Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ithildin
Gallente The Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.10.14 12:16:00 -
[1]
Disclaimer Don't take this thread too seriously. It's a thought-forge about Compound Ships, what can be expanded with them, and so on. It's not a discussion about the current stats. If you like it, my ideas, or have your own - great! If the devs like reading it - even better! Am I asking for their comments? No. Am I asking for this to be implemented as if I knew better? No. I'm just playing.
The difference between a Compound Ship and a normal ship A Compund ship is significantly larger than a normal ship. So large, in fact that it has to be constructed in steps because the assembly equipment cannot forge and place all the equipment on the fly as they do with Battleships and smaller.
The difference between an advanced starship and a Capital ship These two types of starships are both Compound ships, but there are some significant differences. A Capital ship is, for one, even larger than a normal compound ship. In fact, a Capital ship is so large that it cannot use a stargate and needs be fitted with the expensive and bulky Jump Drives available to the empires.
Compound ship type list These are the Compound ships I wish to discuss in this post.
Advanced Starships FreighterAdvanced Battleship?
Capital Ships DreadnoughtCarrierMothershipTitan
Advanced Starships The Advanced Starship category is rather meagre. It currently consists of a single industrial class ships in the Freighter. These Freighters perform admirably what they are intended to do, so further messing about with them is not really needed. Nor are Freighters very exciting, to be honest. But what about Advanced Battleships for lack of better name?
Concept: Heavy fleet combat ship Can use Jump Drive: No. Can use Fighters: No. Can use Siege Mode: No. Typical speed: 80 to 120 m/s Typical agility: 20u (Compare Apocalypse 16.7u) Bonuses Static bonuses: None Amarr: -10% Capacitor use, +5% Laser damage Caldari: -5% Citadel rate of fire, +10% Citadel velocity Gallente: +5% Hybrid damage, +30% Drone damage and hit points Minmatar: -7.5% Projectile rate of fire, +5% damage Slot layouts Amarr: 7 high (7 turrets), 4 mid, 8 low, 150m¦ drones Caldari: 7 high (7 launchers), 7 mid, 5 low, 200m¦ drones Gallente: 7 high (6 turrets), 5 mid, 7 low, 700m¦ drones Minmatar: 8 high (8 turrets), 6 mid, 6 low, 250m¦ drones Note on total damage (long range, before gunnery skills) Amarr: 3.89 modifier per second Caldari: 3.64 weighted modifier per second Gallente: 2.87 modifier per second + 2.7 weighted modifier from Ogre IIs Minmatar: 3.72 modifier per second 5 Ogre IIs: 1.2 weighted modifier per second Avarage dps: 470 damage per second before damage modules and gunnery skills (Weighted modifier is comparable damage modifier per second to an XLarge turret. A heavy drone's weighted modifier is 4 times smaller than it's actual damage modifier, for instance.)
More to come: Separating Carriers and Motherships Bringing Carriers into the battle Why is it so thin? - Three years old |
Ithildin
Gallente The Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.10.14 12:17:00 -
[2]
I'm typing. Ok? - Three years old |
Deathbarrage
|
Posted - 2006.10.14 12:22:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Ithildin Disclaimer Don't take this thread too seriously. It's a thought-forge about Compound Ships, what can be expanded with them, and so on. It's not a discussion about the current stats. If you like it, my ideas, or have your own - great! If the devs like reading it - even better! Am I asking for their comments? No. Am I asking for this to be implemented as if I knew better? No. I'm just playing.
The difference between a Compound Ship and a normal ship A Compund ship is significantly larger than a normal ship. So large, in fact that it has to be constructed in steps because the assembly equipment cannot forge and place all the equipment on the fly as they do with Battleships and smaller.
The difference between an advanced starship and a Capital ship These two types of starships are both Compound ships, but there are some significant differences. A Capital ship is, for one, even larger than a normal compound ship. In fact, a Capital ship is so large that it cannot use a stargate and needs be fitted with the expensive and bulky Jump Drives available to the empires.
Compound ship type list These are the Compound ships I wish to discuss in this post.
Advanced Starships FreighterAdvanced Battleship?
Capital Ships DreadnoughtCarrierMothershipTitan
Advanced Starships The Advanced Starship category is rather meagre. It currently consists of a single industrial class ships in the Freighter. These Freighters perform admirably what they are intended to do, so further messing about with them is not really needed. Nor are Freighters very exciting, to be honest. But what about Advanced Battleships for lack of better name?
Concept: Heavy fleet combat ship Can use Jump Drive: No. Can use Fighters: No. Can use Siege Mode: No. Typical speed: 80 to 120 m/s Typical agility: 20u (Compare Apocalypse 16.7u) Bonuses Static bonuses: None Amarr: -10% Capacitor use, +5% Laser damage Caldari: -5% Citadel rate of fire, +10% Citadel velocity Gallente: +5% Hybrid damage, +30% Drone damage and hit points Minmatar: -7.5% Projectile rate of fire, +5% damage Slot layouts Amarr: 7 high (7 turrets), 4 mid, 8 low, 150m¦ drones Caldari: 7 high (7 launchers), 7 mid, 5 low, 200m¦ drones Gallente: 7 high (6 turrets), 5 mid, 7 low, 700m¦ drones Minmatar: 8 high (8 turrets), 6 mid, 6 low, 250m¦ drones Note on total damage (long range, before gunnery skills) Amarr: 3.89 modifier per second Caldari: 3.64 weighted modifier per second Gallente: 2.87 modifier per second + 2.7 weighted modifier from Ogre IIs Minmatar: 3.72 modifier per second 5 Ogre IIs: 1.2 weighted modifier per second Avarage dps: 470 damage per second before damage modules and gunnery skills (Weighted modifier is comparable damage modifier per second to an XLarge turret. A heavy drone's weighted modifier is 4 times smaller than it's actual damage modifier, for instance.)
More to come: Separating Carriers and Motherships Bringing Carriers into the battle Why is it so thin?
minmatar is already overpowered on the scetch table, sleipnir style
|
McTaggart
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.10.14 13:35:00 -
[4]
Edited by: McTaggart on 14/10/2006 13:40:16 Way to quote the entire first post and then not refer to it at all. It's already on the page dude.
I really like the idea of bringing carriers into combat. Although I would rather see them in a support role than another damaging one. Short range gang bonuses and remote repair, boosting and cap (although in a way that makes them actually usefull, maybe boost target ship's resist or a smaller effect but greatly reduced cycle time) are more what I'd like to see in the highs. Maybe make the skill bonuses static gang bonuses that only effect ships that are within 200km or so.
|
Foulis
Minmatar Chosen Path Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.14 14:20:00 -
[5]
I like the idea of giving carriers guns (as long as they still have fighters). Either that or give them a nos bonus + capital nos. I have seen the use of carriers as anti-capital nos boats. They are used to react quickly to capital ships jumping in and can be very effective.
I'm still of the opinion all capital ships need a large (static) health increase. Not to improve the amount of DPS they can tank but just how long they can last. ----
Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari NO WORDS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARE SPELLED WITH THE NUMBER "8" IN THEM GODDAMNIT!
|
Ithildin
Gallente The Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.10.14 21:10:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Foulis I like the idea of giving carriers guns (as long as they still have fighters). Either that or give them a nos bonus + capital nos. I have seen the use of carriers as anti-capital nos boats. They are used to react quickly to capital ships jumping in and can be very effective.
The thing is that a nosferatu bonus is only good under the current build, where nosferatus are more or less obviously too effective. Additionally, it is a very Amarrian weapon with no real reason for the other races to build such ships. It does add another dimension is one would separate the ships in that the Amarrian Carriers were energy drainers, Gallente were fighter specialists, Caldari... well there my imagination runs out, but you get the point. EWar? I tend to favour the gun-approach mostly because I find it odd that Carriers do not have their own defences (for obvious reasons they would) and that the capital turrets are under-used due to the Dreadnoughts' very limited siege role.
Quote: I'm still of the opinion all capital ships need a large (static) health increase. Not to improve the amount of DPS they can tank but just how long they can last.
Indeed. I just updated the second post with some thoughts about this. I do not think that Dreads and Carriers should get a hit points boost, as detailed, however. - Three years old |
El Yatta
Caldari Mercenary Forces
|
Posted - 2006.10.14 21:34:00 -
[7]
To be honest Ithildin, while I appreciate the effort put in here, I couldnt disagree more.
I think carriers with capital guns, especially more pure hardpoints than dreads, disagrees totally with their style at the moment, of giant logistics/fighter machines, as well as looking stupid on the ship models. I do agree they need to be brought to the frontlines, and i think the way to do this is massive HP upgrade for all capitals (of the order of 3x for carriers, 4x for dreads, and 10-20x for moms/titans) as well as a huge boost to capital logistics - e.g. 1s cycle time, cap and HP amount scaled to fit, except that there would be double the current HP/cap ratio. This would get carriers more in the field, although clearly not for pure BS sniper slugfests that some might favour.
For those I would suggest the creation of AOE logistics, e.g. spheres that act as a global hardener, for mom's/titans only, e.g. -20% exp damage over 20km radius. I personally think a total Titan revamp with no turrets, and more logistics modules (e.g. a POS-style forcefield, AOE repairing, etc, would be great.
I dont know for sure about your XL-gun fitting advanced BS for fleet battles, personally I reckon a 2nd tier dreadnaught with no seige mode, 6-7 XL weapons and HP/resist and tracking bonuses would be best, as I reckon capital weapons should be kept on jumpdrive platforms, and size-appropriate ships. However, your idea of getting these heavy-hitters into fleet combat is very good, so its more a personal preference that they be a kind of capital than a BS/gate-user.
These ideas aren't as considered as yours, but I do think they are more in the right direction than putting guns on carriers, which doesnt 'ring' right to me.
---||---
|
Ithildin
Gallente The Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.10.14 22:01:00 -
[8]
I believe that the current fear of using carriers in close combat with relation to the theorized hit point and tanking fixes are just that - pure and simple fear. However, those who actually do the calculated reasoning on where a Carrier is best used will realize that putting a Carrier in close combat merits very little gain, but at the same time puts a billion or more in ship and modules at risk.
The extra punch-power of setting a Carrier into the line of fire will not be improved the slightest by giving them longer survivability or stronger tanks (their tanks are plenty strong and sustainable as it is, thank you very much). Right now they quite simply lack punch. A Nos-Dom is a more mobile and versetile replacement for a Carrier on the frontline - the Nos amount is near the same and all it requires is another pilot without much ISK investment. The Fighters themselves represent around 1,000 dps, and can be utilized whether safe away from combat or in middle of the battle.
Another option is even more simple. Increase fighter MWD speed and agility. Remove their warp-drive function. Suddenly Carriers must be used in close combat and many of their pains/bugs are removed. Perhaps it'd remove some of their current underlying intended use. - Three years old |
El Yatta
Caldari Mercenary Forces
|
Posted - 2006.10.14 23:17:00 -
[9]
Hmm, I can see where you are coming from there, Ithil, but I still dont like the idea of cramming another ship (a viable anti-BS XL turret ship) into the carrier to provide that punch. Perhaps a better idea is to combine improvements to capital logistics, and some HP upgrade, with better SITUATIONAL fighter DPS.
- Increase base DPS by 25%/50%/100% (Or even make Drone Interfacing bonus apply to them) - +5% to racial fighter damage when fighters are NOT assigned. - Introduce Fighter Bombers, cannot be assigned, fire torps, do roughly 175-200 DPS each.
This would increase their punch, and would allow you to choose between great anti-BS damage in the field, or good cruisers-and-up damage assignable anywhere.
I'm just chucking ideas out here, and havent really been considering this to the lengths you have, but I stand by the idea that putting XL guns on carriers would look ugly, detract from their originality, make them harder to balance as well as clumsy, increase their skill demands, and generally cram a DIFFERENT ship (an XL gun fleet ship) into the carrier.
---||---
|
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2006.10.14 23:35:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Ithildin I believe that the current fear of using carriers in close combat with relation to the theorized hit point and tanking fixes are just that - pure and simple fear. However, those who actually do the calculated reasoning on where a Carrier is best used will realize that putting a Carrier in close combat merits very little gain, but at the same time puts a billion or more in ship and modules at risk.
The extra punch-power of setting a Carrier into the line of fire will not be improved the slightest by giving them longer survivability or stronger tanks (their tanks are plenty strong and sustainable as it is, thank you very much). Right now they quite simply lack punch. A Nos-Dom is a more mobile and versetile replacement for a Carrier on the frontline - the Nos amount is near the same and all it requires is another pilot without much ISK investment. The Fighters themselves represent around 1,000 dps, and can be utilized whether safe away from combat or in middle of the battle.
Another option is even more simple. Increase fighter MWD speed and agility. Remove their warp-drive function. Suddenly Carriers must be used in close combat and many of their pains/bugs are removed. Perhaps it'd remove some of their current underlying intended use.
