These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Escort Carriers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Miss Everest
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#141 - 2012-07-31 20:35:51 UTC
Mhari Dson wrote:
bump

hopefully we can get some dev attention in here



I am not one to bump things but I really like this idea.
Mary Annabelle
Moonlit Bonsai
#142 - 2012-07-31 21:08:14 UTC
Eija-Riitta Veitonen wrote:
DTson Gauur wrote:
Saul Elsyn wrote:
Well maybe a step back and a hard look at the ship's role and the comments made should be done.

1. Fighter mechanics at present allow safe-spotted fighter support on the field. In Hi-sec this has tons of inherent problems among them being that Concord has to be able to kill you when your drones give you a GCC. Being in a POS gives you protection from that. Therefore current fighters as we know them would be unsuitable.


Have to correct you on this, if you don't believe me, do test it on SISI:

Faction Police and CONCORD use nasty devhaxx and gleefully shoot through POS forcefield Twisted

Furthermore, you can't have drones out and being inside the pos forcefield, the fighters will just return. And then up until recently you couldn't even assign fighters in .4 security space (this, however, might be fixed already, i haven't tried that in a while now), but the point being - don't allow assigning of fighters in hisec, problem solved!

I think she has nailed it. Only allow assigning in the systems where carriers could do the same.

Call it the leash law. In high sec, your fighters must be on leashes and you gotta clean up after them too.
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#143 - 2012-08-03 03:58:07 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
We don't need another logistics ship, if a high sec carrier were to be introduced i would say it should be a Attack Carrier, damage tank, no bonus to RR

I know what you're saying, but that would be the first carrier that will be focused on combat instead of logistics.
nevertheless that is a good idea which could bring a rather interesting change to capital ships.
Griffin Omanid
Knights of the Zodiac
#144 - 2012-08-03 09:49:58 UTC
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
We don't need another logistics ship, if a high sec carrier were to be introduced i would say it should be a Attack Carrier, damage tank, no bonus to RR

I know what you're saying, but that would be the first carrier that will be focused on combat instead of logistics.
nevertheless that is a good idea which could bring a rather interesting change to capital ships.


An Attak Carrier would be really interesting. But it still should get some High Slots (maybe 4), no Hard points, which can be used for Large Shield/Armor/Hull Repairer or Gang Links or Large Neuts/Nos, but without bonis for these moduls so that the Drones are still the main weapon.

Proposal T2 BS Class Juggernaut
Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#145 - 2012-08-09 16:49:55 UTC
Griffin Omanid wrote:
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
We don't need another logistics ship, if a high sec carrier were to be introduced i would say it should be a Attack Carrier, damage tank, no bonus to RR

I know what you're saying, but that would be the first carrier that will be focused on combat instead of logistics.
nevertheless that is a good idea which could bring a rather interesting change to capital ships.


An Attak Carrier would be really interesting. But it still should get some High Slots (maybe 4), no Hard points, which can be used for Large Shield/Armor/Hull Repairer or Gang Links or Large Neuts/Nos, but without bonis for these moduls so that the Drones are still the main weapon.


If they were to have an attack bonus instead of an RR bonus, what should the bonus be?

Perhaps the best answer would be to have a tech 1 version of each Escort Carrier that are just like the OP, but with no bonus to RR at all, then have two Tech 2 versions, one with a damage bonus (call it an assault carrier) and one with an RR bonus (call it a support carrier), then the capital versions could just be called Fleet Carriers.

So in that sense, the full "family" of carriers would look like:
Escort Carriers, T1 Battleship+ (combat role, general)
Assault Carriers, T2 Battleship+ (heavy combat boosted for damage)
Support Carriers, T2 Battleship+ (Logistics support, boosted as written in OP)
Fleet Carriers, T1 Captial
Super Carriers, T1 SuperCap

Thoughts?
Hans Zwaardhandler
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#146 - 2012-08-09 18:47:35 UTC
Wouldn't mind that at all, actually sounds pretty decent.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#147 - 2012-08-09 19:15:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
Loius Woo wrote:
Griffin Omanid wrote:
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
We don't need another logistics ship, if a high sec carrier were to be introduced i would say it should be a Attack Carrier, damage tank, no bonus to RR

I know what you're saying, but that would be the first carrier that will be focused on combat instead of logistics.
nevertheless that is a good idea which could bring a rather interesting change to capital ships.


An Attak Carrier would be really interesting. But it still should get some High Slots (maybe 4), no Hard points, which can be used for Large Shield/Armor/Hull Repairer or Gang Links or Large Neuts/Nos, but without bonis for these moduls so that the Drones are still the main weapon.


If they were to have an attack bonus instead of an RR bonus, what should the bonus be?

Perhaps the best answer would be to have a tech 1 version of each Escort Carrier that are just like the OP, but with no bonus to RR at all, then have two Tech 2 versions, one with a damage bonus (call it an assault carrier) and one with an RR bonus (call it a support carrier), then the capital versions could just be called Fleet Carriers.

So in that sense, the full "family" of carriers would look like:
Escort Carriers, T1 Battleship+ (combat role, general)
Assault Carriers, T2 Battleship+ (heavy combat boosted for damage)
Support Carriers, T2 Battleship+ (Logistics support, boosted as written in OP)
Fleet Carriers, T1 Captial
Super Carriers, T1 SuperCap

Thoughts?

So in that sense, the full "family" of carriers would look like:
Escort Carriers, T1 Battleship+ (combat role, general)
+1 Drone Control Per Level, +20% Drone Control Range Per Level

Assault Carriers, T2 Battleship+ (heavy combat boosted for damage) (No SMA or CHA)
As T1 plus 10% Drone Damage and Hitpoints per level, 7.5% drone tracking per level (Racial Bonus) Amarr 5% armor resistances per level, Caldari 5% shield resistances per level, Gallente 7.5% Armor Repair amount per level, Minmatar 7.5% shield boost per level.

Support Carriers, T2 Battleship+ (Logistics support, boosted as written in OP) (With SMA and CHA)

Fleet Carriers, T1 Captial
As is
Super Carriers, T1 SuperCap
As is

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Hans Zwaardhandler
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#148 - 2012-08-09 19:21:26 UTC
If I may ask a quick question, both the Assault and the Escort Carriers will have the drone bay amount to carry a full amount (10 or so), of heavy/sentries, medium, and lights, or will they simply have enough space to use just the ten heavies/sentries?
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#149 - 2012-08-09 19:26:34 UTC
Hans Zwaardhandler wrote:
If I may ask a quick question, both the Assault and the Escort Carriers will have the drone bay amount to carry a full amount (10 or so), of heavy/sentries, medium, and lights, or will they simply have enough space to use just the ten heavies/sentries?

escort should be around 800 to 1000 drone bay
assault should be around 1200
support around 900

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Hans Zwaardhandler
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#150 - 2012-08-09 19:36:44 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Hans Zwaardhandler wrote:
If I may ask a quick question, both the Assault and the Escort Carriers will have the drone bay amount to carry a full amount (10 or so), of heavy/sentries, medium, and lights, or will they simply have enough space to use just the ten heavies/sentries?

escort should be around 800 to 1000 drone bay
assault should be around 1200
support around 900


Ah, I see.

My thanks, friend.
Griffin Omanid
Knights of the Zodiac
#151 - 2012-08-09 20:32:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Griffin Omanid
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Loius Woo wrote:
Griffin Omanid wrote:
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
We don't need another logistics ship, if a high sec carrier were to be introduced i would say it should be a Attack Carrier, damage tank, no bonus to RR

I know what you're saying, but that would be the first carrier that will be focused on combat instead of logistics.
nevertheless that is a good idea which could bring a rather interesting change to capital ships.


An Attak Carrier would be really interesting. But it still should get some High Slots (maybe 4), no Hard points, which can be used for Large Shield/Armor/Hull Repairer or Gang Links or Large Neuts/Nos, but without bonis for these moduls so that the Drones are still the main weapon.


If they were to have an attack bonus instead of an RR bonus, what should the bonus be?

Perhaps the best answer would be to have a tech 1 version of each Escort Carrier that are just like the OP, but with no bonus to RR at all, then have two Tech 2 versions, one with a damage bonus (call it an assault carrier) and one with an RR bonus (call it a support carrier), then the capital versions could just be called Fleet Carriers.

So in that sense, the full "family" of carriers would look like:
Escort Carriers, T1 Battleship+ (combat role, general)
Assault Carriers, T2 Battleship+ (heavy combat boosted for damage)
Support Carriers, T2 Battleship+ (Logistics support, boosted as written in OP)
Fleet Carriers, T1 Captial
Super Carriers, T1 SuperCap

Thoughts?

So in that sense, the full "family" of carriers would look like:
Escort Carriers, T1 Battleship+ (combat role, general)
+1 Drone Control Per Level, +20% Drone Control Range Per Level

Assault Carriers, T2 Battleship+ (heavy combat boosted for damage) (No SMA or CHA)
As T1 plus 10% Drone Damage and Hitpoints per level, 7.5% drone tracking per level (Racial Bonus) Amarr 5% armor resistances per level, Caldari 5% shield resistances per level, Gallente 7.5% Armor Repair amount per level, Minmatar 7.5% shield boost per level.

Support Carriers, T2 Battleship+ (Logistics support, boosted as written in OP) (With SMA and CHA)

Fleet Carriers, T1 Captial
As is
Super Carriers, T1 SuperCap
As is


Sound niceBig smile. But what is SMA and CHA.

Also the two Tech Variants would give a better step between subcapitals and Capials, and the Advanced Space Ship Command could be finally used below level 5 by combat pilots. The only thing that I would miss is something between Subcapitals and Dreadnaughts, but thats something for another thread...

Proposal T2 BS Class Juggernaut
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#152 - 2012-08-09 20:57:45 UTC
SMA Ship Maintance Array size would be acceptable in the 5-8k range for extra ammo, spare modules that burn out
CHA Corprate Hanger Array size would be nice around 600k for a few spare crusiers, or a couple battle crusiers, or one battleship

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Hans Zwaardhandler
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#153 - 2012-08-09 21:04:20 UTC
Griffin Omanid wrote:
The only thing that I would miss is something between Subcapitals and Dreadnaughts, but thats something for another thread...


Definitely, would be interested in seeing an idea like this come to fruition.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#154 - 2012-08-09 21:32:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
I find my self in conflict with the OP details surrounding the Support Carrier idea, if you give it a logistics bonus, it will make logistic cruisers less useful, if you give it ware fare links it will overshadow command ships, so in an attempt to become unique wile still fitting with the theme of support I propose the following
Racial battleship
+1 Drone control per level
+20% Drone control range per level
The skill name I could come up with to best describe this class of ship would be,
War Ship
+5% to the effectiveness of (racial ewar drone) and Shield maintance bots (minmatar and caldari)/Armor repair bots ( amarr and gallente)
+10% drone mwd velocity bonus and drone HP

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Griffin Omanid
Knights of the Zodiac
#155 - 2012-08-09 21:50:01 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
I find my self in conflict with the OP details surrounding the Support Carrier idea, if you give it a logistics bonus, it will make logistic cruisers less useful, if you give it ware fare links it will overshadow command ships, so in an attempt to become unique wile still fitting with the theme of support I propose the following
Racial battleship
+1 Drone control per level
+20% Drone control range per level
The skill name I could come up with to best describe this class of ship would be,
War Ship
+5% to the effectiveness of (racial ewar drone) and Shield maintance bots (minmatar and caldari)/Armor repair bots ( amarr and gallente)
+10% drone mwd velocity bonus and drone HP


Ok, sounds better. It would replace the Support carrier, wouldn´t it? But wouldn´t the CHA be to much, a SMA would be quit usefull for this role. But because this one is much more agile then a carrier (fleet carrier) or super carrier, the supported fleet should also be more agile then a fleet with the capitals.

Proposal T2 BS Class Juggernaut
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#156 - 2012-08-09 21:56:15 UTC
Griffin Omanid wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
I find my self in conflict with the OP details surrounding the Support Carrier idea, if you give it a logistics bonus, it will make logistic cruisers less useful, if you give it ware fare links it will overshadow command ships, so in an attempt to become unique wile still fitting with the theme of support I propose the following
Racial battleship
+1 Drone control per level
+20% Drone control range per level
The skill name I could come up with to best describe this class of ship would be,
War Ship
+5% to the effectiveness of (racial ewar drone) and Shield maintance bots (minmatar and caldari)/Armor repair bots ( amarr and gallente)
+10% drone mwd velocity bonus and drone HP


Ok, sounds better. It would replace the Support carrier, wouldn´t it? But wouldn´t the CHA be to much, a SMA would be quit usefull for this role. But because this one is much more agile then a carrier (fleet carrier) or super carrier, the supported fleet should also be more agile then a fleet with the capitals.

This is different idea for a support carrier, filling the roles of ewar and minor logistics at the same time, the cha would allow for extra ammo and modules in the event a ships burns out a module or runs out of a needed ammo. Also i have never seen a ship that only had one or the other.
So as far as the War Ships go there would be:
Support Carrier, as above
Assault Carrier, as posted before

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#157 - 2012-08-10 04:11:09 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Griffin Omanid wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
I find my self in conflict with the OP details surrounding the Support Carrier idea, if you give it a logistics bonus, it will make logistic cruisers less useful, if you give it ware fare links it will overshadow command ships, so in an attempt to become unique wile still fitting with the theme of support I propose the following
Racial battleship
+1 Drone control per level
+20% Drone control range per level
The skill name I could come up with to best describe this class of ship would be,
War Ship
+5% to the effectiveness of (racial ewar drone) and Shield maintance bots (minmatar and caldari)/Armor repair bots ( amarr and gallente)
+10% drone mwd velocity bonus and drone HP


Ok, sounds better. It would replace the Support carrier, wouldn´t it? But wouldn´t the CHA be to much, a SMA would be quit usefull for this role. But because this one is much more agile then a carrier (fleet carrier) or super carrier, the supported fleet should also be more agile then a fleet with the capitals.

This is different idea for a support carrier, filling the roles of ewar and minor logistics at the same time, the cha would allow for extra ammo and modules in the event a ships burns out a module or runs out of a needed ammo. Also i have never seen a ship that only had one or the other.
So as far as the War Ships go there would be:
Support Carrier, as above
Assault Carrier, as posted before


A 5% bonus to utility drones is basically nothing. It boosts the heck out of ECM drones, but the rest would be a wasted bonus.

Also, I think it has been discussed at great length in this thread that the TYPE of logistics that a support carrier would provide is completely different from a logistics cruiser. Since a logistics cruiser is designed to provide long range consistent reps, while this is designed to provide shorter range, bursts of rep. I could see the argument for giving a hefty boost to logistics drones, but it would have to be substantial, like 30% per level increase in logistics drone rep amount per cycle and like 10% per level decrease in logistics drone cycle time. This, coupled with the ability to use 10 drones would make it capable of providing a good amount of repair. Either way, I think there is room in the logistics realm for more players.

Also, someone pointed out that warfare links would intrude on command ships but I disagree, since T1 battlecruisers already get some ability to use links anyway. If you want to put gang links in the highs, I say go for it.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#158 - 2012-08-10 06:03:58 UTC
Any additional logistics would be redundant, logistic cruisers use large reps, making them useful from to all sub capital ships, and capital ships have the standard triage carrier. The comment about cammand ships was also me, the current carrier can use warfare links, nobody does, if you still insist that these should be logistic ships again links would be wasted. This is the chance to try to design something unique, sorry to say but your compiled idea is just a regular carrier minus drone control units, triage module, and jump drive.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#159 - 2012-08-10 07:05:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuka Solo
Loius Woo wrote:

So in that sense, the full "family" of carriers would look like:
Escort Carriers, T1 Battleship+ (combat role, general)
Assault Carriers, T2 Battleship+ (heavy combat boosted for damage)
Support Carriers, T2 Battleship+ (Logistics support, boosted as written in OP)
Fleet Carriers, T1 Captial
Super Carriers, T1 SuperCap

Thoughts?


I'm digging this vibe, but I'll add my envisioned 2 cents on this carrier hull family tree:

1) Escort Carrier: - Hi-sec capable carrier, 5 fighters max (bandwidth restriction, limited dronebay). Bonus to armor/shields, targeting speed (no Jump drive)

2) Support Carriers: - Existing Carriers, triage capable

3) Attack Carrier: - Fighter specialization Carrier, deploy more fighters (More bandwidth + larger drone bays), more DPS, advanced / t2 fighter selection, Anti-sub cap role

4) Fleet Carrier: - t2 Escort hull (Hi-sec capable), 2-4 Turret/missile hard-points (medium/large) (no turret/missile bonus), fighter focused, targeting bonus, anti-sub cap support, more resists, + e-war bonus (no Jump drive)
-Drawback - Slow align times, reduced sensor strength (very vulnerable to jams), limited RR, no triage

5) Battle Carrier: - t2 support carriers, 7-8 hi-slots, bonus reduction in capital RR/ST/HR/ET module cap use, more resists, triage capable
-Drawback - Reduced fighter capability, limited DPS, moderate jumpdrive spoolup

6) Assault Carrier: - t3 Attack / Battle carrier hybrid, 8 turret/missile hard-points (Large) (Missile/Turret damage/range/Optimal/RoF Role bonus), (fighter DPS + mwd speed + Sig radius bonus per carrier level), targeting speed bonus per carrier level, anti-sub capital / anti-capital / anti-super capital support
-Drawback - Massive spoolup on jumpdrives + fuel usage, no triage, no RR,


7) Super Carrier: - Existing Super Carriers (Logistics with DPS) + Assualt Carrier Variant (Anti-Cap/Super cap attack role with XL weapons) + Attack Variant (Anti-Sub capital/capital fighter support)

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#160 - 2012-08-10 07:29:37 UTC
reading threads like these makes me hope that the devs listen so we can abuse the living hell out of such ships for some good hisec pubstomping

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration