These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Escort Carriers

Author
Bentakhar
ANKOU INITIATIVE
#221 - 2012-08-22 17:29:03 UTC
Drone formations could give your drones varying bonuses... perhaps 5% more dmg to an aggressive formation ... 5% speed to retreating formation and so on ... But the idea with formations is also to reduce lag/server stress by making drones behave like grouped guns or something... Im not sure how it works exactly ;)

When you have more than 5 drones perhaps you have multiple huds?
Ryshca
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#222 - 2012-08-22 18:07:18 UTC
Awful idea, there is a good reason why there is no stronger sub-cap than the BS.
And i have to disapoint all of you guys, there won't come that one imba ships which will kill everything else, with its tousands combined roles (large dmg, logistic, mining?, ecm?) in one ship. It would just break the game, so as supercaps broke the game with their combined roles of different ships.
Think about a ship whichs fills out a real gap, logistic carrier which can fly with battleships isnt one it, you got logistics cruisers for sub-caps which are strong enough and you got carrier/motherships for caps.

Bentakhar
ANKOU INITIATIVE
#223 - 2012-08-22 18:14:43 UTC
Im not sure what this thread has been all about... (other than it using the designs i had made for that Eve contest) ... tl;dr

But a sub capital ship that fills the gap (in terms of training) between BS and carriers could be fun.
IT doesnt have to have more DPS than a BS
It just is a class of ship that use drones as a weapon, leaving highslots for other things?
Maybe it could be a bigger class of command ships?
ITs not because its new that it will break everything else? At least im sure its not the point of the OP!

Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#224 - 2012-08-22 18:23:10 UTC
From what i have gathered, the op wants it to do everything a carrier can currently do without a triage module and no jump drive, less training time and a smaller price tag

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#225 - 2012-08-22 18:25:41 UTC
Ryshca wrote:
Awful idea, there is a good reason why there is no stronger sub-cap than the BS.
And i have to disapoint all of you guys, there won't come that one imba ships which will kill everything else, with its tousands combined roles (large dmg, logistic, mining?, ecm?) in one ship. It would just break the game, so as supercaps broke the game with their combined roles of different ships.
Think about a ship whichs fills out a real gap, logistic carrier which can fly with battleships isnt one it, you got logistics cruisers for sub-caps which are strong enough and you got carrier/motherships for caps.



You either didn't read the thread or you assumed that some of the terrible ideas posted in it have been carried through.

By your logic, if Battleships didn't exist now and the progression was Battlecruiser > Capitals then the suggestion of adding a "Battleship" class would be game breaking because it would "do everything" and we already have ships that do those things, but smaller...

Make an actual suggestion. Read the F&I rules about constructive arguments then come back.
Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#226 - 2012-08-22 18:28:04 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
From what i have gathered, the op wants it to do everything a carrier can currently do without a triage module and no jump drive, less training time and a smaller price tag



How do you get that impression?

Much much less remote rep ability than carriers

Much much less tank than carriers

No fighters

SO how does it do everything a carrier does?
ApolloF117 HUN
The All-Seeing Eye
GaNg BaNg TeAm
#227 - 2012-08-22 18:39:14 UTC
i think somebody don't have carrier there :P
Bentakhar
ANKOU INITIATIVE
#228 - 2012-08-22 19:03:15 UTC
ApolloF117 HUN wrote:
i think somebody don't have carrier there :P


I do actually... But what if I didn't? People are not allowed to suggest something because they don't own every ship in the game?
That is just a strange reaction don't you think?
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#229 - 2012-08-22 19:06:12 UTC
ApolloF117 HUN wrote:
i think somebody don't have carrier there :P

I more saw it as "I dont want to invest in a carrier" it is a gimped carrier. What new role will this fill?

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#230 - 2012-08-22 19:22:40 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
ApolloF117 HUN wrote:
i think somebody don't have carrier there :P

I more saw it as "I dont want to invest in a carrier" it is a gimped carrier. What new role will this fill?


I have a carrier, I am admittedly not a multi year alliance war carrier pilot veteran, but I do have a carrier.

I legitimately feel that the following are true:
1. Skill requirements to get into a battleship are much much less than to get into a carrier
2. SKill requirements for capitals are sufficiently above the requirements good BS's that they represent a barrier to entry.
3. The style of combat represented by carriers is something that no ship provides and so there is no learning curve.
4. There are not many BS sized options for utility/support ships.
5. The difference in movement style with capitals makes them difficult to get into or used to.
6. There is room for a new class of ship in the Eve universe.

The combination of 1-5 creates a significant barrier to entry for players to make the leap from battleships to capitals and when they do, they are typically bad at it and either require significant tutoring from vets, or they lose their capital and have a negative experience.

I feel that the Escort Carrier, being somewhat larger than a BS, and able to jump through gates with a support specific role and based on the use of drones and drone management, with skill training that is slightly more than a BS but less than a capital makes them a good logical step to progression after Battleship V. The learning curve for large support ship and drone management makes for better carrier pilots when they get to that point.

The people who have argued against it have said one of the following:
1. THis doesn't fill a unique role.
Rebuttal: this is not a sufficient reason in and of itself to make a difference, and I assert that it DOES fill a role.
2. This is overpowered.
Rebuttal: This is basically a very tanky battleship that gets less DPS than a gank BS's, is able to provide some limited remote repair, and only adds utility to a fleet but which would be very dicy to use solo. As long as cost is balanced well, power is not an issue since it is not, as some have tried to claim, a carrier able to fly in high sec.
3. You just want a carrier for cheaper
Rebuttal: I have one, I don't care about that at all and saying such is a straw man argument.
4. We don't need more capital ships in this game.
Rebuttal: This is not a capital ship, its a slightly larger than BS class support vessel (something that we don't really have currently)

If I have missed any arguments, please let me know. All the ones I can think of are represented in some form by those four.
Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#231 - 2012-08-22 19:31:11 UTC
As further explanation for the "no new role" argument.

Let us suppose that for the sake of argument, such a thing is a legitimate argument. Now, go back to Eve on day one. There were many fewer ships and many fewer roles in New Eden. If every developer meeting at CCP had a "role" cop who put the kibosh on anything that classified as a rehash of an existing role, then there game would have remained stagnant for the last decade and would have far fewer players than it does now.

The underlying assumption behind the "no new role" argument is that if a role is already represented in Eve, then there is no other way to do it and there should be no other ways to do it.

Ignoring for a moment all of the examples of ships in Eve that are multiple takes on the same role, let alone the same method of accomplishing the same role, when you boil down Eve, there is only a very small handful of different "roles" that a ship can accomplish, specifically "Deal Damage" "Withstand Damage" "Repair Damage" and "Haul Cargo"...so following the underlying assumption of your argument, then Eve should consist of 4 ships, one for dealing damage, one for taking damage, one for repairing damage and one for hauling.

One of the things which makes Eve so wonderful is the mindblowing diversity and complexity between and among ships.

So, in summary, "no new role" is the dumbest argument that can possibly be made against a new thing in a sandbox game.
Griffin Omanid
Knights of the Zodiac
#232 - 2012-08-22 20:48:22 UTC
Loius Woo wrote:

2. This is overpowered.
Rebuttal: This is basically a very tanky battleship that gets less DPS than a gank BS's, is able to provide some limited remote repair, and only adds utility to a fleet but which would be very dicy to use solo. As long as cost is balanced well, power is not an issue since it is not, as some have tried to claim, a carrier able to fly in high sec.

You forgot to mention that it will have a bigger signature then a BS an only sligtly more EHP, but around the same DPS (~1000 with all Skills V). So those will be easily killed by capitals especialy Dreadnaughts, and also will be as weak against sub-capitals as good tanked BS are. So something like a destroyer is for small vessels, and BC for medium Vessels.

Loius Woo wrote:
3. You just want a carrier for cheaper
Rebuttal: I have one, I don't care about that at all and saying such is a straw man argument.


If this cheap Carrier is easily killable it means it is a cheap killmail for both sides. So this could also be a reason for this "light" Carriers...

Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#233 - 2012-08-22 20:58:44 UTC
Loius Woo wrote:
As long as cost is balanced well, power is not an issue


You're trolling, right? Ships aren't balanced around their cost.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#234 - 2012-08-23 03:28:17 UTC
Andski wrote:
Loius Woo wrote:
As long as cost is balanced well, power is not an issue


You're trolling, right? Ships aren't balanced around their cost.


Supercarriers are way more powerful than a battleship, if they cost the same, that would be unbalanced, but since a super carrier costs 200 times as much, its fine....


Don't read one line of the entire thread, then comment on it without understanding what you are saying. Make an argument that is not just "huh uh!" and maybe I will have a discussion with you.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#235 - 2012-08-23 03:43:55 UTC
You can't compare a super carrier to a battle ship, they do two completely different things, and if they cost the same there would only be more supers in null getting blown up, and I know they would be blown up because "hey they only cost the same as a battle ship I have 10 more waiting after this one". Fact is you want a battleship HP, battleship tank, battleship cost, but capital abilities, why not just make it a logistic battleship and save a dead end skill. Or were you thinking of making escort carriers a perquisite for capital ships to keep it in the tree?

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#236 - 2012-08-23 04:45:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Loius Woo
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
but capital abilities,


You don't know how to read do you?

Please point to what in this idea is a capital ship ability...

I'll wait.

P.S. I responded in that way because the other guy was deliberately ignoring the point. If something is slightly better tank than a battleship with more utility, and costs 2-3 times as much, then that is balance whereas a ship that costs 2-3 times a battleship but that is 10 times the ability is unbalanced.

To distract from the original point to say "cost and balance are not linked" is poor logic and not true in nearly every sense.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#237 - 2012-08-23 04:55:56 UTC
CAPITAL REMOTE REPAIR MODULES, CAPITAL ENERGY TRANSFER, CAPITAL SHIELD TRANSFER
are these not capital modules, do you hull ideas not boost these modules? There fore capital abilities

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#238 - 2012-08-23 05:00:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Loius Woo
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
do your hull ideas not boost these modules?


Nope.

Reading comprehension level 1 would help you out.

Read Page 9 and page one, then come back and participate.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#239 - 2012-08-23 05:20:38 UTC
Loius Woo wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
do your hull ideas not boost these modules?


Nope.

Reading comprehension level 1 would help you out.

Read Page 9 and page one, then come back and participate.

Minmatar Escort Carrier: Squall Minmatar Escort Carrier skill Bonus +1 Drone per level +15% range per level of capital shield transporters

Ship bonus 75% reduction in activation cost and powergrid of Capital shield transporters

If this informationis no linger valid then is should be removed from page one.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#240 - 2012-08-23 05:26:06 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Loius Woo wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
do your hull ideas not boost these modules?


Nope.

Reading comprehension level 1 would help you out.

Read Page 9 and page one, then come back and participate.

Minmatar Escort Carrier: Squall Minmatar Escort Carrier skill Bonus +1 Drone per level +15% range per level of capital shield transporters

Ship bonus 75% reduction in activation cost and powergrid of Capital shield transporters

If this informationis no linger valid then is should be removed from page one.


On page one, I said, "Some additional iterations posted at the tope of page 9"

So it is assumed that the reader will proceed to page 9 to read the rest and not read the 9 pages of discussion that went into changing them all.

If I change page one, without noting such, then people will read 9 pages of discussion about something that is no longer true and wonder what is being discussed, and unable to understand the thread of the discussion from one iteration to the other.

In the way it is now, you can read the OP as it was, and either proceed through 9 pages of discussion so that you know what is being discussed, or skip to page 9 and see what the current state of the idea is.

If/when the idea takes on a new iteration, I will either make a new link to a later page, or I will create a new thread all together and link to the original.

Either way, you are making an argument against something that has been discussed at length and has been amended in response. That is one of the biggest problems with trying to have discussions in this forum, people don't actually READ the threads...