I would prefer improving the supporting side of a carrier's current role. Something like automated remote armor repairers/remote shield boosters(shouldn't be called transfers)/remote cap transfers. Simply a system that can automatically provide logistics boost to any friendly in range. Or perhaps some other special carrier unique... At least something that requires you to be present on the field to use.
Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug... oh well Rabble rabble ra...(meh) |
|
Lisento Slaven
Amarr The Drekla Consortium New Eve Order
|
Posted - 2006.10.15 01:10:00 -
[11]
In regards to the first part about advanced starships - I would prefer to see another starship type yeah. I'm not sure about another ganking type of ship but I like more ships.
I would prefer a more specialized ship that gets a unique module...more of a support role. This game is missing support ships big time as everything is involved in dealing a lot of damage usually.
As for carriers I don't think EVE will ever be fixed to a point where they can be used effectively other than "assign drones to X...then stay at safe spot for rest of eternity." In order for carriers to be useful you need to be able to have control over your drones from wherever you are in the game. Not hand over control to someone else.
I don't know...guns on them would be ok. Would allow the carriers to defend themselves. ---
Lisento Slaven wants to be a Space Whaler in EVE.
Put in space whales!
|
Aloysius Knight
Minmatar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.10.15 01:22:00 -
[12]
cap ships need at lest a 400% hp boost, not so they can tank uber, but just last longer to be though enuff to take onto a battlefeild as they are too slow and unagil to be warping in and out of a battlefield, they would pretty much be there to win or die
|
LaCoHa
Caldari Deep Space Navy Caldari Deep Space Industral
|
Posted - 2006.10.16 13:22:00 -
[13]
Gallente: +5% Hybrid damage, +30% Drone damage and hit points
YEs, Oh yes.
|
Ithildin
Gallente The Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.10.16 13:29:00 -
[14]
Originally by: LaCoHa Gallente: +5% Hybrid damage, +30% Drone damage and hit points
YEs, Oh yes.
Well, it's less awesome than you think on such a big slow ship. ;) - Three years old |
LaCoHa
Caldari Deep Space Navy Caldari Deep Space Industral
|
Posted - 2006.10.16 13:45:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Ithildin [Well, it's less awesome than you think on such a big slow ship. ;)
I dont know. My domi NEVER moves, and its basically just a less potent version of this dream vessel.
|
Velsharoon
Gallente Corsets and Carebears Whips and Chains
|
Posted - 2006.10.16 13:53:00 -
[16]
If these changes were made would people actually use them in close combat? IMHO no
Atm my carriers useful for logistics and defence, the extreme cost prohibits any other use.
|
Xandria Pearl
KIA Corp
|
Posted - 2006.10.16 13:57:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Aloysius Knight cap ships need at lest a 400% hp boost, not so they can tank uber, but just last longer to be though enuff to take onto a battlefeild as they are too slow and unagil to be warping in and out of a battlefield, they would pretty much be there to win or die
Yes indeed.... and all this assigning fighters from inside a POS bubble should go.
|
Xandria Pearl
KIA Corp
|
Posted - 2006.10.16 14:04:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Xandria Pearl on 16/10/2006 14:04:23
Originally by: LaCoHa Gallente: +5% Hybrid damage, +30% Drone damage and hit points
YEs, Oh yes.
The XL guns damage out of siege mode is pitiful so that wouldn't help at all.
Now if they increased the base gun damage x2-3 times (and decreased the siege mode dmg bonus accordingly to compensate for dreads) and they introduced a mini siege mode built-in to carriers/motherships/titans (like just the repair ammount or just the duration reduction bonus)..... then we'll be seeing much much more of those ships in the frontlines.
|
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari Worms Corp
|
Posted - 2006.10.16 14:04:00 -
[19]
id like to see other ships able to "dock" onto the sides of a freighter and unload their cargo much how things are done in real harbors if a ship is too large to dock. for example if you bring a freighter of fuel to a POS, industrials could then unload the freighter like tenders that shuttle people to and from cruise ships IRL. when mining indys could shuttle ore from the jetcans to the freighter.
|
Ithildin
Gallente The Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.10.16 14:10:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Velsharoon If these changes were made would people actually use them in close combat? IMHO no
Atm my carriers useful for logistics and defence, the extreme cost prohibits any other use.
I know for a fact that I would. That in itself means that more people would, maybe not everyone, but it is a good start.
