EVE Search - More tech 1 ships

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

More tech 1 ships

» 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)
Madam Kaktar	Posted - 2008.06.12 03:51:00 - [1] With FW increasing the importance of destroyers and BCs, (because some of FW has ship size/tech level caps) I propose that the game needs more variety in destroyer/BC types. Caldari-missile based destroyer/EW or largely offensive missile BC Gallente-drone destroyer/fast moderate damage blaster BC (as opposed to Brutix's slow/medium speed high damage) Amarr/Khanid-rocket destroyer/HAM BC (since all other primary Amarr functions have been met with existing ships, add Khanid designs and because no affordable/tech 1 armor tanking/close range missile boats exist) Minmitar-fast AC destroyer and BC I'd also like to see a greater selection of cheap BSs. A second set of tier 1 BS designed to fulfill roles not currently filled on the BS level. Caldari-largely offensive missile boat (probably 5 hardpoints) with ROF and kinetic damage bonus (low defense ship) Gallente-Most major Gallente roles have been filled by existing Gallente BSs, so BS sized tech 1 logistics ship Amarr/Khanid-all Amarr primary functions have been met by existing ships so Khanid torp boat, probably 7 missile hardpoints with armor resistance and cap recharge time bonus. I think it would be nice to use a similar model to the new Caldari ship and say from an RP perspective that they were developed in a joint Khanid/Caldari operation Minmitar-seriously lacking a fleet sniper ship. Probably 6 hardpoints with optimal and damage bonuses. I think it would be cool to use a refitted mammoth model for this ship. Mammoths already look like BSs, and it would fit from an RP perspective because Minmitar are masters of ship recycling. Last, I'd like to see regular versions of pirate faction ships. Most pirate faction ships fill roles not available in regular ships. For balance reasons, they'd probably have to have between tier 2 and 3 ships costs and between tier 1 and 2 stats to make up for their third bonus.
Madam Kaktar	Posted - 2008.06.12 14:53:00 - [2] 35 views and no one has any comments/suggestions?
PutItInYourAlt	Posted - 2008.06.12 15:24:00 - [3] Trolling removed. Navigator
Valandril Exiled. Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.06.12 15:55:00 - [4] If traven is not offensive bigbadaboom machine then i don't know what is.
Madam Kaktar	Posted - 2008.06.12 19:43:00 - [5] Originally by: Valandril If traven is not offensive bigbadaboom machine then i don't know what is. I suppose you're right. Could make it more a highly defensive ship more like the Amarr one: 6-7 hardpoints with no offensive bonus. Something like 5% to shield resistances and 5% to capacitor capacity (a-la Kitsune) or 10% missile velocity. Or it could be made into a BS sized logistics ship like the Gallente one. Caldari-5% to shield resistances and 10% bonus to capacitor use of shield transporters per level. 500% bonus to range of shield transporters. Gallente-20% bonus to Armor Maintenance Bot transfer amount and 10% bonus to capacitor need of remote armor repair system per level. 500% bonus to range of remote armor repair systems.
Valandril Exiled. Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.06.12 19:46:00 - [6] Now logistic bs sized ship for each race would be nice, it would make repair cruisers close to pointless, and definitly not worth time it takes to train for them. ---
Madam Kaktar	Posted - 2008.06.12 21:06:00 - [7] Originally by: Valandril Now logistic bs sized ship for each race would be nice, it would make repair cruisers close to pointless, and definitly not worth time it takes to train for them. No reason to make one for every faction. Caldari and Gallente would be enough, since tech 1 logistics for Amarr and Minmitar are capacitor transfer and tracking links respectively. Not too useful. Plus having only two races having logistics ships makes the factions less homogeneous. Wouldn't really make the cruisers pointless. The tech 1 ones would still be useful because they're cheap/disposable and the tech 2s have better/more bonuses and great defenses. (at least for cruiser size)
Valandril Exiled. Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.06.12 22:46:00 - [8] Originally by: Madam Kaktar Originally by: Valandril Now logistic bs sized ship for each race would be nice, it would make repair cruisers close to pointless, and definitly not worth time it takes to train for them. No reason to make one for every faction. Caldari and Gallente would be enough, since tech 1 logistics for Amarr and Minmitar are capacitor transfer and tracking links respectively. Not too useful. Plus having only two races having logistics ships makes the factions less homogeneous. Wouldn't really make the cruisers pointless. The tech 1 ones would still be useful because they're cheap/disposable and the tech 2s have better/more bonuses and great defenses. (at least for cruiser size) Wrong, the only reason now to use logistic ships instead battleships is range. Because of theyr cruiser-sized capacitor they got same problems as battleships, and they are obvious primary. If you would make TECH1 battleship with actualy better bonuses (yep, cruiser need theyr cap bonuses to use have any chance to be usefull, with bs size ship this will be just imba) then show me what's the point of logi ship.
Madam Kaktar	Posted - 2008.06.13 01:55:00 - [9] Originally by: Valandril Wrong, the only reason now to use logistic ships instead battleships is range. Because of theyr cruiser-sized capacitor they got same problems as battleships, and they are obvious primary. If you would make TECH1 battleship with actualy better bonuses (yep, cruiser need theyr cap bonuses to use have any chance to be usefull, with bs size ship this will be just imba) then show me what's the point of logi ship. Ok, so remove 500% range bonus and replace capacitor bonus with 100% range per level?
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.06.13 04:41:00 - [10] Originally by: Madam Kaktar Originally by: Valandril Wrong, the only reason now to use logistic ships instead battleships is range. Because of theyr cruiser-sized capacitor they got same problems as battleships, and they are obvious primary. If you would make TECH1 battleship with actualy better bonuses (yep, cruiser need theyr cap bonuses to use have any chance to be usefull, with bs size ship this will be just imba) then show me what's the point of logi ship. Ok, so remove 500% range bonus and replace capacitor bonus with 100% range per level? nope just make them use less cap when reping and then take away the range bonus alltogether :) in other words close repping at twice the ammount is the BS job and half the repping at 50 km is the cruisers job.
Farrah Jun	Posted - 2008.06.13 04:54:00 - [11] Stop nit-picking the authors's specific examples and get the main point. Its high time we got some more hulls and ships to fill specific roles. 100% agree, but would love to have some of the more serious balance issues fixed before more content is added.
Madam Kaktar	Posted - 2008.06.13 16:52:00 - [12] Originally by: Farrah Jun Stop nit-picking the authors's specific examples and get the main point. Its high time we got some more hulls and ships to fill specific roles. 100% agree, but would love to have some of the more serious balance issues fixed before more content is added. I agree that the main point I want to discuss is the need for more hulls/tech 1 ships, but criticisms (as long as they are done in a constructive manner) are helpful to refine and improve the idea.
Tarron Sarek Cadien Cybernetics	Posted - 2008.06.13 17:06:00 - [13] Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 13/06/2008 17:10:29 Originally by: Madam Kaktar or largely offensive missile BC Drake with Heavy Assaults Missiles and 3BCS? I mean, seriously, you don't have to stuff it's lows with shield power relays or power diags. Just because most players go for the all-out defensive fitting doesn't mean there's no alternative. I can see the room for one additional destroyer hull, though. As far as roles are concerned, I prefer the fitting=role approach and dislike fixed roles and classes. Nothing is more boring than knowing exactly what the enemy is going to do with his ship. Yeah, this is also some criticism on fotm phenomena like nano-HACs, nano-BS's, Nos-Domis etc. etc. ___________________________________ Balance is power, ~~guard~~ hide it well -Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam- ('nerf' means 'incompetence', esp. when you use it)
Madam Kaktar	Posted - 2008.06.30 19:22:00 - [14] Originally by: Tarron Sarek Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 13/06/2008 17:10:29 As far as roles are concerned, I prefer the fitting=role approach and dislike fixed roles and classes. Nothing is more boring than knowing exactly what the enemy is going to do with his ship. Yeah, this is also some criticism on fotm phenomena like nano-HACs, nano-BS's, Nos-Domis etc. etc. It would be nice if it were possible to leave a ship open to any role based off of what you choose to fit on it, but the number and type of low/mid/high slots and hardpoints as well as the ship's bonuses have always defined what a ship will be good at. Very few ships are good at multiple roles.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2008.06.30 21:07:00 - [15] A while ago I started a thread to collect ideas for Corporation Issue Ships that are slightly above T1 but below faction and T2, available in the LP stores for less LPs than full faction ships. Alas the thread was widely ignored.

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.