These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Escort Carrier

Author
Admiral Lysander
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#21 - 2012-03-29 13:28:44 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:
I am 100% sure this gets discussed monthly. These are the general problems that are discussed monthly:
- giving something BS sized T2 resists would result in 250-350K tanks and result in mission killdozer ships, even if only in lowsec
- fighters in hisec, you don't think this would result in station campers assigning 50 at atime to ceptors on undock? Yeah, great idea.
- cost is no issue, so making something Orca sized is no barrier to entry
- making it take BS 4 skill doesn't address fighter prerequisites, so this wouldn't be a nub boat by any means.
- so you decided to give it drones. Great, now it is a Domi on roids!
- what about utility slots, sure it won't have turrets but it could fit neuts and an Orca has a sodding massive pile of cap. *cough* domi on roids *cough*
- speaking of cap what would the active tanking be like? Oh, right, ridiculous, because people would want to drop faction boosters and play station games in hisec. Thats if they don't cloak, or sit at hisec POS's. Great, now its just like nullsec!
- how to make sane for wormholes? Impossibru! Its like a pop-up carrier for low end wormholes. (actually, the only positive implication of this concept)



Well if you wanted 50 fighters with this escort idea you would be paying alot more than a normal carrier considering you would have to have 10 ships off the class to field them

and i like the Idea off makeing a T1 tankm, like i stated the ship its self should be a week ship to ballance out the fact it has fighters and as for fitting mebe something like 2 large rig slots 5 High slots with only 2 hardpoints (missles or turrets depending on race) 3 Mid slots and 2 Low slots

and to the guy who said this be put in a difrent forum thread, well i thought new ship put it under ships lol >_<

but yeah i wouldn't want some oober High sec ship that has mega tank that no one can take out easy it should be something were you know in a fleet it would ooberly boost your dps potentual but at the same time week to a point were if you were goin to ober tank it you would need at least 3 repper orspreys for exsample with 2 remote shield reps attached to each.
Smiling Menace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2012-03-29 13:36:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Smiling Menace
Tanya Powers wrote:
Dibblerette wrote:
Trinkets friend wrote:
*cough* Domi on roids *cough*

A pvp combat viable T2 battleship? Gasp.


Actually they're not asking here for a simple high sec combat carrier, term used is "Escort carrier" and for some you would need 4 of those to match a SUPER CARRIER dps witch is 12k for a nyx, so 3k dps.

I hope you see where this is going?- ok, let me help you: isk printing machine but afk mode or ultra "I play with my alts, I'm not alone" killing incursions all day long.



This is the bit I don't like about this idea. However, limit the drones to a flight of 5 and it'd be no better than a Dominix or a Rattlesnake for missions but would have fighters should you wish to fight in low/null with them.

Sorta like an Orca tank with some dps from 5 fighters. Kind of like a half way house between Battleships and Carriers but a fraction of the cost, a fraction of the tank and a fraction of the dps.

Fighters would be pretty useless in missions anyway. Fighters can't hit anything below a Battleship with any real force and would take ages to finish even the easiest of missions.
Admiral Lysander
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#23 - 2012-03-29 13:48:22 UTC
Smiling Menace wrote:
Tanya Powers wrote:
Dibblerette wrote:
Trinkets friend wrote:
*cough* Domi on roids *cough*

A pvp combat viable T2 battleship? Gasp.


Actually they're not asking here for a simple high sec combat carrier, term used is "Escort carrier" and for some you would need 4 of those to match a SUPER CARRIER dps witch is 12k for a nyx, so 3k dps.

I hope you see where this is going?- ok, let me help you: isk printing machine but afk mode or ultra "I play with my alts, I'm not alone" killing incursions all day long.



This is the bit I don't like about this idea. However, limit the drones to a flight of 5 and it'd be no better than a Dominix or a Rattlesnake for missions but would have fighters should you wish to fight in low/null with them.

Sorta like an Orca tank with some dps from 5 fighters. Kind of like a half way house between Battleships and Carriers but a fraction of the cost, a fraction of the tank and a fraction of the dps.

