These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

Anti-POS ship class idea - (Tier 3/T2) BattleShip / Pocket Dreadnought
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
JP Nakamura
Union of Intergalactic Miners and Nano Assemblers
#41 - 2012-11-19 15:40:59 UTC
Wondering if anyone had anything else to add, or other thoughts to throw in?

CCP: 10+ years of Harvesting players Tears  (latest efforts being Source Limited Edition, and Alliance Logo Revised Policies)
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#42 - 2012-11-19 16:06:32 UTC
JP Nakamura wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
JP Nakamura wrote:


I've seen quite a few Large POSes that are completely defenseless in high-sec with lots of shield hardeners.


We don't need a new ship to destroy defenceless POS.


I don't mind that you picked out a small part of my Argument in favor of a short reply, but you seem to have left out the "Because" part of your Reply.


We don't need a new ship to destroy defenceless POS because defenceless POS are defenceless and can already be destroyed by (almost) any ship.

Is that better?

Ultimately you're complaining that these defenceless POS don't die quickly enough - which is essentially a reflection of laziness.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2012-11-21 03:26:20 UTC
I think the pocket dreadnought idea is great because it opens up so many nullsec pvp options. If it also gets used to siege highsec POSes, so be it. If it gets used to siege low-class WH system POSes, so be it. They'll just have to put more thought into their POS setup and defense if they have it in a danger zone.

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."
GizzyBoy
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#44 - 2012-11-21 06:08:19 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
JP Nakamura wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
JP Nakamura wrote:


I've seen quite a few Large POSes that are completely defenseless in high-sec with lots of shield hardeners.


We don't need a new ship to destroy defenceless POS.


I don't mind that you picked out a small part of my Argument in favor of a short reply, but you seem to have left out the "Because" part of your Reply.


We don't need a new ship to destroy defenceless POS because defenceless POS are defenceless and can already be destroyed by (almost) any ship.

Is that better?

Ultimately you're complaining that these defenceless POS don't die quickly enough - which is essentially a reflection of laziness.


I agree with Gypso. what people are complaing about is lack of small gang warfare and the fight against blobs, and this ship is essentially going to work better in a blob, and basically WILL aggravate the situation.

it could and would be used against dreads and other capitals in siege mode. but with benefit of smaller sig and would be somewhat immune to fb's
Beta Miner
COBRA Logistics
#45 - 2012-11-21 06:38:30 UTC
Respectfully, -1.

GizzyBoy wrote:

I agree with Gypso. what people are complaing about is lack of small gang warfare and the fight against blobs, and this ship is essentially going to work better in a blob, and basically WILL aggravate the situation.

it could and would be used against dreads and other capitals in siege mode. but with benefit of smaller sig and would be somewhat immune to fb's


I would love to see an intermediate step (something between a fleet BS and Dreads, but introducing one just to bash high-sec POS's seems like a lot of dev resources funneled into a problem that already has a solution.

As much as I like the idea of a mini-dread, Gypso/Grizzy boy are correct. Better game play means moving away from the blob fights.

AFK Cloaking? An afk cloaker has never ganked me. In fact a cloaker at his keybourd has never ganked me either.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#46 - 2012-11-21 06:54:20 UTC
Having a specific type of blob that can counter another type of blob (capital blob) will make it so a blob is not only counterable by blobs. If my 500 pocket dreads and fight your 30 supers then surely a blob wont be a Iwin based solely on numbers. This would help push the trend away from bigger blobs IMO.

Also for regular subcap blobs just make bombers more powerful versus large groups of targets and less powerful versus small groups of targets. (but lets not talk about that here)

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Beta Miner
COBRA Logistics
#47 - 2012-11-22 09:40:17 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Having a specific type of blob that can counter another type of blob (capital blob) will make it so a blob is not only counterable by blobs. If my 500 pocket dreads and fight your 30 supers then surely a blob wont be a Iwin based solely on numbers. This would help push the trend away from bigger blobs IMO.


Absolutely, but this ship we are talking about is able to access high sec, where it’ll be the biggest hammer out there. My concern lies there.

If it was a cap ship limited to low/null-sec, and thus able to supplement a big fleet op … I think it would be a brilliant ship. Something that is small, fairly fast and considerably cheaper to get a poorer pilot into AND WELL BALANCED ... how could it be a bad thing? We already have a heavy and light carrier, why not the same for a dread?

AFK Cloaking? An afk cloaker has never ganked me. In fact a cloaker at his keybourd has never ganked me either.
JP Nakamura
Union of Intergalactic Miners and Nano Assemblers
#48 - 2012-12-03 16:15:13 UTC
Beta Miner wrote:
Commander Ted wrote:
Having a specific type of blob that can counter another type of blob (capital blob) will make it so a blob is not only counterable by blobs. If my 500 pocket dreads and fight your 30 supers then surely a blob wont be a Iwin based solely on numbers. This would help push the trend away from bigger blobs IMO.


Absolutely, but this ship we are talking about is able to access high sec, where it’ll be the biggest hammer out there. My concern lies there.

If it was a cap ship limited to low/null-sec, and thus able to supplement a big fleet op … I think it would be a brilliant ship. Something that is small, fairly fast and considerably cheaper to get a poorer pilot into AND WELL BALANCED ... how could it be a bad thing? We already have a heavy and light carrier, why not the same for a dread?




Okay, so you're in favor of the ship idea, but feel it should be restricted to Low Sec/Null Sec?

I can understand the argument against keeping it out of High-Sec (and might even agree with it to some degree).

How about wormholes?

CCP: 10+ years of Harvesting players Tears  (latest efforts being Source Limited Edition, and Alliance Logo Revised Policies)
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#49 - 2012-12-03 17:28:00 UTC
JP Nakamura wrote:
...... Contrary to your belief, the numbers were not "pulled out of my rear end", they were pulled out of a POS fitter. I'm happily ready to admit they are off base, if they are. The numbers I was working with were an Amarr Large POS w/40m Shield, 10m Armor, 8m Structure and base resists of 0%/0%/25%/50% shield, 0%/0%/0%/0% armor, 99%/99%/99%/99% structure. Shield regen is 500 HP/s. Against Amarr weaponry the fitter is showing 851.5m EHP.
.......

There's the problem. First, you only need to get the shields down to 25% to get it into reinforced. That's 75% of 40 million HP plus the shield resists. That will go much faster than you have been assuming, about 10 times faster. Next that 99% structure resist goes away once you get the stront used up. Generally, an undefended POS whats just come out of reinforced will pop in less time than it took to reinforce it in the first place.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Solutio Letum
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2012-12-03 18:06:55 UTC
problem is that if the only use is to pop structures in highsec it sounds silly.... maybe onece dust comes out its gonna be cool to add thing, to pop structures in dust highsec
Alex Grison
Grison Universal
#51 - 2012-12-03 21:17:57 UTC
You are very right about the risk/reward balance.


There is not alot of risk in a hisec POS.

But there isn't alot of reward either

yes
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2012-12-04 07:38:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Solutio Letum wrote:
problem is that if the only use is to pop structures in highsec it sounds silly.... maybe onece dust comes out its gonna be cool to add thing, to pop structures in dust highsec
I doubt it would be used much at all in highsec. Where it really shines is as mobile DPS, and only against targets that themselves aren't very mobile. So aside from shooting war targets' POSes, pretty much the only time you'll see them in highsec is moving them across it to get to other parts of nullsec.

In nullsec, mobility is key. This ship would be very popular, perhaps a must-have in any POS-bash fleet. People would keep them on hand for system defense against hot-drops. And I'm sure they'd find plenty of uses for these that I don't see.

Alex Grison wrote:
You are very right about the risk/reward balance.


There is not alot of risk in a hisec POS.

But there isn't alot of reward either
If the risks went up, the rewards might go up too. Sometimes when supply is slightly higher than demand (due to maximum supply being easy to achieve), it can cause a catastrophic price crash in which market sale competition wins out and nobody is willing to pay much for the stuff because they know they can get it for cheap. But if you cut back supply just a bit, sometimes that's enough to yank the prices back up and make the industry profitable again.

If high-sec moon materials could only be farmed in a reasonable amount of danger and the POS had to be defended against vulture alliances trying to steal the moon, then you wouldn't have any scrub POS owners farming the resources. That means a higher minimum input cost for obtaining the materials, which drives the price up on its own. Then the price goes up even further as the profit margin expands to make room for losses incurred. Once you have a larger price margin, it is easier to take advantage of, and the people who run the business well will be able to get spacerich off of it. Economics 101.

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."
JP Nakamura
Union of Intergalactic Miners and Nano Assemblers
#53 - 2012-12-11 13:44:20 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
JP Nakamura wrote:
...... Contrary to your belief, the numbers were not "pulled out of my rear end", they were pulled out of a POS fitter. I'm happily ready to admit they are off base, if they are. The numbers I was working with were an Amarr Large POS w/40m Shield, 10m Armor, 8m Structure and base resists of 0%/0%/25%/50% shield, 0%/0%/0%/0% armor, 99%/99%/99%/99% structure. Shield regen is 500 HP/s. Against Amarr weaponry the fitter is showing 851.5m EHP.
.......

There's the problem. First, you only need to get the shields down to 25% to get it into reinforced. That's 75% of 40 million HP plus the shield resists. That will go much faster than you have been assuming, about 10 times faster. Next that 99% structure resist goes away once you get the stront used up. Generally, an undefended POS whats just come out of reinforced will pop in less time than it took to reinforce it in the first place.


Thanks for the reply and explaining that part of it. It certainly does sound more feasible.

That said, I think there may still be a place for this hull type, possibly as a T2 BS, although if the POS revamp is really as close to happening as CCP have hinted at, then it would really make sense to do that first (or at least concurrently).

CCP: 10+ years of Harvesting players Tears  (latest efforts being Source Limited Edition, and Alliance Logo Revised Policies)
Previous page123