These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Moving Carriers and Dreads to T2
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rain6637
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1 - 2014-08-04 11:43:46 UTC
I'm using freighters and jump freighters as a baseline in this suggestion.

Carriers can be split into T2 versions by DPS and Logistics. I also think T1 carriers should lose their jump drives. they're just too cheap for what they do. This goes for dreads as well.

Freighters have a mass and build cost comparable to carriers. similarly, T1 carriers and dreads would need to use gates. bar them from highsec, of course. only their T2 versions would have jump drives, and they would be:

T2 Logistics carrier: essentially the same as the current triage carrier, except it does not have the drone bonuses of...

...T2 DPS carrier: no logistics bonuses, is allowed to use drones while "triaged". ..."triage" gives a local rep and drone bonus instead (the current levels of drone DPS only occurs when the high slot module is activated... perhaps change the name to reflect an increase in tank. too bad bastion is already taken).

T1 carrier and dreads remain unchanged except for losing a jump drive. maybe do something with the number of drones to help server load.

make the T2 cost as much as jump freighters.

also: kaalakiota chimera... core complexion nid... carthum archon HHHNNNGGG

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#2 - 2014-08-04 11:52:54 UTC
i agree that T1 carriers can do far too much for a basic capital dps model ship..

-T1 carrier .. just a fighter dps basic model
- supercarriers made into its own skill and reduce their HP somewhat and also make it a dps basic model

- add T2 variants for carriers and supercarriers
- command variant
- logistic variant

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
LT Alter
Ryba.
White Squall.
#3 - 2014-08-04 11:54:41 UTC
We could see something along these lines with the capital rebalance pass coming up in the next year or so. Though I don't totally agree with your distinctions on the variant's, I just felt it worth mentioning about the capital rebalance pass.
Rain6637
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#4 - 2014-08-04 12:02:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
o/

this was something I found myself thinking about in mittenz' latest traffic control, where he mentions the DPS+healer issue. it struck me as two distinct T2 roles that could be split. that leaves the task of distinguishing the T2 from the T1, and the jump drive came to mind, compared to freighters and JFs: capitals with a T1 and T2 version.

a split also achieves an increased need for pilots, and more SP, but capsuleers are used to the idea of choices and they say it's a good thing.

server load is also helped by reducing drones on the field.

anyway. this idea was buried in the comments of a traffic control article, and i wanted to un-bury it by placing it here.

Harvey James wrote:
i agree that T1 carriers can do far too much for a basic capital dps model ship..

-T1 carrier .. just a fighter dps basic model
- supercarriers made into its own skill and reduce their HP somewhat and also make it a dps basic model

- add T2 variants for carriers and supercarriers
- command variant
- logistic variant

6 billion ISK (base cost) T2 command caps... I would freakin' fly those, just for the paint job.

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#5 - 2014-08-04 12:43:30 UTC
...Well, that's one way to ensure no-one outside of the big blocs uses caps again...
Rain6637
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#6 - 2014-08-04 12:45:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
because of cost? or SP? lowly logisticians find ways to afford jump freighters, and it's one of those ships you only need one of per character... right?

...isn't independent cap ownership already a bad idea?

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2014-08-04 13:37:07 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
because of cost? or SP? lowly logisticians find ways to afford jump freighters, and it's one of those ships you only need one of per character... right?

...isn't independent cap ownership already a bad idea?



Jump Freighters don't lock themselves in place for five minutes every time you try to use them. Nor are they used in their hundreds in sov fights. Nor are they used as a suicide ship to take out hostile supercaps.

Isn't the prevailing opinion that dreads are pretty well balanced anyway? They have their roles, they have their counters, they have their drawbacks. I assume you would be MASSIVELY buffing these things, or would you rather just see structures killed in subcaps?


And yes, doubling the cost of caps and massivley spiking the SP requirements is going to put them well out of the reach of groups who aren't in the big blocs. JFs don't compare, you don't need to drop multiples of them to do what you need.




Also, surely we want to see caps used more, so more of them die, not see them limited to unopposed structure bashing/repping?
Rain6637
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#8 - 2014-08-04 13:45:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
actually this suggestion does not include buffing carriers and dreads. basically just labeling them T2 and treating them more like jump freighters than regular, non-jumping freighters. T1 carriers and dreads can still be projected, but they require bridges.

also, even miners find ways to fund caps. they'll still get the same T1, sans jump drive... which in the case of non-affiliated types, is fine-ish. they'd probably like the idea of not having to train jump skills for the T1

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Velicitia
XS Tech
#9 - 2014-08-04 14:04:58 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
T1 carriers and dreads can still be projected, but they require bridges.


oh, so now to move a carrier, I need a titan.

That's pants-on-head stupid.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Rain6637
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#10 - 2014-08-04 14:07:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
a T1 carrier worth just 1.2 bil base, yeah (...or a gate, like freighters). the main premise of a T2 designation is that the current T1 version is OP.

I kinda like that phrase. can i use it (you know the one... eh? eh?).

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Mario Putzo
#11 - 2014-08-04 14:25:10 UTC
I only have one issue with Carriers, and that is the refitting bay, I think Carriers on a role by role basis are very well balanced. They don't do great DPS unless you fit for it (no reps no tank) if you fit for reps you lose tank and dps, if you fit to tank you lose repping power and dps.

The problem is that when you get even just 2 carriers they can refit with each other to maximize whatever they need to on the fly. When you get 200 doing this you can see how the refit benefits can give the illusion of a ship being OP.

I think removing the refit bay from Carriers would go a long long way to changing how, when and why they are used.

Before anyone says "what about living out of a carrier in NS"....buy a Mobile Depot Unit for refitting.

(Note this does not mean carriers would no longer be able to move ships, it just a removal of the option to refit in space.)
Rain6637
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#12 - 2014-08-04 14:32:15 UTC
that's a good point. that refit is responsible for an impression that carriers are OP. however. capital high- and low slot modules are too big to carry around and turn a tanky logistics carrier into a DCU-having drone platform, or the other way around, on the fly. their role is mostly locked in when they undock.

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Mario Putzo
#13 - 2014-08-04 14:52:56 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
that's a good point. that refit is responsible for an impression that carriers are OP. however. capital high- and low slot modules are too big to carry around and turn a tanky logistics carrier into a DCU-having drone platform, or the other way around, on the fly. their role is mostly locked in when they undock.



Eh there are a lot of modules that can be exchanged that take up a very very tiny amount of space comparatively. Pretty much every non-Cap module can be replaced depending on what the role is, which means increased drone damage and application (DDA's and Omni's), increased remote rep ability (cap stability modules) or increased tank (Armor or shield resists).
Rain6637
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#14 - 2014-08-04 15:11:10 UTC
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2014-08-04 16:22:27 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Jump Freighters don't lock themselves in place for five minutes every time you try to use them. Nor are they used in their hundreds in sov fights. Nor are they used as a suicide ship to take out hostile supercaps.

Isn't the prevailing opinion that dreads are pretty well balanced anyway? They have their roles, they have their counters, they have their drawbacks. I assume you would be MASSIVELY buffing these things, or would you rather just see structures killed in subcaps?


And yes, doubling the cost of caps and massivley spiking the SP requirements is going to put them well out of the reach of groups who aren't in the big blocs. JFs don't compare, you don't need to drop multiples of them to do what you need.




Also, surely we want to see caps used more, so more of them die, not see them limited to unopposed structure bashing/repping?

So leave carriers as T1 so the SP requirements stay the same and split the roles into two T1 hulls. Also, what if taking sov didn't require grinding silly amounts of HP and what HP did have to ground couldn't be ground with capitals? Something like this guy's idea.
Elusive Panda
Void Covenant
The Initiative.
#16 - 2014-08-04 16:30:38 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:


The problem is that when you get even just 2 carriers they can refit with each other to maximize whatever they need to on the fly. When you get 200 doing this you can see how the refit benefits can give the illusion of a ship being OP.

I think removing the refit bay from Carriers would go a long long way to changing how, when and why they are used.


I like this idea, but maybe instead of removing the refit bay, just make it so Carrier are incapable of using a refit bay? That way you still offer the service, but cannot use it yourself.
Mario Putzo
#17 - 2014-08-04 17:13:40 UTC
Elusive Panda wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:


The problem is that when you get even just 2 carriers they can refit with each other to maximize whatever they need to on the fly. When you get 200 doing this you can see how the refit benefits can give the illusion of a ship being OP.

I think removing the refit bay from Carriers would go a long long way to changing how, when and why they are used.


I like this idea, but maybe instead of removing the refit bay, just make it so Carrier are incapable of using a refit bay? That way you still offer the service, but cannot use it yourself.


I don't think there is really a need for a refit service from ships to be honest. If you need to refit in space, use an MDU imo.
Rain6637
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#18 - 2014-08-04 17:21:18 UTC
hey, I was ok with the overlap of mobile depots and my baby carrier (orca)... but saying it shouldn't have a refitting service at all is too far.

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Altirius Saldiaro
Doomheim
#19 - 2014-08-04 18:26:42 UTC
T2 carriers sounds interesting.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#20 - 2014-08-04 18:37:03 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Rain6637 wrote:
because of cost? or SP? lowly logisticians find ways to afford jump freighters, and it's one of those ships you only need one of per character... right?

...isn't independent cap ownership already a bad idea?



Jump Freighters don't lock themselves in place for five minutes every time you try to use them. Nor are they used in their hundreds in sov fights. Nor are they used as a suicide ship to take out hostile supercaps.

Isn't the prevailing opinion that dreads are pretty well balanced anyway? They have their roles, they have their counters, they have their drawbacks. I assume you would be MASSIVELY buffing these things, or would you rather just see structures killed in subcaps?


And yes, doubling the cost of caps and massivley spiking the SP requirements is going to put them well out of the reach of groups who aren't in the big blocs. JFs don't compare, you don't need to drop multiples of them to do what you need.




Also, surely we want to see caps used more, so more of them die, not see them limited to unopposed structure bashing/repping?


It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to make t2 dreads that focus on doing good amounts of (comparably) well-applied dps unsieged, or reversing the role and making the t2 one the crazy siege machine...which actually make a lot of sense since it would have stronger defenses. There's a lot of room for this idea to work, and it definitely makes a lot of sense for carriers; logi spider tanking is currently one of the largest issues facing the game right now; an idea was made earlier about making it so logi is unable to rep people with an aggression timer; I think it would make sense to do that with the teal engagement timer thing since that would allow for use of logistics within a pve setting.
12Next page