Fighters would be pretty useless in missions anyway. Fighters can't hit anything below a Battleship with any real force and would take ages to finish even the easiest of missions.



Well the limiting the fighter cap to 5 fighters would be mainly due to the fact that you like a guy said before haveing 50 fighters in HS would mean you would wipe fleets out like thay were nothing so if you were going to field 50 you would need 10 like i siad before this would cost you way more than a carrier, lets say most single carriers are 1bil in cost a single escort carrier would cost around 350mil to 400mill (carnt make it easy to buy ither) stuff like this needs to have aspects that will put you off like a long ass training que considering you would have to creat a new skill tree section on the ship skills and as said b4 again price.

just with the idea that ccp will be bringing ships out every yr or 2 just made me think what could we have an this seems viable if we can get it to fit into the aspects of eve just right.

all i know is that me personaly, would love to fly one just gives more diversity to us realy,m

and as a final note to point out again its an escort carrier its not ment to be some solo super noob ship lol its ment to provide backup for small fleetsm, and it would help solve the debate on how to invade a WH with carriers as all carriers will always **** up a WH stability stats

Lubomir Penev
Prey Drive
#24 - 2012-03-29 15:06:55 UTC
Admiral Lysander wrote:
ok its been a real ship class before its been in other games before so mebe we can see an escort carrier class possibly.

im looking forward to all the hate comments from every one aba escort carriers an what not.

To me tho its a reasonable idea, a ship a lil larger than a battleship with barely any weapons but aloued to carry up to 5 fighters no fighter bombers

just something a little cheeper than a full carrier so ppl can feel the awsomeness off fighters a lil sooner.


Someone speaking of "the awsomeness off fighters" obviously never encountered them. Your proposal (5 fighters, no weapons) would do less DPS than a cruiser, what's the point again?
Kattshiro
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#25 - 2012-03-29 15:12:42 UTC
Actually make it have drones, but could only fit med guns... cause it would be kinda funny.... That or give bonuses to support, ECM, or cmd abilities.

So support with non direct combat role.
EvisRaptor
Marduk Heavy Production Industries Ltd.
#26 - 2012-03-29 21:26:22 UTC
Admiral Lysander wrote:
Or just let me fly a fighter or fighterbomber by interacting with a friendly carrier, almost like POS guns. THAT would be cool.


Yep let me fly a Fighter or Fighter-Bomber from IN the cockpit like the old X-Wing games would be GREAT to see in this game.
Admiral Lysander
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#27 - 2012-03-29 22:00:33 UTC
Lubomir Penev wrote:
Admiral Lysander wrote:
ok its been a real ship class before its been in other games before so mebe we can see an escort carrier class possibly.

im looking forward to all the hate comments from every one aba escort carriers an what not.

To me tho its a reasonable idea, a ship a lil larger than a battleship with barely any weapons but aloued to carry up to 5 fighters no fighter bombers

just something a little cheeper than a full carrier so ppl can feel the awsomeness off fighters a lil sooner.


Someone speaking of "the awsomeness off fighters" obviously never encountered them. Your proposal (5 fighters, no weapons) would do less DPS than a cruiser, what's the point again?



you do need to actualy read thro the thread i stated that the carrier WOULD have weapons on it but not many aka caldari would have 2 missle hardpoints plz read the full thread b4 commenting
Argaral
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2012-03-29 22:23:20 UTC
Admiral Lysander wrote:
Lubomir Penev wrote:
Admiral Lysander wrote:
ok its been a real ship class before its been in other games before so mebe we can see an escort carrier class possibly.

im looking forward to all the hate comments from every one aba escort carriers an what not.

To me tho its a reasonable idea, a ship a lil larger than a battleship with barely any weapons but aloued to carry up to 5 fighters no fighter bombers

just something a little cheeper than a full carrier so ppl can feel the awsomeness off fighters a lil sooner.


Someone speaking of "the awsomeness off fighters" obviously never encountered them. Your proposal (5 fighters, no weapons) would do less DPS than a cruiser, what's the point again?



you do need to actualy read thro the thread i stated that the carrier WOULD have weapons on it but not many aka caldari would have 2 missle hardpoints plz read the full thread b4 commenting


I think what they mean Lysander is that 2 hard points, un bonused would do nothing anyway. The Fighters/Drones would be its main dps. Besides if it is a "carrier" they'll fit neuts/smartbombs in its high slots. PVE wise you'd maybe get the 2 guns/launchers, drone control range extender and 2 other misc?

For a Mini carrier with only 5 fighters/fighter bombers with a t1 battleship tank as a super cap killer, it could work well. I guess the easiest way to fix this in high sec is that they are too big for acceleration gates(knocks out what, 75% of missions? and all incursions). Allow them a bay only big enough for say, 10 fighers and 2 flights of t1 light/medium drones. That way, if people HAVE to mission run in them, they barely out dps a dominix/rattlesnake while remaining a viable option of anti super caps.

Also, it cannot fit DCU's. That way it would be limited in its dps and conform to the 4 escorts per super carrier.

Bonus's could be 5% fighter/fighter bomber damage per level. 5% resist per level? Maybe for Amarr Caldari, though gallente/minmatar im not sure. Leave out the huge control range bonus? That way the fighters can only be told to engage close to the fleet in its escort capacity.
Admiral Lysander
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#29 - 2012-03-29 22:40:03 UTC
Argaral wrote:
Admiral Lysander wrote:
Lubomir Penev wrote:
Admiral Lysander wrote:
ok its been a real ship class before its been in other games before so mebe we can see an escort carrier class possibly.

im looking forward to all the hate comments from every one aba escort carriers an what not.

To me tho its a reasonable idea, a ship a lil larger than a battleship with barely any weapons but aloued to carry up to 5 fighters no fighter bombers

just something a little cheeper than a full carrier so ppl can feel the awsomeness off fighters a lil sooner.


Someone speaking of "the awsomeness off fighters" obviously never encountered them. Your proposal (5 fighters, no weapons) would do less DPS than a cruiser, what's the point again?



you do need to actualy read thro the thread i stated that the carrier WOULD have weapons on it but not many aka caldari would have 2 missle hardpoints plz read the full thread b4 commenting


I think what they mean Lysander is that 2 hard points, un bonused would do nothing anyway. The Fighters/Drones would be its main dps. Besides if it is a "carrier" they'll fit neuts/smartbombs in its high slots. PVE wise you'd maybe get the 2 guns/launchers, drone control range extender and 2 other misc?

For a Mini carrier with only 5 fighters/fighter bombers with a t1 battleship tank as a super cap killer, it could work well. I guess the easiest way to fix this in high sec is that they are too big for acceleration gates(knocks out what, 75% of missions? and all incursions). Allow them a bay only big enough for say, 10 fighers and 2 flights of t1 light/medium drones. That way, if people HAVE to mission run in them, they barely out dps a dominix/rattlesnake while remaining a viable option of anti super caps.

Also, it cannot fit DCU's. That way it would be limited in its dps and conform to the 4 escorts per super carrier.

Bonus's could be 5% fighter/fighter bomber damage per level. 5% resist per level? Maybe for Amarr Caldari, though gallente/minmatar im not sure. Leave out the huge control range bonus? That way the fighters can only be told to engage close to the fleet in its escort capacity.



I submit to your wisdom, but if this was created ccp would probly work something out for it that would sit well with the gamem, i do like your idea's tho.

It's a start

I was thinking for bonus's something more on the line's of resist bonus's
zatazon
Angry Dragons
Brothers of Tangra
#30 - 2012-03-30 00:15:32 UTC
After reading all the posts there isn't really anything I can think of too add, but I want to say I hope CCP reads this idea and considers it. I think it would be a lot of fun to have, while I like the idea of they are too big for accelerator gates why not make them low sec only or but a new rule like .7 or .6 and lower. This way you can come into some high sec but not most. Just and idea.
Admiral Lysander
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#31 - 2012-03-30 00:29:32 UTC
zatazon wrote:
After reading all the posts there isn't really anything I can think of too add, but I want to say I hope CCP reads this idea and considers it. I think it would be a lot of fun to have, while I like the idea of they are too big for accelerator gates why not make them low sec only or but a new rule like .7 or .6 and lower. This way you can come into some high sec but not most. Just and idea.


Well if you want to get CCP to read this get more ppl to pass thro the thread an speek ther mind about it,
Smiling Menace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2012-03-30 00:32:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Smiling Menace
I think it would be ok to have an Escort Carrier in hi sec as long as it's fighters weren't allowed to be used there. If all it has are normal drones, it'd be no worse than an Orca in that respect.

Definitely don't allow it to use acceleration gates. Don't want to see them used for missions as a matter of course.
Nonnosa
420 Enterprises.
#33 - 2012-03-30 01:49:19 UTC
For the Design a Spaceship contest Ker40 designed some escort carriers:

http://kero40.deviantart.com/

Awesome work that captures the aesthetic of each race perfectly.

Nedes Betternaem
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#34 - 2012-03-30 01:50:41 UTC
+1 for the idea of a mini carrier in high sec. I believe that escort carriers also should not have a jump drive. It should remain a logistics focused ship. Should have the tanking ability of a T2 BS and should cost as much.
Smiling Menace wrote:
I think it would be ok to have an Escort Carrier in hi sec as long as it's fighters weren't allowed to be used there. If all it has are normal drones, it'd be no worse than an Orca in that respect.

Definitely don't allow it to use acceleration gates. Don't want to see them used for missions as a matter of course.

Whats wrong with using them in missions? If they are unable to use their fighters in high sec like you suggest, then it would in fact be worse in missions than a Rattlesnake as a Rattlesnake has a decent amount of weapon systems on it plus the ability to use just as many drones. Logistics wise obviously the carrier should be better, but solo missions in an escort carrier would be worse than what is currently available.

Argaral
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#35 - 2012-03-30 02:03:09 UTC
Nonnosa wrote:
For the Design a Spaceship contest Ker40 designed some escort carriers:

http://kero40.deviantart.com/

Awesome work that captures the aesthetic of each race perfectly.



A lot of those designs are phenomenal. And clearly this concept is something that not just the few of us here want...
Admiral Lysander
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#36 - 2012-03-30 02:34:12 UTC
Argaral wrote:
Nonnosa wrote:
For the Design a Spaceship contest Ker40 designed some escort carriers:

http://kero40.deviantart.com/

Awesome work that captures the aesthetic of each race perfectly.



A lot of those designs are phenomenal. And clearly this concept is something that not just the few of us here want...



We need to gather the masses so CCP will look into the Idea
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#37 - 2012-03-30 02:40:42 UTC
What need does this fill? We already have an anti-cap capital ship. It's called a dreadnought. If you want a drone ship, the Dominix, Navy Dominix, and Rattlesnake fill the role nicely.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Argaral
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#38 - 2012-03-30 02:45:19 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
What need does this fill? We already have an anti-cap capital ship. It's called a dreadnought. If you want a drone ship, the Dominix, Navy Dominix, and Rattlesnake fill the role nicely.


This will come off the wrong way but, because those dreads are working so well? We have seen a multitude of "buff dreadnoughts" in the past few months/years.
Admiral Lysander
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#39 - 2012-03-30 02:55:37 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
What need does this fill? We already have an anti-cap capital ship. It's called a dreadnought. If you want a drone ship, the Dominix, Navy Dominix, and Rattlesnake fill the role nicely.


To have more epic loojking space ships to fly

Tell me how we can go wrong with more ships ??
Argaral
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#40 - 2012-03-30 02:58:06 UTC
Admiral Lysander wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
What need does this fill? We already have an anti-cap capital ship. It's called a dreadnought. If you want a drone ship, the Dominix, Navy Dominix, and Rattlesnake fill the role nicely.


To have more epic loojking space ships to fly

Tell me how we can go wrong with more ships ??


A lot of ways unfortunately. A great deal of ships currently remain unused for the most part. CCP is in the process of reviewing them however