These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

[PROPOSAL] New ship idea - carrier class

Author
drakkaror
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1 - 2012-06-17 02:46:02 UTC
Hi,

Capital ships havent seen much love lately and im wondering if something like haveing a class of carriers that can fit a limited

number of guns/missles which would definatly mix some gameplay up and the best example I have of this is Battlestar Galactica.
Cyprus Black
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2012-06-17 13:13:57 UTC
Sounds great, but we need a name for this new and revolutionary type of ship.

I vote we call them Dreadnoughts.

Summary of EvEs last four expansions: http://imgur.com/ZL5SM33

Bronya Boga
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2012-06-17 13:32:51 UTC
Cyprus Black wrote:
Sounds great, but we need a name for this new and revolutionary type of ship.

I vote we call them Dreadnoughts.


I love it. we should rename the triage module into something else....like maybe siege. sounds badass CCP pay attention to these great ideas we are having.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2012-06-17 15:38:15 UTC
Cyprus Black wrote:
Sounds great, but we need a name for this new and revolutionary type of ship.

I vote we call them Dreadnoughts.


And what you carried ? Ammos over fighters ?
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-06-17 16:44:36 UTC
Cyprus Black wrote:
Sounds great, but we need a name for this new and revolutionary type of ship.

I vote we call them Dreadnoughts.


Moros called, it wants its drones back.What?
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#6 - 2012-06-17 20:35:38 UTC
I for one would welcome carrier hulls with turret slots

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

drakkaror
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#7 - 2012-06-17 23:43:44 UTC
you guys are takeing me waaaay to literal on this and just thinking inside the box and odveously with implementing guns on something like a pocket carrier, their would be some changes to them as to what a full carrier can do, and im sure if any of you participated in capital operations you would know that a lot of corps use their carriers off grid and send their fighters in to attack a station/pos thus leaveing them defensless untill their fighters return and allies warp in to assist them if they are cought.

If you look at a lot of world war 2 carriers they had around four 5 inch guns to help protect them even modern carriers have use of some source of defence of this nature
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#8 - 2012-06-18 00:26:11 UTC
drakkaror wrote:
you guys are takeing me waaaay to literal on this and just thinking inside the box and odveously with implementing guns on something like a pocket carrier, their would be some changes to them as to what a full carrier can do, and im sure if any of you participated in capital operations you would know that a lot of corps use their carriers off grid and send their fighters in to attack a station/pos thus leaveing them defensless untill their fighters return and allies warp in to assist them if they are cought.

If you look at a lot of world war 2 carriers they had around four 5 inch guns to help protect them even modern carriers have use of some source of defence of this nature



EVE carriers have a form of point defence as well.

We call them 'smartbombs'.
drakkaror
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#9 - 2012-06-18 00:49:52 UTC
True but they become uneffective when everything from frigate on up can orbit you ouside the range of your smartbombing.
Katie Frost
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2012-06-18 06:54:26 UTC
*ineffective.

Such a well thought-out proposal... worthy of the Assembly Hall for sure. [Not quite sure whether that's sarcasm by the way]

Anywho, you can either have a) a Carrier with fighters/drones or b) a Carrier with guns. The former exists already in form of the current carriers and the latter is called a Dreadnaught.

Mixture of the two would either be OP or would wreck the role of the current two classes of ship that are in the game (or probably both). If you cared to expand on what exact role this ship would fill and why this role is necessary; and also, what you envisage would be a balanced layout of slots/hardpoints/bonuses for this new 'pocket carrier', then your proposal would be worthy of debate.

Something tells me however, when you really think about it... besides "it's cool and it's like Battlestar Galactica" there is really no particular reason for your ship to exist in a game like EvE.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#11 - 2012-06-23 01:36:54 UTC
Turreted carriers have been proposed before, and been shot down as an idea, namely because at the time dreadnoughts had drone bays. Now that they do not, Adding turrets would be an interesting idea, however their utility and balancing would be an issue. An issue balancing that i am not convinced is worth attempting to fix.

the parallels to real life are a bit disingenuous, as most of the other ship classes and abilities and configurations of ships are not paralleled in RL it is only the ship class names that are drawn from RL.

In Rl and you should wiki this, Frigates and Cruisers sizes and armaments get fuzzy after a while with ships classed as Frigates, become the sizes of cruisers, battle-cruisers are the same sizes as other cruisers or even as small as destroyers, which can be frigate sized, or battle-cruiser sized, depending on their roles and not their tonnage.

Also, Take a quick look at the battleships in game, all of them lack the secondary armament that real life battleships had, Or the tertiary armaments.

a quick check of the last of the great battleships would have something like 2x2 main canon groups, 4x2 secondary sized cannon groups, 24x1 tertiary turret weapons and 5 torpedo tubes, . (HMS Agamemnon)

which would be a fairly big change from the current 6-8 turret distribution.

Using the Missourri as an analogue to dreadnoughts, It has

9 × 16 in (410 mm)/50 cal Mark 7 guns
12 × 5 in (130 mm)/38 cal Mark 12 guns
32 × BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles
16 × RGM-84 Harpoon Anti-Ship missiles
4 × 20 mm/76 cal Phalanx CIWS

as its armament, another far cry from the 3 weapons slots (or 2x2 that the nag has)

The RL analogues that people try to bring up are wrong in terms of armament of ships. however roles are fairly universal.

A pocket carrier of the orca size would not be an amiss addition to the game. a 5 fighter ship that cant assign them, or triage would be an interesting ship to have on grid. of course it does need a better justification the "it should be interesting"
I also do not know how it would fit into the current ships lineup in terms of abilities or utility

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.

Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#12 - 2012-06-23 15:31:14 UTC
drakkaror wrote:
True but they become uneffective when everything from frigate on up can orbit you ouside the range of your smartbombing.


They can't orbit you outside the range of your support fleet. If they can they are most likely not a threat to your carrier.

NO to capitals ever being viable without subcap support.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#13 - 2012-06-23 17:03:54 UTC
drakkaror wrote:
and im sure if any of you participated in capital operations you would know that a lot of corps use their carriers off grid and send their fighters in to attack a station/pos thus leaveing them defensless untill their fighters return and allies warp in to assist them if they are cought.

And you obviously haven't participated in capital operations or you would know that fighters can't attack POS due to range issues... and that a carrier can instantly recall it's drones from across the system, pull them, and deploy more "useful" drones for combat (because fighters can't hit anything smaller than a cruiser)... and that carriers are FAR more useful ON FIELD with the other support ships, going into Triage mode or providing Pantheon-style Remote Reps with another carrier to the gang/fleet.
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
#14 - 2012-06-23 17:48:08 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:

And you obviously haven't participated in capital operations or you would know that fighters can't attack POS due to range issues... and that a carrier can instantly recall it's drones from across the system, pull them, and deploy more "useful" drones for combat (because fighters can't hit anything smaller than a cruiser)... and that carriers are FAR more useful ON FIELD with the other support ships, going into Triage mode or providing Pantheon-style Remote Reps with another carrier to the gang/fleet.


Stole the words out of my mouth...
Eve forums official anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA Real men tank hull. Fake women shield-tank Gallente.
Americe Zane
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2012-06-25 09:46:34 UTC
drakkaror wrote:
you guys are takeing me waaaay to literal on this and just thinking inside the box and odveously with implementing guns on something like a pocket carrier, their would be some changes to them as to what a full carrier can do, and im sure if any of you participated in capital operations you would know that a lot of corps use their carriers off grid and send their fighters in to attack a station/pos thus leaveing them defensless untill their fighters return and allies warp in to assist them if they are cought.

If you look at a lot of world war 2 carriers they had around four 5 inch guns to help protect them even modern carriers have use of some source of defence of this nature



RL Carriers only had AA guns. 5in guns on a carrier is kind of stupid (aircraft do a much better job than small 5in guns). Modern carriers dont have any guns bigger than .50 cal (at least U.S. carriers), and are designed to work with smaller ships in its fleet nearby (we always had at least 1 destroyer in sight when we were at sea).

Adding guns to carriers in Eve seems to be going in the wrong direction. Prob best to bring more support.
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#16 - 2012-06-25 18:37:22 UTC
Well the stupidity of this idea has been adequately pointed out by everyone else, so all I'm gonna say is if you want a ship with guns and drones, may I suggest training Gallente?
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#17 - 2012-06-27 19:27:29 UTC
a new hybrid carrier would be cool if done right.
say 8-10 large turrent slots(no capital turrets), combined with a decent drone bay. maybe allow it to field up to 20 drones, but regular drones only no fighters or fighter bombers.
No siege or triage just a standard capital class tank.
One of these would have tank and DPS equal to 3-4 battleships but be very weak against other capitals.
Knida like a muti-pupose ships, for real diversity allow it to equip stripminers.

Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#18 - 2012-06-28 14:39:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
a new hybrid carrier would be cool if done right.
say 8-10 large turrent slots(no capital turrets), combined with a decent drone bay. maybe allow it to field up to 20 drones, but regular drones only no fighters or fighter bombers.
No siege or triage just a standard capital class tank.
One of these would have tank and DPS equal to 3-4 battleships but be very weak against other capitals.
Knida like a muti-pupose ships, for real diversity allow it to equip stripminers.


Yes this totally wouldn't be monstrously overpowered vs subcapitals. (Edit: oh and completely break the game principle of capfleets needing subcap support.)

(No. Just, no.)

Just get a Dominix. Big drone bay, has guns. Sorted.
Khalia Nestune
Mad Stacks
#19 - 2012-06-30 02:17:26 UTC
Abdiel Kavash wrote:


NO to capitals ever being viable without subcap support.


^ This.

Also, no need for more caps. Titans are bad enough as they are.

http://www.mylootyourtears.com

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-07-01 07:01:38 UTC
Cyprus Black wrote:
Sounds great, but we need a name for this new and revolutionary type of ship.

I vote we call them Dreadnoughts.

Because dreadnoughts totally wield a small amount of turret firepower and a large drone bay.

I think maybe carriers should be given a few turret or launcher hardpoints straight up. It wouldn't improve their DPS, given that a capital turret has less firepower than a fighter, and 1 high slot can be used for either one. But it might lead to some strategic carrier fittings. Though I have a feeling that most carrier pilots would completely avoid putting turrets on their carriers if they could.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

12Next page