These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Repurposing Navy tier 1 cruisers and T2 Logistics.

Author
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1 - 2013-01-24 22:14:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Ted
So currently the T2 Logistics ships powers are being rivaled by the new logi cruisers, and we have 4 faction ships based on their hulls that currently suck.

T2 ships are supposed to have a "specialized" role compared to t1 and should be better than t1 at certain things but the same in others. The current T2 logi are really just only slightly better than T1 or not better at all.



So what I say should be done is re-purpose the faction cruisers based on logi hulls and make them logistics ships that are directly better than t1 in tank and speed along with some extra utility and fitting.

T2 Logistics should each get a new bonus respective to their race in support electronics systems, and have their repping abilities toned down and given to the new faction logi. As being vessels designed to amplify other vessels abilities, being able to specialize in doing things other than transferring health would make sense. The logical choice for what type of electronic support these ships provide is based in their races preferred ewar type. This would be on top of their existing repair powers.

The Basilisk should get an extra bonus to remote ECCM effectiveness, a valued component of a logistics fleet who often have falcons used against them.

The Onerios would receive a bonus to remote sensor booster effectiveness, helping counter sensor dampeners and improving the reaction time of reps.

The Scimitar and Guardian are a bit more tricky to pick for, since the only other projected anti ewar system is the tracking link which should be amarrian since they have tracking disruptors, and cap transfers which other logistics ships already receive bonuses for.

Yet a tracking link bonus could be underused in a fleet situation as well.

So the guardian could receive a more powerful bonus to cap transfers and a weaker bonus to repair modules so that other ships in the fleet can fit more repair modules instead of cap transfers.

The scimitar could have a bonus to warp core strength and mobility to rival the cynabal, yet that would be very OP, so to counter it would also have weakened repair bonuses. (Really iffy on this one)

LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR, THE CURRENT T2 LOGISTICS SHIPS WILL NOT BE CAPABLE OF THE SAME REPPING POWER THEY HAVE NOW, THEY WILL HAVE MULTIPLE SUPPORT ROLES. FACTION CRUISERS WILL TAKE THEIR PLACE

Faction ships are supposed to be straight up better than their T1 counterparts in every dimension.
All navy faction logi should be based on T1 versions but just better since they blow and I don't think anyone would mind if they didn't.


My ideas for the Scimi and Guardian are pretty iffy so any better ideas would be appreciated.



EDIT: Oh yea and can T3 logi have better range to suit spider tanking? 20km would be nice.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#2 - 2013-01-24 22:34:20 UTC
if the basi gets a bonus to local ECCM and the onerios local sensor boosting, shouldnt the guardian get a bonus to local tracking (it can fit turrets lol)

or would it not be more suitable to make any bonuses boost remote variants?

i still see no solution for mini logi unless they make a mod that reduces a ships sig radius (mwah ha ha).

also, T2 logi is quite the bit better than T1.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3 - 2013-01-24 22:37:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Ted
Daichi Yamato wrote:
if the basi gets a bonus to local ECCM and the onerios local sensor boosting, shouldnt the guardian get a bonus to local tracking (it can fit turrets lol)

or would it not be more suitable to make any bonuses boost remote variants?

i still see no solution for mini logi unless they make a mod that reduces a ships sig radius (mwah ha ha).

also, T2 logi is quite the bit better than T1.

I mean projected ECCM and remote sensor boosts edited post to reflect this.

T1 scythe is better than the scimi. Also im not proposing mini logi, im proposing logi that have an extra side roll they can perform to make them worth the isk more over t1.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.

Luc Chastot
#4 - 2013-02-18 00:55:00 UTC
Intended to create a thread about this, but seeing as this one exists, I'll just come and support the idea/bump thread.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Grunnax Aurelius
Banana-Republic.
Shadow Cartel
#5 - 2013-02-18 01:23:19 UTC
woot, cap chaining and ECCM chaining basilisks, congratulations you just made an un-jammable and an almost un-killable logistics chain.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=342042&find=unread

Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#6 - 2013-02-18 01:25:01 UTC
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:
woot, cap chaining and ECCM chaining basilisks, congratulations you just made an un-jammable and an almost un-killable logistics chain.

replace the cap transfer bonus then?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.

Grunnax Aurelius
Banana-Republic.
Shadow Cartel
#7 - 2013-02-18 01:29:10 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:
woot, cap chaining and ECCM chaining basilisks, congratulations you just made an un-jammable and an almost un-killable logistics chain.

replace the cap transfer bonus then?


Then you no longer have a shield fleet logistics ship, and dont say you have the scimitar, because that is a small/medium gang ship

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=342042&find=unread

Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#8 - 2013-02-18 01:32:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Ted
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:


Then you no longer have a shield fleet logistics ship, and dont say you have the scimitar, because that is a small/medium gang ship

Use the faction variant instead of a basilisk then.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.

Grunnax Aurelius
Banana-Republic.
Shadow Cartel
#9 - 2013-02-18 01:36:09 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:


Then you no longer have a shield fleet logistics ship, and dont say you have the scimitar, because that is a small/medium gang ship

Use the faction variant then


TBH, the T2 Logistics should not be touched they are well balanced the way they are at the moment, do go screwing them up, the ECCM link is cool, but throw that stuff on the navy faction variants where their reps are no where near as potent.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=342042&find=unread

Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#10 - 2013-02-18 01:38:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Ted
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:


TBH, the T2 Logistics should not be touched they are well balanced the way they are at the moment, do go screwing them up, the ECCM link is cool, but throw that stuff on the navy faction variants where their reps are no where near as potent.


The faction variants don't have any reps at all. The reasoning of making the t2 ships the electronic support ships is because they are t2. T2 is supposed to have specilized abilities t1 and faction lack. I.E covert ops blackbirds or battleship weapon equipped frigates. According the CCP themselves navy faction ships are supposed to be directly superior to their t1 versions. I don't see the big deal in just swapping roles on ships.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.

Grunnax Aurelius
Banana-Republic.
Shadow Cartel
#11 - 2013-02-18 01:41:18 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:


TBH, the T2 Logistics should not be touched they are well balanced the way they are at the moment, do go screwing them up, the ECCM link is cool, but throw that stuff on the navy faction variants where their reps are no where near as potent.


The faction variants don't have any reps at all. The reasoning of making the t2 ships the electronic support ships is because they are t2. T2 is supposed to have specilized abilities t1 and faction lack. According the CCP themselves navy faction ships are supposed to be directly superior to their t1 versions. I don't see the big deal in just swapping roles on ships.


I dont think you understand the concept of how OP a Basilisk will become with Remote ECCM bonuses when you have a group of them in fleet.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=342042&find=unread

Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#12 - 2013-02-18 01:48:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Ted
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:


I dont think you understand the concept of how OP a Basilisk will become with Remote ECCM bonuses when you have a group of them in fleet.

Well lets say you could fit 3 projected eccm's on one basilisk. You losing the cap transfer's from that ship, then you can to consider that the falcon can quickly swap targets to other ships not being ECCM boosted in a fleet. Id would say that is a very fair balance. In a fleet to guarantee ECM invulnerability for just your logi then you would need 1 out of four of your logi being ECCM ships. That seems like a fair cost to pay.

EDIT: Make that 1-2 ECCM's since the basi only has 5 slots.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.

Grunnax Aurelius
Banana-Republic.
Shadow Cartel
#13 - 2013-02-18 02:03:13 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:


I dont think you understand the concept of how OP a Basilisk will become with Remote ECCM bonuses when you have a group of them in fleet.

Well lets say you could fit 3 projected eccm's on one basilisk. You losing the cap transfer's from that ship, then you can to consider that the falcon can quickly swap targets to other ships not being ECCM boosted in a fleet. Id would say that is a very fair balance. In a fleet to guarantee ECM invulnerability for just your logi then you would need 1 out of four of your logi being ECCM ships. That seems like a fair cost to pay.

EDIT: Make that 1-2 ECCM's since the basi only has 5 slots.


1 Bonused Remote ECCM is alot better than 1 Local Un-bonused ECCM,
So you would still have your standard basilisk fit which incorporates a Local ECCM mod, 4 reps and 1 cap transfer, this change would make you change your high layout to 3 reps, 1 cap transfer and 1 remote eccm.
No combine an Un-bonused local ECCM and a bonused remote ECCM in a fleet with lets say 3 basilisk, you have about 120 Gravimetric Sensor Strength, thats 40 points higher than a dread or carrier, YOU CANNOT JAM IT, the only thing that would work is the Super Carriers Remote ECM Burst.

Try and tell me this is not overpowered. And knowing CCP they will probably add another high slot to allow space for the mod, so you would end up having a 4 rep, 1 cap transfer and 1 remote eccm, which means you still get the great reps and get given immune to jamming on top of it.

Im sorry but i do not support the idea of basilisk getting a Remote ECCM bonus

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=342042&find=unread

Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#14 - 2013-02-18 02:10:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Ted
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:


1 Bonused Remote ECCM is alot better than 1 Local Un-bonused ECCM,
So you would still have your standard basilisk fit which incorporates a Local ECCM mod, 4 reps and 1 cap transfer, this change would make you change your high layout to 3 reps, 1 cap transfer and 1 remote eccm.
No combine an Un-bonused local ECCM and a bonused remote ECCM in a fleet with lets say 3 basilisk, you have about 120 Gravimetric Sensor Strength, thats 40 points higher than a dread or carrier, YOU CANNOT JAM IT, the only thing that would work is the Super Carriers Remote ECM Burst.

Try and tell me this is not overpowered. And knowing CCP they will probably add another high slot to allow space for the mod, so you would end up having a 4 rep, 1 cap transfer and 1 remote eccm, which means you still get the great reps and get given immune to jamming on top of it.

Im sorry but i do not support the idea of basilisk getting a Remote ECCM bonus


Well being better than local ECCM is kinda the point, like how remote reps are far supierior to local ones. Remote ECCM is also a midslot module so no changes would be made to the high slots (except the removal of cap transfers) and I would remove the cap transfer bonus. A basilisk using projected ECCM would have to either sacrifice its tank or its local ECCM. Meaning that either you need a second basilisk to reinforce the first ones sensors or you will use it as a decoy to absorb the jams permanently.
Now if a logistics ship is unable to be jammed then the jammer only has to swap his jams on to another target to disrupt logistics, or you could jam the Projected ECCM ship. Really it doesnt matter if it just makes the target 100% unjammable, it can be only applied to one ship and you can jam the caster. Not that OP.

Wouldn't it be kinda pointless dedicating an entire ship to counter ECM but it's targets are still getting jammed anyway?
Also I find it funny that when you site the example of projected ECCM using current stats it is still unjammable, meaning that it isn't a problem now.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.

Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#15 - 2013-02-18 06:30:15 UTC
Also in the support of non logi ships the new basilisk would be extremely useful. Having a basilisk supporting a heavy dictor pointing a titan would be invaluable, providing an upper hand to your falcons to get a temporary edge over the enemies ewar, etc.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.

Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#16 - 2013-02-18 07:31:14 UTC
I'm against any idea to give Logi any sort of buff what so ever.. <.<

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Grunnax Aurelius
Banana-Republic.
Shadow Cartel
#17 - 2013-02-18 07:40:14 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Also in the support of non logi ships the new basilisk would be extremely useful. Having a basilisk supporting a heavy dictor pointing a titan would be invaluable, providing an upper hand to your falcons to get a temporary edge over the enemies ewar, etc.


Yeah cause an un-jammable falcon is so not OP.............

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=342042&find=unread

androch
LitlCorp
#18 - 2013-02-18 07:58:41 UTC
its not enough that the t2's can fit large reppers and can use them 50-60km farther than the t1's?
Zana Widow
Banana-Republic.
Shadow Cartel
#19 - 2013-02-18 08:06:14 UTC
great that you try to think to improve a game,
But dude come on i know Logi and im a great fan of my Basilisk

they are balanced as they are and the thought about this ruining idea, Hell No!!

Unjammable Capitals think i dont have to explain whats wrong with that,

this would have a disaster effect that would be FUBAR!!!
so take your mindflood thinking away from eve before you drown in it,

you sir, just invented the new improved Idiot ( think they still recruit people at Blizzard for winy WoW players) Pirate
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#20 - 2013-02-18 20:58:08 UTC
I am saying that the faction ships should serve the role the current logistics ships fill. The T2 Logistics ships will not be dedicated repair ships but be able to repair effectively while also providing a secondary electronics bonus. They will not rep as good as they do now. Let me make that clear, THEY WILL NOT REP AS GOOD AS THEY DO NOW FACTION SHIPS WILL TAKE THEIR PLACE

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.

12Next page