EVE Search - A consolidated thread for an idea I've seen many times, MADs.

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

A consolidated thread for an idea I've seen many times, MADs.

» 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)
Erim Solfara Amarr House of Solfara	Posted - 2007.06.26 13:59:00 - [1] This has been suggested a multitude of times, but I've never seen any put forward a spec list or such, so I'm gonna give it a shot. Please, feel free to tell me I've got stats wrong, and that they should be rebalanced 'thus'. Medium Assault Destroyers To begin with; Amarr 'Intervener' Developer: Viziam Slot Layout: 8/1/6 (8/0) Bonuses and penalties Penalty: -25% rate of fire for all turrets Bonus: 50% bonus to optimal range for small energy turrets Destroyer Skill Bonus: 5% to armour resistances and -10% reduction in Small Energy Turret Capacitor usage per level Medium Assault Ship skill bonus: 10% to Small Energy Turret optimal range and 5% to Small Energy Turret damage per level Structure Capacity: 300m3 1200 hp Resistances: 0/0/0/0 Armour 1382 hp Resistances: 60/80/82.5/35 Shield 575 hp Resistances: 0/90/70/20 Capacity Size: 570 F Recharge Time: 271.875 Propulsion 200 m/s Fittings 195 TF 105 MW The values I've come up with are based around a more survivable destroyer, with high armour resistances, and enough hp, and 6 lowslots. People may gripe about the one midslot, but there should be 2 MADs per race, as with AFs and HACs, and the second one should be more of a tackler, perhaps made by Khanid (perhaps to be detailed later on). I was reluctant to make this a blood-red Carthum Conglom. ship as a I wanted a more tanking feel, rather than an all out damage dealer. Reasoning for this being a double damage bonused Carthum destroyer would be a little overpowered and make flying an interceptor usually a suicide pact. As is, at Medium Assault Ships 5 this ship gets 100% to it's gun's optimal range, making this a very nice sniper, capable of melting incoming frigates as long at range, however, with the removal of the tracking bonus, and the rate of fire penalty, it will still be tacklable by an interceptor or fast AF. 'Emaciator' Developer: Thukker Mix Slot Layout: 8/4/3 (7/2) Bonuses and penalties Penalty: -25% rate of fire for all turrets Bonus: 50% bonus to optimal range for small projectile turrets Destroyer Skill Bonus: 5% to small projectile turret damage and 10% small projectile turret tracking per level Medium Assault Ship skill bonus: 10% to small projectile turret falloff and 5% to ship velocity per level Structure Capacity: 340m3 980 hp Resistances: 0/0/0/0 Armour 957 hp Resistances: 92.5/10/25/67.5 Shield 750 hp Resistances: 75/60/40/60 Capacity Size: 450 F Recharge Time: 300 s Propulsion 250 m/s Fittings 220 TF 98 MW Right, this is where I'm going to need feedback, I do fly Minmatar ships, just not nearly as much, and I've never pvp'd with them. This is a sort-of mini-vagabond, designed to get in close quickly, and orbit well. Restricted powergrid means a full rack of artillery would be difficult to fit, and the slots are set up so it's a mediocrely armour tanked tackler with good dps, or shield tanked hard-hitter with high dps. A new tool in the fight for balance?
Erim Solfara Amarr House of Solfara	Posted - 2007.06.26 14:00:00 - [2] Edited by: Erim Solfara on 26/06/2007 14:00:22 reserved If anyone wants to suggest roles and stats for the Gallente and Caldari ships, feel free to do so. Also, this should probably have been in the Features and Idea forum, my mistake, if a mod agrees with me please move it. A new tool in the fight for balance?
Mad Rage Amarr Dark Crystal Corporation	Posted - 2007.06.26 21:06:00 - [3] its a good idea but the hac is a medium assult but the destoryer idea is nice they should make a light resist more hp destoyer but more firepower since the destoryer as less armorment but more firepower then frigate
Erim Solfara Amarr House of Solfara	Posted - 2007.06.26 23:40:00 - [4] AF = Small assault ship HAC = Heavy assault ship MAD = Medium assault ship CSs aren't classed the same way, and even if they were, they don't steal 'heavy assault' from HACs, they'd be super-heavy or something. As for having a 'light resist more firepower' T2 destroyer, they're called interdictors, I'm trying not to step on their toes here. A new tool in the fight for balance?
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2007.07.06 23:12:00 - [5] The -25% rof and +50% optimal is fine on the tier1 tech1 destroyers but if your going to do things like have a speed bonus on the minmatar t2 desties then you would never want the - to ROF and the optimal is useless. Maybe something interesting such as -25% optimal +50% tracking for a close range ship. Or something else. But actually tech2 MAS destroyers would be nice but before that can we get tier2's? I always wanted a tier2 destroyer with the same bonuses as the tier1 battlecruisers and tier3 battleships. You see all Tier1 BC's and Tier3 BS's have the same bonuses except for the amarr. The Amarr BS has a damage bonus where as the BC has a energy wep cap bonus. The resist bonus is the same. Logical isn't it? Really I just want to have a Small --> Medium --> Large natural progression for those who like those bonuses and want to develop further into it.
Erim Solfara Amarr House of Solfara	Posted - 2007.07.10 10:36:00 - [6] That's a very good point, sorry I didn't think of it, what about a optimal penalty and a tracking + falloff bonus instead of the penalty then? How do you think that'd work? A new tool in the fight for balance?
Erim Solfara Amarr House of Solfara	Posted - 2007.09.18 18:02:00 - [7] No-one else wants to comment? A new tool in the fight for balance?
Kekei Genkai	Posted - 2007.09.20 21:33:00 - [8] Er.... these kind of look like interdictors....? D:
Shiela Caldari Warrior Nation United SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.20 22:05:00 - [9] Ill play along with this one, i've always liked the Cormorant and am ashamed of the Flycatcher's current role as a slow missile ship. Staying in line with caldari rail platforms, it should keep the optimal bonus for small hybrid turrets. Introducing the "Harrier" Slot layout 8/5/2 (8 turrets) Penalty: -25% rate of fire for all turrets Bonus: 50% bonus to optimal range for small hybrid turrets Destroyer Skill Bonus: 5% to shield resistances and 10% increase to small hybrid turret tracking per level Medium Assault Ship skill bonus: 10% to Small Hybrid Turret optimal range and 5% to Small Hybrid Turret damage per level No concrete numbers, but shields would be beefed up and resists same as Hawk/ Harpy. Capacitor/ speed/ and grid cpu balanced for a decent fit with proper skills. --------------------------------------------- Need cheap and safe rearch done? Feel free to contact Steve TheWraith in game, or visit: http://warriornation.net/Forum/showthread.php?t=290332
Erim Solfara Amarr House of Solfara	Posted - 2007.09.24 23:21:00 - [10] Would help pad the Caldari railgun line a bit, another one of those infamous progression paths over a river, with several large stepping stones missing... I'll have a good look and see if I can come up with some numbers, and maybe add it to the original post? A new tool in the fight for balance?
James Duar Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.25 12:27:00 - [11] I'm sorry but you can't just toss out some stats and a name and expect any decent commentary. What tactical role do these ships fulfill? Why do people want to fly them? Do they do anything not presently done as well by other ships? Why not? How would they interact with combat on an individual, small gang and fleet level?
Agent 13	Posted - 2007.09.25 18:45:00 - [12] They would fill the role of anti-frigate/ T1 cruiser. But not speed tanked like dictors and better resists.
Erim Solfara Amarr House of Solfara	Posted - 2007.09.26 20:44:00 - [13] Originally by: James Duar I'm sorry but you can't just toss out some stats and a name and expect any decent commentary. What tactical role do these ships fulfill? Why do people want to fly them? Do they do anything not presently done as well by other ships? Why not? How would they interact with combat on an individual, small gang and fleet level? Thats a very good point, although some commentary on what you think they might or ought to do included alongside the admonishing might have helped. As for what how they'd work in game, it's a very difficult question, I primarily 'toss[ed] out some stats' because I felt that they should be added for continuity and prosperity's sake, but you are right, what's the point of adding a pointless ship? For starters I want to make the point that these could be very capable PvE ships, more agility than a cruiser, with a decent tank and a punch to boot, however, if we're going to talk PvP, which one inevitably does on these forums... The Intervener would suit a smaller gang in need of lightweight long range firepower, AFs (excluding perhaps the Rail-Harpy) just won't cut it in this situation, especially not Amarr ones, and an Intervener could really put some pressure on the larger ships that are attempting to get away. The Surtr would act very much like a Vagabond, but with a view to smaller targets like drones, frigates, and fighters perhaps? In a gang with 'ceptors and 'dictors, it would pull up after the tacklers are on the target and provide more damage to take down more stubborn targets. Of course, these are only suggestions, and people are going to disagree with me, but please, if you're going to, post and tell me why you do. A new tool in the fight for balance?
Cippalippus Primus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.27 09:49:00 - [14] This is an excellent idea to revive a class of ships that has actually few uses in the game, and fill a gap that exists between very small ships with far-from good dps and HACs. Not to mention that the cormorant needs a real t2 version, and interdictors are quite a completely different thing from t1 destroyers, sharing just the hull but filling a different role. Small ship with good dps and tracking on a destroyer hull, add some tank... yeah why not?
James Duar Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.27 12:05:00 - [15] I'm just not seeing where these types of ships fit without being overpowered. By all accounts the roles you've defined seem more like what a lot of the Assault Frigates should be worked into, rather then creating a whole new ship class. The only logical continuation of destroyers as far as I can see would be to continue the "fleet warfare" theme of the entire class and use them as a portable shield dropping ship or similar as the alternative role to interdictors.
Cippalippus Primus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.27 13:04:00 - [16] Originally by: James Duar I'm just not seeing where these types of ships fit without being overpowered. By all accounts the roles you've defined seem more like what a lot of the Assault Frigates should be worked into, rather then creating a whole new ship class. The only logical continuation of destroyers as far as I can see would be to continue the "fleet warfare" theme of the entire class and use them as a portable shield dropping ship or similar as the alternative role to interdictors. think about them as hacs with less range, less dps, less hitpoints and better tracking in a destroyer hull. How are they overpowered...?
Cyberus Caldari Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.09.27 14:30:00 - [17] Originally by: Cippalippus Primus Originally by: James Duar I'm just not seeing where these types of ships fit without being overpowered. By all accounts the roles you've defined seem more like what a lot of the Assault Frigates should be worked into, rather then creating a whole new ship class. The only logical continuation of destroyers as far as I can see would be to continue the "fleet warfare" theme of the entire class and use them as a portable shield dropping ship or similar as the alternative role to interdictors. think about them as hacs with less range, less dps, less hitpoints and better tracking in a destroyer hull. How are they overpowered...? And that is exactly what CCP not realy want :). they already not realy happy with hacs so there is an small chance that they will make some new kind of mini-hacs in game again. But probebly some fleet support ship could be interesting. Like target painter role or better ECM bonus or tracing destruption bonuses or whatever it is.

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.