These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Discussing a flagship rather than changing existing gang-link ships.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sepheir Sepheron
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1 - 2013-02-05 00:47:12 UTC
I propose that instead of limiting the current ships to boost on grid only (only a rumor AFAIK) we create a new ship that is much hardier to be in the fight and give larger benefits at a much greater expense.

A flagship battleship using the existing tier 3 hulls in a tech II variant.

A flagship would have great defenses, average speed and minimal firepower. As I've said it would be a battleship so the risk when compared to a Legion or Damnation in price would be a lot higher. The special role these ships would have is to create an area around them where their fleet would gain leadership bonuses. The bonuses distributed this way would be far greater than that of remote linking. The range of the link wouldn't be anything-on-grid, but a real sphere around the ship in which your allies must be to gain bonuses. Also, the flagship would have a bonus to every type of war-link, rather than just a specialized one. This would allow the ship to switch between two different systems active at once to change the fight depending on what is needed.

Basically a battleship with only links on it's high slots with a restriction of two active at the same time and far greater bonuses than current All V can provide that can only give bonuses within 50-150 km.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#2 - 2013-02-05 00:54:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
So either it makes no sense to primary it - so links might as well be off grid anyway - or as its a BS hull a valid tactic in bigger fights would be to alpha it away with a dread or 2 in the opening shots making gangboosting pointless to waste a ship/pilot on.


The only change to gangboosting really needed is to make on grid links more effective than off grid and make it more attractive to utilise the boosting capabilities of t1 BCs, etc. anything else really is pandering to people who lack imagination or want quick easy ganks.
Sepheir Sepheron
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3 - 2013-02-05 00:57:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Sepheir Sepheron
To be honest, just a random idea I had. I didn't think about it much and I'm sure it's flawed, but the concept seems to fit the on grid booster role. It's not like these guys can't have off-grid boosters if they feel that the ship would get destroyed. Risk vs reward right?

Edit: Not every ship has to be for blobs.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#4 - 2013-02-05 00:59:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
The idea of a flagship on-grid booster is IMO one worth consideration - the role I believe was kind of originally envisaged for titans but with how the game plays out in reality that doesn't really work so well :D just not sure how it can be implemented with the way the game is played.
Sepheir Sepheron
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5 - 2013-02-05 01:03:23 UTC
Difference is Titans don't have it much better than a T3 or Command Ship when it comes to the strength of their links. This flagship would be absurd while it's alive, and it would be able to switch from skirmish to armored, armored to info, info to siege.
Leolas
Abraxas Peira
#6 - 2013-02-05 01:33:26 UTC
What you are describing is the way fleet command ships were intended.

They are ships geared specifically towards offering gang bonuses (when they were designed they were the only ship to give any bonus to gang links), and they offer the use of 3 links out of the box. They also have the huge tank and low damage output you recommend.

The problem is not that we need more ships to fill the same role, the problem is we need to force the choice whether or not to use them (not just because of inconvenience, either) by forcing them onto the field. At that point its up to the FC whether there is enough benefit to the fleet to justify having one of his ships as a command ship.

Additionally T3's should never have dethroned the command ships for the best command bonuses.

The only change to bonuses I would propose is that the T1 hulls get the same bonus to gang links as their T2 counterparts, at 3% per level, and the T2 hulls get the bonus at 5%.

Leolas - Naval Commander - Abraxas Peira Abraxas Peira is recruiting! Contact me for details!
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2013-02-05 05:57:46 UTC
So what were you thinking? 500k EHP? 750? a million?
Sepheir Sepheron
State War Academy
Caldari State
#8 - 2013-02-06 02:35:14 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
So what were you thinking? 500k EHP? 750? a million?


Well maybe a bonus to ancillary shield/armor boosters, doesn't have to be flat EHP.
Nian Banks
Berserkers of Aesir
#9 - 2013-02-06 03:01:16 UTC
For starters, why note just increase Tier1 Battlecruiser's and Fleet Command Ship's HP by a good chunk. That would cover a good part of your survivability requirements.

Then maybe as you say, were in need of a larger hull so introduce a Tech2 battleship of the Tier3 hulls and give it the same bonuses as the Fleet Command Ship (tank, warfare link) but also give it a lesser bonus to the tank type its designed for as a warfare link.

E.g.

Hull: Maelstrom Class

Role: Flag Ship

Battleship Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire and 7.5% bonus to Shield Booster effectiveness per level

Flag Ship Skill Bonus: 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed, 5% bonus to effectiveness of Skirmish Warfare Links per level and 3% bonus to effectiveness of Siege Warfare Links per level


Role Bonus: 99% reduction in Warfare Link module CPU need. Can use4 Warfare Link modules simultaneously.