EVE Search - An idea about filling the huge gap between BS and Capital Ships

All Channels

Ships and Modules

An idea about filling the huge gap between BS and Capital Ships

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Deviana Sevidon Gallente Cataclysm Enterprises Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2007.05.15 08:05:00 - [1] As the current war has shown, capital ship dominate more and more the current battlefield, while Battleships, until a few month ago the main fleet ship, are now in the support role. Do not get me wrong, BS have still their uses, but they are unable to survive against a large fleet of enemy capital ships, which has become more and more of a common sight. Therefore I think a new class of ships is needed. Reasons why: - Battleships have very limited tanking ability, and pop under focused fire within seconds. This was fine when the enemy was also using mostly Battleships but Capitals with fighters and remote support can easily outlast them. - Capitals cannot really be tackled well. The current modules of Disruptors and Bubbles have time and time again proven to be inefficient. - Capitals are even more mobile than BS, as long as there is a cyno-providers and enough fuel. - There is no real counter against a very expensive super capital fleet, the only defense is, building more capital ships, which is for smaller alliances not an option. This creates Powerblobs in 0.0, that can easily push smaller alliances out. Therefore I think a class of ships is needed to counter the bigger blobs. DD are not the answer, because the capital power blob can laugh about DD while the sub-capitals have to run for there lives. Between Battleships and Cruisers are the Battlecruisers and it would be good for EVE to have an equivalent between Battleships and Carriers/Dreadnaughts. This ship would serve as something along the Lines of a modern naval warfare destroyer. Destroying other Capitals and as an escort for your own. To give them their role, create something like a smaller and faster Dreadnaught. Remove the ability of entering siege mode. Instead give them a classic Armor/Shield Tanking Bonus for Capital Modules. Add more slots for X-Large Turrets and Bays then a standard Dreadnaught. Also give them something like a capital AB/MWD. Another specialty should be a new type of warp scrambler. This scrambler sucks up an extremely huge amount of cap, so a pilot will have to think about tanking and firing, or tackling a hostile cap-ship. Also the new scrambler should have some nasty side effects. A duration of five minutes and it creates an anti-warp bubble with half the size of a normal interdictor bubble around your ship and naturally prevents the tackling ship from warping and jumping out, themselves. The bubble-side effect can be used as a tactical advantage when used right, or a catastrophe for your own fleet if they blob hugs each other to close. Also this new class of capitals should come without utility high-slots and cannot shield and armor boost each other. They would have to rely on other ships for this. Abilities - 6 or 7 High-Slots for Capital Turrets. No utility slots and no ability to fit remote shield or armor repairers. No siege mode and therefore less firepower than a normal dreadnaught and not really suited for POS bashing. - Standard Slot-Layout. 6/3/3. Armor Tankers get two extra low-slots. Shield-Tankers two extra med-slots. - High sensor strength and locking range, but they can still be knocked out by EW. - More then a match against a single BS, but a group of BS or smaller ships has an excellent chance of killing this light-capital ship. - Lesser skill requirements then the current capitals, so newer players can still play an important role in fleet warfare, without being confined to a support role. I am thinking about Battleship 4 and Advanced Spaceship Command 4 as a requirement. - This ships take nothing away from the current capital ship designs, instead it complements them. - Small Drone Bay. So even less protection against small and fast ships. Oh, this ships would need a name. The best I could think of would be Warfare-Destroyer or give them the name Dreadnaughts, while the current Dreads are renamed to Superdreadnaughts. Please discuss.
Sokratesz Paradox v2.0 1 Shot 1 Kill	Posted - 2007.05.15 09:04:00 - [2] /me likes Need to find a cool name for the class though, how about Command Destroyer. Oh, and they should have a long jump range, AND the ability to use stargates. sig down temporarily Originally by: welsh wizard You might not be able to kill anything but you can sure as hell ignore it and go about your business
Morgul Ze Dark Entropy Terror In The System	Posted - 2007.05.15 09:07:00 - [3] i like it too! /signed
Phrixus Zephyr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.05.15 09:28:00 - [4] Originally by: Deviana Sevidon - Capitals cannot really be tackled well. The current modules of Disruptors and Bubbles have time and time again proven to be inefficient. What planet were you born on? Tri has very rarly not killed a carrier that has been tackled. They're just like any other ship. . Supercapitals with EWAR immunity are nigh on impossible to tackle, not your vanilla variety. Originally by: Benglada And whos going to tackle for them? Jesus?
beor oranes Caldari Furious Angels Requiem-Aeternam	Posted - 2007.05.15 09:35:00 - [5] I like the idea, as I understand it they would basically be capital ship killers, capital modules on a smaller ship. The only issue is a balancing one, as long as the tracking was poor enough to only hit capital size targets with high accuracy and not battleships or smaller then they would good! So you would still need battleships and smaller to take out the support fleet so these capital killers can do there work. Very nice idea. /signed ------------------------------------------------ Either pick a dry year when fighting wars or civilize the moronic races and have no wars at all!
The RepoMan Caldari Red Horizon Inc Red Horizon	Posted - 2007.05.15 10:20:00 - [6] Ummm you do realize these would be able to utterly annihilate bs's unassisted, and with a few huginns and belicoses they could dominate almost anything subcapital. Sure, you can do this with dreads too right now, but the logistics dont make it practical at the moment. Personally I think capital ships are bad enough as is, dont add to them. We need more ships in the subcapital classes, I want to see multiple droneboats for each race, multiple missile boats for each race, a few armor and shield tanking for each race, and non faction, market available racial split ships. I'd want to see all of these well well before anything bigger. And as has been pointed out, carriers are just like any other ship, just with alot more hp and some mean drones. Though when they run out of structure they die just the same. Motherships and titans are very clearly flawed but as has been addressed in a recent dev blog they are working on it.
LUH 3471	Posted - 2007.05.15 11:05:00 - [7] Edited by: LUH 3471 on 15/05/2007 11:04:50 i dont like this idea i want t2 battleships instead ccp where is my t2 megathron where is my t2 domi but most importantly where is my t2 imicus /whine
Deviana Sevidon Gallente Cataclysm Enterprises Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2007.05.15 11:22:00 - [8] Thanks for your replies. To answer one off-topic questions first. The planet I was born on is named earth. Quote: What planet were you born on? Tri has very rarly not killed a carrier that has been tackled. They're just like any other ship. Supercapitals with EWAR immunity are nigh on impossible to tackle, not your vanilla variety. I know that the vanilla variety can be tackled quite well, but not the EW-immune super-capitals. This was even adressed in a dev-blog, and the capital scrambler would just be something extra or call it a different approach to what the developers have in mind. The EW immune variants are also the reason I propose this ships. Relative fast for a capital when using an AB and MWD but not a god mode when they enter battle. Also they are to be something, the EW-immune supercapitals should worry about. Quote: Ummm you do realize these would be able to utterly annihilate bs's unassisted, and with a few huginns and belicoses they could dominate almost anything subcapital. Sure, you can do this with dreads too right now, but the logistics dont make it practical at the moment. The logistics are easy enough at the moment. Yes this ships would be lethal to Battleships, just as Battlecruiser are in most cases the death of cruisers. Still they can be countered by non-capital ships. One ore two tracking disruptors and not even the x-large blasters can hit something that is not completely webbed. Without target painters Citadel Torpedos from the Missile variants have difficulties with BS-sized targets. HACs and maybe even Battlecruisers will have no problems at all, unless of course these ships have a lot of support. But with lots of support practically everthing becomes deadly. I agree, it would not be really fair for Battleship pilots. But think of it as an evolution in warfare. Battleships can still shine in small Gang warfare, but I think the age of this ships is slowly coming to an end. Once the pinnacle in fleet warfare, they are only support right now and maybe obsolete tomorrow.While this proposed new ships might become the new fleet-ships. But Battleships and Battlecruisers will have still a small role as escorts for the small capital ships. For naming this ships, well command destroyers would be good, or Field-Destroyers.
Soyemia Minmatar Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2007.05.15 11:30:00 - [9] /me likes http://images.filecloud.com/225198/WCS.jpg Please reduce the file size to less than 24000 bytes. -Cyrano Proud member of FI
Spider Iarus	Posted - 2007.05.15 11:41:00 - [10] Correct me if I don't have this right...you're saying a class that is generally strong versus cap ships and generally unable to properly engage BS/etc? Sounds pretty sensible. I mean the most deadly threats to high-class naval vessels tend to be tiny by comparison (torpedo planes, submarines).
J'Mkarr Soban Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2007.05.15 11:47:00 - [11] Yup. I like it. It's mainly because of the huge gap between BSs and Caps, and as long as they market it as such it should be ok. Otherwise people will want something between a destroyer and a cruiser, or a cruiser and a BC. -J --------------------------------- "He who 'hah hahs' last, 'hah hahs' best." - Nelson Balanced != Nerfed
Acoco Osiris Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.05.15 11:48:00 - [12] I have an alternate idea for this, and also something which suits my ideas. First, instead of making a sub-capital, make a cloaked ship which has relatively little PG and CPU, but a 99.99% reduction in needs for a heavy gun/torpedo. Second (this is my idea), give destroyers or a new T2 variant a use similar to real life. Give them the ability to detect these cloaked ships within a certain range, making them into picket boats. ------------------------------ One more soldier off to war... And one Velator in my hangars.
Privious	Posted - 2007.05.15 11:51:00 - [13] Edited by: Privious on 15/05/2007 11:50:31 Will this ship also be able to have a Clonevat bay/corporation hangar ect? or is it just a Pure Capital killer - Also make sure that they dont have to much cpu/powergrid but rather a 99% reduction on for example Capital Turret / missile bay cpu/powergrid to prevent people to use them as nber strip miners
LUKEC Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.05.15 11:53:00 - [14] Edited by: LUKEC on 15/05/2007 11:52:28 Originally by: Phrixus Zephyr Originally by: Deviana Sevidon - Capitals cannot really be tackled well. The current modules of Disruptors and Bubbles have time and time again proven to be inefficient. What planet were you born on? Tri has very rarly not killed a carrier that has been tackled. They're just like any other ship. This is true when you meet 1 carrier with proper ganksquad. Problem is when you face 20 capitals Killing exit cyno is good way, though. About minicapitals that can use gates & jump drive, I'm really really against it, unless they give us jump gate scrambler or something. What eve don't need at this point is another class of gatehugging ships that can run to safety with click of the button(jump, cyno out b4 decloaking?). Gap between capitals & battleships isn't that huge as it seems, only problem is cost of capitalship production infrastructure(aka component bpos & build times). Tier 3 bs cost 150ish mil, carrier cost 800(mineral wise). It's similar gap as it used to be between tier3 cruiser & tier1 bs and now we got battlecruisers that make half of bs obsolete(myrmidon/domi, drake/raven, harbinger/arma, hurricane/acpest). I'm not really sure if eve needs more ships at this point. -------- I tanked D2 capital fleet and all I got was truncated Erebus mail.
adriaans Amarr Interstellar StarShipWrights Hedonistic Imperative	Posted - 2007.05.15 11:53:00 - [15] /signed what about the name juggernaught? --sig-- Knowledge is power!
Chode Rizoum Minmatar Temptation inc.	Posted - 2007.05.15 11:55:00 - [16] :o i want a capital that can jump a gate TEMPTATION INC. Killboard
Valandril Caldari Reiketsu. Hitchhiker's Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.15 11:57:00 - [17] WTB :D --- Cheap paint ftw
Cassius Hawkeye Minmatar UK Corp FATAL Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.15 12:23:00 - [18] I like the idea. Also Juggernaut is a good name! Capital AB/MWD = good (IMO) Like the idea of a capital specific scrambler that creates a bubble area that affects cap ships only (limited radii), but has a nasty side effect (e.g not able to move), and can only be used for a limited time. The module can only be fitted on this ship (think of some reason - cpu bonus maybe a la cov op?) I would give it limited capital weapons - 1 maybe 2, and perhaps (iffy subject) something like a capital nos - probably a bit controversial. That way you don't make it to over powered. It would be in definition, a heavy capital tackler, designed to hold a cap in place for a period of time. It can't solo, it cant take on multiple ships easily, but can last long enough n battle to do it's job. Give it a basic tanking bonus based on each race specific - passive shield / armor (caldari/amarr) active shield / armor (minnie/gall). I think a ship of this type would provide a nice potential counter to supercap blobs, and singular cap ships, whilst not being able to wtfpwn solo everything. Just random thoughts....
