| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sc00bs
Mechanical Eagles Inc.
The Ancients.
0
   |
Posted - 2012.02.28 19:58:00 -
[1] - Quote
I would love to see something down with a ship platform that has been ignored, the destroyer.
A faction Destroyer set would be interesting
But more so, something along the lines of a heavy destroyer or T3 Destroyer
im kinda fond of the name Cutters
any takers? |
mxzf
Shovel Bros
798
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 20:08:00 -
[2] - Quote
Why? What role would this proposed ship fill? Why is it needed in the game?
"It sounds cool" or "But I want it" aren't reasons for adding ships to the game.
Also, there have been about half a dozen "moar destroyers" threads already in the last couple weeks; none of which provide sufficient reason for them to be added due to a deficit of roles for them to fill. |
Velicitia
Open Designs
689
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 20:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
first, get forum searching to level 2 ...
edit --> dammit mx ...  |
Anshio Tamark
Avitus Lugus
109
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 22:15:00 -
[4] - Quote
Sc00bs wrote:I would love to see something down with a ship platform that has been ignored, the destroyer.
Destroyers have been ignored? Then what ships received a buff with the launch of Crucible? It can't be the Destroyers. They're ignored, as you incorrectly claim. They were actually made about 33% deadlier, after they had their -25% Rate of Fire penalty removed, but if that's the new definition of "ignored", I haven't been keeping up with the latest edition of the "English to Stupid vocabulary".
Learn to search the forums and figure out that when 5 other threads calling for new destroyers have been critisized, one more probably also will.
TL;DR: Repeated thread. Topic still not supported. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources
Tactical Narcotics Team
251
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 00:28:00 -
[5] - Quote
Sc00bs wrote:I would love to see something down with a ship platform that has been ignored, the destroyer.
A faction Destroyer set would be interesting
But more so, something along the lines of a heavy destroyer or T3 Destroyer
im kinda fond of the name Cutters
any takers?
Heavy destroyers are called 'battlecruisers'. |
Rawls Canardly
Phoenix Confederation
20
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 02:43:00 -
[6] - Quote
mxzf wrote:Why? What role would this proposed ship fill? Why is it needed in the game?
"It sounds cool" or "But I want it" aren't reasons for adding ships to the game.
Also, there have been about half a dozen "moar destroyers" threads already in the last couple weeks; none of which provide sufficient reason for them to be added due to a deficit of roles for them to fill.
How about: "Because it makes no sense in the fiction that each race would only produce one of a class of ship"
Really. During WWII, there were eight classes of destroyer hulls, in the US inventory alone. The destroyer concept was discontinued afterwards, but the fact remains. Variety is nice for both fiction and entertainment's sake. And this is a game. two ships that fill the same role are not that big of a deal, provided they perform similarly. (as opposed to the tier system chasm we see between battlecruisers) |
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
The Revenant Order
564
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 02:45:00 -
[7] - Quote
The more role overlaps there are, the more versatile, and thus lethal the fleet.
"War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives." |
Ares Renton
Smoking Minerals Syndicate
Cannabis Legionis
26
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 03:08:00 -
[8] - Quote
mxzf wrote:Why? What role would this proposed ship fill? Why is it needed in the game?
"It sounds cool" or "But I want it" aren't reasons for adding ships to the game.
Also, there have been about half a dozen "moar destroyers" threads already in the last couple weeks; none of which provide sufficient reason for them to be added due to a deficit of roles for them to fill.
Super interdictor.
No ships in the system can warp, jump, dock or use gates.
On ship death, if the pilot does not self-destruct or eject, CCP automatically orders a pizza, pays for it, and delivers it to whoever dealt the killing blow. |
Rawls Canardly
Phoenix Confederation
20
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 03:21:00 -
[9] - Quote
As for the T3 destroyer idea? no. I'd rather see more T1 hulls first, and I'm certain I'm not alone. Destroyers feel like an afterthought at the moment. |
Ares Renton
Smoking Minerals Syndicate
Cannabis Legionis
26
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 03:38:00 -
[10] - Quote
Rawls Canardly wrote:As for the T3 destroyer idea? no. I'd rather see more T1 hulls first, and I'm certain I'm not alone. Destroyers feel like an afterthought at the moment.
Odd, considering it's an entire ship class.
I could think of a bunch of ideas (tech 1 or 2):
EWAR boats (lots of midslots, few lows and highs)
Stealth Snipers (covops cloak + lots of guns)
Living Bombs (lots of high slots, smartbombs only)
Light Carriers (10 light drones) -not an original idea
Pursuit (Fast destroyers)
Heavy Scout (Astrometrics bonus, can detect stealth).
Light Command Ships (cheap but fragile)
Heavy Interceptor (larger sig than a frigate, slower, but much longer-range point)
Heavy Assault Ship (Same role as tech 1 destroyer, but more effective, as tech 2/pirate frigates outclass tech 1 destroyers)
etc. |
Rawls Canardly
Phoenix Confederation
20
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 04:44:00 -
[11] - Quote
Ares Renton wrote:Rawls Canardly wrote:As for the T3 destroyer idea? no. I'd rather see more T1 hulls first, and I'm certain I'm not alone. Destroyers feel like an afterthought at the moment. Odd, considering it's an entire ship class. I could think of a bunch of ideas (tech 1 or 2): EWAR boats (lots of midslots, few lows and highs) Stealth Snipers (covops cloak + lots of guns) Living Bombs (lots of high slots, smartbombs only) Light Carriers (10 light drones) -not an original idea Pursuit (Fast destroyers) Heavy Scout (Astrometrics bonus, can detect stealth). Light Command Ships (cheap but fragile) Heavy Interceptor (larger sig than a frigate, slower, but much longer-range point) Heavy Assault Ship (Same role as tech 1 destroyer, but more effective, as tech 2/pirate frigates outclass tech 1 destroyers) etc.
Off the top of my head:
T1 Combat craft, similar to existing but with opposite philosophy for that race (similar tank - dps compared to to original 4)
T2 Patrol Boats ( low sig, T2 resists, natural 2-point tackle resistance)
T1 Pirate Destroyers (yarr!)
T2 Heavy bombers (non-cloaking, can mount 2x bomb launchers, Torps) |
Danel Tosh
EVE Protection Agency
Intrepid Crossing
9
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 05:27:00 -
[12] - Quote
personally I think we could use some new destroyers.
heres some ideas ill throw around....
Ammar- Laser boat that favors range over raw dammage.
Gallente- Sacrifices Turret slots for a respectible dronebay.
Minmatar- speedy split weapon prototype.
Caldari- favors missiles and shield resistance.
now at least one or two of these new destroyers should be vertical, because all current dessy models look very flat and horrizontal. please feel free to add anything else. |
Tidurious
The Dirty Rejects
Scelus Sceleris.
133
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 05:47:00 -
[13] - Quote
OP - go **** yourself because you can't search. After that is finished, suicide booth is over there.
Learn to search, you fuckingidiot |
Rawls Canardly
Phoenix Confederation
20
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:01:00 -
[14] - Quote
Tidurious wrote:OP - go **** yourself because you can't search. After that is finished, suicide booth is over there.
Learn to search, you fuckingidiot
Thank you for your useful input. That added so much to the conversation. There should be an IQ test to even log in....
Back to relevant input. As there are quite a few threads on this, let's keep this on page one and turn it into a threadnought so people won't make the mistake again. |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
29
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:23:00 -
[15] - Quote
Rawls Canardly wrote:
How about: "Because it makes no sense in the fiction that each race would only produce one of a class of ship"
Really. During WWII, there were eight classes of destroyer hulls, in the US inventory alone. The destroyer concept was discontinued afterwards, but the fact remains. Variety is nice for both fiction and entertainment's sake. And this is a game. two ships that fill the same role are not that big of a deal, provided they perform similarly. (as opposed to the tier system chasm we see between battlecruisers)
Firstly, there are two of each destroyer if I'm not mistaken. There is the vanilla destroyer and the T2 Interdictor for each race. Call me stupid but I'm fairly sure that's more than one.
Secondly, there you go trying to compare EvE to the US military. Don't. Please. Just don't. It shows a complete lack of understanding. This is a game. It's not based on the US military. Just because the US military made more than one destroyer it means nothing to an online spaceship game. Please stop it with the US military comparisons.
Even if you insist (and I'm sure you do) on making comparisons between antiquated US military doctrine and an internet spaceship game you yourself have just pointed out that Destroyers were discontinued. So are you saying they should be removed from EvE?
As mxzf has repeatedly pointed out on this forum, unless you have a valid reason for a new ship to be introduced then it simply won't be. For those that don't understand why CCP shouldn't give everyone who posts "this new ship would be spangly super awesome sauce so we musts haves it" a new ship its quite simple. CCP has limited dev resource. If they spend it making pointless ships which most people don't want they will get masses of players closing down their accounts. That means less revenue which means less dev time. If you can't see this already EvE is probably too much for you.
|
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc
Mordus Angels
110
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 17:35:00 -
[16] - Quote
Ok, a quick counter to the inevitable and seen here again talking points about why should a new ship exist without being needed.
