and how are capital ships specially resistant to the damage which melts ships a third of their size? The magic capital hull faeries? You're HANDING the game to the people with capital ships. My corp can drop a carrier squad (thanks to our T2 production) on an lowsec Empire alliance's head. They're then basically doomed under your system.
Noriath	Posted - 2006.07.15 00:10:00 - [22] They aren't magically resistant, they are resistant in the same way a .50 FMJ bounces of a battletank without so much as leaving a scratch but a APFSDS round will tear through it like it was paper. You simply cannot expect to shoot armor that's two meters thick with a tiny gun and expect that it just magically falls off if you put enough scratches in the paint. That simply doesn't happen.
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.15 00:19:00 - [23] Except the difference in the specific energy of rounds is much MUCH greater than the graduations of power in Eve weaponry. It is absolutely and totally unbelieveable that a weapon which can tear apart a 1km long BS cannot tear apart a 2km long carrier which simply cannot have that much more armour on any given spot. Moreover, you haven't answered the gameplay argument, which is even more compelling. Gameplay >>>> Realism. You can't even consistantly argue for this without arguing that small weapons shouldn't do signficant damage to cruisers too of as well...
Noriath	Posted - 2006.07.15 01:11:00 - [24] Edited by: Noriath on 15/07/2006 01:10:54 I agree, the argument is not perfect, if you say a normal weapon cannot damage a capital ship at all there will always be the question of why it can damage a multi-plated battleship. However, capital ships should become focal points in battles, and small ships carrying bomb-type weapons should play a bigger role in Eve, because of that it would still overall add more depth to the game if you had to destroy capital ships with special kinds of weapons. Maybe you could disable them so they cannot function at all with normal weapons, but in order to acctually destroy them you'd have to drop a number of bombs on them, or pound them with X-large guns. Like you could still damage them severely with normal weapons, but they would become disabled and drift instead of instantly blowing up unless you bring some capital-busters. That would make the game more interesting because it would add a lost more meaning to the picket fleet...
Azulya	Posted - 2006.07.15 01:14:00 - [25] Edited by: Azulya on 15/07/2006 01:14:43 Originally by: Maya Rkell It is absolutely and totally unbelieveable that a weapon which can tear apart a 1km long BS cannot tear apart a 2km long carrier which simply cannot have that much more armour on any given spot. It is also unbelievable that a ship can regen it's shields while everyone on it is ASLEEP, faster then 5 weapons shooting at it can damage is, will be destroyed just because weapons of those vessels shoot at it. The way it is now, quantity>quality. That should be remedied. Something that can kill a battleship SHOULD be able to kill a capital ship also, but it would be a lot harder. But something designed for killing small frigates and fighters, such as a small blaster, shouldn't be able to do anything to a capital ship, even if wielded in large numbers.
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.15 01:22:00 - [26] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 15/07/2006 01:23:20 Noriath, The problem is that then you have a vast gap, which quite nicely inhibits a LOT of corps from competing in effective PvP. Morover, capitals are hjust not that physically bigger. It's a bluntly absurd suggestion as things stand. "ships carrying bomb-type weapons should play a bigger role in Eve" No, they should not. This is PURE gank-based gameplay. This is precisely what the problem that BS supremacists currently think Interceptors are. This is what their arguments are actually good against. There is nothing so broken with gameplay that we need to make it into a simplistic R/P/S cycle, which is what you are asking for. Ship type is not a definition, it is a base to which player and character skills are applied to. There are a range of ships, from small to large, all with differing roles, and they are linked in a natural framework. R/P/S breaks that and makes it a simple numbers game of who brought the right sort of ship, and stuff the rest. That is not depth, that is shallowness. That is why Starcraft has timed builds as its only true strategies and artificial battles which are decided before the engagement begins, and Total Annihilation has sprawling maps with hundreds of units, interacting with each in different ways, with physics models rather than arbitrary rules telling fire where to go, as aircraft scream overhead and battles can take hours. And no, "picket fleet" is another way to say "defeat in detail", no more. Regardless of which of us is right on anything ekse. Azulya, then that has to apply to ALL weapons. And every suggestion of that nature sums up to "smaller ships are obselete". Capitals plain ned more hit points. No special magic reistance fields.
Cathandra	Posted - 2006.07.15 01:35:00 - [27] Edited by: Cathandra on 15/07/2006 01:35:42 What's so magical about small peashooters not being able to blow up the strongest tanks in the universe?
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.15 01:42:00 - [28] Because you want to make it so that is the ONLY limit. No, it has to be scaled through ALL ships, for all weapons. And there has not been a SINGLE workable proposition for that yet.
Noriath	Posted - 2006.07.15 01:45:00 - [29] The reason why we need some things that are plain and simply immune to certain kinds of weapons is because even if a certain kind of weapon isn't very effective against a certain target in small numbers, in large numbers any weapon in Eve can still own any target. That is broken with the game, because all balance that applies to ship vs. ship combat goes out the window as soon as two large fleets clash. I mean when you're talking about RTS games you have to realize the critical flaw that they notoriously have, if you just mass the same kind of standart idiotic unit you can overrun anything, because balancing that says: "This weapon only does very little damage to this kind of target" doesn't work when a hundret of those weapons are doing a little bit of damage to one single target and still instantly kill it. The same issue applies to Eve, and it can't be fixed without saying "This type of weapon doesn't do any damage to this kind of target" in some instances.
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.15 01:52:00 - [30] No, that is the strenght of the game. That it dosn't have the magic faeries which force R/P/S fighting, where the ship you have - rather than any elements of player skill determine a battle. And that's not a FLAW in those games. It's a feature. You have a choice, you can attack en-mass or tech up. Now, there are allways build limits which limit to this one extent or another (even if only an overall unit cap). In Eve, there is a lower limit set by the availiability of HUMANS, which is an entirely shorter resource. This ISN'T an issue, it is in self-limiting because of the problems of organising larger masses of people, and to break the game utterly and totally by introducing magic faerie fields selectively to fill peoples agendas is fixing something which was never broken, locking anything which might bother the existing powers from competing.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.