| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Almarez
Setenta Corp
Xelas Alliance
   |
Posted - 2007.05.15 14:37:00 -
[31]
In all honesty, you would just start seeing a bunch of these around. I think what is needed is a command battleship that is anti-cap fleet somehow. No idea what that would be.
|
Slash Harnet
Minmatar
Industrial Services INC
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 15:13:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Slash Harnet on 15/05/2007 15:12:03
I like the idea. I don't think it should be a capital ship though. Maybe a bonus to fitting requirements for XL weapons with 4 high slots, bring in the jump drive scrambler, and maybe specific ewar mods that only work on capitals. I think giving it a jump drive would be over powered though.
Something like BS IV, Advanced Spaceship I, and then Juggernaut I (like Freighters. it's kind of a capital ship, but not really).
/Edit: and make the build requirements ~450 mil. Three times a BS, half a carrier.
signature removed ... Pirlouit
I finally got my sig nerfed once, I feel like a forum warrior! |
Twilight Moon
Minmatar
Malicious Intentions
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 16:01:00 -
[33]
You know what I'd like to see?
Something with a jump drive (with a good range on it), and 4 x XL Guns, with a bonus to RoF on the guns, and Sensor Damp Effectiveness.....and a paperthin tank. Slow to align.
Usage:
1) Gang finds an idiot unsupported Capital somewhere, and locks it down.
2) Several of these wee paper tigers jump to the gangs location.
3) They get the Capital well dampened.
4) They quickly take the capital out.
5) They get utterly shafted if something warps in on them.
|
agrajag119
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 16:06:00 -
[34]
How about this idea:
A slightly sub-dread ship that specializes in tackling / locking down super - caps.
Make it between BS and Cap ships for requirements so everyone and their dog isn't flying one. This way CCP could leave the EW immunity on super caps so a 25k isk frig couldn't lock down a titan, but they would still be vulnerable.
Think mechanics like a cyno ship. When locking down the super cap the ship goes into an invulnerable state, giving the support fleet time to get to it and get remotes on it and arrange for smiting the super-cap.
Would be a great way to make life more interesting for the super cap ships, heck we may see some of them actually being lost to fights rather than f-ups.
-- Agra
|
Xanos Blackpaw
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 16:17:00 -
[35]
good idea
/signed
|
Antares Andaris
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 16:44:00 -
[36]
/signed
I have long awaited a proposal like this,
because i had the same idea for some time now.
It takes like 1 month to be able to board a battleship,
but it takes about 6 month to board a capital.
That cap is too large IMHO.
|
Kyodai Koga
Altera Odyssea
Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 17:09:00 -
[37]
Trying to solve inbalancing by introducing new elements, subjects in themselves to inbalance is a really bad way to see and fix problems without looking at the big picture.
There's too much risks of creating new issues with the implementation of a new class of ships to hope that it'll balance things easily and by itself.
I suggest we take the problem the other way:
- There's a problem with capitals ships being the uber pwnmobile in fleet combat nowadays. From this statement I conclude that capitals can easily fight not only their class, but also smaller ships.
- The solution is easy: make capitals less susceptible to hit or fight smaller targets, maybe make it even impossible by reducing their tracking or increasing the sig of their guns, reduce their scan resolution but increase also their own sig to balance things out so for capital vs capital fight, nothing really change.
- Let carriers be a viable support/anti smaller ships solution, but nerf their survivability a bit. I think this solution is being considered seeing the latest dev blog.
- This way you got: Capitals that cannot be destroyed by smaller ships unless they are farly outnumbered (which is normal, a big pack of intys can destroy a BS after all), but they cannot destroy them either and need to stay in their defining roles (POS destruction, Capital fight, logistic support).
The end result of these changes would be:
- No more capitals in regular fights unless in a supporting role
- Capitals only really useful for POS destruction and Cap vs Cap fights, and in this case BSes and under are in a support or anti support role
- Newer players still able to contribute to the fight as always (tackler, support/anti support, fleet BS) while not being utterly wasted by Capital ships which are living their own battle in their own sphere.
|
Tarazed Aquilae
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 17:56:00 -
[38]
How about making calling the ship a ôheavy battleshipö and giving it a lot of mid and low slots too. 8-8-6, 8-6-8, or 8-7-7 depending on the race. That would give it a really good tank and the ability to do some EW. Go ahead and give it a good drone bay too.
It should get a very large range and damage bonus for large weapons, enough that it threatens capital ships.
Butà
It should have very large penalties to tracking and to the explosion radius/signature resolution (perhaps as much as 100%) of large turrets. This would create a ship that would be at a disadvantage to a battleship and virtually worthless against a cruiser or smaller. But it could really put a hurting on dreadnaughts and the like.
|
Theo Ramone
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 18:18:00 -
[39]
I'll throw out my .02 cents for a minute, but I'm sure it'll get piled up somewhere once logic is brought to bear.... 
Since it seems the problem is the fact that cap ships are "unstoppable" (Aside from other cap ships) maybe the solution isnt another ship class but extensive modifications of current setups.
Lets look at history for a minute. A fleet of ships may invovle dozens or hundreds of ships of which a handful were capital class ships. Most were support ships of some type, whos ultimate purpose was to keep the capitals safe. The reason was that technology allowed firepower to outstrip size rather quickly. A perfect example is the Bismark. Essentially it was rendered useless by something as insignifigant as a small prop plane. Another example is the feared Wolf Packs. While a submarine is itself a weak target, its offensive capabilities are incredible. Its truly a capital ship with a paper hull, and many a true captial ship (Carrier, battleship) met its fate at the hand of a good submariner.
The defenses to this was the picket ships. Destroyers, cruisers and corvettes.
Capital ships were designed to bring overwhelming firepower to bear on other large capital ships and stationary targets (Bombardments) but were far from immune to small properly fitted ships themselves.
Obviously the in-game implementation of this would be diffiuclt however.
By allowing specific modules to be targetted one could allow smaller ships to focus fire and damage vastly larger ships. Just as a dive bomber can, to an extent, chose where his torpedo goes so could a smaller ship in game by allowing module targetting. Rather then target "the ship", you could choose to target various slots on the ship. Implement a new skill Hardpoint Targetting. Without the skill you target "the ship", with the skill you target specific modules. Allow a degree of error so that the lower the skill the greater the chance the shot hits "the ship" as opposed to the module. Overall ship defense (shield, armor, structure) could then be divided among the modules. Say 50% of total defense is split across hi-slots, 30% across all mid slot and 20% across all low slots.
Allow small ships to carry high firepower weapons. Another example is the stealth bomber. A small ship with big missiles. While as it currently stands its still not a threat to larger ships, it would become devastating if it could bring its firepower to bear on any one particular module. Whereas before a well equipped battleship or cap ship would laugh at a stealth bomber, suddenly that small ship becomes a very real threat if he can bring 100% of his firepower to bear on your individual modules. Sure, you'll never break the carrier, but if you start knocking modules offline hes gonna view you as a very real threat. At that point your fleet would want alot of picket ships to deal with smaller ships with high firepower weapons that threaten the larger ships, and due to the weapons carried cannot properly defend themselves against the small picket ships.
This would really open up the use of smaller ships. The smaller ships would now pose a real threat to larger ships that otherwise would ignore them, and now small ships would be used to screen against these types. As it is, if a few cruisers and frigs how up on the doorstep of a large fleet they would be laughed at. If these same ships could target modules with high firepower weapons, suddenly all cap's will be screaming for the screening ships to get on them before the large ships are rendered useless by a loss of modules.
Additionally this would help deal with the issues of tanking/NOS'ing. Tired of being NOS'ed to death? Cant break the tank? Hit the modules. See how the tank holds up when he starts losing shield extenders and rechargers.
Just my .02 cents, from a guy who loves the little ships but doesnt dare face off against a bigger one. 
|
Hllaxiu
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 18:21:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Hllaxiu on 15/05/2007 18:20:53
Idea for a "heavy" battleship to "bridge" this gap, hopefully without being overpowered.
Take everone's tier 2 battleship, double the amount of hitpoints, allow a siege module, increase grid, cap and cpu by around 20-40% depending on ship (more grid on apoc, more cpu on megathron, etc.). Leave the same bonuses, except possibly replacing the apoc's cap bonus with a damage bonus. No jump drive, maybe add a "tanking slot" (ie, lows on apoc/temp/megat, med on raven).
Actually come to think of it, it'd have to be a "tanking only" siege mode which nerfed your turret's capabilities as if you used "real" siege mode battleship guns would turn into wtf pwnguns, albeit with poor tracking. The thinking behind it is to allow ships that can siege small towers, and to engage carriers/dreads in "open space" areas and can be brought along on "small" gangs. Priced around half a billion isk.
Feel free to poke holes in the idea, I haven't thought about it for long... (one problem of course is that the apoc has 8 turrets, megathron has 7 turrets, and tempest/raven have 6 primary weapons - not that big of a deal, but the apoc base would basically be turned into a geddon by my suggestions anyways)
---
Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson |
PathetiQ
Gallente
The Rat Pack
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 18:37:00 -
[41]
its easy buy a carrier or a dread! thats in the gap you talk!
|
Phiberoptick
Gallente
KHM Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 18:47:00 -
[42]
the newest ship class Mini Capital
mini carrier
mini dread
mobile refinery (haulers can dock)
fleet command (gang bonus [jump drive maybe?])
like there big brothers just scaled down so a normal player can afford to lose one and not want to quit. no jump drives, or just a really short range on them. just an idea
|
Rochel Hakiri
principle of motion
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 18:53:00 -
[43]
I like, a lot
But
BS lvl 4 and Advance command lvl 4?!!
Way to low imho, more like bs lvl 5, jump drive lvl 4, or so.
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 19:02:00 -
[44]
I think certain points from Oveur's latest blog would be enough to curb the "capital spamming" that we see today.
Carriers having to put themselves into danger to fight would make them less ridiculous, since it'd mean either a lot more carriers going down or people trying to fulfill other roles (though as he said, this idea isn't final, and most problems with capitals stem directly from supercapitals and especially the doomsday).
Making supercapitals vulnerable to electronic warfare including warp scramblers and stasis webifiers will go a long way, too, since the risk vs. reward isn't so heavily stacked in the favor of those who possess supercapitals.
Nerfing, changing, or completely removing the doomsday would bring subcapitals back into the fold a lot more quickly than some kind of demi-capital, which would fill a role that could already be taken by battleships and also the new tier 2 battlecruisers, and even smaller craft in some cases.
Include with this some of the new ideas with Starbases 2.0, such as modules outside the shields, and I'm actually feeling somewhat optimistic about the game now. Though honestly, I wasn't very comfortable with the guns outside the shield thing at first, if they nerf supercapitals as necessary, I think it could work very nicely. |
doobey
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 19:51:00 -
[45]
Awsome idea. I think another class of ship is deff needed to bridge the gap, whether it be a tech 2 bs so to speak or another completly different class of ship. Maybe cost around the 1 bill mark and have the ability to take on a dread, but also be able to fight bs and bc effectivly.
the ship should be able to use jump gates, and be flown in empire. Cap ships are awsome in fleet battles, but arent really good for much else which i think kinda takes the fun out of it. having a cap class ship that can be used as a solo pvp ship would be awsome, and deff make fighting in 0.0 alot more interesting. in my opinion its a great idea.
|
Aterna
Talon's Grasp
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 20:22:00 -
[46]
Maybe the implementation of module targeting will allow Support groups to disable the tanks of Dreads in Siege, or lower their effectiveness so that they can be more easily destroyed. Or the incredible firepower of a BS fleet will quickly overheat the Dread and make the tank less capable.
A capital ship to bridge the gap isn't required, what is required is that the game be rebalanced so that sub-capitals aren't rendered obsolete. DD's, capital blobs are making the game less accessible to burgeoning alliances.
Having said that, I don't think that capitals should be jam-able or damp-able. Because their lock time is already so long, a single successful ECM, or a dampen, will essentially kill their effectiveness. This, combined with warp scrambling, will lock them down entirely. But they need to be web-able and definitely scram-able, with enough ships and scramblers. Or a capital scrambler.
- - -
WTB new sig, evemail me please. |
n0thing
Northern Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 22:24:00 -
[47]
 Originally by: Twilight Moon
You know what I'd like to see?
Something with a jump drive (with a good range on it), and 4 x XL Guns, with a bonus to RoF on the guns, and Sensor Damp Effectiveness.....and a paperthin tank. Slow to align.
Usage:
1) Gang finds an idiot unsupported Capital somewhere, and locks it down.
2) Several of these wee paper tigers jump to the gangs location.
3) They get the Capital well dampened.
4) They quickly take the capital out.
5) They get utterly shafted if something warps in on them.
You cant damp anything besides carrier. Dread in siege mode is invulnerable to damping afaik.
---
|
madaluap
Gallente
Mercenary Forces
Exquisite Malevolence
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 22:39:00 -
[48]
a carrier is the in between capital. 900-1 bil for a carrier is cheap.
_________________________________________________
Breetime
A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA |
Hunter Hughes
Caldari
Multiversal Enterprise Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 22:49:00 -
[49]
this is actually a great idea. Extreme dps ships that have the ability to make dictor bubbles. essentially anti dreadnought/ mothership ships... maybe make it harder for them to hit bss... tracking problems (-25% tracking speed?). would need more refinement but it sounds cool.
Originally by: GinoShin
Edited by: GinoShin on 21/11/2006 11:41:44
whats evemon is it like a jamican wiseman?
|
madaluap
Gallente
Mercenary Forces
Exquisite Malevolence
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 23:01:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Hunter Hughes
this is actually a great idea. Extreme dps ships that have the ability to make dictor bubbles. essentially anti dreadnought/ mothership ships... maybe make it harder for them to hit bss... tracking problems (-25% tracking speed?). would need more refinement but it sounds cool.
Yeh awesome...
4 of these with:
7* guns
3* sensorbooster
2* damagemods + cap rep and 2* eam 2 + dcu 2
and small gang, huggin is nice, but not even required.
_________________________________________________
Breetime
A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA |
Thor Xian
Vertigo One
E.A.R.T.H. Federation
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 23:09:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Deviana Sevidon
Idea
So you basically want my Juggernaut idea.
_________________________
~Thor Xian, Star Commander |
Susan Acid
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 00:00:00 -
[52]
What about a carrier sized turret with some bonuses/penaltys that force you to fit the carrier as a 'juggernaught' or a standard carrier?Idunno,something like:
10% bonus to damage per turret fitted(5xturret=50% more damage)
-7.5% tracking speed per turret fitted.
-10 fighters can be controlled per turret fitted.
|
Katabrok First
Caldari
Asguard Security Service
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 00:09:00 -
[53]
/signed!!!
I have an idea for a name: monitor - monitors (plural)
Katabrok, the space barbarian.
I want the The Correct DreadÖ!!!! |
Neescha
Interstellar Operations Incorporated
Free Trade Zone.
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 00:13:00 -
[54]
how about a ~bs sized ship that can fit an XL turret-and that's it for weapons.
a medicore tank, medium speed, medium locking times and relativley limited ammo.
they would be perfect to ambush smal cap fleets and take out one of them, just to run away afterwards.
|
Thor Xian
Vertigo One
E.A.R.T.H. Federation
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 00:18:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Neescha
how about a ~bs sized ship that can fit an XL turret-and that's it for weapons.
a medicore tank, medium speed, medium locking times and relativley limited ammo.
they would be perfect to ambush smal cap fleets and take out one of them, just to run away afterwards.
HMS Prince of Wales
_________________________
~Thor Xian, Star Commander |
Ma Raia'l
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 01:20:00 -
[56]
Class name? How about this:
Frigate becomes Corvette
Destroyer become Frigate
Cruiser becomes Destroyer
Battlecruiser becomes Cruiser
Battleship become Battlecruiser
and this new ship becomes Battleship
Given their roles and attributes this makes a whole lot more sense.
|
madaluap
Gallente
Mercenary Forces
Exquisite Malevolence
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 01:49:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Rochel Hakiri
I like, a lot
But
BS lvl 4 and Advance command lvl 4?!!
Way to low imho, more like bs lvl 5, jump drive lvl 4, or so.
Nah keep it like that, finally having plenty of e-bay noobs in capital, fine targets for moros.
_________________________________________________
Breetime
A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA |
Jackal79
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 07:01:00 -
[58]
How bout just a T2 battleship? Compare a caracal and a cerberus? How much more dangerous is a cerberus than a caracal? Like 3x more dangerous? Mymidon vs Astarte? 2x more dangerous?
T2 battleships will close the gap quite nicely. A malestrom with T2 resists? Yikes.
|
Jenesti
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 08:00:00 -
[59]
jeahr, and make all other ships useless... 
|
Deviana Sevidon
Gallente
Cataclysm Enterprises
Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 08:05:00 -
[60]
I still think a class of Capital Ship Killer is needed. In a way the idea about the Ship-Class is that it should not solo everything (except maybe beltspawns BS, but even for this a BS is a better choice).
You would also not see new players, running level 5 missions, to fast in this ship. To get a skill for capital class modules you need skills that are roughly in range of a full T2 fitted BS. So nothing someone can achieve in 6 month. I think it's more in line of one year training when starting from scratch, and in the very least 15 Million SP, which is reasonable.
The tank would be a lot better then an average BS but still paper thin compared to a Dreadnaught or a group of carriers remote supporting each other.
In exchange they would receive a capital-AB/MWD which makes them fast, but not very maneuverable. Relative fast for such a huge ship, but turning very slowly and also the high mass of this ship would stop it from being a really good speed-tanked ship.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |