EVE Search - [IDEA] Juggernauts

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

[IDEA] Juggernauts

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Thor Xian Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.02.26 03:30:00 - [61] Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 26/02/2007 00:56:37 Originally by: Thor Xian Originally by: Evelgrivion Thor, you don't seem to be getting my point. Forget mechanical explanations, and I'll sum it up. Its too expensive and simultaneously too powerful for the way the game is played at this time. This is akin to adding a Tech II battleship; game breaking. It becomes the new "must have" item, but without the same monopoly on the product. It just doesn't work because it makes the game less fun because they're too important to your survival. Thats why it does not work! I disagree, it merely adds more options. Carriers and Dreads would still output more DPS. More options would be nice, I don't want to have to build a Ragnarok to have a Capital Autoboat. When are you going to realize that displacing the battleship as the premier fleet assault vessel is a fundamentally bad idea? When are you going to realize it doesn't matter? Whether its t2 BS that dont suck or Juggernauts, the T1 BS Blob will be obsolete eventually and frankly that is a good thing, all numbers do is kill nodes. Juggs give fleets a shot at being effective without needing massive blobs. _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Material Defender Got Corp?
Evelgrivion Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.02.26 03:42:00 - [62] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 26/02/2007 03:42:24 Originally by: Thor Xian Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 26/02/2007 00:56:37 Originally by: Thor Xian Originally by: Evelgrivion Thor, you don't seem to be getting my point. Forget mechanical explanations, and I'll sum it up. Its too expensive and simultaneously too powerful for the way the game is played at this time. This is akin to adding a Tech II battleship; game breaking. It becomes the new "must have" item, but without the same monopoly on the product. It just doesn't work because it makes the game less fun because they're too important to your survival. Thats why it does not work! I disagree, it merely adds more options. Carriers and Dreads would still output more DPS. More options would be nice, I don't want to have to build a Ragnarok to have a Capital Autoboat. When are you going to realize that displacing the battleship as the premier fleet assault vessel is a fundamentally bad idea? When are you going to realize it doesn't matter? Whether its t2 BS that dont suck or Juggernauts, the T1 BS Blob will be obsolete eventually and frankly that is a good thing, all numbers do is kill nodes. Juggs give fleets a shot at being effective without needing massive blobs. But it does matter! Introducing a bigger ship will do nothing to alleviate massive blobs. Sure, a smaller group may get these bigger, badder ships before the larger alliances (though doubtful), but in time, it will be the ship that everyone flies because nothing else is adequate. Expense has never been a wall to the acquisition of firepower for the more powerful industrial powers, as demonstrated by the number of Titans we're starting to see fielded. It may take awhile, but the numbers of these ships will increase as they become necessary to keep their POS killing ships intact. Your logic of a bigger ship making the Blob obsolete is horribly, horribly flawed. FYI: At one point, everyone flew cruisers. Battleships were incredibly rare, as inflation was low, the number of players was low, and battles were smaller. As more and more people got into battleships, the fights got bigger and bigger (as well as the population). Ultimately it has come down to "Who has the most, best fitted ships?" (discounting doomsday.) Your idea does not challenge the status quo, and ultimately nothing about current combat styles will change, and your idea of salvation through having a bigger ship than your enemy does will fail miserably - because the bigger players can get them at the same time, and will field more of them to boot. ---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|--- This isn't the signature you're looking for.
Thor Xian Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.02.26 06:55:00 - [63] Reduce grid by 65%, that should solve your fleet pyramid scheme problem. _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Material Defender Got Corp?
Evelgrivion Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.02.26 08:30:00 - [64] Originally by: Thor Xian Reduce grid by 65%, that should solve your fleet pyramid scheme problem. 65% from what base? You never gave statistical data to base these ships on; there is a whole lot of critically important information beyond the slot count and weapon mounts. ---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|--- This isn't the signature you're looking for.
ITTigerClawIK Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2007.02.26 10:15:00 - [65] even if these were implimented to the game... Battleships would still be the main ship of any sizeable fleet jugernoughts would basicly be the cherry on top ^_^ Sig (partially) nerfed. Only one image allowed, and that one image has to be under 400x120, and below 24,000 bytes. -Conuion Meow ([email protected])
Evelgrivion Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.02.26 10:45:00 - [66] Originally by: ITTigerClawIK even if these were implimented to the game... Battleships would still be the main ship of any sizeable fleet jugernoughts would basicly be the cherry on top ^_^ ISK and material is no wall to the acquisition of ships en-masse if they will give you the edge - and neither is training time. The battleship would quickly be rendered obsolete. ---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|--- This isn't the signature you're looking for.
Thor Xian Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.02.26 17:26:00 - [67] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Thor Xian Reduce grid by 65%, that should solve your fleet pyramid scheme problem. 65% from what base? You never gave statistical data to base these ships on; there is a whole lot of critically important information beyond the slot count and weapon mounts. You are arguing with me about these things and you haven't even read the whole thread? _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Material Defender Got Corp?
Thor Xian Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.02.26 17:27:00 - [68] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: ITTigerClawIK even if these were implimented to the game... Battleships would still be the main ship of any sizeable fleet jugernoughts would basicly be the cherry on top ^_^ ISK and material is no wall to the acquisition of ships en-masse if they will give you the edge - and neither is training time. The battleship would quickly be rendered obsolete. Depletable resources would make this less of a problem. _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Material Defender Got Corp?
Selak Zorander	Posted - 2007.02.26 18:23:00 - [69] As a potential change to the proposed idea that would fix some of the issues brought up. give them all 4 weapon type bonuses. the first two being the same ones the racial dreadnaught gets. The other two bonus would have the same affect for all ships. that being -10% sig resolution(explosion radius for caldari) and +10% tracking(explosion velocity for caldari) per dreadnaught level. that would mean that at dreadnaught lvl 5, the weapons would be just worse than their large counterparts. By that i mean that for instance the quad 3600mm artillery still has worse tracking that the base tracking for a 1400mm, and it has a sig rosolution larger than the large weapons. Number for above example: quad 3600mm siege artillery on said fictional juggernaught with drad lvl 5: tracking - 0.0084375 rad/sec sig resolution - 500m 1400mm howitzer artillery tracking - 0.009 rad/sec sig resolution - 400m numbers for caldari: citadel torp from juggernaught with lvl 5 dread skill explosion velocity - 187.5 m/s explosion radius - 500m normal torpedo explosion velocity - 250 m/s explosion radius - 400m of course then if you think the potential damage is too high from one juggernaught, limit it to 6 highs for weapons. Though with no tanking bonus these would not be any more effective at tanking than a gallante or minmatar carrier would be (since they dont get a resistance bonus). Then you just have to balance out the cost, though if you make it more expensive than say a dreadnaught, there may not be any particular need to use the ship. the added hitpoints would also make then viable for small POS operations and potential as anti-capital defenders for your POS that is being attacked by hostiles.
Evelgrivion Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.02.26 19:54:00 - [70] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 26/02/2007 19:53:30 Originally by: Thor Xian Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Thor Xian Reduce grid by 65%, that should solve your fleet pyramid scheme problem. 65% from what base? You never gave statistical data to base these ships on; there is a whole lot of critically important information beyond the slot count and weapon mounts. You are arguing with me about these things and you haven't even read the whole thread? I apologize, I missed that post. The point is though, this ship cannot be a battleship rape-mobile; it wouldn't work. The weapons bonuses, the quantities of weapons, and the fitting possibilities you are leaving renders a battleship worthless in battle as soon as these ships are brought into play. This is not a fun addition to the game. If you want a fun addition, limit its killing capacity more to the capital class range. If it needs to be able to kill battleships, leave it vulnerable to anything smaller, with small drone bays or other such limitations. Give it a long lock time, limit the ship to 6 guns - and most importantly, don't let them use citadel torpedoes. An explosion radius bonus would only exacerbate what I don't want to see. That, in a nutshell is what I envision for a juggernaut. That, and thin armor/shields. Resistances are worth more than a raw hit point shield. If it is impossible to eliminate their sheer battleship killing capacity, leave them vulnerable to massed fire/smaller vessels. ---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|--- This isn't the signature you're looking for.
Thor Xian Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.02.27 01:10:00 - [71] Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 26/02/2007 19:53:30 Originally by: Thor Xian Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Thor Xian Reduce grid by 65%, that should solve your fleet pyramid scheme problem. 65% from what base? You never gave statistical data to base these ships on; there is a whole lot of critically important information beyond the slot count and weapon mounts. You are arguing with me about these things and you haven't even read the whole thread? I apologize, I missed that post. The point is though, this ship cannot be a battleship rape-mobile; it wouldn't work. The weapons bonuses, the quantities of weapons, and the fitting possibilities you are leaving renders a battleship worthless in battle as soon as these ships are brought into play. This is not a fun addition to the game. If you want a fun addition, limit its killing capacity more to the capital class range. If it needs to be able to kill battleships, leave it vulnerable to anything smaller, with small drone bays or other such limitations. Give it a long lock time, limit the ship to 6 guns - and most importantly, don't let them use citadel torpedoes. An explosion radius bonus would only exacerbate what I don't want to see. That, in a nutshell is what I envision for a juggernaut. That, and thin armor/shields. Resistances are worth more than a raw hit point shield. If it is impossible to eliminate their sheer battleship killing capacity, leave them vulnerable to massed fire/smaller vessels. They already are relatively bad tankers compared to comparable Capitals with zero tanking bonuses. And since they are not immune to EW, they are far more vulnerable than a Titan or Mothership. So the firepower and versatility comes at a high price, they would be monsters in almost any fight, but then costing as much as they will cost, they should be. As for Citadels...Citadels dont do much to BSes as it is. They are Capital Weapons after all. The drones would be the Jugg's only defense versus smaller ships that are prepared to attack it (other than a support fleet that is). Somehow I doubt the dronebay will stop a determined enemy, so removing it seems like an unnecessary nerf. _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Material Defender Got Corp?
Thor Xian Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.02.27 01:13:00 - [72] Originally by: Selak Zorander As a potential change to the proposed idea that would fix some of the issues brought up. give them all 4 weapon type bonuses. the first two being the same ones the racial dreadnaught gets. The other two bonus would have the same affect for all ships. that being -10% sig resolution(explosion radius for caldari) and +10% tracking(explosion velocity for caldari) per dreadnaught level. that would mean that at dreadnaught lvl 5, the weapons would be just worse than their large counterparts. By that i mean that for instance the quad 3600mm artillery still has worse tracking that the base tracking for a 1400mm, and it has a sig rosolution larger than the large weapons. Number for above example: quad 3600mm siege artillery on said fictional juggernaught with drad lvl 5: tracking - 0.0084375 rad/sec sig resolution - 500m 1400mm howitzer artillery tracking - 0.009 rad/sec sig resolution - 400m numbers for caldari: citadel torp from juggernaught with lvl 5 dread skill explosion velocity - 187.5 m/s explosion radius - 500m normal torpedo explosion velocity - 250 m/s explosion radius - 400m of course then if you think the potential damage is too high from one juggernaught, limit it to 6 highs for weapons. Though with no tanking bonus these would not be any more effective at tanking than a gallante or minmatar carrier would be (since they dont get a resistance bonus). Then you just have to balance out the cost, though if you make it more expensive than say a dreadnaught, there may not be any particular need to use the ship. the added hitpoints would also make then viable for small POS operations and potential as anti-capital defenders for your POS that is being attacked by hostiles. I don't think that is necessary, Juggs will be deadly enough to smaller ships as it is. _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Material Defender Got Corp?
Evelgrivion Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.02.27 01:54:00 - [73] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 27/02/2007 01:52:38 Edited by: Evelgrivion on 27/02/2007 01:51:23 Originally by: Thor Xian Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 26/02/2007 19:53:30 Originally by: Thor Xian Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Thor Xian Reduce grid by 65%, that should solve your fleet pyramid scheme problem. 65% from what base? You never gave statistical data to base these ships on; there is a whole lot of critically important information beyond the slot count and weapon mounts. You are arguing with me about these things and you haven't even read the whole thread? I apologize, I missed that post. The point is though, this ship cannot be a battleship rape-mobile; it wouldn't work. The weapons bonuses, the quantities of weapons, and the fitting possibilities you are leaving renders a battleship worthless in battle as soon as these ships are brought into play. This is not a fun addition to the game. If you want a fun addition, limit its killing capacity more to the capital class range. If it needs to be able to kill battleships, leave it vulnerable to anything smaller, with small drone bays or other such limitations. Give it a long lock time, limit the ship to 6 guns - and most importantly, don't let them use citadel torpedoes. An explosion radius bonus would only exacerbate what I don't want to see. That, in a nutshell is what I envision for a juggernaut. That, and thin armor/shields. Resistances are worth more than a raw hit point shield. If it is impossible to eliminate their sheer battleship killing capacity, leave them vulnerable to massed fire/smaller vessels. They already are relatively bad tankers compared to comparable Capitals with zero tanking bonuses. And since they are not immune to EW, they are far more vulnerable than a Titan or Mothership. So the firepower and versatility comes at a high price, they would be monsters in almost any fight, but then costing as much as they will cost, they should be. If you just want a beefier dreadnought, re-imagine it; save the juggernaut idea for a different ship class. Originally by: Thor Xian As for Citadels...Citadels dont do much to BSes as it is. They are Capital Weapons after all. Clearly you've never seen what target painters on a phoenix can do. Originally by: Thor Xian The drones would be the Jugg's only defense versus smaller ships that are prepared to attack it (other than a support fleet that is). Somehow I doubt the dronebay will stop a determined enemy, so removing it seems like an unnecessary nerf. Then you leave it without a clear vulnerability. Where is the balance? ---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|--- This isn't the signature you're looking for.
Thor Xian Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.02.27 02:06:00 - [74] Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 27/02/2007 01:52:38 Edited by: Evelgrivion on 27/02/2007 01:51:23 Originally by: Thor Xian Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 26/02/2007 19:53:30 Originally by: Thor Xian Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Thor Xian Reduce grid by 65%, that should solve your fleet pyramid scheme problem. 65% from what base? You never gave statistical data to base these ships on; there is a whole lot of critically important information beyond the slot count and weapon mounts. You are arguing with me about these things and you haven't even read the whole thread? I apologize, I missed that post. The point is though, this ship cannot be a battleship rape-mobile; it wouldn't work. The weapons bonuses, the quantities of weapons, and the fitting possibilities you are leaving renders a battleship worthless in battle as soon as these ships are brought into play. This is not a fun addition to the game. If you want a fun addition, limit its killing capacity more to the capital class range. If it needs to be able to kill battleships, leave it vulnerable to anything smaller, with small drone bays or other such limitations. Give it a long lock time, limit the ship to 6 guns - and most importantly, don't let them use citadel torpedoes. An explosion radius bonus would only exacerbate what I don't want to see. That, in a nutshell is what I envision for a juggernaut. That, and thin armor/shields. Resistances are worth more than a raw hit point shield. If it is impossible to eliminate their sheer battleship killing capacity, leave them vulnerable to massed fire/smaller vessels. They already are relatively bad tankers compared to comparable Capitals with zero tanking bonuses. And since they are not immune to EW, they are far more vulnerable than a Titan or Mothership. So the firepower and versatility comes at a high price, they would be monsters in almost any fight, but then costing as much as they will cost, they should be. If you just want a beefier dreadnought, re-imagine it; save the juggernaut idea for a different ship class. Originally by: Thor Xian As for Citadels...Citadels dont do much to BSes as it is. They are Capital Weapons after all. Clearly you've never seen what target painters on a phoenix can do. Originally by: Thor Xian The drones would be the Jugg's only defense versus smaller ships that are prepared to attack it (other than a support fleet that is). Somehow I doubt the dronebay will stop a determined enemy, so removing it seems like an unnecessary nerf. Then you leave it without a clear vulnerability. Where is the balance? What is the BS' clear vulnerability? _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Material Defender Got Corp?
VoYvod Amarr Pirates of Destruction Union Freelancer Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.27 08:01:00 - [75] I like the idea but tbh i think that it'd be kinda pointless , what would it be shooting? other capital ships? and if so wouldn't a regular dread in siege mode be better suited ? unless you make the bonuses better for damage and armor/shield boosting i don't see a real need for it tbh , maybe if it did half the damage of a dread in siege mode it'd be worth it due to the tracking/explosion radius ? - i did not do the math calculations ; i'm too lazy
Thor Xian Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.02.27 18:23:00 - [76] Originally by: VoYvod Edited by: VoYvod on 27/02/2007 10:51:50 I like the idea but tbh i think that it'd be kinda pointless , if you bring 1 of the juggernauts out im sure they're going to bring a dread so you need some sort of anti-dread capabilities, unless you make the bonuses better for damage and armor/shield boosting , maybe if it did half the damage/tanking amount of a dread in siege mode it'd be worth it due to the tracking/explosion radius/turret missile hardpoints/lack of fual for siege mode ? i haven't done any mathematical calculations ; i'm too lazy You do realize that Juggernauts as presented would outdamage non Siege Dreads by almost 300% right? While Siege Dreads would still outdamage Juggernauts by about 200%. In a direct fight between a Sieging Dread and a Juggernaut, the Juggernaut should lose (theoretically anyway, in practice it would be a stalemate). The Juggernaut shines when doing stuff that you wouldnt need Siege for, like fleetwork or if the grid prenerf is done, close combat (sub 100km ranges) gang fighting. _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Material Defender Got Corp?
Cruniac	Posted - 2007.03.02 14:58:00 - [77] So, are people against the idea of a direct fire (turrets & missiles) capital ship, that is not a siege engine, or is it a question of refined concept execution? I for one agree with some posters here, that some sort of solo pwnmobile that eats everything alive, is not a good idea.
Thor Xian Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.03.02 16:56:00 - [78] I am yet to be convinced these ships would be solo pwnmobiles. _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Material Defender Got Corp?
Kharakan Amarr Magnificent Beavers Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.03.02 17:36:00 - [79] I have a question: How does this ship supplant the battleship for empire wars? this signature space is claimed in the name of eris, haha I got to him first. neeneer
Thor Xian Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.03.03 03:41:00 - [80] Originally by: Kharakan I have a question: How does this ship supplant the battleship for empire wars? _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Material Defender Got Corp?
Evelgrivion Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.03.03 04:29:00 - [81] Originally by: Kharakan I have a question: How does this ship supplant the battleship for empire wars? The answer is it doesn't - but then again, you're not going to be achieving hardcore, material annihilation on the same scale as a 0.0 war in the first place. In regards to how battleships are balanced/imbalanced, it comes from their differing functionalities and roles - though some of them frankly are overpowered. ---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|---\|--- This isn't the signature you're looking for.
Thor Xian Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.03.03 06:58:00 - [82] Originally by: Evelgrivion though some of them frankly are overpowered. And none of the potentially overpowered BS design philosophies made it into this idea. _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Material Defender Got Corp?
Thor Xian Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.03.03 07:04:00 - [83] The only other way I can see Juggernauts being viable is if they are to BSes what BCs are to Cruisers. But I dont think CCP wants to put 4 more slots per power level in the game. _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Material Defender Got Corp?

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: 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.