Valandril Caldari Reiketsu. Hitchhiker's Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.15 12:30:00 - [19] Originally by: Cassius Hawkeye Capital AB/MWD = good (IMO) Nanonyx as viaable dreads tank ? :P --- Cheap paint ftw
n0thing Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.	Posted - 2007.05.15 12:38:00 - [20] People mistake when they think of capitals as ships that be compared to non-capitals. Gap there for a reason. The only change is needed to existing combat specific mehcanics not ship mechanics to promote more BS usage in capital fleets. Dont look at those who rarely solo in the capitals, they do it for a certain slim purpose, while major part of cap pilots arent doing it. Creating a mid-capital ship in that case will certainly make them used for solo pwning. Wich is not the prupose. 7 capital turret Tempest-like thing standing 250km off gate will insta-pop BSes if they have no tank/not active. ---
Marquis Dean Demise and Vestige 9th Fleet	Posted - 2007.05.15 12:39:00 - [21] I think everything could be solved by simply allowing other ships, capitals and subcapitals to follow a ship through it's own cyno tunnel, which should persist for a while. This would let remote DDD'ing Titans and fleeing fleets have the fight brought to them rather than the other way around. But failing that, I like this too. As long as they stayed out of hisec. --- Originally by: korrey Marquis I have to admit, without you there wouldn't be much laughter in these forums.
Deviana Sevidon Gallente Cataclysm Enterprises Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2007.05.15 12:42:00 - [22] Quote: About minicapitals that can use gates & jump drive, I'm really really against it, unless they give us jump gate scrambler or something. You are right. Giving them the ability to use jump drives and stargates might be a bit overpowered. But that was not something I had originally in mind. My idea was a smaller sized capital ship, with the main purpose of killing and holding in place other capitals. Therefore the warp-scrambler module, which not only tackles your enemy but also the capital ship themselves. And with no utility slots I meant that, no other modules except weapons can be mounted in the high-slots. No smartbombs, no NOS and no you-can't-see-me-while-I-smack-in-local-cloaking-device. It should be a fun ship to fly. A ship that can fight and also force your enemy to fight, when it turns its scramblers on. Quote: Like the idea of a capital specific scrambler that creates a bubble area that affects cap ships only (limited radii), but has a nasty side effect (e.g not able to move), and can only be used for a limited time. The module can only be fitted on this ship (think of some reason - cpu bonus maybe a la cov op?) Yes, that was what I had in mind. You can hold an enemy cap-ship but you are also forced to stay in place yourself. Oh and Juggernaut is also a nice name for this
Cenutrio	Posted - 2007.05.15 12:44:00 - [23] I love the idea!
Lucia Cell Caldari Macabre Votum INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.05.15 12:46:00 - [24] Yes please. Making it jump drive only would probably be best... and give us that 'jump scrambler' that's listed in the blueprints section when you go to make a contract! Quote: - High sensor strength and locking range, but they can still be knocked out by EW. Very important that they not be used as the new uber-sniper ship so not too ridiculous a targetting range. Quote: - Lesser skill requirements then the current capitals, so newer players can still play an important role in fleet warfare, without being confined to a support role. I am thinking about Battleship 4 and Advanced Spaceship Command 4 as a requirement. If it's going to be a capital ship with a jump drive then 'Capital Ships I' would be a reasonable requirement... Would you add a new skill named after the ship? Such a skill should probably then require BS V. You'll need to be capable of using the x-large guns anyway so it's not going to be a low-skill ship! Quote: - This ships take nothing away from the current capital ship designs, instead it complements them. Agreed. It's the missing capital ship to be honest. Quote: - Small Drone Bay. So even less protection against small and fast ships. What about the Gallente one? BS sized drone bays would be fair, logically most of the internal space would be given up to jump drive systems and the main weapons systems & ammo. I'm not really sure it deserves a whole new class of ship though. Is it not a tier 4 or T2 battleship (given requirements of battleship IV) or a type of dread (as you said moving the current dreads to super-dread (or siege/artillery ship) status)? ------------------------------------------------ "All a man needs to do is fight and die. That's the Krieg way."
Garat Mant Minmatar Moons of Pluto	Posted - 2007.05.15 12:59:00 - [25] I always like the idea of new Battlestar Galatica Pegasus' "Main Guns" that can take out a basestar in a couple of shots. Of course the problem is that you can't aim them, they're just huge dumb artillery. It probably wouldn't work in EVE as there's no code to support it (?) but a BS sized ship with 2 axial capital sized guns and maybe 4 high slots for 2 large missiles / 2 large turrets would be very cool (to me, at least!) Call it a Ship-Of-The-Line or Carrack. Of course, I'd rather some of the more glaring EVE problems get fixed before such things are created, but I'd still love to see a wider variety of ships. That is, I'm mindful of the huge undertaking an MMORPG is, but that doesn't stop me dreaming ;-) I'd also like to see a multi role ship, a jack of all trades that can take on frigates, cruisers and battleships with a variety of different sized guns. I know you can put small guns on a BS, but that doesn't seem to be an "accepted" use for BS' in EVE.
Chewan Mesa coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.05.15 13:01:00 - [26] While I can somewhat understand your reasoning, I think it is wrong. When you just look at it on the surface, you can mistake the "gap" as a too large one, seeing it as not possible for new players to achieve. But as has been said already, a Carrier costs about 800mil to manufacture, a tier 3 BS costs what, 150mil? So if you think that a ship that is 5-6 times as expensive, there would also be a gap between Tier 2 Battlecruisers and Battleships, since they are cheap to make as well. Thats why I think the gap is exactly as it should be, with the power cap ships have comes the price of a long skill training. When talking about "capital blobs" in general, you should neither forget that we arent watching your average 0.0War right now, you have more or less the whole 0.0 alliances split in 2. The average alliance conflict is far from captial-ship-online, you have proper numbers of cap ships, but the support has a very very important role in that.
Theo Ramone	Posted - 2007.05.15 13:14:00 - [27] Edited by: Theo Ramone on 15/05/2007 13:12:33 How about something like Click
LUKEC Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.05.15 13:41:00 - [28] Originally by: Chewan Mesa When talking about "capital blobs" in general, you should neither forget that we arent watching your average 0.0War right now, you have more or less the whole 0.0 alliances split in 2. The average alliance conflict is far from captial-ship-online, you have proper numbers of cap ships, but the support has a very very important role in that. I'm just saying, killing solo carrier can be done in properly set domi/arma or ugh... bhaalgorn? Well almost. It becomes problem when you face capitals + proper support against you. The average alliance conflict is nap as much as possible(and props to tri for doing it differently), but let's not go into that. I think conflicts with capitals will be much more common when some issues get worked on, like dampening carriers, sucking cap and general paininthearse to use remote stuff. Also more & more people get skills for these every day. But for the moment, there is no need for some mix between bs & capitals. The argument about bs instapopping isn't really valid anymore, battleships don't instapop unless if you are beeing shoot by like 50 bs and primary. But agains that, even capitals don't last THAT much longer. -------- I tanked D2 capital fleet and all I got was truncated Erebus mail.
Maeltstome Minmatar Caldari Navy Raiders	Posted - 2007.05.15 13:44:00 - [29] Edited by: Maeltstome on 15/05/2007 13:43:04 Originally by: Marquis Dean I think everything could be solved by simply allowing other ships, capitals and subcapitals to follow a ship through it's own cyno tunnel, which should persist for a while. This would let remote DDD'ing Titans and fleeing fleets have the fight brought to them rather than the other way around. Best idea yet. EDIT* Although it would make the capital jump bridge array a bit less usefull.
Admiral Leila	Posted - 2007.05.15 14:09:00 - [30] Sure would be nice with a ship class in between the battleship and the capital ship. As long as it is something you can actually afford as a none uber corp member. Also, I'd like to see a Jump Drive module for battleship sized ships. Along with this a Jump Cate inhibitor module to collapse Cyno fields with. Add a "Jump Gang" option and we are all set for fleet hit'n'run tactics :) Anyway the most important thing to always think of when introducing new ship classes is to think out-of-the-box, see what the creative users will come up with. We don't really need a small ship that can solo gank small BS fleets if down-fitted.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: 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.