EVE Search - Exploration Destroyers

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Exploration Destroyers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 3047	Posted - 2017.03.19 08:30:44 - [1] - Quote It's a lot of fun running random scanned sites in an Astero. But what if we had more, cheaper options that could do it? Similar DPS, similar hit points, bigger sig radius, slower, and you've got yourself a tech 1 destroyer. I'll just throw in the Amarr version as an example: 5 high slots, 3 turret hardpoints 3 mid slots, 4 low slots 60m3 drone bay, 20mbit/sec bandwidth Skill bonuses per level: 7.5% bonus to core scanner probe strength 20% bonus to salvager optimal range Role bonus: 25+ bonus to data and relic analyzer virus coherence And Caldari while I'm at it: 6 high slots, 4 launcher hardpoints 5 mid slots, 2 low slots 30m3 drone bay, 10mbit/sec bandwidth Skill bonuses per level: 7.5% bonus to core scanner probe strength 20% bonus to salvager optimal range Role bonus: 25+ bonus to data and relic analyzer virus coherence I really just want more destroyers so I'm kinda throwing ideas against the wall to see which ones stick. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries 253	Posted - 2017.03.19 08:43:28 - [2] - Quote What does this add that a T1 scan frigate (or T2, once you have the skills) can't already do? The Astero is useful because it can cloak and carry some drones to gank any rival explorers you encounter, but it certainly isn't going to be finishing any PvE sites it finds. Your proposed destroyer is just as bad at PvE combat sites as the T1 scan frigates, and doesn't have the cloaking ability to successfully gank anything. It seems like this is a solution in need of a problem. Also, not having the virus strength bonus makes these worthless for exploration.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 3047	Posted - 2017.03.19 16:57:11 - [3] - Quote Merin Ryskin wrote: What does this add that a T1 scan frigate can't already do? More high slots, more weaponry, more room for salvagers, probably a slightly larger cargohold. Merin Ryskin wrote: The Astero certainly isn't going to be finishing any PvE sites it finds. Your proposed destroyer is just as bad at PvE combat sites as the T1 scan frigates, I finish PvE sites in my Astero. Some of them are built for frigates. My proposed destroyer is much more potent in combat than a T1 scan frigate and considerably stronger than a covert ops frigate. Merin Ryskin wrote: Also, not having the virus strength bonus makes these worthless for exploration. Not true. The virus coherence bonus is still valuable but is better used when you can get a higher base virus strength, or better used on lower end sites in which the systems are weaker. This ship would get plenty of use in empire space. It doesn't need to be excellent at running sites in nullsec or wormhole space just to ever get used. They aren't the only space people live in, and besides, we already have ships that are good for those. Where the probe frigates are just an analyzer/salvage ship, these destroyers are competent in areas where you have analyzer sites and rats at the same time. Maybe we just need more sites that provide that sort of content, but I know there's a few already. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Vokan Narkar New Eden Traders Aliance 4	Posted - 2017.03.19 17:21:07 - [4] - Quote I use Sunesis for this. Works quite well already. You can fit 3 guns or 2 guns + improved cloak. Its fast, its durable, has a very high cargo. The only disadvantage is bandwith for 4 drones only. But certainly can meet the requirements for highsec/lowsec exploration.