That said, it's not the perfect solution, so if you've got your own idea on how to get Carriers into combat, please share. - What am I listening to? |
|
Flitz Farseeker
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.10.16 15:28:00 -
[21]
If you really want to put guns on carriers, then taking inspiration from naval carriers, they should only be able to mount small guns that would only really be useful as a defence against drones / frigates.
Keep the big guns for battleships / dreads / titans.
|
Le Donkey
|
Posted - 2006.10.16 15:41:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Flitz Farseeker If you really want to put guns on carriers, then taking inspiration from naval carriers, they should only be able to mount small guns that would only really be useful as a defence against drones / frigates.
Don't get too much into comparing Eve with RL.... next thing I'll be jumping to ask for ICBM's... naval carriers have those right?
|
Ithildin
Gallente The Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.10.16 21:12:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Le Donkey
Originally by: Flitz Farseeker If you really want to put guns on carriers, then taking inspiration from naval carriers, they should only be able to mount small guns that would only really be useful as a defence against drones / frigates.
Don't get too much into comparing Eve with RL.... next thing I'll be jumping to ask for ICBM's... naval carriers have those right?
Not to mention that in real life, all vessels and combat groups carry mixed weapons for versatility. In EVE, versatility kills dps, in real life you only need one shot to succede. - What am I listening to? |
chaos98
|
Posted - 2006.10.16 21:18:00 -
[24]
first, i think it's the amarr carrier that should get the tanking bonus. second, carriers should not be able to use normal xl size guns. They should instead have a special module that acts more like an array of smaller guns. Notice, most carriers dont have battleship size guns on them (real life here) but instead have some smaller guns maybe, or an anti missle system, something like that would be better. Then, to fulfill the role of a carrier as a logistics ship as well, it should have a built in armor or shield regenerator depending on race.
|
Osmodious
CRICE Corporation Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.16 21:40:00 -
[25]
I like the idea of smaller guns on the carrier. Its a fighter-launcher not a damage dealer. Perhaps restrict it to only medium weapons with a tracking bonus/rof. A carrier with 6x medium autocannons/blasters/lasers would be a frigates/cruisers worst nightmare, would enable it to stay in the field longer knowing it can deal with the light tacklers. Just a thought.
|
aeti
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.10.16 21:48:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Ithildin the minority of Carriers which does not get bonuses to Fighters (namely Caldari, Amarr, and Minmatar...)?
that made me laugh :p
|
Wrath Trihellion
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 19:24:00 -
[27]
I think that the idea of removing the warp function of fighters while increasing their speed and agility (something on the order of 10k a sec?) would be the perfect solution to the problem of carriers sitting in pos, while assigning fighters.
With this sort of fix we would see carriers in combat, albeit probably 2-300km out from the fleet.
So to account for this we need to give the carrier either a lock range of 300km or something to target his fighters at that range. Fighters could still be assigned to someone else, but this would only be someone with in mwd range of the fighters....call it 400km. We now have a capital ship that fits the historical model for such a vessel. It sits outside the engagement zone (but not in a pos) and provides firepower and support.
The fighters should have their sig radius reduced to compensate for the fact that they now have to fly 300km to the target, and they should have their damage increased geometrically to make up for the risk of using the carrier in harms way.
Whad'ya think?
|
hitech redneck
Digital Mind Crimes
|
Posted - 2006.10.18 01:37:00 -
[28]
Carriers through out history are not frontline combat ships. Thier man power comes from thier fighters/bombers. If you want to be a frontline combat pilot don't fly the carrier. Some people like to be the behind the line support personal.
|
Randay
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.10.18 02:24:00 -
[29]
These are some decent ideas, nothing too crazy, and for that fact they are definitely doable, except for the capital guns/launchers. Just change that to battleship sized instead. I hope Tux reads this post and gets some ideas from it. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Originally by: Reddari
Now just be nice before I start to make life for the BOB devs (yes you have some) harder by exposing their player characters.
|
Yazoul Samaiel
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.10.18 04:40:00 -
[30]
Dunno why i see that the heavy fleet class will over set the blance of BS towards its favour and BS will become more underpowered if that class actualy gets created , also point is if cap ships etc are boosted i agree with velsh ppl will not take em to close combat and prob will try tuning them to solopwn mobiels but i could be seeign this differently after all. "There is no such thing as innocence , only different degrees of guilt"
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |