| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
122
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 13:40:00 -
[31] - Quote
That's because you don't DPS-tank the Orca GÇö you buffer it. At no point should it be in a situation where it needs to DPS tank. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Duchess Starbuckington
Starbuckington Manor
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 14:00:00 -
[32] - Quote
Quote:That's because you don't DPS-tank the Orca GÇö you buffer it. At no point should it be in a situation where it needs to DPS tank. This. With a DCII and bulkhead, you have around 200k EHP, but if you find yourself relying on tank in an Orca something has gone horribly wrong anyway.
It's a multi-role industrial/hauling ship, and it does that very well. Stop acting like the Orca is something that it's not. Complaining about its combat performance is like me complaining that a Caracal is a bad miner. |

Firartix
Sense of Serendipity Echoes of Nowhere
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 14:21:00 -
[33] - Quote
TBH I'd rather rely on "active" tank than buffer tank, and you could turn it the other way around aswell: if you have to rely on your structure tanking, it means something has gone terribly wrong! Whatever, all i said about the orca was fail yeah (sorry about that), although i'm still thinking it might be short on slots, you kind of proved it to be mostly balanced.
Anyway - this had nothing to do with the orca in the beginning - as you guys all outlined, the orca is not a combat vessel. Now, this means, since there is truely nothing between an Orca and a Carrier, that there's no real combat/exploration/whatever vessel below capital size. A lot of people have been complaining about how "Motherships" were to fill the niche of "Mobile POS" and didnt, presenting almost no use for exporation in the end. If i recall correctly, there was even an huge thread on the old forums about making a SOE Carrier, dedicated to exploration.
Now, on the same line of thought, why isnt there anything like a subcapital carrier? I guess that's mostly subjective, but as I see it today, carriers and supers nowadays are more like pwnmobile than anything else (save for RR'ing carrs ofc) Of course that's just an idea, but i don't think it'd imbalance the game too much, and would provide some interesting possibilities like high-sec fighter support (yes... i know, that's mostly stupid) See my other arguments in above posts (although there's not much yeah...), above the orca talk.
TL;DR: seriously, what's wrong with this idea of T3 Mini-carrier BS? i'm talking about improving tactical possibilities of the game here, not turning Battleships into a real pwnmobile... which is what will happen if they apply today T3 concepts to Battleships. no way man. |

Duchess Starbuckington
Starbuckington Manor
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 16:28:00 -
[34] - Quote
Quote:TL;DR: seriously, what's wrong with this idea of T3 Mini-carrier BS?
Actually the real question is: what's right with it? Why does the game need this? Why does every area of space have to be spammed with capital ships? |

Velarra
Ghost Festival Naraka.
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 17:14:00 -
[35] - Quote
Firartix wrote:Anyway - this had nothing to do with the orca in the beginning - as you guys all outlined, the orca is not a combat vessel. Now, this means, since there is truely nothing between an Orca and a Carrier, that there's no real combat/exploration/whatever vessel below capital size.
While there is no Maintbay / jumpdrive found in traditional carriers, have you taken a look at the Machariel?
|

Jarome Ambraelle
Industrial and Mining Enterprises Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 17:46:00 -
[36] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:Jarome Ambraelle wrote:All I'm suggesting is adding this lower tier capital to high sec so that corps in the areas have a mobile BoO and mothership without making it devastating to BSs (like super carriers, dreadnoughts, and titans) Its called an Orca, and its built to be exactly what you are looking for.
...You're kidding right? What about it actually makes it a good command ship? It's lack of combat bonuses or it's fewer slots than you a cruiser? |