Bjorn Tyrson EVE University Ivy League 328	Posted - 2017.03.19 17:26:18 - [5] - Quote Why not just use an asterro or stratios? This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist,
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 3047	Posted - 2017.03.19 17:53:51 - [6] - Quote Vokan Narkar wrote: I use Sunesis for this. Works quite well already. You can fit 3 guns or 2 guns + improved cloak. Its fast, its durable, has a very high cargo. The only disadvantage is bandwith for 4 drones only. But certainly can meet the requirements for highsec/lowsec exploration. Excellent! I missed that ship, but it fits my suggestion pretty well. It doesn't have the analyzer and salvager bonuses but instead it has much higher offense and defense. Now we just need more of these on the market so I can afford to buy them. They're about half the price of the Gnosis I believe. Bjorn Tyrson wrote: Why not just use an asterro or stratios? This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, Because those are pricey pirate faction ships. My suggestion is for a cheap tech 1 ship. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Bjorn Tyrson EVE University Ivy League 328	Posted - 2017.03.19 18:16:48 - [7] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Vokan Narkar wrote: I use Sunesis for this. Works quite well already. You can fit 3 guns or 2 guns + improved cloak. Its fast, its durable, has a very high cargo. The only disadvantage is bandwith for 4 drones only. But certainly can meet the requirements for highsec/lowsec exploration. Excellent! I missed that ship, but it fits my suggestion pretty well. It doesn't have the analyzer and salvager bonuses but instead it has much higher offense and defense. Now we just need more of these on the market so I can afford to buy them. They're about half the price of the Gnosis I believe. Bjorn Tyrson wrote: Why not just use an asterro or stratios? This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, Because those are pricey pirate faction ships. My suggestion is for a cheap tech 1 ship. So you want a cheep t1 ship that can fill the role of a specialized faction ship?
Vokan Narkar New Eden Traders Aliance 5	Posted - 2017.03.19 18:25:14 - [8] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Vokan Narkar wrote: I use Sunesis for this. Works quite well already. You can fit 3 guns or 2 guns + improved cloak. Its fast, its durable, has a very high cargo. The only disadvantage is bandwith for 4 drones only. But certainly can meet the requirements for highsec/lowsec exploration. Excellent! I missed that ship, but it fits my suggestion pretty well. It doesn't have the analyzer and salvager bonuses but instead it has much higher offense and defense. Now we just need more of these on the market so I can afford to buy them. They're about half the price of the Gnosis I believe. Bjorn Tyrson wrote: Why not just use an asterro or stratios? This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, Because those are pricey pirate faction ships. My suggestion is for a cheap tech 1 ship. They are for about 19mil ISK on Amarr trading hub.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 3047	Posted - 2017.03.19 19:09:51 - [9] - Quote Bjorn Tyrson wrote: So you want a cheep t1 ship that can fill the role of a specialized faction ship? In its own limited t1 fashion, yes. That's what t1 ships already do. Why is this a difficult concept? Vokan Narkar wrote: They are for about 19mil ISK on Amarr trading hub. Like I said, pricey. Tech 1 destroyers are around 1.5 to 2 mil. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Bjorn Tyrson EVE University Ivy League 329	Posted - 2017.03.19 19:23:34 - [10] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Bjorn Tyrson wrote: So you want a cheep t1 ship that can fill the role of a specialized faction ship? In its own limited t1 fashion, yes. That's what t1 ships already do. Why is this a difficult concept? Vokan Narkar wrote: They are for about 19mil ISK on Amarr trading hub. Like I said, pricey. Tech 1 destroyers are around 1.5 to 2 mil. Because the entire point of rhe soe ships is that they can do both. While t1 ships are more specialized. When you make a t1 ship that can do everything the faction ships can (even if it's slightly less efficient. And especially at 1/10th the price point.) You devalue the faction ship. Also 20 mil is NOT pricey. Even for an alpha you can make that much in an hour or two doing exploration. Yknow the thing the ships is designed to do.

Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 3047	Posted - 2017.03.19 20:00:09 - [11] - Quote Bjorn Tyrson wrote: When you make a t1 ship that can do everything the faction ships can (even if it's slightly less efficient. And especially at 1/10th the price point.) You devalue the faction ship. But I didn't. My suggested ship is unable to fit a covert ops cloak and it's less agile. I don't see how my suggestion will devalue the faction ship. This is a typical argument I get a lot: either my suggestion is way too strong or way too weak. Which is it? Is it remotely possible it's somewhere in between? FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Bjorn Tyrson EVE University Ivy League 329	Posted - 2017.03.19 20:30:54 - [12] - Quote It's not a matter of being overpowered or underpowered. It's a matter of filling a role that is already filled. You can already run combat sites in a regular destroyer you can run exploration sites in a scanning frigate or a covops. If you want to do both you can use either the soe ships or a t3. Yes they are more expensive. But that's because they are filling multiple roles. The ship you are suggesting doesn't have anywhere to fit that isn't already covered by other ships.
elitatwo Dicker Quick and Hyde Defense Attorneys O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1659	Posted - 2017.03.19 21:08:57 - [13] - Quote Why not a nice Heron with 220 deeps? Eve Minions is recruiting. This is the law of ship progression! Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries 257	Posted - 2017.03.21 21:28:36 - [14] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: More high slots, more weaponry, more room for salvagers, probably a slightly larger cargohold. But those things don't actually DO anything. A T1 scan frigate is capable of running relic/data sites, and instantly dies to any combat site worth running. Your proposed ship is capable of running relic/data sites, and instantly dies to any combat site worth running. Look at it in terms of roles and what the ship can accomplish, not its stat line. Quote: I finish PvE sites in my Astero. Why? Which sites that a frigate can finish are actually worth running? Are you making money doing this, or are you doing it out of sheer stubborn determination? Quote: Not true. The virus coherence bonus is still valuable but is better used when you can get a higher base virus strength, or better used on lower end sites in which the systems are weaker. None of those lower end sites are worth attempting. If you are doing relic/data sites anywhere but 0.0 you're wasting your time. And making a new ship that only "works" if you're wasting your time is not something we should be doing.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 3047	Posted - 2017.03.22 03:08:46 - [15] - Quote Merin Ryskin wrote: Why? Which sites that a frigate can finish are actually worth running? Are you making money doing this, or are you doing it out of sheer stubborn determination? Neither, I do it just because I feel like ratting. No, I don't make much income that way, but I make a better percentage profit margin than I do running larger sites, due to the rate at which I lose larger ships. So based on the way I run, the smaller sites are actually more profitable, but I'm not doing it for profit. I think there should be higher-paying sites built for smaller ships, easiest to complete with a frigate but still difficult and requiring a pretty good fit and planning. The payout should be less than bigger battleship-oriented sites, but not so much less that nobody wants to run them. Think of it as DED rating tiericide. DED 1-4 are best run in a frigate or destroyer but they are easily completed by a new player with alpha skills in a T1 destroyer. DED 5-6 are best run in cruiser/battlecruiser and are medium difficulty: a T1 cruiser is too weak, so you either use a faction/T2 cruiser or T1 battlecruiser. DED 7-8 are best run in a battleship or command ship and you better have a decent fit. DED 9-10 are best run with a carrier, otherwise you usually take in a group or cheese it in an Ishtar with a 100MN afterburner. So why not have difficulty separate from rat size? Small-easy: a few weak frigate rats, can be done by a newbie in a T1 frigate or destroyer Small-medium: can be done in a T1 destroyer with a good fit Small-hard: best to use a faction/deadspace fit assault frigate, pirate frigate, or tactical destroyer Medium-easy: can be done with moderate skills in a decent T1 cruiser fit if you know how to fly Medium-medium: best done with a combat battlecruiser or navy cruiser Medium-hard: can do with faction/deadspace fit strategic cruiser, HAC, pirate cruiser, or command ship Large-easy: easily done with T1 battleship or combat battlecruiser with T2 fit Large-medium: can do with faction battleship and a strong fit Large-hard: you're only likely to solo this site with a carrier or a deadspace fit marauder Fleet-easy: multiple sizes of rats which shoot at players nearest their own size, so they are easier with a group but a good player can run it solo Fleet-medium: really rough for a single ship but a decent group of 3-6 pilots can take it on easy with some logi support Fleet-hard: even a carrier might struggle to solo this; you'll want a small logi chain and at least 10 pilots FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Tarn Kugisa Deaf Eaters Shadow of xXDEATHXx 557	Posted - 2017.03.22 04:03:17 - [16] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: It's a lot of fun running random scanned sites in an Astero. But what if we had more, cheaper options that could do it? Similar DPS, similar hit points, bigger sig radius, slower, and you've got yourself a tech 1 destroyer. I'll just throw in the Amarr version as an example: 5 high slots, 3 turret hardpoints 3 mid slots, 4 low slots 60m3 drone bay, 20mbit/sec bandwidth Skill bonuses per level: 7.5% bonus to core scanner probe strength 20% bonus to salvager optimal range Role bonus: 25+ bonus to data and relic analyzer virus coherence And Caldari while I'm at it: 6 high slots, 4 launcher hardpoints 5 mid slots, 2 low slots 30m3 drone bay, 10mbit/sec bandwidth Skill bonuses per level: 7.5% bonus to core scanner probe strength 20% bonus to salvager optimal range Role bonus: 25+ bonus to data and relic analyzer virus coherence I really just want more destroyers so I'm kinda throwing ideas against the wall to see which ones stick. I thought that's what t3d's did Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to troll everyone you meet --áKuroVolt
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries 257	Posted - 2017.03.22 04:09:02 - [17] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: No, I don't make much income that way, but I make a better percentage profit margin than I do running larger sites, due to the rate at which I lose larger ships. How are you losing ships in PvE? Presumably this is in highsec, since a frigate/destroyer is relevant at all, so getting ganked by a PvP ship isn't an issue. I can't imagine losing larger ships so quickly that it has any meaningful effect on your net income. Maybe very occasionally to a game crash or similar issue, but EVE's PvE is so ridiculously straightforward and easy to farm that losses to NPCs should almost never happen. Quote: The payout should be less than bigger battleship-oriented sites, but not so much less that nobody wants to run them. The problem is that "less profit" inherently means "nobody wants to run them". EVE's PvE is boring as hell, especially in safe space where the threat of PvP isn't even a factor. It's a means to fund the interesting parts of the game, not a goal itself. All that really matters is ISK per hour, and if frigate sites don't make the ISK per hour of larger sites then very few people are going to have any interest in them. Quote: So why not have difficulty separate from rat size? Because it doesn't work that way. Larger ships can be set up to farm smaller sites just fine (my sniper Kronos can one-shot frigate rats as fast as I can cycle the guns, for example), so a challenging small-ship site is effortlessly farmed by a bigger ship. The only way to avoid that is to lock everything behind gates that restrict ship sizes, which creates a huge problem in the exploration context: you often don't have alternate ships available. If you bring a large ship for PvE you find that 3/4 of the sites you find aren't legal at all. And if you bring a ship that can enter the small sites you can't do the larger ones at all. Either way you have a ton of wasted scan results unless you only "explore" a single system where all your spare ships are stored. The only way around this problem is if the best ship for the small sites (faction frigate/AF/T3 destroyer) can also efficiently run the larger sites, in which case all you've done is replace "always use a battleship" with "always use a T3 destroyer".
Luc Chastot 703	Posted - 2017.03.22 06:46:49 - [18] - Quote I don't think more exploration ships are needed, but instead exploration should focus less on combat and more on, well, exploration. Make sites spawn other sites that need to be scanned quickly or have them escalate to more dangerous regions of space, or whatever other ideas devs can come up with. It should also use whatever procedural generation advancements CCP has achieved. Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.
elitatwo Dicker Quick and Hyde Defense Attorneys O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1667	Posted - 2017.03.22 09:02:30 - [19] - Quote Luc Chastot wrote: I don't think more exploration ships are needed, but instead exploration should focus less on combat and more on, well, exploration. Make sites spawn other sites that need to be scanned quickly or have them escalate to more dangerous regions of space, or whatever other ideas devs can come up with. It should also use whatever procedural generation advancements CCP has achieved. Escalations are what you were looking for. And Reaver, I would strongly suggest, you don't yolo a battlecruiser into a DED 5/10. 5 is rated battleship for a good reason. Eve Minions is recruiting. This is the law of ship progression! Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 726	Posted - 2017.03.22 10:22:23 - [20] - Quote Where is the niche that exploration destroyer would fill? "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville If you need a scout mail me.



Pages: [1] :: 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.