These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

new destroyer role--SubCommand Ship (plus new link idea)

Author
Mole Guy
Band of Builders Inc.
#1 - 2012-07-03 23:48:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Mole Guy
needless to say, i am exitted about the new changes in ships. i enjoy pvp, carebearing, incursions but love worm holes so i am a rounded character. depending on my mood is what i do for the day...

to recap where this idea comes from, lets look at some of the things we have

item--------------------------------------- active / passive

armor -------------------------------- hardners / passive mods
shield ------------------------------------- " / "
targeting ------------------sensor boosters / sensor amps
tracking ----------------tracking computers / tracking enhancers

fleet boost----------------- warfare links / ???????




ships-----------------------------cruisers--bc / frigs--destroyers

assault---------------------------- hacs / assault frigs
interdiction------------------------ hics / dictors
fleet boost-------------------- command / ?????????



having command ships in fleet rawk!, we have them for super caps, caps and bc sized ships. i have my leadership almost maxed on 2 characters. but what about smaller ship roams? like af, intie, dictor and EWAR roams...we dont get bonuses?

proposal-
subcommand ships-- these are t2 destroyers that follow the assault path and have the same type of bonuses as their command ship counter part, except they dont ues normal links (too much cpu and cap) they use either a new passive link or they use smaller links designed for destroyers. either way, i say its less bonus (maybe 75% of normal) for active active links OR for less for warfare compensation links ( just like passive mods, the bonuses are smaller and they dont use energy to operate... when in system, they are always on) they can be like 62.5% (5/8) of a command ship, with a new warfare compensation skill (like armo compensation skill) which can be trained to raise it up more. up too the 75% of a normal command ship bonus.

subcommand ships would give small fleets the gang bonuses we trained for without having to haul around a cement truck with a target painted on the saide saying "hi, im a command ship and i cant keep up...shoot me". it would drag more fast movers into null sec and provied a colorful mix for encouters. ive been in and running assault frig groups since we were in FIX alliance in querious and attacking tripple a in catch back around 07. it is absolutely THE most challenging and most entertaining group(s) i have been apart of. and imagine how EWAR frig bonuses would build behind a gallente subcommand ship!! or the amarr vengeance behind an amarr armored dictor...or ALL of them behind the minie speed bonuses....

the amarr would require armored warfare 5, l5 and all of the command ship skills to a lesser degree. it would be a stepping stone to command ships for new players and would give them the game play experience to see if they actually want to waste 6 months trianing for command ships.

all skills that apply to bonuses would apply as normal, except we would have a 2x new skill- warfare compensation skill (one for each race).

- Amarr Subcommand ship (semi-absolution clone)
7 high (6 medium pulse lasers, 1 passive armor mod)
3 mids,
7 lows

Destroyer Skill Bonus: 10% reduction in small Energy Turret capacitor use and 10% bonus to Small Energy Turret tracking speed

SubCommand Ships Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to small Energy Turret damage and rate of fire

Role Bonuses:
50% bonus to optimal range for small energy turrets 25% bonus to resistances

or some mix of bonuses

as stated, these are leaders in small ship warfare. they take fast moving fleets into null sec to wreak havok. they would be extremely easy to impliment because the ground work is already laid. just mimick the corresponding command ship and create a few new mods (again coppied from command ship links) and make the destroyer skins a different color.
you can have logi AND combat SubComand ships.simply by changing all medium weapon bonuses to apply to light weapons instead.

to me, this is a kewl idea ESPECIALLY if you enjoy flying smaller craft. we COULD get better effects by using a strait up command ship, but its about mobility and sacrificing some bonus to achieve said mobility.


lemme know what u think.

(my brain was going 9k m/s, sorry if its not easy to follow or jumps around a little)
Mole Guy
Band of Builders Inc.
#2 - 2012-07-04 00:27:31 UTC
or 7/2/6 for slots since thats alot of slots for s dessy...
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#3 - 2012-07-04 01:34:44 UTC
If there's going to be a new Destroyer type running about, this should be it. Dessie is to Frig as Battlecruiser is to Cruiser.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.

Mole Guy
Band of Builders Inc.
#4 - 2012-07-04 01:43:18 UTC
im glad you approve of the concept.

does it seem over powered? would you prefer passive or active mods?
personally, i would just like to throw some active mods on, but the passive ones seem like a kewl idea.

something else to train =\


but the effect would be worth it..=)
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#5 - 2012-07-04 01:58:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Mechael
Mole Guy wrote:
im glad you approve of the concept.

does it seem over powered? would you prefer passive or active mods?
personally, i would just like to throw some active mods on, but the passive ones seem like a kewl idea.

something else to train =\


but the effect would be worth it..=)


Active or passive really should depend on the race more than anything. Amarr for passive armor (no, not passively regenerating armor, armor that uses predominantly passive modules), Caldari for passive shields, Gallente for active armor, and Minmatar for active shields.

It's a little bit of a different discussion, and CCP hasn't always held true to this philosophy (only most of the time, but not all of the time,) but generally speaking Amarr and Caldari like to go for raw ehp and staying power, whereas Gallente and Minmatar have cap-intensive burst tanking that's designed to keep them alive just long enough to kill their target and gtfo. Gallente can even easily rep up between fights without the need to dock up or use logi, thanks to armor repper bonuses. There's room for lots of play within a given race, though. Sometimes you can get away with creative fits, but the above is the rule of thumb.

As long as they don't make these new destroyers able to easily tank Cruisers (which should always be the natural counter to Destroyers) we're golden.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.

DarkMoth
Xoth Inc
#6 - 2012-07-04 02:02:08 UTC
Brilliant! Such a great idea for small frig roams man!
Mole Guy
Band of Builders Inc.
#7 - 2012-07-04 02:38:53 UTC
Mechael wrote:
Mole Guy wrote:
im glad you approve of the concept.

does it seem over powered? would you prefer passive or active mods?
personally, i would just like to throw some active mods on, but the passive ones seem like a kewl idea.

something else to train =\


but the effect would be worth it..=)


Active or passive really should depend on the race more than anything. Amarr for passive armor (no, not passively regenerating armor, armor that uses predominantly passive modules), Caldari for passive shields, Gallente for active armor, and Minmatar for active shields.

It's a little bit of a different discussion, and CCP hasn't always held true to this philosophy (only most of the time, but not all of the time,) but generally speaking Amarr and Caldari like to go for raw ehp and staying power, whereas Gallente and Minmatar have cap-intensive burst tanking that's designed to keep them alive just long enough to kill their target and gtfo. Gallente can even easily rep up between fights without the need to dock up or use logi, thanks to armor repper bonuses. There's room for lots of play within a given race, though. Sometimes you can get away with creative fits, but the above is the rule of thumb.

As long as they don't make these new destroyers able to easily tank Cruisers (which should always be the natural counter to Destroyers) we're golden.



what i meant by active or passive were the actual warfare links. now, the only links available are active, meaning u turn em on. i introducted a passive style warfare link. they are always on. or, we can just make them active, but destroyer sized.
i am just refering to the links themselves.

i am very familiar with each races characteristics on tanking and whanot.

i was just curious if you spent any time thinking about the 2 different style warfare links.... active or passive
Viktor Fyretracker
Emminent Terraforming
#8 - 2012-07-04 02:56:41 UTC
do it like shield hardeners. passive units boost less than the active versions.

Or if passives boost the same as actives, only allow them on the destroyer command ships.

EVE is like swimming on a beach in shark infested waters,  There is however a catch...  The EVE Beach you also have to wonder which fellow swimmer will try and eat you before the sharks.

Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#9 - 2012-07-04 03:22:39 UTC
I can't see a reason to create a passive fleet boost module. It doesn't really add much to the gameplay. I'd be happier to see the warfare link modules come in small/medium/large variants like most other modules do. While we're at it, we can take all of those other modules that don't have size variants and give them one.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.

Ambedrake
Aperture Reach
Immediate Destruction
#10 - 2012-07-04 07:38:36 UTC
The concept is logical, the balance would need to be worked on to fine tune it a bit ofc, but all in all this would make more use of small ship fleets as well as allow for better pairing of ewar frigs into the fleets as well. At the moment there is very little reason to train dessy 5 due to a HIC being of more use most of the time, but if we had a structure of sub command ships like this we would not only have more fleet composition types, it would put players into ships that require more skills (not SP skills but actual pvp skill) to fly and would scale nicely to the fleet types size.

I would like to see more elaboration from other people as to what could make this idea even better too so please keep responding and lets see what we can come up with to help ol' CCP along, while making our game play more enjoyable with more options!
Ambedrake
Aperture Reach
Immediate Destruction
#11 - 2012-07-04 07:42:51 UTC
Mechael wrote:
I can't see a reason to create a passive fleet boost module. It doesn't really add much to the gameplay. I'd be happier to see the warfare link modules come in small/medium/large variants like most other modules do. While we're at it, we can take all of those other modules that don't have size variants and give them one.


I do like the idea of size variations as well, something about a BS and a Frig using the same armor hardener just doesn't seem right. It would also open the markets for more players to make niches. Plus on top of it it can help control the active costs of ships on a finer scale as well as organization on fittings.
Mole Guy
Band of Builders Inc.
#12 - 2012-07-04 19:48:23 UTC
yes, it would be nice to have battleship versions of this.

could fit sniper and take them into incursions and not have to worry about an offgrid booster pilot. you could do it on sight.

or in worm holes..same effect.

folks used to say a hac style (or commandship) bs was "over powered...." surely i submit to you a decked out mom or titan.

what kind of tank and firepower do they posess???
marauders are nice, they have descent firepower, but any tier 3 battlecruiser can match the same fire power.

and then there is the vindi...OMG firepower for a bs class ship.

i know its a lil off topic, but it fits along the line of new command ships...

we dont need the "all out assault" like the marauder, take a couple guns off and stick links on. give it resists...and dont gimp the **** out of it. with all the t3, tier 3 bc, faction bs and whatnot, a t2 bs that can hold its own is due.
plus the marauders need revivisited. get rid of the restrictions. 12 radar strength? riiight...

SubCommand destroyers FTW. command bs would be kewl too.