These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123Next page
 

Citadel Bomber, Covert Logistic and much more

Author
2manno Asp
Death By Design
#21 - 2012-02-14 23:39:45 UTC  |  Edited by: 2manno Asp
dp sorry
Mark Marlowe
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#22 - 2012-02-15 00:57:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Marlowe
Reduce slightly the sig and increase survivability of the small ships..
Rommel Rottweil
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2012-02-15 01:05:25 UTC
Well I dont know if you read my post thoroughly Xolve, but I allso suggested using Improved cloak (same cloak bombers used to have). This would result in eather they would use them to ambush gate fex. (sorry but fleet going in to that with bad intel dies) or you would see them come on warpin/scan and fleet can react (if he dont he is lazy and/or bad scouts) and get off gate/pos.
Upside to the ship would be 2-3 bombs. This ship would probably have a hard time traveling through hostile systems (not the case with current 'light' stealth bombers). Its probably be more of a defensive ship rather than offencive tbh.

Btw.
People who complain about blobbing should never complain about bombers P
Xolve
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#24 - 2012-02-15 07:14:40 UTC
Rommel Rottweil wrote:
Well I dont know if you read my post thoroughly Xolve, but I allso suggested using Improved cloak (same cloak bombers used to have). This would result in eather they would use them to ambush gate fex. (sorry but fleet going in to that with bad intel dies) or you would see them come on warpin/scan and fleet can react (if he dont he is lazy and/or bad scouts) and get off gate/pos.
Upside to the ship would be 2-3 bombs. This ship would probably have a hard time traveling through hostile systems (not the case with current 'light' stealth bombers). Its probably be more of a defensive ship rather than offencive tbh.

Btw.
People who complain about blobbing should never complain about bombers P


I actually had a really nice response to all the ideas you posted Rommel, but the forum ate it, and after editing it numerous times, I just stuck by my argument that nothing should ever have multiple launchers on it, its just retardedly overpowered the amount of damage that can do in the hands of capable pilots (why I linked the battle reports).

Frigates and Thrashers have little difficulty navigating through hostile space, unless they run into an insta-huginn, or some other fast locking ship with ******** web bonuses (Daredevil, Ashimmu, Vigilant, Rapier, etc.) and while the positioning of these ships might be an issue elsewhere in space, reacting to this fleet type under heavy TiDi would just not happen well.

I think your other 2 ideas are pretty solid, except for the bonus to EC- drones simply because they are overpowered as it stands now. You can literally jam a tengu with a EC-300's, try that with multispecs or off-racials in a falcon, it won't happen. I believe ECM in itself is completely broken, but thats a completely different argument.

As an experienced bomber pilot- I could wreck house with just 5 people in ships with 2-3 bomb launchers... being that its a destroyer hull, I doubt it would be expensive, and the devastating capability it would have would be well worth the loss. Just remember in NullSec we mitigate risk by simply bringing more of 'Shiptype X' or 'Shiptype Y'. They can't primary all of us!
Xolve
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#25 - 2012-02-15 07:21:56 UTC
2manno Asp wrote:
trite sayings aside, we at least disagree on the word instrumental. instrumental to me is something like, in order to X in eve, you need Y to do it. like scanner probes to scan sites, or a t1 frigate to enter a minor plex, which i believe i pointed as a something ccp has oddly ignored.


Its fair to have this opinion space-friend, but I don't PvE, ever (despite my sec status). You can do some pretty amazing things with T1 Frigs/Cruisers in fleet situations. Saying they are worthless is completely ignorant; its the pilot who makes the ship, not the other way around. Ask me about my Slave'd Dual Neut Armor Ruppy Lol

2manno Asp wrote:
you don't need a t1 frig to learn pvp that's for sure. i have friends that have never set foot in a t1 frig, and quite literally learned to pvp with a vagabond, in a vagabond. most skills plans i've seen in this game are focused on skipping right over t1 small stuff into bc's and above as fast as humanly possible. sad actually.


I'm not saying you 'need' these ships to learn, just saying its a more cost effective way for new pilots to learn. EvE like many other games have building blocks and milestones in the form of ship types. I seriously question the credibility of people that argue that these ships are worthless in PvP; I've seen Ruptures drop Battleships, Moas tackle Carriers, Incursus's used to provide tackle... and Rifters do just flat out silly things.

Rommel Rottweil
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2012-02-15 11:57:56 UTC
Thank you for Xolve, I hate it when posts get eaten, is it me or are new forums eating them a lot?

Aside from the ECM drones I dont remember the other drones being in pvp, Its a while since I played though, fixing/nerfing ECM drones would be a prerquisit but barring that would it be so bad to have EW drone ship?

My view is basically that adding a couple of new Destroyer hulls to the game isnt really that hard.
The main problem is probably the missing WOW factor. New T3 BC is WOW! When launching a new patch then comming with 2-3 new Destroyer hulls wouldnt draw in that much publicity or interest from the vast majority of old players.
However I think this might interest NEW players and could still be used for PR to catch intrest to new players and people who are less serious and not so L33t.

It would take a little time to draw up and colour the models but the art department would do that in a jiffy, and a little more tweaking the numbers, stats and attributes for the new ships, but if they wanted they could have working models on SISI in no time. Then some people could play with it and with feedback CCP shouldt have a hard time getting this into game tbh.


Maybe thisis better?

>Tier4; Destroyer Drone Specialists.
(Bandwith 50, Dronebay 100m3)
Role Bonus:+20% Drone Speed. +20% Drone racial Damadge. (Penalty: Few Missile/Turret Hardpoints)

Amarr: +5% Armor resistance per level, +5% Tracking Disruptor range and strength per level.
Caldari: +5% Shield resistance per level, +5% ECM range and strength per level.
Gallente: +5% Armor repair per level. +5% to Sensor Dampening range and strength per level.
Minmatar: +5% Shield boost per level. +5% Target Painting range and strength per level.

Concept is to have a small specialist Drone boat that uses drones to do its damadge and uses EW to increase survivability.


Here is one more:

>TierX; Destroyer,
Role Bonus
Bonus: 50% bonus to AB Speed -25% to Agility using AB

(Race, Bonus type, Slots; Low/Med/High)
Amarr: Laser & Armor bonus. 5/2/8
Caldari: Missile & Shield bonus. 2/5/8
Gallente: Hybrid & Drone bonus. 4/3/8
Minmatar: Projectile & Speed bonus. 3/4/8

Concept for the TierX is for a fast small ship that can chase down smaller ships, it dosnt have the agility to hunt down and catch clever little targets but if they are not smart enough it will get them.
Xolve
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#27 - 2012-02-15 14:55:54 UTC
Rommel Rottweil wrote:

>Tier4; Destroyer Drone Specialists.
(Bandwith 50, Dronebay 100m3)
Role Bonus:+20% Drone Speed. +20% Drone racial Damadge. (Penalty: Few Missile/Turret Hardpoints)

Amarr: +5% Armor resistance per level, +5% Tracking Disruptor range and strength per level.
Caldari: +5% Shield resistance per level, +5% ECM range and strength per level.
Gallente: +5% Armor repair per level. +5% to Sensor Dampening range and strength per level.
Minmatar: +5% Shield boost per level. +5% Target Painting range and strength per level.

Concept is to have a small specialist Drone boat that uses drones to do its damadge and uses EW to increase survivability.


I think the drone bay is entirely to big, those dessies could carry 2 Heavies or 2 Sentries. I do however, think that all of the ewar drones except the ECM Drones need a boost, as they are not used the bonus the give is less then fitting the module itself and the loss of drone dps is enough to make the just flat out undesireable.

I also think this would be a T2 vessel with its 4 bonuses. This isn't a bad idea though.


Rommel Rottweil wrote:

>TierX; Destroyer,
Role Bonus
Bonus: 50% bonus to AB Speed -25% to Agility using AB

(Race, Bonus type, Slots; Low/Med/High)
Amarr: Laser & Armor bonus. 5/2/8
Caldari: Missile & Shield bonus. 2/5/8
Gallente: Hybrid & Drone bonus. 4/3/8
Minmatar: Projectile & Speed bonus. 3/4/8

Concept for the TierX is for a fast small ship that can chase down smaller ships, it dosnt have the agility to hunt down and catch clever little targets but if they are not smart enough it will get them.


This doesn't look bad, kind of crosses over into Interceptor/Assault Frigates though. What are the proposed racial ideas for this?
Rommel Rottweil
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2012-03-09 08:14:56 UTC
I support changes to local and coaking as they are posted here;
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=58529&find=unread
and
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=59432&find=unread

This might be crazy but could there be a more perfect role to the Destroyer class than being a "ASW" (Anti-Submarine Warfare) or in eve terminolagy "ACW" Anti-Cloaking WarfareP

"Divulger"
Tier2-Tech2 Destroyer

Slot layout:
6 High Slots, 3-5 medium, 3-5 low.

Destroyer Skill Bonus
+5% Armor or shield resistance per level.
-10% Activation cost for Small Smartbomb per level.
Divulger Skill Bonus:
+20% Smartbomb Range per level. (Max skills and Tech2 module give 6km range, best faction gives 9km range)
+50% Racial Smartbomb Damadge per level (EM-Amarr, Kin-Caldari, Therm-Gallente, Expl-Minmater)
Special ability
-50% CPU need of smartbombs
+50% Smartbomb Activation time

This ship could used to burn towards the suspected area of the cloaker and then use one smart bomb at a time every 2 sec and try and uncloak the cloaker. Somthing like a Destroyer dropping debth charges (WWII anolagi wins).

This ship can allso be used to kill drones en masse.
With 6x Faction Smartbombs and max skill then damage will still only be just over 100 racial DPS to all within range.

OFC some dont like this since this could be used to empire gank on gate etc. With the long Activation timer I dont think this could be useful to empire gank anything but very small ships, Concord should get you before you get 2nd cycle on Smartbombs.
Still smallest ships would be vaulnerable but tbh then using BS with 8 large Smartbombs would be do more damadge and be more cost effective, this is a T2 ship.

Downsides;
I can see is maybe some ppl would autopilot lvl1-2 missions in this but there wouldnt be any loot though hehe
Well ofc the slow cloakers will have a hard time.



Another nutty idea is to just make a new module: (Slap it on a Tier2-Tech2 Destroyer hull as a "Special ability")
Detection Bubble launcher:
Detection Bubbles, 30km range.
Bubble is only active for 5 sec and it decloaks any cloakers.
Only one bubble can be launched every 60 sec. Only one Launcher can be fitted to the ship.
If a bubble is dropped and has a gate (station or other collidable objects) within the effected radius then the effect of the bubble will be nullified by the gate and no ship would be decloaked.

I would rather go for a probe solution tbh, it would be simple and it would at least remove or reduce the afk cloaker problem. But a smartbombing Destroyer would be cool thoughTwisted
Rommel Rottweil
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2012-03-11 02:39:56 UTC
Decloaking description at the bottom of page.

>Tier2-Tech2 Destroyer
Type name: "Hunter", "Divulger" or maybe "Conjurer"?

Special Ability:
Can fit Decloaking Device / Decloaking Launcher.

Divulger Skill Bonus:
10% bonus to range of Decloaking field per level
10% increase to scan strength of probes per level

Destroyer Skill Bonus:
Amarr: Laser & Armor bonus. 5/3/7
Caldari: Missile & Shield bonus. 3/5/7
Gallente: Hybrid & Armor bonus. 4/4/7
Minmatar: Projectile & Shield bonus. 4/4/7

Can fit expanded Probe launcher.

>Tier2 Destroyer
Role Bonus
Bonus: 25% bonus to ROF

Amarr: Laser & Armor bonus. 5/2/7
Caldari: Missile & Shield bonus. 2/5/7
Gallente: Hybrid & Drone bonus. 4/3/7
Minmatar: Projectile & Speed bonus. 3/4/7

Concept for the Tier2 is that they are slightly heavyer/tougher destroyers than Tier1 (-1 high and +1 med/low slots). Smaller version of the Tier 3 or tier 4 Cruisers.


>Tier3 Destroyer.
Role Bonus: Lower Cruiser Weapon CPU & GRID.
Fits Cruiser size weapons Pirate

Concept is somthing like the Tier3 BC.



Posted elswhere as well but this is just to flesh out the destrouyer idea here.

I was thinking maybe a 2-way approach to detecting cloakers.

Add a Probe that can scan down cloakers AND add a special module to decloak them.
Covert Scanner Probe, works like Combat Probe but only detects Cloaked Ships or Covert Cynos (Maybe add special sites for PVE players hehe). Covert Scanning Probes are special and due to the powerful and strange signal needed to detect covert ships then they are visable to all (like cyno) and can be warped to and destroyed.
When you finally probe down the Cloaker, you need to locat him. Warping to him will randomly put you within 40-50km away from the Cloaker. Now you need to decloak him, what do you do? Orbiting Interceptor?

Well Now the new ship comes to do its job, Tech2 Destroyer with a "special" (Lets call it a Decloaking Device/Launcher) module:
I have 2 ideas here:
1. Decloaking Bomb Launcher that drops Decloaking bombs, the launcher can drop a bomb every 10 sec and they take 5 sec before going off (bombs do not travel, they are stationary when deployed regardless of ship velocity), bombs do 10? EM Damadge to everything within 30km. They do not go off if there is a collidable structure within the blast radius (do not work if gates or stations are within the radius).
2. Decloaking Device fitted in high slot that works similar to the Warp Disruption Field Generator (WDFG), it dosnt prevent warping but instead emmits 30km range pulses at the end of every 15 sec cycle that do 10?EM damadge and decloakes everything within the effected radius. Same thing here, cannot be activated within range of collidable structures.

As with the WDFG, when the 'Special' module is active then the vessel recives several negative effects. Higher Sig, nerfed AB and MWD speed. Allso it dont work in lowsec or empire.
AND most importantly, Destroyer with Decloaking Device/Launcher can not mount a cloak.. THEY CAN NOT CLOAK (Module uses up the Cloak Slot).

Pros:
-Affects 0.0 space only.
-As I see it, this would allow afk, inactive cloakers and covert Cynos to be probed. Chances are very slim to find a Cov Cyno, would probably need intel that one was up in the area or just pure luck if one is active when you scan.
-Active cloakers can easely evade probers by bouncing safe, planets etc. or just wait untill ships show up on scan or start hunting them and then warp off flipping the bird (decloaking in warpoff).
-Since the Probes are easy to detect then scaning for cloakers in hostile space is very dangerous, going to enemy home system to try and detect that cloaking titan would probably result in hostiles huning the proaber.
-The Decloaking Device has a delay after being activated so the Cloakers do have a small window to get away.
-The Decloaking Device is not very effective around Gate or Station.
-Cloakers can play smart and cloak up in a anomaly or somthing and go afk, however when its compleated then
-30km range is with bonuses, unmodifyed range would be 20km.

Cons:
This would make gatecamps more effective against cloakers. But if you want to cover a gate with 8+ T2 specialist slow moving Destroyers like this then you possibly could. But hell if you deploy 8+ guys just to detect some cloakers then you deserve to find them tbfh lol

This idea handicaps the Hunters a lot, but after trying somthing like this and seeing it work ingame without being OP then it could be boosted in small incriments and balanced to work quite well I think.
Cletus Graeme
Shai Dorsai
#30 - 2012-03-11 02:57:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Cletus Graeme
T1 needs to be more than just a stepping stone to T2. How long do you spend flying T1 and how long do you spend flying T2? The answer for most is months compared to years. T1 ships should offer something over T2 ships which makes them still worth flying long after you have trained (and a rich enough to afford) to fly T2. This is already the case with some meta 4 T1 modules - for example.

Currently, the only advantage of flying T1 over T2 is cost - i.e. they're much cheaper.
Another less obvious advantage is arguably that you get more fights in them :)

Regarding the suggestion of adding more destroyer hulls - the idea of more frigate hulls is a good one - but it's premature.
Small scale PvP needs to be reworked before we start adding new hulls.

For far too long CCP has followed the mantra that bigger is better and T3 > T2 > T1. When they should've been looking at how to make lowsec/FW/roaming/small gang more fun they were adding carriers and dreads and titans - which are flown by a small minority and are far less versatile to use in PvP than subcaps.

I'm not saying caps are bad per-se but just like with Incarna, they have taken developers efforts away from subcaps under the misguided assumption that EvE needs epic fleet fights involving massive ships to be impressive.

Anyone who has actually watched a video of a fleet fight knows how boring it is after about 2minutes - unless you were there in person. But we all love Garmonation and the other small gang (or solo) pvp videos out there - why?

Sorry to go so far off-topic but the problem isn't a lack of destroyer hulls (ofr frigate hulls). As several people have pointed out, adding new hulls serves no purpose unless they do something different.

It's small scale combat that needs improving and expanding first.

If CCP expands the tactics by introducing new game mechanics then this will automatically create a NEED for new ships. They did with Capitals and more recently with Black Ops and T3 - so why not with frigate and destroyers too? Interdictors are awesome - so we already have proof that it can be done.
Rommel Rottweil
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2012-03-11 03:05:02 UTC
Well just like the Tier 3 BC have shown that they can be useful couldnt Tier 3 Destroyers with Cruiser guns be fun to fly as well, chep hull with good DPS that can gank larger ships. To mee it could be a fun roaming ship. Disposable PVP FTW
Agustice Arterius
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#32 - 2012-03-11 20:53:34 UTC
Wouldn't a destroyer with medium guns stop being a destroyer?

Unless EVEs idea of a destroyer is different than what they are usually thought of as...
Leto Aramaus
Black Fox Marauders
Pen Is Out
#33 - 2012-03-11 21:53:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Leto Aramaus
mxzf wrote:
The problem is that you're still not listing any actual need for them in the game. Your reasoning pretty much boils down to "Why not? I want them" without actually suggesting any role where they're needed to fill.

And destroyers are, intentionally, a stepping stone from frig to cruiser, they're not designed to be their own full set of ships. So comparing their numbers to anything other than BCs is misleading. And BCs might have some more T1 hulls, but they still only have one class of T2 hulls (with two variations for each race). See the similarity there?

Destroyers:
1 tier of T1 hulls
1 group of T2 hulls

BCs:
3 tiers of T1 hulls
1 group of T2 hulls

And, as I said in the beginning: there's simply no role missing in the game right now for your suggested hulls to fill.



What's wrong with the proposing something "just because I want it"

Isn't that what the "features and ideas" discussion is for?

He DID give a reason for putting them in the game, there's not enough destroyers and he would like to see more. Instead of deciding that this is a stupid idea because he didn't suggest what role they would fill, why not attempt to brainstorm said possible roles for more destroyers?
Rommel Rottweil
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#34 - 2012-03-11 22:40:34 UTC
Agustice Arterius wrote:
Wouldn't a destroyer with medium guns stop being a destroyer?

Unless EVEs idea of a destroyer is different than what they are usually thought of as...



Would a Battlecruiser with large guns stop being a Battlecruiser?

"Unless EVEs idea of a destroyer is different than what they are usually thought of as..."
" a destroyer is a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group and defend them against smaller, powerful, short-range attackers." (Naval terminologi from wiki) ?

Dont see a reason here why a Destroyer with 425mm Autocannon and flying in space would haveto be renamed somthing else cause he is not using the 200mm Autocannons!

If it makes you feel better we could call them:

Tier 3 Battlecruiser = Pocket Battleship
Tier 3 Destroyer = Pocket Cruiser

Lol

Im thinking a lot of pilots would love Tier2 and Tier3 Destroyer.
Now we have:
Tier1 Destroyer; role as a Anti Frig Platform.
Tier1-Tech2 Destroyer (Interdictor); role is to tacke people in 0.0 (But their special ability is useless in lowsec and empire).

What we need:
Tier2 Destroyer (I have suggested some roles in this thread); Role as a Close range Brawler with a good tank or EW Drone specialist etc. etc.
Tier2-Tech2 Destroyer (Covert Hunter); role is to hunt down and decloak cloaking ships (afaik this is a newish idea and a new role).
Tier3 Destroyer; role is to kill stuff, all out dps. Well it can be used as a close range or long range vessel but like the tier3 BC it is just a cheap platform to supply heavy dps (High dps/isk ratio).

Why dont new ships unless they have a very special new (unicorn) role that no other ship in game has?
If thease same people had anything to say tey would never have allowed the Tier3 BC ingame. But it looks as they are used quite a lot now tbfh.

Im pretty shure that new pilots and FW guys would love this, not to mention the increasingly popular rvb crowd o7

With changes to Destroyer and BC skill requirements then it would even be more important to have tier2-3 Destroyers. I dont mind you bashing my ideas but howabout coming up with some more ideas yourselfs Big smile
Asudem
Asen of Asgard
#35 - 2012-03-12 00:35:57 UTC
bump
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2012-03-12 04:25:59 UTC
Destroyers are one of the few ships I'm really happy with, please keep CCP away from them, even if it is to make new ships!

I <3 my Thrasher.

[URL="https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=82348"]UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch[/URL]

Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#37 - 2012-03-12 07:07:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Ines Tegator
Rommel Rottweil wrote:
Is there a role for Assault frigs and Electronic attack ships?

Good question. Here's another: are there balance issues with those ships? Are they used often? Are they useful? Do they move in the market or show up on loss/killmails often? Are they asked for by FC's? The answers will vary to be sure.

We really don't want the design philosophy that created them coming back. They have created (are still creating) a huge balance headache precisely because of their loyal pilot base clamoring for them to be useful, when there is no real purpose for them to fill. How often do you see an industrialist say "I need some quick cash.. I think I'll do a Keres manufacturing run." Right. We don't need more ships like these.

So I'll say what I always do to these "add new destroyers" threads that seem to pop up twice a day: name a role that needs filled. Here's one, just to show I'm fair: Anti-cloakie hunter killers. Think WWII anti submarine boat style, dropping depth charges and sounding out the u-boat so bigger ships can make the kill. Nobody ever seems to suggest that, and it would be awesome twice by solving the AFK cloakie problem and adding more destroyers.

edit: Ah. I see somebody did suggest it in a wall of text up there. Good to see it catching on somewhat.
Zombo Brian
Doomheim
#38 - 2012-03-12 08:36:20 UTC
Montevius Williams wrote:
Destroyers alreay have a role. Beat the **** out of frigates.


sadly, assault frigates do extremely better at this (ishkur for example)

at least, i would say balance the interdictors so not only the minmatar one has a decent highslot layout
Rommel Rottweil
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2012-03-12 23:44:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Rommel Rottweil
Here is one more nutty idea from me P

>Tech2 Destroyer
Type name: "Thunderbird" or maybe "Ultra Bomber" (U-Boat lol)

Special Ability:
Can fit ONE (1) Citadel Launcher
99.95% Reduction in Powergrid need of Citadel Launcher (Torpedo & Cruise).
50% Reduction in the CPU need of Citadel Launcher.

Ultra Bomber Skill Bonus:
+20% ROF Citadel Launcher
97-100% Reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level.

Destroyer Skill Bonus:
Amarr: 6/3/5
+5% Armor resistance per level.
+10% EM damage per level
Caldari: 3/6/5
+5% Shield resistance per level.
+10% Kinetic damade per level
Gallente: 5/4/5
+5% Armor resistance per level.
+10% Thermal damage per level
Minmatar: 4/5/5
+5% Shield resistance per level.
+10% Explosive damage per level


I would like to see Dredds boosted a little tbh. Here are 3 suggestions, pick one :)
1# Change Dredd ROF bonus to +10% Damage Bonus. (The 2 with +5% damage bonus get this changed to ROF bonus).
2# Give capital weapons a 20% boost (That would boost Titans as well, do we need that?).
3# Give them x8 or even x10 damage in siege instead of x6.25. I think 8 would be nice, a 28% boost to their DPS.

For people thinking OMG...

One Phoenix is 1.75b. They can fit 3 Launchers, in sige (& max skills) they can shoot what equals to 24 Launchers. To equal this then you would need 12 Destroyers. Since these would be T2 Destroyers they would cost around 50m each. 12x50= 600m. Still only 1/3 of what Dredd costs. Well The Dredd has quite a bit larger tank and he can Jump.
Out of Siege the Dredd does **** damage, I agrea but its power is in the Siege.
To equal Dredd in siege DPS you would need 12 Pilots. There are many ships that can equal the DPS of my proposed Destroyer type but how many can Cloak and how many can go that fast.

This is a specialty ship and it would probably only be useful in attacking poorly defended Structures like POS, TCU, SBU etc. or capitals without support.

This ship could be bridged with Black Ops behind enemy lines.
Rommel Rottweil
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#40 - 2012-03-13 22:51:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Rommel Rottweil
Here is another new "Role"... for you guys.

Im not fleshing this one out as it would be a no brainer tbh.

Tier somthing or another, Tech2 Destroyer.

"Covert Logistic"
It would be designed around fitting Medium Shield/Armor/Cap transfer/rep modules.

Skills and stuff is almost self explanitory.
Basically the same as Logistics exept drop Drone Bonus for a CovOps Bonus.

With similar ammount of Slots they would probably be doing app. 50% repps compared to normal Logistics (-drones ofc), and they would have a much smaller tank. However their price is only 1/3 of a full size logistic.

Black Ops would never leave home without a couple or 5 :)

Edit: Dont think this is OP as this ship like Recon etc has a targeting delay after decloaking.
Previous page123Next page