EVE Search - Mini-Dreadnaught/Corvette Idea

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Mini-Dreadnaught/Corvette Idea

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Fogg Esto Perpetua 0	Posted - 2012.01.31 04:38:00 - [1] - Quote I would like to see a new type of battleship, tech2. This new battleship would be given fitting bonuses for capital weaponry, allowing it to fit "oversized" guns on it similar to the new tier 3 bcs principle. This battleship role is to serve as a mini dreadnaught in areas where using caps or super caps is too risky or impossible, such as high sec. It should have a jumpdrive, and be able to jump to low/null, but still able to travel through gates, as its a BS hull. Its jump range could be further than a black ops, but less than a dreadnaught. In relation to stats and balance, it should be somewhere between a buffer BS and a dreadnaught, with about half or a third the effective HP, half the damage, and half the production cost. It should mount capital class guns, and have balls for tracking, making it ineffective or pointless for hitting anything other than caps or structures. This new battleship would fill in a powergap that exist between a battleship and a dreadnaught, as well as giving podpilots a way to siege high sec assets more effectively than pure BS gangs. Caps and supers are the counter to Large POS's, and in highsec there is currently an imbalance as Large Towers offer too much safety in relation to the ships able to attack them. While it is possible to reinforce a large deathstar POS in highsec, it takes massive numbers and many long hours of tedious grinding, even once all modules have been incapped and there is still hours and hours of shield grinding. I have sieged and popped many many high sec pos's and everyone who has knows that sitting shooting a tower until downtime to reinforce it in a RR bs gang is beyond broken. Comments?
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1811	Posted - 2012.01.31 04:41:00 - [2] - Quote Better yet, T1. Cheap, effective, works in high-sec - great for, uh, whale hunting. andski for csm7~
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 1145	Posted - 2012.01.31 05:02:00 - [3] - Quote No. Stop dumbing down caps with more sub cap hulls. Take more DPS or move to low sec. Or remove the cyno restrictions for caps in Eve and allow dreads to be jumped into hi-sec space.
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1811	Posted - 2012.01.31 05:07:00 - [4] - Quote Asuka Solo wrote: No. Stop dumbing down caps with more sub cap hulls. Take more DPS or move to low sec. Or remove the cyno restrictions for caps in Eve and allow dreads to be jumped into hi-sec space. why the fuck would that be a good idea "OH MAN WE CAN BLITZ LEVEL 4 MISSIONS WITH CARRIERS NOW WOOOOT" **** that noise andski for csm7~
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 282	Posted - 2012.01.31 05:07:00 - [5] - Quote Asuka Solo wrote: remove the cyno restrictions for caps in Eve and allow dreads to be jumped into hi-sec space. Horrible things will happen if you allow cynos and capitals into highsec. Horrible things that I entierly support.
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1811	Posted - 2012.01.31 05:11:00 - [6] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: Asuka Solo wrote: remove the cyno restrictions for caps in Eve and allow dreads to be jumped into hi-sec space. Horrible things will happen if you allow cynos and capitals into highsec. Horrible things that I entierly support. yeah sorry I don't want to see pubbies driving up prices on capitals, or jump freighters cynoing right onto the Jita undock with absolutely no chance of interception, or ~high-sec pvp~ with neutral triage carriers ugh andski for csm7~
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 282	Posted - 2012.01.31 05:18:00 - [7] - Quote You forgot titan bridging to bait ships and cearbears running around in rorquals. Also I don't know what you're talking about, I think highsec PVP with neutral triage carriers would be extremely funny. You're just a spoil-sport.
mxzf Shovel Bros 418	Posted - 2012.01.31 05:46:00 - [8] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: Asuka Solo wrote: remove the cyno restrictions for caps in Eve and allow dreads to be jumped into hi-sec space. Horrible things will happen if you allow cynos and capitals into highsec. Horrible things that I entierly support. I believe his point was that highsec caps would be no worse than the OP's idea (an opinion I'm forced to agree with because the OP is effectively suggesting that Dreads be allowed in highsec, just with a different name).
