ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
17
   |
Posted - 2011.09.09 09:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
"I heard somewhere a ship expansion was on the cards?"
You heard wrong. Nothing outside of conjecture and rumor has been said by anyone.
"Industrial:
Dedicated ship carrier that could transport fitted ships through empire using stargates with a ship maintenance array large enough to hold +4 battleships."
Not even a Freighter with max skills can move more than ONE assembled battleship. Carriers can't more than two. You could move a small battle-ready fleet with one or two of these ships.
If you limited it down to say... one or two battleships... there might be room for discussion.
"A specialised gas cloud harvester."
Been requested many times. Don't see an issue with it. I'll say yes.
"A Tech 2 Noctis. - None squishy version, with tech 2 resists."
Even a T2 mining barge is "squishy" by cruiser standards. Unless it's geared for combat and/or combat support (and even then) it shouldn't be designed to handle it.
"Tornado and 3 other battleships to be added either as tier 3 tech 1 battleships, or new split faction ship variants (eg, caldari/minmatar, gallente/caldari, armarr/gallente, amarr/minmatar) with a similar strength to pirate ships."
Again... been requested many, many, many times. Doesn't appear to be any will in introducing these ships to the open market (in-game).
Personally, my money is on these ships appearing in the NEX store (either as ships with "standard" bonuses or as "skins" to apply to ships)
"Tier 2 carriers
2x for each race, one specialised for moving stuff around with extended jump range bonuses and jump range efficiency, less mass, less highslots. The other specialised with none triage RR, less jump range, more cap regen. Both would have less fighter dps."
Why? What's wrong with regular carriers? Wouldn't this obsolete them?
"Tech 2, Tier 2 battlecruisers or pirate versions"
Big fat "NO." Battlecruisers already overshadow most of their respective racial cruisers. Introducing more battlecruisers that are "better" would only exacerbate this problem.
"Tech 3 Battlecruisers with subsystems that include:
Pocket Dreads - with 1/3 dread dps, ehp, tank, with siege mode."
Why would anyone fly anything else when you can put out ~1000 DPS, have ~330k EHP, and tank ~3000 DPS with such a ship (especially when it uses medium weapons)?
"Wormwhole system effects generator
Covert Interdictor - with 5km sphere launcher, covert op's cloak, less guns, ehp.
System wide cyno-scrambler - forces incoming capitals +400AU away from cyno field
Specialised bomb launcher with de cloaking ability and anti fighter lockbreaker - disconnecting all drones, fighters and fighterbombers from it's parent ship within an aoe of Xkm."
This all smacks of an attempt at being able to effectively "lock down" a wormhole system (or any system for that matter). Wormholes were never meant to be claimed or permanently settled in. That's why you can't put down outposts, claim SOV, or mine ice there.
"Some one mentioned escort carriers? What exactly could those ships do that couldn't be done with the other classes?"
I get that there is a gap between capitals and battleships, but I think that the separation between classes in terms of performance is a good thing. When that doesn't happen, you have issues such as HACs vs Battlecruisrs, Commandships vs Stategic Cruisers. Too much overlap with the weaker choice being defunct."
Wait, wait, wait, wait... didn't you JUST mention wanting to add a plethora of ships that can do what CURRENT ships can do, but MUCH BETTER? Much of your "T2/T3 Battlecruisers" do just that. Same goes for your T2 carriers idea.
"Also goes to show somewhat why Battleships have become so much more underutilized - too small a performance gain over BC's for the isk/sp cost let alone the speed/tracking/sig tradeoffs."
The performance gain you get from battleships isn't "small." It's quite large actually. The thing that has been "killing" the use of battleships as of late has been the current FOTY (fits of the year) tactics which include, but are not limited to:
- having mobile ships that run through, bypass, or otherwise avoid the slugouts that battleships specialize in
- having bigger, badder ships that can be dropped on people's heads in under 5 seconds flat, can't be easily pinned down, and have HUGE buffer than a small fleet of battleships can't chew through in under 15 minutes (the time it takes for a ship to disappear after logging off)
"And no, I'm not proposing that we should add new ships instead of balancing."
Then what was the beginning of your OP about?
"We shouldn't have to choose, it shouldn't be either or and until the player base is brave enough to DEMAND this, post after post, with threadnoughts big enough to force the dev's to prioritise this, then it won't happen soon and we'll be worse off for it."
Can you re-read your post and PLEASE summarize/clarify the point you are trying to get across? I'm not sure whether you are referring to re-balancing ships (which I also believe is sorely needed) or introducing ships that can do everything so you don't have to choose between "this ship" or "that ship."
"Just because I seem like an idiot, doesn't mean I am one."
~Unknown |