The game does not need ANY new ships EVER. That is not the reason a new ship was ever placed in the game by CCP. The closest the game gets to pointing out that a new ship might be wanted, is when a role you would expect it to fill, is being filled by what amounts to an unexpected ship or class of ships.
A couple of details to consider...
...for just the subclass of Assault Frigate, under each race you will find two versions.
...for just the subclass of Heavy Assault Cruiser, under each race you will find two versions.
There are ONLY two destroyers for each race, and that is combining all T1 and T2 versions together, not just one of the four T2 subclasses like frigate, or one of the five T2 subclasses like cruiser.
The ship that actually gets modules and bonuses to frigates, (the destroyer seems to be treated like a frigate subclass overall), is the cruiser.
The cruiser class is the current required platform for Assault Launchers.
When the topic came up about which ship actually got bonuses that made it an ideal frigate fighting ship, I was pointed to the Stabber Fleet Issue.
Another pointed out that BCs were great at wiping out entire fleets of frigates.
Maybe it's just me, but one sided fights are not what should be encouraged. Cruisers like the ones described should not be what we accept as the best answer to frigates for the best pew.
And try to keep in mind, the Assault Destroyer I had suggested, (in another thread), is just as likely to be used WITH frigates as AGAINST frigates. The same way frigates already fight each other.
What makes it most interesting, is that when working with frigates, it just might give them enough tanking and firepower to fight back against the cruisers with a chance to do something besides be astro-roadkill. |
mxzf
Shovel Bros
813
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 18:00:00 -
[17] - Quote
Tchulen wrote:As mxzf has repeatedly pointed out on this forum, unless you have a valid reason for a new ship to be introduced then it simply won't be. For those that don't understand why CCP shouldn't give everyone who posts "this new ship would be spangly super awesome sauce so we musts haves it" a new ship its quite simple. CCP has limited dev resource. If they spend it making pointless ships which most people don't want they will get masses of players closing down their accounts. That means less revenue which means less dev time. If you can't see this already EvE is probably too much for you.
Not to mention that, if ships get added without a specific purpose in mind, they will either end up obsoleting other ships (and becoming the only thing that's used) or not being used at all because other ships are better. The more ships there are in the game (especially in the same roles), the harder it is to balance everything. |
Rawls Canardly
Phoenix Confederation
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 00:00:00 -
[18] - Quote
Tchulen wrote:Rawls Canardly wrote:
How about: "Because it makes no sense in the fiction that each race would only produce one of a class of ship"
Really. During WWII, there were eight classes of destroyer hulls, in the US inventory alone. The destroyer concept was discontinued afterwards, but the fact remains. Variety is nice for both fiction and entertainment's sake. And this is a game. two ships that fill the same role are not that big of a deal, provided they perform similarly. (as opposed to the tier system chasm we see between battlecruisers)
Firstly, there are two of each destroyer if I'm not mistaken. There is the vanilla destroyer and the T2 Interdictor for each race. Call me stupid but I'm fairly sure that's more than one. Secondly, there you go trying to compare EvE to the US military. Don't. Please. Just don't. It shows a complete lack of understanding. This is a game. It's not based on the US military. Just because the US military made more than one destroyer it means nothing to an online spaceship game. Please stop it with the US military comparisons. Even if you insist (and I'm sure you do) on making comparisons between antiquated US military doctrine and an internet spaceship game you yourself have just pointed out that Destroyers were discontinued. So are you saying they should be removed from EvE? As mxzf has repeatedly pointed out on this forum, unless you have a valid reason for a new ship to be introduced then it simply won't be. For those that don't understand why CCP shouldn't give everyone who posts "this new ship would be spangly super awesome sauce so we musts haves it" a new ship its quite simple. CCP has limited dev resource. If they spend it making pointless ships which most people don't want they will get masses of players closing down their accounts. That means less revenue which means less dev time. If you can't see this already EvE is probably too much for you.
Considering the very term "destroyer" is a us naval term, as well as the concept, which is very similar in role to the Eve destroyer, why should I not?
As for why? Because it's fun.it's a game. It's fictionally supportable.
Granted, no ships need added before balancing the current mess, but seeing some new stuff on occasion would be nice, and destroyers are the most lacking. |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY
Tribal Conclave
68
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 00:01:00 -
[19] - Quote
A new destroyer for Cloak hunting FTW!!!! |
Rawls Canardly
Phoenix Confederation
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 00:17:00 -
[20] - Quote
Corrections are in order. Destroyers are still in use, and the modern iteration was British by design. |
Amaroq Dricaldari
Malicious Mission Murderers
92
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 08:16:00 -
[21] - Quote
Tidurious wrote:OP - go **** yourself because you can't search. After that is finished, suicide booth is over there.
Learn to search, you fuckingidiot
Learn some manners, or I will click on a certain button, and a certain group of people won't be very happy with you.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 12:55:00 -
[22] - Quote
Rawls Canardly wrote:
Considering the very term "destroyer" is a us naval term, as well as the concept, which is very similar in role to the Eve destroyer, why should I not?
As for why? Because it's fun.it's a game. It's fictionally supportable.
Granted, no ships need added before balancing the current mess, but seeing some new stuff on occasion would be nice, and destroyers are the most lacking.
Why should you not? Because the term was invented by the British Royal Navy and the design was to combat torpedo boats which isn't like the destroyer in EvE (in RL that was it's specific purpose). That's the pedantic reason. The real reason is that this is a game about spaceships, not ships that float on water. Because this is pure fiction whereas real military is, well, real. Because the time periods between the real and imaginary world of eve is vast. Because, frankly, comparing EvE ships to floating ships is truly dumb. It's like comparing shoe polish to polish people just because the word is the same.
Yes, some new ships would be nice as long as they fill a role that isn't being filled already. Unfortunately I haven't read anything regarding destroyers which fits this definition. Suggesting adding ships to the game because "it's fun" isn't a valid reason. |
Rawls Canardly
Phoenix Confederation
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 14:11:00 -
[23] - Quote
Tchulen wrote:Rawls Canardly wrote:
Considering the very term "destroyer" is a us naval term, as well as the concept, which is very similar in role to the Eve destroyer, why should I not?
As for why? Because it's fun.it's a game. It's fictionally supportable.
Granted, no ships need added before balancing the current mess, but seeing some new stuff on occasion would be nice, and destroyers are the most lacking.
Why should you not? Because the term was invented by the British Royal Navy and the design was to combat torpedo boats wnowh isn't like the destroyer in EvE (in RL that was it's specific purpose). That's the pedantic reason. The real reason is that this is a game about spaceships, not ships that float on water. Because this is pure fiction whereas real military is, well, real. Because the time periods between the real and imaginary world of eve is vast. Because, frankly, comparing EvE ships to floating ships is truly dumb. It's like comparing shoe polish to polish people just because the word is the same. Yes, some new ships would be nice as long as they fill a role that isn't being filled already. Unfortunately I haven't read anything regarding destroyers which fits this definition. Suggesting adding ships to the game because "it's fun" isn't a valid reason.
Torpedo boats are generally frigate class vessels.the torpedo boat destroyers were designed to kill frigates. Of course now they do just about everything, and most larger craft are in dry dock, but that's not the point. |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 21:18:00 -
[24] - Quote
The main problem with modern destroyers is that they are now in size equal or greater then traditional cruisers. this should not have any impact on game play.
In game the main reason i see to add destroyers specially T1 destroyers is simply to flesh out the otherwise lacking class options. why some believe that this is not a valid reason i have no idea, scared of new ships? really i dont get it.
one of the first specialized roles destroyers had in real navies was submarine hunting, this moved to cruisers, and back to destroyers (much bigger destroyers)
why this is not a role that people support i also dont get.
Mine laying, sub hunting, raiding, line support, patrol, combat couriers/transportation
they were the swiss army knife of ships, which is where cruiser hulls are right now. It would be nice if they could regain some of these roles, or at the very least be specialized towards these roles. while there are of course ships that can do any destroyer role why not have the option for destroyers to do these roles too?
Im not against a reproduction of ship roles. i like the idea that i can do the same thing with more then one ship if they dont eclipse each other.
I understand that this is had to balance but why not? |
CaleAdaire
Research Industry Mining and Support
Gatekeepers Universe
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 00:39:00 -
[25] - Quote
mxzf wrote:Why? What role would this proposed ship fill? Why is it needed in the game?
"It sounds cool" or "But I want it" aren't reasons for adding ships to the game.
Also, there have been about half a dozen "moar destroyers" threads already in the last couple weeks; none of which provide sufficient reason for them to be added due to a deficit of roles for them to fill.
I can say that a faction ship doesn't need to fill a roll, it would just be neat unto itself to fill the gap between faction frigs and cruisers.
Now, that being said, I refer to my quote and agree that right now isn't the time to ask for "MOAR DESTROYERS!"
Please stop asking for new stuff "Cuz it's neat".-á |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |