These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

sub-carriers meant for ship transport, not combat duties
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kor Kilden
Thukker Tribe Holdings Inc.
#1 - 2012-05-05 23:42:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Kor Kilden
TL;DR: weak carriers with big corp hangars and ship maintenance bays, gang links, a clone vat, and not much else, designed solely to transport and support a sustained combat operation far from home. No drones, no fighters. It's meant for moving ships and people, not fighting solo.

Carriers are not used for the role they seem to be intended for: the home away from home for a fleet. As designed, they appear to fill that role for the mortal navies, but we're capsuleers.
Are we not immortal demigods whose ingenuity has made the gods themselves shudder? Are we too focused on the task of war, is an obsession with death which we only fleetingly experience so great that it distracts us from creating better implements of murder?

My proposal is simple:
A fast attack carrier, meant to move capsuleers and ships and support them.
This is sov war, and capsuleer driven. It is not a racial navy hand-me-down, best suited to large scale mortal engagements. Even our largest engagements pale in comparison to the sheer number of combatants on either side of an average mortal combat operation. Our biggest fights are simply skirmishes, and our needs reflect this.


This ship will have no drone bay. It will not get a remote repair bonus, nor will it likely be able to fit capital remote repairs. Capital local tank and gang links should be sufficient (via role bonus like the tier 3 bc's get for large guns). Fitting stats should otherwise be similar to a top of the line battleship. Speed and agility between carrier and battleship would be a good compromise. Freighter shields, armor, and structure, or maybe 25% less than, seem reasonable, as it is basically a giant ship freighter that can be unloaded and reloaded in space.

A clone vat is a must, as is a huge ship storage array (5+ battleships, 2.5M+). A decent corp hangar for modules, ammo, and paste for a long tour are a must (40k or more), as is a large fuel bay. High jump range need not be a priority, dreadnaught ranges should be adequate.
Make it run on liquid ozone or something similarly underutilized and found in lowsec and nullsec in abundance, not a racial isotope.


Remember, the goal is home for a long cruise and support, not battlefield prowess. It should be protected, not the protector. It should hold the combatants, not hold the field.
Loed Kane
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#2 - 2012-05-05 23:55:36 UTC
I would love this during sov war!
Valea Silpha
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2012-05-06 00:23:10 UTC
I like the idea. I have a few nitpicks, but I like the idea.

There are SO many places where people use their carriers as haulers simply because they don't fight with caps or just don't want to lose them, both of which are understandable. A carrier is useful for lots of stuff, and particularly moving **** around. Problem being that when I am taking my campaigning supplies (say a couple of logis, a couple of bcs and a t3) I can't carry a whole lot else. Free space to move 1 other combat ship either for myself or for my friends who don't have caps. It would certainly be useful to have a ship that means I can move my campaign supplies and then another persons and have room to spare.

Since people are already happily abusing jump freightors to do basically exactly this (courier contracts were never so amazing) I don't see any obvious harm in creating a ship that cuts out the middle man. I'd be particularly interested in having a ship that can carry a big load of fuel AND my spare cap mods. I've had to move my archon in some appallingly gimped fits in the past simply because I couldn't fit my triage mod and local reppers and my fuel in my hanger.

The nitpick I have is that it shouldn't have black ops jump range. Because that would mean that most of the time it would be easier all round to just come back in the regular carrier and move the rest of the stuff, rather than moving **** in my support carrier, cloning home and bringing down the combat carrier. Black ops jump range HOBBLES any ship that has to deal with it (Ok... bridge up... no wait... I can't hit it... 3 ******* jumps and I can't hit it... sorry guys). Give it dread jump range. Less than carrier, but still decent.
Kor Kilden
Thukker Tribe Holdings Inc.
#4 - 2012-05-06 00:34:52 UTC
Good point on the jump range, especially with the amount of cyno jammers out in sov space. I didn't want to propose it being too overpowered in that regard (I think carriers do tend to have a little more range than they should), but dread range is probably a good compromise. I'll edit the main post shortly to keep it up to date.
Rylai Ashe
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#5 - 2012-05-06 00:50:38 UTC
I am a noob and this has my seal of approval
Roll
Pere Madeleine
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#6 - 2012-05-06 00:55:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Pere Madeleine
Maybe go the whole way and have dedicated ship freighters, both T1 and T2. T1 has no jump drive, but has a large ship maintenance bay (carrier size, maybe even bigger). Basically just a ferry to move fitted ships around highsec, if you're relocating all your assets to another part of empire space, for example, and you don't fancy flying 8 BSes 20 jumps. T2 has a jump drive, and is designed, as you say, to support a short term, but extended, deployment away from the home system.

Alternatively, if you REALLY wanted to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, give it the clone vat, and a big enough ship bay to hold a small fleet, don't give it the grid to fit capital modules, but give it a deployed mode like the rorqual (or perhaps a siege/triage module type thing) that grants massive bonuses to tanking so that regular BS sized tanking scales up to be capital level. Then allow it to jump to a covert cyno. It would be a black ops mobile base, allowing a small conventional fleet to get behind enemy lines, but since it needs to deploy, it sacrifices the hit and run capability that normal black ops fleets have. This version would obviously have to be very expensive, since it would be the capital level of black ops ship, and black ops BSes are already expensive enough.

I can foresee balance issues with it though. It would be easy to jump 50 of them in and magically spawn a fleet of 250 BSes behind enemy lines from nowhere. If the ship cost 3 billion, would the risk be worth it? Maybe the clone vat and ship bay can only be accessed when it's deployed, and the deployment cycle lasts 10 minutes, which avoids risk free hotdropping to an invisible cyno in a safe spot. Perhaps limit the size of the bay so it's only really practical to ferry BCs in it, rather than BSes, or even limit it to BC sized hulls entirely. It wouldn't be intended as a way to spring a full scale fleet battle on an enemy, but rather to get behind enemy lines and disrupt gatecamps, launch surprise attacks on sov modules, poses etc.

Maybe there's room for 3 new ships here? T1 and T2 "escort carriers" as described above, and a T2 capital black ops ship, perhaps an Orca variant?
Christopher AET
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-05-06 01:47:12 UTC
I like the idea of a "Strike Carrier" and my suggestion would be not to leave it totally defenceless. I believe it should get the same deployed drone bonuses as say a carrier but be unable to deploy fighters. Nor would it be able to fit dcu's, or indeed any capital sized mod. 10x drones with max skills would be sufficient.

As for the huge ship bay. I am unconvinced a "smaller" ship should be capable of this. Perhaps 3/4ths would be sufficient. A modern analogy would be an Invincible Class strike carrier as Opposed to a Nimitz Class. Less striking power and less range but perhaps better suited to close in ops where a full sized carrier would be inappropriate. It would also provide some entry level to the cap ships game for young corps who have not yet graduated to capitals. Would also only require racial BS to level 4.


As for your original point the ship transport role imho would be better fitted by a new ORE class of ship "Bulk Carrier" or something in that regards. I think it could be a variation on the Rorqual hull.

I drain ducks of their moisture for sustenance.
Kor Kilden
Thukker Tribe Holdings Inc.
#8 - 2012-05-06 02:42:15 UTC
Christopher AET wrote:
As for your original point the ship transport role imho would be better fitted by a new ORE class of ship "Bulk Carrier" or something in that regards. I think it could be a variation on the Rorqual hull.


My problem making it an ORE ship is simply that they use gallente ice. I want to be able to fuel it from anywhere. If the requirements to step foot in it were the similar to a rorqual, that's fine by me. The biggest things I'm in favor of with a ship like this is the ability to transport a decent combat force and support it and the ability to never have to go to a specific empire to refuel. ORE ships use gallente ice.

I don't believe this is the kind of ship that should have a covert ops variation, that would be a bit overpowered. My aim is a mobile home, and if you plan on using this to seige a cyno blocked system, you should have to take down the cyno jammer, black ops cynos can go up where cyno jammers are in place. That'd be a bit too much in my mind.

And regarding price, that all comes down to what's required to make it.

Perhaps blueprints should only be copies available for a fee from concord stations (no LP), as a neutral ground of sorts.

Multiple tiers of this for special tasks are a reasonable idea Pere, but black ops is probably overkill unless nerfed down to only carrying covert cyno fitted ships, and at that point you may as well black ops bridge in your fleet.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#9 - 2012-05-06 05:36:25 UTC
I think we need to be moving in the direction of less teleporting logistics ships, not more.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]