Anna Lynne Larson
Black Sail Anarchists Yarr Collective
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 17:48:00 -
[37] - Quote
First off, Firartix, if the Orca is meant to be tanking something longer than CONCORD response time, the pilot was A. An idiot (as in the majority of the cases) or B. the pilot was screwed anyways. The point of an Orca (as has been stated) is not to tank, or really anything combat-related at all, the point is to provide mining bonuses to a fleet of carebears and possibly haul their **** so they don't cry when someone comes up and takes their ore from the jetcans. This should be clear to anyone who has ever opened the information window on an Orca and read the words that are written in it.
Second, in general, there really is no need for moar ships right now. The last ship that they added (the Noctis) wasn't just "because"; it filled a niche that was previously filled by refitted Destroyers and Battlecruisers, that of salvaging the **** out of everything in sight. Until you can legitimately give me a niche that a new ship would fill that isn't already filled by another one, no suggestion for a new ship will be taken seriously.
For example, to the OP: Let's say you really really want your damn carrier-style ships in high-sec. Alright, cool.
So why do you want it? Is it for the mobile base of operations? That's called a POS. or a Station if you want to be unclever and not quite mobile about it. Is it for the ship maintenance bay so you can haul your ships with you? Get a neutral orca alt, it's got 400k m3, good enough for a few battlecruisers or something. Is it for the fighters? Those are banned from highsec for a reason. Is it because you want an awesome drone boat? We have the Dominix (admittedly not that awesome, thing looks horribad), Vexor, Ishtar, Gila, Ishkur, and Myrmidon, among others.
Do you want the ridiculous remote rep capability? We have logi ships. Do you want overwhelming DPS? That's pretty much every other combat ship out there.
This is the reason why I personally am holding off on the enthusiasm for more T3 ships (frigates, whatever); there's really no need for them unless CCP's goal is to flood everyone with an overwhelmingly large number of choices of ships that all do the same damn thing.
EDIT: Jarome Ambraelle wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote:Jarome Ambraelle wrote:All I'm suggesting is adding this lower tier capital to high sec so that corps in the areas have a mobile BoO and mothership without making it devastating to BSs (like super carriers, dreadnoughts, and titans) Its called an Orca, and its built to be exactly what you are looking for. ...You're kidding right? What about it actually makes it a good command ship? It's lack of combat bonuses or it's fewer slots than you a cruiser?
Let's see. Command link bonuses, for one. I'm pretty sure it's not limited to only mining links (it says reduction to all gang links), but only mining links are bonused. Doesn't stop you from putting a Skirmish warfare on it if you really want to, does it?
Mobile BoO: It's got a ship maint bay and you can fit your ship in space with it. There are many accounts of wormhole dwellers forgoing a POS and living entirely out of an alt with a scan-fitted Orca that has scan ships, sleeper killing ships, and modules in its bay.
I would assume that a member of an "Industrial Mining" corporation would know what an Orca does and why it's a decent (if Industry-oriented) "Command ship" |

Jarome Ambraelle
Industrial and Mining Enterprises Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 17:51:00 -
[38] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Jarome Ambraelle wrote:No...I'm not...and I'm very aware of the ships defenses, that is exactly why im saying it deserves high sec clearance. It doesn't have overwhelming firepower like the super capitals do, yet can take punishment from multiple battleships and acts like a small mobile base. No, you got that the wrong way around: their overwhelming defenses is what makes it impossible to let them inside highsec space GÇö they would make things far too safe. Having a lot of firepower is not a problem; not being easily suicide-ganked is.
You are probably right on that. Perhaps an even more scaled down version could do some good. It as the same drone capacity, features, and slots, but no triage ability, lowered tanking ability, and can use jump gates. |

Alberio
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 17:56:00 -
[39] - Quote
Going to jump on the 'new ship' thread, and ignore the carrier debate by posting some ship ideas I've been tossing around in my head, which I wouldn't mind seeing:
Dedicated profession ships. ie: ships which grant bonuses to Archeology or Hacking. Limited use? Sure. But it still might be kind of fun (and a hacking ship might be useful during Incursions, or other hacking-related content). Perhaps these are frigates or cruisers of some kind. The bonuses could increase the range and/or the chance of a module successfully working.
Maybe a Sisters of Eve faction ship? Something like the Noctis: grants 5% cycle time of analyzer and codebreaker modules per level, and 100% increase in the range of analyzer/codebreaker modules per level. (Maybe like a pirate faction, it splits Gallente/Minmatar cruiser levels). |

