These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

New ship idea
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
drakkaror
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1 - 2012-06-17 02:37:31 UTC
Capital ships havent seen much love lately and im wondering if something like haveing a class of carriers that can fit a limited

number of guns/missles which would definatly mix some gameplay up and the best example of this is Battlestar Galactica.
Moonlit Raid
Doomheim
#2 - 2012-06-17 02:50:25 UTC
I think BSG online already exists dude.

If brute force isn't working, you're just not using enough.

Please Note: Any advice given comes with the caveat that nothing will be suitable for every situation.
Bill Serkoff2
Tachyon Technology
#3 - 2012-06-17 03:00:45 UTC
It's called a Dominix.

"The Cyclone and the Drake are two ships which will basically never be good for shield tanking, primarily because they have almost no lowslots in addition to shield tanking bonuses. " -Iam Widdershins
drakkaror
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-06-17 03:10:42 UTC
Moonlit Raid wrote:
I think BSG online already exists dude.


im not saying use that EXACT ship but more of an example of putting guns on a carrier
Moonlit Raid
Doomheim
#5 - 2012-06-17 03:14:20 UTC
drakkaror wrote:
Moonlit Raid wrote:
I think BSG online already exists dude.


im not saying use that EXACT ship but more of an example of putting guns on a carrier

Aren't they called dreadnoughts XD.

If brute force isn't working, you're just not using enough.

Please Note: Any advice given comes with the caveat that nothing will be suitable for every situation.
drakkaror
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-06-17 03:17:09 UTC  |  Edited by: drakkaror
Moonlit Raid wrote:
drakkaror wrote:
Moonlit Raid wrote:
I think BSG online already exists dude.


im not saying use that EXACT ship but more of an example of putting guns on a carrier

Aren't they called dreadnoughts XD.


Dreads cant use fighters or drones for that matter, and they dont even have to be capital guns
EvEa Deva
Doomheim
#7 - 2012-06-17 03:22:10 UTC
Domi, Rattlesnake

mini carrier would be cool though, i just like the idea of more ships to mess with.
Moonlit Raid
Doomheim
#8 - 2012-06-17 03:28:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Moonlit Raid
drakkaror wrote:
Moonlit Raid wrote:
drakkaror wrote:
Moonlit Raid wrote:
I think BSG online already exists dude.


im not saying use that EXACT ship but more of an example of putting guns on a carrier

Aren't they called dreadnoughts XD.


Dreads cant use fighters or drones for that matter, and they dont even have to be capital guns

So why not fighters on dreads instead of turrets on carriers?

If brute force isn't working, you're just not using enough.

Please Note: Any advice given comes with the caveat that nothing will be suitable for every situation.
drakkaror
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#9 - 2012-06-17 03:33:37 UTC  |  Edited by: drakkaror
[/quote]So why not fighters on dreads instead of turrets on carriers?[/quote]

because that would make dreads too powerfull with the amount of damage a fighter can put out.
Bill Serkoff2
Tachyon Technology
#10 - 2012-06-17 05:27:01 UTC
drakkaror wrote:
So why not fighters on dreads instead of turrets on carriers?[/quote]

because that would make dreads too powerfull with the amount of damage a fighter can put out.[/quote]
And that would make carriers too powerful with the damage guns can put out.

"The Cyclone and the Drake are two ships which will basically never be good for shield tanking, primarily because they have almost no lowslots in addition to shield tanking bonuses. " -Iam Widdershins
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#11 - 2012-06-17 05:33:20 UTC
drakkaror wrote:
Quote:
So why not fighters on dreads instead of turrets on carriers?


because that would make dreads too powerfull with the amount of damage a fighter can put out.

You seem to have completely missed the irony of your post.
Alexa Coates
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2012-06-17 06:16:19 UTC
Moonlit Raid wrote:
drakkaror wrote:
Moonlit Raid wrote:
drakkaror wrote:
Moonlit Raid wrote:
I think BSG online already exists dude.


im not saying use that EXACT ship but more of an example of putting guns on a carrier

Aren't they called dreadnoughts XD.


Dreads cant use fighters or drones for that matter, and they dont even have to be capital guns

So why not fighters on dreads instead of turrets on carriers?

Because the dreads would then be carriers.

That's a Templar, an Amarr fighter used by carriers.
Kelhund
Scope Mining Empire
Outer Planets Association
#13 - 2012-06-17 08:00:53 UTC
While I support the implementation of other ships in EVE, I dont think we need any more caps at the moment. If there is another capital to be put in, perhaps the OP is speaking of something similar to Japanese pocket/light carriers towards the end of WW2, that had a number of cruiser/battleship sized guns in addition to a complement of aircraft. While I think it would be better to make these ships more suitible for Heavy Drone use, they could find a purpose in life as a fighter carrier - though they should only be able to field 1/4-1/2 of the fighters of a carrier. I know I would fly a cap like this, since I like the DD output of guns with the flexibility offered by drones. Definately something for the devs to think about when they get past balancing the BSs :D
drakkaror
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#14 - 2012-06-17 23:33:31 UTC
Kelhund wrote:
While I support the implementation of other ships in EVE, I dont think we need any more caps at the moment. If there is another capital to be put in, perhaps the OP is speaking of something similar to Japanese pocket/light carriers towards the end of WW2, that had a number of cruiser/battleship sized guns in addition to a complement of aircraft. While I think it would be better to make these ships more suitible for Heavy Drone use, they could find a purpose in life as a fighter carrier - though they should only be able to field 1/4-1/2 of the fighters of a carrier. I know I would fly a cap like this, since I like the DD output of guns with the flexibility offered by drones. Definately something for the devs to think about when they get past balancing the BSs :D



Agree on this, you other guys are takeing me waaaay to literal on this and just thinking inside the box and odveously with implementing guns on something like a pocket carrier, their would be some changes to them as to what a full carrier can do, and im sure if any of you participated in capital operations you would know that a lot of corps use their carriers off grid and send their fighters in to attack a station/pos thus leaveing them defensless untill their fighters return and allies warp in to assist them if they are cought.

If you look at a lot of world war 2 carriers they had around four 5 inch guns to help protect them even modern carriers have use of some source of defence of this nature
Alara IonStorm
#15 - 2012-06-18 00:01:49 UTC
drakkaror wrote:

Agree on this, you other guys are takeing me waaaay to literal on this and just thinking inside the box and odveously with implementing guns on something like a pocket carrier, their would be some changes to them as to what a full carrier can do, and im sure if any of you participated in capital operations you would know that a lot of corps use their carriers off grid and send their fighters in to attack a station/pos thus leaveing them defensless untill their fighters return and allies warp in to assist them if they are cought.

There are [shock] risks to splitting up your fleet?!

Good because they can do damage without committing to the fight and if that leaves them vulnerable then so be it. They would not have said weakness on the front lines.

drakkaror wrote:

If you look at a lot of world war 2 carriers they had around four 5 inch guns to help protect them even modern carriers have use of some source of defence of this nature

If you look at World War II Destroyers they had Torpedo's, Guns, Depth Charges, and AA Battleries. Real Life Examples mean nothing.
drakkaror
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#16 - 2012-06-18 00:54:20 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
drakkaror wrote:

Agree on this, you other guys are takeing me waaaay to literal on this and just thinking inside the box and odveously with implementing guns on something like a pocket carrier, their would be some changes to them as to what a full carrier can do, and im sure if any of you participated in capital operations you would know that a lot of corps use their carriers off grid and send their fighters in to attack a station/pos thus leaveing them defensless untill their fighters return and allies warp in to assist them if they are cought.

There are [shock] risks to splitting up your fleet?!

Good because they can do damage without committing to the fight and if that leaves them vulnerable then so be it. They would not have said weakness on the front lines.

drakkaror wrote:

If you look at a lot of world war 2 carriers they had around four 5 inch guns to help protect them even modern carriers have use of some source of defence of this nature

If you look at World War II Destroyers they had Torpedo's, Guns, Depth Charges, and AA Battleries. Real Life Examples mean nothing.




if you are trying to troll, you are doing a very poor job of it and I have heard better arguements from a 4 year old, as I have said befor it would add a new style to the gameplay for a carrier class
Alara IonStorm
#17 - 2012-06-18 01:14:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
drakkaror wrote:

if you are trying to troll, you are doing a very poor job of it and I have heard better arguements from a 4 year old, as I have said befor it would add a new style to the gameplay for a carrier class

Carriers do not need a new style of game play and they do not need guns. Carrier DPS is fine and so is the risk of warping your fighters.

In the future try to be less childish in your replies. Which is ironic considering the nature of your petty insults and spelling mistakes.
drakkaror
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#18 - 2012-06-18 01:26:45 UTC  |  Edited by: drakkaror
Alara IonStorm wrote:
drakkaror wrote:

if you are trying to troll, you are doing a very poor job of it and I have heard better arguements from a 4 year old, as I have said befor it would add a new style to the gameplay for a carrier class

Carriers do not need a new style of game play and they do not need guns. Carrier DPS is fine and so is the risk of warping your fighters.

In the future try to be less childish in your replies. Which is ironic considering the nature of your petty insults and spelling mistakes.



Finally a decient argument from you, as far as childish replies... really, you should read your responses are and how they dont relate to the topic, Im throwing an idea out their and reasons why I think they would be a cool idea and defending it and as far as grammer, i couldnt really care as long as i got my point across and no one is perfect at spelling even me.
Alara IonStorm
#19 - 2012-06-18 01:33:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
drakkaror wrote:

Finally a decient argument from you, as far as childish replies... really, you should read how stupid your responses are and how they dont relate to the topic,

My first argument was to counter a weakness you stated was in the game and should be covered and I think otherwise. It is a valid weakness in return for off grid DPS. I did not call you names for thinking the contrary but simply disagreed.

The post was relevant and on topic as opposed to your rude attacks.
drakkaror
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#20 - 2012-06-18 01:42:25 UTC  |  Edited by: drakkaror
Alara IonStorm wrote:
drakkaror wrote:

Finally a decient argument from you, as far as childish replies... really, you should read how stupid your responses are and how they dont relate to the topic,

My first argument was to counter a weakness you stated was in the game and should be covered and I think otherwise. It is a valid weakness in return for off grid DPS. I did not call you names for thinking the contrary but simply disagreed.

The post was relevant and on topic as opposed to your rude attacks.


I will apologize then for the rudeness then on account i made a mistake of things in the beginning of how many different white haired ppl posted on this thread, just the bad replys are starting to annoy me when im trying to make a valid point.
12Next page