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 282	Posted - 2012.01.31 05:59:00 - [9] - Quote Highsec capitals would be MUCH worse than mini-dreads because there are types of capitals other than dreads. You would also introduce problems related to cynos. In particular it would make moving goods almost completely risk free.
Galphii Furnulum pani nolo THE SPACE P0LICE 5	Posted - 2012.01.31 06:53:00 - [10] - Quote mxzf wrote: Vimsy Vortis wrote: Asuka Solo wrote: remove the cyno restrictions for caps in Eve and allow dreads to be jumped into hi-sec space. Horrible things will happen if you allow cynos and capitals into highsec. Horrible things that I entierly support. I believe his point was that highsec caps would be no worse than the OP's idea (an opinion I'm forced to agree with because the OP is effectively suggesting that Dreads be allowed in highsec, just with a different name). I think it's less about allowing caps into highsec in some form, and more about allowing the capital guns themselves into highsec (and smaller wormholes as well, for that matter) to ease the burden of taking down a POS. I support the OP, with the exception that the ship does not get a jump drive. It should be a slow, heavy beast that is useless for anything except killing a POS or another large, virtually immobile target, and it should be very easy to intercept on gates. This means it won't eclipse true dreadnaughts for lowsec/nullsec ops, and requires a fleet to protect it. There is definitely a need to take down large towers in Highsec and small wormholes though, and we all like to see new tech 2 battleships Finally, a subcap ship that is specialized in dealing big damage against capital ships is just what the game needs - caps and supercaps are too easy to make and too hard to kill, and a small fleet of these monsters could make a big strategic difference. Either that or make Blackops battleships into BS sized stealth bombers, armed with citadel torps.
Velicitia Open Designs 473	Posted - 2012.01.31 15:33:00 - [11] - Quote I'm leaning towards "no" ... but good arguments could sway me in favour of this. In order to "balance" this idea a little... Skill req is BS V, Advanced Spaceship Command 2/3. Anything lower, and I'm solidly against it. It gets two (maybe three?) high slots. one of which MUST be used for a siege module. Without using a siege module, the ship cannot fire the capital gun(s). Mids and lows depend on tanking style (though sort of fall in line with the other battleships). Also, no matter what, these have to be glass cannons ... lolrp reason --> "Due to the massive recoil of the capital guns, there is no safe way for ships of this size to withstand the stresses that would be placed on the weapon hardpoints without diverting power from the warp core. In addition, in order to fit all the necessary capital components into a battleship-sized hull, great sacrifices were made to the shield emitters/armour plating of this class" Furthermore, ships in this class should absolutely require inclusion of capital parts. Not necessarily everything like you put into a true capital though. For example, using a Domi hull and adding some bits from a Moros... (Using base numbers from the prints) Isogen67.399 Megacyte1.407 Mexallon270.905 Nocxium16.79 Pyerite1.075.894 Tritanium4.300.840 Zydrine3.844 Capital Capacitor Battery 9 (Moros needs 25) Capital Construction Parts 10 (Moros needs 30) Capital Power Generator 5 (Moros needs 15) Capital Siege Array 10 (Moros needs 30) Capital Turret Hardpoint 10 (Moros needs 30) rough market price: domi is ~50m Cap battery is ~4m (40m total) Const Parts is ~5m (50m total) Power Generator is ~6m (60m total) Siege Array is ~7m (70m total) Turret Hardpoint is ~7.5m (75m total) so, a rough estimate on the cost is 250-300m for the boat. Might be a little too cheap, but you get the idea. Maybe add a need for a few cap propulsion engines?
Rel'k Bloodlor Mecha Enterprises Fleet Villore Accords 114	Posted - 2012.01.31 15:55:00 - [12] - Quote how about a between BS and dread/carrier ship? Big like and orca but uses gates. Focused and with obvious flaws (very few slots, horrible stats for local tank, very focused ship bonuses, or just more or limited than both BS and dreads. I am in Factional Warfare. Have been from day one.-á-áI will never work for a mega corp in null-sec. Do not make FW like null-sec.-áMake FW worth our time. Reword us for what we already do.Give us some more activities to do.
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 1147	Posted - 2012.01.31 15:57:00 - [13] - Quote Andski wrote: yeah sorry I don't want to see pubbies driving up prices on capitals ugh Blah blah, nobody cares what you don't want to see. mxzf wrote: Vimsy Vortis wrote: Asuka Solo wrote: remove the cyno restrictions for caps in Eve and allow dreads to be jumped into hi-sec space. Horrible things will happen if you allow cynos and capitals into highsec. Horrible things that I entierly support. I believe his point was that highsec caps would be no worse than the OP's idea (an opinion I'm forced to agree with because the OP is effectively suggesting that Dreads be allowed in highsec, just with a different name). Quoted for great justice. Quite frankly, the OP wants a t1 battleship hull, @ a 10th of the price, that has a jump drive, can lock onto sub caps without having an Achilles heel like the bigger ships do, fit big ship guns, do everything the big ships can and then do things they can't. Infact, the only 2 things that a battleship would not be able to do with this OP would be siege and doomsdays. O wait.. concord... moving on.... If sub capital ships start getting capital weapons with glass tanks.... Then capital ships should start getting anti sub cap weapons. Crying about hi-sec mechanics and lack of caps as the sole reason for wanting this abomination, is surely more easily fixed by introducing caps back into hi-sec. It doesn't even have to be all of hisec. Allow cynos into < 0.5/0.6 and allow covert cynos up to 0.8 space. Noob systems stay untouched and these bozos get some hi-sec POS bashing without ruining the capital ship playing field. Playing devil's advocate on the other hand. If Eve did get battleships with capital guns, it would actually give legitimacy to the cry for anti sub cap weapons and expanded capital hulls/t2s/t3s even. Now I'm just tempted to say screw it, let you people ruin the value of caps and then demand a great cap expansion to give you all the finger.
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1830	Posted - 2012.01.31 17:05:00 - [14] - Quote capitals should remain another "if you want to play with these toys, get out of highsec" thing also lmao "the cry for anti subcap weapons" it's like you've never seen tracking-fit turret titans or fighterswarms andski for csm7~
Freya Chang The Crabbit 4	Posted - 2012.01.31 17:50:00 - [15] - Quote Andski wrote: capitals should remain another "if you want to play with these toys, get out of highsec" thing Absolutely agree. I have to have something to aim for.
Skippermonkey Tactical Knightmare 368	Posted - 2012.01.31 18:10:00 - [16] - Quote i like the idea of a T2 battleship in the style of a dread that can fit capital turrets. I agree that it shouldnt have any jump capabilities and should only have 3 turret/missile slots with a utility high. Low EHP but high resists, promoting its use in fleets. The utility 'should' be used to fit a siege mod, as if you dont, you will probably get less dps than a normally fitted battleship, but im not going to stop you fitting a salvager if you want to. It is going to be almost as difficult as a cap ship to fly with all the lvl5 ship and gunnery/missile skill reqs. I like that its something to aim for and not easily attainable. basically a crappy tracking high dps hisec capable structure bashing T2 battleship (Not sure i agree on addition of capital components in its build though. that one is open for debate) the ONLY drawback i can think is if it gets highjacked as the latest station camping ship to be in, could it render the Vindicator obsolete, or would its tracking be truely horrible enough to avoid this? VOTE SKIPPERMONKEY FOR CSM - TERRIBAD AT EVE BUT GREAT AT FORUMS
Velicitia Open Designs 474	Posted - 2012.01.31 18:17:00 - [17] - Quote Yeah, I'm not convinced that the cap parts are a "good" idea either ... but it was the easiest thing I could think of to take the price from 50m (i.e. tier 1 BS) to ~300m. Assuming we were keeping it T1 for now, ofc. If this goes T2, it's easily going to cost as much as a blops BS.
Rel'k Bloodlor Mecha Enterprises Fleet Villore Accords 114	Posted - 2012.01.31 18:25:00 - [18] - Quote The concept like "pocket carriers" is sound, it would just need a fare trade. Unfortunately all my ideas are really only good for a "mini-carrier" I am in Factional Warfare. Have been from day one.-á-áI will never work for a mega corp in null-sec. Do not make FW like null-sec.-áMake FW worth our time. Reword us for what we already do.Give us some more activities to do.
Skippermonkey Tactical Knightmare 373	Posted - 2012.01.31 18:59:00 - [19] - Quote if we go T2 on this ship, then we will have 3 T2 battleships using all 3 tiers of the T1 lineup perfect VOTE SKIPPERMONKEY FOR CSM - TERRIBAD AT EVE BUT GREAT AT FORUMS
Nova Fox Novafox Shipyards 3040	Posted - 2012.01.31 19:22:00 - [20] - Quote Corvettes have been traditionally smaller than frgiates, just once upon a time frgiates where king of the seas in battle. Nova Fox Shipyards Inventory
HELLBOUNDMAN AWESOM-O 4000 Robotics 24	Posted - 2012.01.31 20:06:00 - [21] - Quote Edited this... So marauders are essentially the starting block of this. They are balanced because they are quite weak in pvp due to sensor strength and sig res.. However, it would need a bit more balance and you could reduce the tracking of their weapons. Then allow them to fit a siege module. Leave everything else alone... Except change their skins to be tier 3 bs's and make the rokh version a missile boat. Allow these ships to have bonuses for either range weapons or dps weapons... So like the golem, you'll either have high dps at close range, or moderate dps at long range depending on what weapons it fits. However, they'll use torps/cruise/large turrets instead of capital class weapons. The siege module will give them a buff, but only half that of what a dreadnaught gets. So more around 3000-4000 as compared to 7-8k. Now, so that these ships can be a bit more effective at sieging, when in siege mode they'll be a bit more tanky by bonuses given specifically while in siege mode, but also be substantially less accurate when in siege mode by debuffs that reduce tracking and whatever missile related effects. So when they're in siege mode and more tanky plus more dps, then they're even less effective against those small ships. So now you have a slow, fat ship with good dps, but weak in pvp that can go into siege mode and be able to tackle a high sec or wormhole pos and while in siege mode be able to withstand a good bit more dps than typically, but still requiring a backup fleet in case things get too hairy with resistance. and the sig radius of these ships is a little bit more than an orca. Orca being 550m, these ships would be 600-700... Oh, and these ships would be cost effective. 2 of these ships would be roughly the cost of one dread, but still not worth the cost in low/null situations because the dread has more tank, and more capable dps when in siege mode. However, the dread would stil be able to withstand more damage than two of these ships would be able to. Edit... Perhaps these ships would need to be immune to SOME (not all) types of ewarfare. perhaps they're immune to jamming, but can be dampened. Immune to cap draining, but can be cap neuted. Immune to warp scram, but can be webbed into oblivion... Things like this that give them an advantage at their job, but still make them somewhat weak to ewar. Thus balancing them for high sec POS bashing where not being immune means they suffer, but having some immunity means players can do something against them since null sec tactics aren't usable...
Zirse Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 248	Posted - 2012.01.31 20:57:00 - [22] - Quote If there were mini-dreads, why would anyone risk an actual dread? The whole point of sieging green is that you're putting a ~2B ISK bet on the table and in return you get the benefit of big guns. A sub-cap with XL's would make dreadnaughts irrelevant.
HELLBOUNDMAN AWESOM-O 4000 Robotics 24	Posted - 2012.01.31 21:02:00 - [23] - Quote Zirse wrote: If there were mini-dreads, why would anyone risk an actual dread? The whole point of sieging green is that you're putting a ~2B ISK bet on the table and in return you get the benefit of big guns. A sub-cap with XL's would make dreadnaughts irrelevant. what I stated in my post(directly above yours) is that two of these ships would be set to cost around the same amount as a dread, BUT, since they are in high sec and wormholes where there aren't capitals in most cases, than two of these ships combined would have a good amount less tank than a dread. Thus dreads would still be the much more prefered method for low/null sec POS bashing.
Galphii Furnulum pani nolo THE SPACE P0LICE 5	Posted - 2012.02.01 03:28:00 - [24] - Quote Zirse wrote: If there were mini-dreads, why would anyone risk an actual dread? The whole point of sieging green is that you're putting a ~2B ISK bet on the table and in return you get the benefit of big guns. A sub-cap with XL's would make dreadnaughts irrelevant. So long as they don't have jump drives, Dreads will still be relevant in lowsec and nullsec. At least, as relevant as they are now, which isn't much (they're supercap bait mostly). And yeah cranking out 3.5k dps would be the maximum you'd want them to do. I think having less gun range (a built in range penalty on the ship itself) for capital weapons would be in order too.
Velicitia Open Designs 487	Posted - 2012.02.01 14:40:00 - [25] - Quote Galphii wrote: Zirse wrote: If there were mini-dreads, why would anyone risk an actual dread? The whole point of sieging green is that you're putting a ~2B ISK bet on the table and in return you get the benefit of big guns. A sub-cap with XL's would make dreadnaughts irrelevant. So long as they don't have jump drives, Dreads will still be relevant in lowsec and nullsec. At least, as relevant as they are now, which isn't much (they're supercap bait mostly). And yeah cranking out 3.5k dps would be the maximum you'd want them to do. I think having less gun range (a built in range penalty on the ship itself) for capital weapons would be in order too. Agreed on the range, they probably shouldn't get better than 30-35km (after boosts) tops, might even need to use a lower DPS ammo (e.g. Uranium or Plutonium instead of Antimatter for hybrids), so that they have to be humping a large POS bubble.
Galphii Furnulum pani nolo THE SPACE P0LICE 5	Posted - 2012.02.02 01:15:00 - [26] - Quote Oh and they'd be limited to three capital weapons as well, simply because capital turrets are roughly 10% of the size of a tier 3 battleship Even then the models will still need to be customized with large mounting points along the hull, but visually it works.
XXSketchxx Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 183	Posted - 2012.02.02 01:17:00 - [27] - Quote If you want to play with caps, you'll have to leave the Concord blanket behind.
HELLBOUNDMAN AWESOM-O 4000 Robotics 24	Posted - 2012.02.02 01:37:00 - [28] - Quote XXSketchxx wrote: If you want to play with caps, you'll have to leave the Concord blanket behind. It's not about playing with caps, it's about having a reasonable ship for high sec POS popping without needing a massive fleet to do so.
McOboe Massive Dynamic weapons 22	Posted - 2012.02.02 01:43:00 - [29] - Quote My thoughts- T1 hull, high skills, tanks like a Tier 1 battle-cruiser, and only 1-2 turret/launcher slots with an extra utility slot. Effectively, they'd be similar to how the Tier 3 BC is set up now. The Tier 3 BC has the tank of a cruiser (one step down) and the weapons of a BS (one step up). This would have a couple weapons of a capital ship (one step up) with the tank of a BC (one step down). Like the Tier 3 BCs, they'd have immense trouble with ships smaller than themselves. Additionally, I would limit their low/mid slots to a total of 9, just like the current distribution for the Tier 3 BCs. The intent of this thing would be to hit capitals and POSes, and that's about it. Also, no jump-drive.
Xolve The Suicide Kings Test Alliance Please Ignore 774	Posted - 2012.02.02 20:03:00 - [30] - Quote HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: It's not about playing with caps, it's about having a reasonable ship for high sec POS popping without needing a massive fleet to do so. Make Friends. Stop Being Bad. High sec moons have no strategic importance, so the very idea of having Capital Weapons in Highsec is completely irrelevant and stupid. People sperg out these quickly thought up plans to "make EvE better" and fail to see that ideas like this won't fix anything and will get abused to hell by people smarter then you. Furthermore, whats the point of having Cap Guns in highsec when they don't have any other capitals to be fired at? While this may seem all fine and great up in CONCORD land, you fail to realize the impact that a change like this would have in Low/Null, what would fleets of 1500+ of these ships look like? Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator.

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.