Jarome Ambraelle
Industrial and Mining Enterprises Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 18:02:00 -
[40] - Quote
Duchess Starbuckington wrote:Quote:TL;DR: seriously, what's wrong with this idea of T3 Mini-carrier BS? Actually the real question is: what's right with it? Why does the game need this? Why does every area of space have to be spammed with capital ships?
It gives fleets an advantage over traditional fleets. While regular fleets consist of bulks of similar ships or ships of the same class, a capital of some sort would add substantially to that sides survival. While the capital doesn't need to be overwhelming in firepower, or even go much greater than a BS, it should be able to go toe to toe with almost any three - four battleships at once and have at least one bonus that affects every ship in the fleet. |

Anna Lynne Larson
Black Sail Anarchists Yarr Collective
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 18:04:00 -
[41] - Quote
Jarome Ambraelle wrote:Duchess Starbuckington wrote:Quote:TL;DR: seriously, what's wrong with this idea of T3 Mini-carrier BS? Actually the real question is: what's right with it? Why does the game need this? Why does every area of space have to be spammed with capital ships? It gives fleets an advantage over traditional fleets. While regular fleets consist of bulks of similar ships or ships of the same class, a capital of some sort would add substantially to that sides survival. While the capital doesn't need to be overwhelming in firepower, or even go much greater than a BS, it should be able to go toe to toe with almost any three - four battleships at once and have at least one bonus that affects every ship in the fleet.
Right, so now you have bulks of those new ships and highsec becomes "mini-carriers Online" |

Jarome Ambraelle
Industrial and Mining Enterprises Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 18:06:00 -
[42] - Quote
Alberio wrote:Going to jump on the 'new ship' thread, and ignore the carrier debate by posting some ship ideas I've been tossing around in my head, which I wouldn't mind seeing:
Dedicated profession ships. ie: ships which grant bonuses to Archeology or Hacking. Limited use? Sure. But it still might be kind of fun (and a hacking ship might be useful during Incursions, or other hacking-related content). Perhaps these are frigates or cruisers of some kind. The bonuses could increase the range and/or the chance of a module successfully working.
Maybe a Sisters of Eve faction ship? Something like the Noctis: grants 5% cycle time of analyzer and codebreaker modules per level, and 100% increase in the range of analyzer/codebreaker modules per level. (Maybe like a pirate faction, it splits Gallente/Minmatar cruiser levels).
Nice idea :) People should be encouraged to find a ship niche that suites them.
How about when Dust 514 comes out, we get a dedicated planetary siege cruiser for planet bombardment? |

Jarome Ambraelle
Industrial and Mining Enterprises Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 18:09:00 -
[43] - Quote
Anna Lynne Larson wrote:Jarome Ambraelle wrote:Duchess Starbuckington wrote:Quote:TL;DR: seriously, what's wrong with this idea of T3 Mini-carrier BS? Actually the real question is: what's right with it? Why does the game need this? Why does every area of space have to be spammed with capital ships? It gives fleets an advantage over traditional fleets. While regular fleets consist of bulks of similar ships or ships of the same class, a capital of some sort would add substantially to that sides survival. While the capital doesn't need to be overwhelming in firepower, or even go much greater than a BS, it should be able to go toe to toe with almost any three - four battleships at once and have at least one bonus that affects every ship in the fleet. Right, so now you have bulks of those new ships and highsec becomes "mini-carriers Online"
No. These ships can DEFEND against several ships, but do not have firepower to take them out. That is the purpose of them having a fleet that provides the guns. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
122
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 18:21:00 -
[44] - Quote
Jarome Ambraelle wrote:It gives fleets an advantage over traditional fleets. While regular fleets consist of bulks of similar ships or ships of the same class, a capital of some sort would add substantially to that sides survival. GǪand that would be bad. It would significantly reduce the variety of ship compositions and would, indeed, make it into mini-carriers online since you'd pretty much have to field one to have a sporting chance.
Quote:it should be able to go toe to toe with almost any three - four battleships at once and have at least one bonus that affects every ship in the fleet. Why is that needed? More importantly: if it can stand up to that kind of abuse, how do you gank it?
Quote:No. These ships can DEFEND against several ships GǪwhich, again, would be bad.
Ships in highsec need to be fragile. Otherwise, they provide far too much safety under the umbrella of CONCORD. What you're asking for has no place in that kind of environment.
But sure, if you want that kind of survivability it must come at a cost. How about: they cannot be undocked unless you're under a wardec? Or how about: they are completely exempt from CONCORD protection GÇö attacking one does not trigger a response and does not cause a sec status hit. That's the paradox you need to address if you want it in highsec: a ship that strong needs to still be easy to kill. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Anna Lynne Larson
Black Sail Anarchists Yarr Collective
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 18:53:00 -
[45] - Quote
Jarome Ambraelle wrote:
No. These ships can DEFEND against several ships, but do not have firepower to take them out. That is the purpose of them having a fleet that provides the guns.
ok, so you say "toe-to-toe with almost any three-four battleships at once". That carries the connotation that it can both tank and fight back.
What you're now describing in this case is a force multiplier. For example, a Falcon can lock down three-four battleships without having the firepower to take them out. ECM is considered a defense against attack, so it fits your description aptly.
Tippia wrote:
Ships in highsec need to be fragile. Otherwise, they provide far too much safety under the umbrella of CONCORD. What you're asking for has no place in that kind of environment.
But sure, if you want that kind of survivability it must come at a cost. How about: they cannot be undocked unless you're under a wardec? Or how about: they are completely exempt from CONCORD protection GÇö attacking one does not trigger a response and does not cause a sec status hit. That's the paradox you need to address if you want it in highsec: a ship that strong needs to still be easy to kill.
The only problem is that there's no real reason to set those conditions other than "because it would unbalance the game". If a ship being undocked under certain conditions would unbalance the game, then the ship is broken and needs to be reworked. |

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 20:19:00 -
[46] - Quote
Here I was thinking I get new ideas from the community, le sigh....
My Catalouge of Designed ships from smallest to biggest
Fighter-Interceptor - Fighters designed to take out other fighters and drones. Corvette - Pod piloted Fighter Sqadron leader, provides bonuses to assigned fighters normally lost from a carrier.
Minelayer - Frigate with special control for suicide drones and expanded drone bays Swamer - Tech 2 Minelayer deploys more mines than traditionally, suffers lack of cargo bay and limited employment on field.
Command Frigate - Frigate able to fit a single link and keep pace with desrons
Bomber - Sniping Missile Frigate Heavy Bomber - Non-stealth bomber, with multiple launchers.
Heavy Destoyer - Less Offense more defense DDs Gunship - T2
Escort Destoyer - lower offense DD with more utility Starking - T2 Support ECM platform (IE Remote Sensor Boosters)
Tenders - Tier 2 Logistics for Hull and Module Repairs, able to transfer heat from others to itself, recovers drones and delivers drones and ammos into ships bays remotely.
Voyager Ships - Sisters of Eve Ships designed for exploration and revamped archeaology
Hypernet Ships - Mordus Legion ships designed for Digital Fortress Artisans and revamped hacking.
Reclaimer Ships - Thukker Tribe ships designed for advanced salvaging that recovers entire parts of scraps.
Munitions Ships - A heavy minelaying Tech 2 battlecruiser, has longer endurance than the smaller ships but still is exhaustable supply of mines rather quickly
Flagships - A special Tech 2 battleship that generates a powerful field around itself, field effects vary upon the desire of the pilot scripting, most electronic warfare effects and other non traditional ones such as Forcefields. Some effects consume fuel.
Superbattleship - New Weight Classifcation and Training Regiment, Warships marginally larger than a battleship that bear some capitol ship like capabilities and mission roles without outmassing gate limits, much sacrifices where made into the desing that they are nothing more than slightly tougher and slightly more dangerous battleships overall. IE an Orca would fall into this classification if it had weapons.
Tier 1 Escort Carrier- A small carrier that can only launch a single wing of fighters to support the fleet, has exclusive use of fighter interceptors. Great for escorting assualt forces Cynojammed system where carriers and super carriers are present.
Tier 2 Arsenel Ship - A small tough seige platform able to mount a seige mode module and a XL gun. Great for assailing capitol ships and seiging any cynojammers.
I do have alot more ships but I donnot feel like sharing them at the moment. |

Jarome Ambraelle
Industrial and Mining Enterprises Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 20:26:00 -
[47] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Jarome Ambraelle wrote:It gives fleets an advantage over traditional fleets. While regular fleets consist of bulks of similar ships or ships of the same class, a capital of some sort would add substantially to that sides survival. GǪand that would be bad. It would significantly reduce the variety of ship compositions and would, indeed, make it into mini-carriers online since you'd pretty much have to field one to have a sporting chance. Quote:it should be able to go toe to toe with almost any three - four battleships at once and have at least one bonus that affects every ship in the fleet. Why is that needed? More importantly: if it can stand up to that kind of abuse, how do you gank it? Quote:No. These ships can DEFEND against several ships GǪwhich, again, would be bad. Ships in highsec need to be fragile. Otherwise, they provide far too much safety under the umbrella of CONCORD. What you're asking for has no place in that kind of environment. But sure, if you want that kind of survivability it must come at a cost. How about: they cannot be undocked unless you're under a wardec? Or how about: they are completely exempt from CONCORD protection GÇö attacking one does not trigger a response and does not cause a sec status hit. That's the paradox you need to address if you want it in highsec: a ship that strong needs to still be easy to kill.
I like your idea about it only being unlocked during war decade, that could be one alternative. As for no aggression, that's not such a good idea because ten battleships might start attacking her, but she can't fight back without Concord retribution.
The ship is no more or less fragile than any other ship. It could be rushed by a fleet of cruisers and or battleships or find itself against another corps carrier.
Perhaps for best balance individual players may not construct one, but corps may however are limited to only one. Once one is in their possession it can not be given to anyone else and can only either be destroyed or will be placed in market for corps who don't have one yet should the corp disband. |

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 20:27:00 -
[48] - Quote
Quote: Perhaps for best balance individual players may not construct one, but corps may however are limited to only one. Once one is in their possession it can not be given to anyone else and can only either be destroyed or will be placed in market for corps who don't have one yet should the corp disband.
[/quote]
hmmm you're going about the entirely the wrong way.
To put it simply:
We keep looking to the heavens to justify our existence. -NASA |

Jarome Ambraelle
Industrial and Mining Enterprises Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 20:32:00 -
[49] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Quote: Perhaps for best balance individual players may not construct one, but corps may however are limited to only one. Once one is in their possession it can not be given to anyone else and can only either be destroyed or will be placed in market for corps who don't have one yet should the corp disband.
hmmm you're going about the entirely the wrong way. [/quote]
How so? |

Jarome Ambraelle
Industrial and Mining Enterprises Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 20:34:00 -
[50] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Here I was thinking I get new ideas from the community, le sigh....
My Catalouge of Designed ships from smallest to biggest
Fighter-Interceptor - Fighters designed to take out other fighters and drones. Corvette - Pod piloted Fighter Sqadron leader, provides bonuses to assigned fighters normally lost from a carrier.
Minelayer - Frigate with special control for suicide drones and expanded drone bays Swamer - Tech 2 Minelayer deploys more mines than traditionally, suffers lack of cargo bay and limited employment on field.
Command Frigate - Frigate able to fit a single link and keep pace with desrons
Bomber - Sniping Missile Frigate Heavy Bomber - Non-stealth bomber, with multiple launchers.
Heavy Destoyer - Less Offense more defense DDs Gunship - T2
Escort Destoyer - lower offense DD with more utility Starking - T2 Support ECM platform (IE Remote Sensor Boosters)
Tenders - Tier 2 Logistics for Hull and Module Repairs, able to transfer heat from others to itself, recovers drones and delivers drones and ammos into ships bays remotely.
Voyager Ships - Sisters of Eve Ships designed for exploration and revamped archeaology
Hypernet Ships - Mordus Legion ships designed for Digital Fortress Artisans and revamped hacking.
Reclaimer Ships - Thukker Tribe ships designed for advanced salvaging that recovers entire parts of scraps.
Munitions Ships - A heavy minelaying Tech 2 battlecruiser, has longer endurance than the smaller ships but still is exhaustable supply of mines rather quickly
Flagships - A special Tech 2 battleship that generates a powerful field around itself, field effects vary upon the desire of the pilot scripting, most electronic warfare effects and other non traditional ones such as Forcefields. Some effects consume fuel.
Superbattleship - New Weight Classifcation and Training Regiment, Warships marginally larger than a battleship that bear some capitol ship like capabilities and mission roles without outmassing gate limits, much sacrifices where made into the desing that they are nothing more than slightly tougher and slightly more dangerous battleships overall. IE an Orca would fall into this classification if it had weapons.
Tier 1 Escort Carrier- A small carrier that can only launch a single wing of fighters to support the fleet, has exclusive use of fighter interceptors. Great for escorting assualt forces Cynojammed system where carriers and super carriers are present.
Tier 2 Arsenel Ship - A small tough seige platform able to mount a seige mode module and a XL gun. Great for assailing capitol ships and seiging any cynojammers.
I do have alot more ships but I donnot feel like sharing them at the moment.
I believe most ships can be fit with thee or similar configurations. At least your thinking creatively though.
|

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 20:36:00 -
[51] - Quote
Jarome Ambraelle wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Quote: Perhaps for best balance individual players may not construct one, but corps may however are limited to only one. Once one is in their possession it can not be given to anyone else and can only either be destroyed or will be placed in market for corps who don't have one yet should the corp disband.
hmmm you're going about the entirely the wrong way.
How so?[/quote]
When you design a ship you have to work backwards,
You first start with a need and make all your checks and balances there, like building a sandcaste you start with a foundation.
You do not make a ship then make it try to fit somewhere this is the equivalent of taking a shovel to seemingly nice sandcastle but one mistake and it all falls apart.
|

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
17
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 21:00:00 -
[52] - Quote
Jarome... answer this for me...
If my enemy has a ship that can tank multiple battleships and still fight back, why would I bring anything else to the field other than that same ship (or staggering amount of people)?
If there is a corp restriction to their use... I have all my guys make their own personal corps, war dec you and/or make an alliance between us all, and then each field our own personal "mini-carrier."
Look... here's the thing. Your idea is not new. CCP tried to introduce the "flagships" concept by bringing in Titans and Supercarriers. They were meant to be so ungodly expensive and so difficult to build that only large groups of players could afford to build them... making them corporate/alliance assets... "flagships."
The reality of the situation was that players found a way to streamline the building process, amass huge amounts of ISK (both corporate/alliance and personal), and begin building/buying/selling them for "personal use." And given their power, it'd be DUMB not to build/buy them en mass and field them against an enemy who may or may not also be building/buying them as well in the hope to gain the SAME tactical advantage. It's the goddamn Cold War all over again. Except without the fear of wiping out all life as we know it and no economic/resource/manpower/political restrictions.
Now... you can TRY to install restrictions on the use of "mini-carriers"... however past experience tells us that no matter how obscure a loophole or a workaround is, it WILL be found. In which case you create a nightmare scenario for the programmers on trying to keep one step ahead of the players... and all because one ship seemed "cool" to introduce. "Just because I seem like an idiot, doesn't mean I am one." ~Unknown |

Jarome Ambraelle
Industrial and Mining Enterprises Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 22:05:00 -
[53] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Jarome... answer this for me...
If my enemy has a ship that can tank multiple battleships and still fight back, why would I bring anything else to the field other than that same ship (or staggering amount of people)?
If there is a corp restriction to their use... I have all my guys make their own personal corps, war dec you and/or make an alliance between us all, and then each field our own personal "mini-carrier."
Look... here's the thing. Your idea is not new. CCP tried to introduce the "flagships" concept by bringing in Titans and Supercarriers. They were meant to be so ungodly expensive and so difficult to build that only large groups of players could afford to build them... making them corporate/alliance assets... "flagships."
The reality of the situation was that players found a way to streamline the building process, amass huge amounts of ISK (both corporate/alliance and personal), and begin building/buying/selling them for "personal use." And given their power, it'd be DUMB not to build/buy them en mass and field them against an enemy who may or may not also be building/buying them as well in the hope to gain the SAME tactical advantage. It's the goddamn Cold War all over again. Except without the fear of wiping out all life as we know it and no economic/resource/manpower/political restrictions.
Now... you can TRY to install restrictions on the use of "mini-carriers"... however past experience tells us that no matter how obscure a loophole or a workaround is, it WILL be found. In which case you create a nightmare scenario for the programmers on trying to keep one step ahead of the players... and all because one ship seemed "cool" to introduce.
Because unless you bring out a bunch of weaker drones with faster tracking, anything below battlecruisers would be difficult to target and could take it out without the financial risk of ****** ships or another capital.
As for the other corporations, the answer is simpler than you think. Each corp could have a minimum member limit to support the flagship. Also the number of corps that can engage any corp at one time could be 5one or less so that fixes that as well. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
122
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 22:31:00 -
[54] - Quote
Jarome Ambraelle wrote:I like your idea about it only being unlocked during war decade, that could be one alternative. As for no aggression, that's not such a good idea because ten battleships might start attacking her, but she can't fight back without Concord retribution. Yes. That's the whole point: if you want something that strong, it needs to be horribly dangerous to sit in one, or people will use it to be far safer than they should be.
Quote:The ship is no more or less fragile than any other ship. It could be rushed by a fleet of cruisers and or battleships or find itself against another corps carrier. Since the whole design concept is "it can stand up to multiple battleships", it is less fragile than is good for anyone. GÇ£Multiple battleshipGÇ¥ is how many should be needed to one-shot it GÇö not how many you need to grind it down over time.
But as others have mentioned: the problem here is that you want a ship with particular characteristics, not a role, and you're trying to invent the latter based on the former. That's not a good way of doing things. You do it the other way around: you figure out a role that needs to be filled and then invent a ship for it. GÇ£Withstanding damageGÇ¥ is not a useful role, and it is most certainly not what's needed in highsec, due to the protection that already exists there. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 22:43:00 -
[55] - Quote
I was also hopping tippia would consider the list but if i remember right she already did as I made the ships up back in the day. \
Either way without something amazing new in mechanics I cannot make any more new ship roles atm. It just be more of the same remixed |

Duchess Starbuckington
Starbuckington Manor
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 22:50:00 -
[56] - Quote
Additionally, if this thing could carry fighters, what's to stop me just clustering a bunch of these round a POS or station and assigning an enormous blob of fighters to the gang doing the actual fighting? |

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 22:55:00 -
[57] - Quote
Duchess Starbuckington wrote:Additionally, if this thing could carry fighters, what's to stop me just clustering a bunch of these round a POS or station and assigning an enormous blob of fighters to the gang doing the actual fighting?
Same reason why they dont do it today, carrier bonuses get lost when they're assigned to pilots. |

Jude Lloyd
Heretic Army B A N E
31
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 23:03:00 -
[58] - Quote
Mini-Logistics.
So T2 Class Frigates with bonus's to remote repair range and amount. Great for Wolfpacks and Frigate-on-Frigate PVP.
|

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 23:44:00 -
[59] - Quote
Jude Lloyd wrote:Mini-Logistics.
So T2 Class Frigates with bonus's to remote repair range and amount. Great for Wolfpacks and Frigate-on-Frigate PVP.
Slaps on Pulse Repair Module or Pulse Shield Recharger on the Frigate to be able fleet members only inside the burst radius.
I name thee Auxiliary Ships |

MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
19
|
Posted - 2011.09.09 00:09:00 -
[60] - Quote
hmm new ships?
ok ewar cap ship that can tackle super caps but only when in seige mode
a real mother ship mobile unanchoable jumpable outpost that can traverse worm holes...
heavy bomber tech II tier II bc's that shoot citadel torps (think big stealth bomber)
a bs sized dedicated logi ship
tier II destroyers
tech III frigs
deep space exploration vessel designed to go outside of solar systems to find rouge planets and sets up shop using science stuff to get advanced minnerals/technology for tech III mods...
a new dictor probe/ hictor mod that instead of disrupting warp it acts as a giant stasis webber... 20km radius...
umm.... perhaps a big bs that works like a battlestar where is gets like 2 captal guns and gets a wing of fighters...
thats it for now |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |