These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

New ships

Author
Jarome Ambraelle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2011-09-08 06:36:08 UTC
I don't think there's been any recent additions to Eve's fleets, so I had a few ideas.

- More destroyer designs with better power and tanking abilities, maybe some bonuses towards taking down frigate fleets.
- Carriers available in high sec again (the small ones)
- Troop transports (after Dust 514 release)
- Miscellaneous ships from frigate to battleship that aren't race specific (we shouldn't all have ships that are 'replicas' of our races
military)
Malken
Sleiipniir
#2 - 2011-09-08 06:49:59 UTC
Faction destroyers
Faction Battlecruisers

T3 Frigates
T3 destroyers
T3 battlecruisers
T3 Battleships

start at top.

☻/ /▌ / \

Jarome Ambraelle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2011-09-08 06:55:12 UTC
Malken wrote:
Faction destroyers
Faction Battlecruisers

T3 Frigates
T3 destroyers
T3 battlecruisers
T3 Battleships

start at top.


I imagine their already working on those as we've been requesting it a while and they know they need them. As for the faction ships, I always wondered why they didn't include them.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#4 - 2011-09-08 06:55:58 UTC
A few things...

1. New ships have to have a job (see: niche, specialization) that they can do that doesn't obsolete other, older ships.
2a. There are no such things as "small carriers."
2b. Capitals are banned in high-sec for many, many reasons.
3. CCP plans to add a bunch of stuff when DUST comes out (hopefully) .
4. RP-wise, it makes more economic sense to refit (or dual design) "standard" military ships for Capsuleer use than to design something strictly for Capsuleer use (remember, in the EVE universe WE are the minority).
Jarome Ambraelle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2011-09-08 07:16:32 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
A few things...

1. New ships have to have a job (see: niche, specialization) that they can do that doesn't obsolete other, older ships.
2a. There are no such things as "small carriers."
2b. Capitals are banned in high-sec for many, many reasons.
3. CCP plans to add a bunch of stuff when DUST comes out (hopefully) .
4. RP-wise, it makes more economic sense to refit (or dual design) "standard" military ships for Capsuleer use than to design something strictly for Capsuleer use (remember, in the EVE universe WE are the minority).


1. One more improved destroyer would help fill the frigate/cruiser gap.
2. There is, carriers and super carriers. Carriers should be fine since they are only more powerful than a BS as far as defense.
3. I hope too.
4. That's true, but don't we deserve some personal ship classes?
Nezumiiro Noneko
Alternative Enterprises
#6 - 2011-09-08 07:29:45 UTC
Jarome Ambraelle wrote:
I don't think there's been any recent additions to Eve's fleets, so I had a few ideas.

- More destroyer designs with better power and tanking abilities, maybe some bonuses towards taking down frigate fleets.
- Carriers available in high sec again (the small ones)
- Troop transports (after Dust 514 release)
- Miscellaneous ships from frigate to battleship that aren't race specific (we shouldn't all have ships that are 'replicas' of our races
military)




carriers in empire, you do know a high skill bs has the same exact, if not more depending dps than a carrier, right? Carriers are tanky for sanctums, that is all. marauders, good t1 bs high skill, pirate bs'....all you need. It be no faster mission grinding. Especailly on a gated mission. Even if the gate allowed it.....carriers aren't exactly dramiel speed. You'd actually be slower than a bs.

misc ships, ore or pirate faction, enjoy. Caldari only makes caldari ships. Amarr amarr. each race is proud of their way of making ships if you like your fluff reason as to why. Also why every ship has the same holes. Caldari at war with gallente not amarr. If they were at war with amarr....then they'd fix the em hole lol.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#7 - 2011-09-08 08:51:36 UTC
Jarome Ambraelle wrote:

2. There is, carriers and super carriers. Carriers should be fine since they are only more powerful than a BS as far as defense


*snort*
Are you trolling? What about their remote repairing bonuses? Repping up 3000 to 4500 hp every 5 seconds and able to tank around 1500 to 3000 dps doesn't seem a bit OP in high-sec to you? You know that triage only increase these stats, right?
Jarome Ambraelle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2011-09-08 09:47:46 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Jarome Ambraelle wrote:

2. There is, carriers and super carriers. Carriers should be fine since they are only more powerful than a BS as far as defense


*snort*
Are you trolling? What about their remote repairing bonuses? Repping up 3000 to 4500 hp every 5 seconds and able to tank around 1500 to 3000 dps doesn't seem a bit OP in high-sec to you? You know that triage only increase these stats, right?


No...I'm not...and I'm very aware of the ships defenses, that is exactly why im saying it deserves high sec clearance. It doesn't have overwhelming firepower like the super capitals do, yet can take punishment from multiple battleships and acts like a small mobile base.

All I'm suggesting is adding this lower tier capital to high sec so that corps in the areas have a mobile BoO and mothership without making it devastating to BSs (like super carriers, dreadnoughts, and titans)
Firartix
Parallax Heavy Industries
#9 - 2011-09-08 09:58:07 UTC
I really would like to have something like a mini-carrier class in EVE...

Recently started playing X3, and they have a ship class which is very interesting: the military transport (TM)
It's a transport class vessel, with very, very limited cargo. A lot of regular cargo haulers go up to 8000 units, TMs go as far as 1500.
On the other end, TMs in X3 have a limited amount of turrets (say 2-5, most haulers have none or one)....
And here comes the interesting part: they can house 4 fighters. Now thats cool. There's some kind of big gap in the side of it, to dock fighters.

EVE Could totally use something like a mini-carrier class, say, a Tech 2 (or 3?!) BC Sized vessel able to launch 4, or 5 fighters.
The big problem with it is that it would break quite a lot of mechanics: those vessels would therefore be able to get used in highsec... So what about CONCORD if there's aggression? Also, it'd be easy to deploy support mini-carrier blobs in safes in nullsec.


Oh, also, we need moar destroyer classes.
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#10 - 2011-09-08 10:12:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington
Double post. Blegh.
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#11 - 2011-09-08 10:19:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington
Quote:
It doesn't have overwhelming firepower like the super capitals do, yet can take punishment from multiple battleships and acts like a small mobile base.


You really are a bit simple, aren't you?
The remote repping power carriers are capable of is a massive force multiplier, and their defence (especially when spider tanking) would make them all but invulnerable. Carriers would become the be-all end-all of highsec warfare, much like supercaps are in null.

Quote:
All I'm suggesting is adding this lower tier capital to high sec so that corps in the areas have a mobile BoO and mothership without making it devastating to BSs


You obviously don't know the first thing about capitals, if you think letting carriers into highsec is balanced.

Edit: in fact, I just ran up a few rough figures in EFT.
2 Chimeras: 6,000 DPS tanked
3 Chimeras: 7,700 DPS tanked
5 Chimeras: 12,924 DPS tanked
Don't even get me started on the monstrosity that is the Archon.

5 Carriers isn't even a lot, my 15man corp have around 6 by ourselves. Can you even imagine the shitstorm you'd be unleashing by letting this sort of fleet out into hisec?

See, this is where you didn't even bother thinking ahead - one carrier isn't that bad, but as soon as you start throwing more in everything goes to hell.

Edit2: Oh yeah, and this is without even bringing triage into this. 16k DPS tank and ridiculous RR ability. Try killing anything in a fleet that has a few of those Big smile
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2011-09-08 10:27:28 UTC
JUST GIVE ME MORE SUS-SYSTEMS!

Then we can make any ship (cruisers) we want. T3 industrial could easily be made with the existing hulls if we had more subs.
Jarome Ambraelle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2011-09-08 10:54:40 UTC
Duchess Starbuckington wrote:
Quote:
It doesn't have overwhelming firepower like the super capitals do, yet can take punishment from multiple battleships and acts like a small mobile base.


You really are a bit simple, aren't you?
The remote repping power carriers are capable of is a massive force multiplier, and their defence (especially when spider tanking) would make them all but invulnerable. Carriers would become the be-all end-all of highsec warfare, much like supercaps are in null.

Quote:
All I'm suggesting is adding this lower tier capital to high sec so that corps in the areas have a mobile BoO and mothership without making it devastating to BSs


You obviously don't know the first thing about capitals, if you think letting carriers into highsec is balanced.

Edit: in fact, I just ran up a few rough figures in EFT.
2 Chimeras: 6,000 DPS tanked
3 Chimeras: 7,700 DPS tanked
5 Chimeras: 12,924 DPS tanked
Don't even get me started on the monstrosity that is the Archon.

5 Carriers isn't even a lot, my 15man corp have around 6 by ourselves. Can you even imagine the shitstorm you'd be unleashing by letting this sort of fleet out into hisec?

See, this is where you didn't even bother thinking ahead - one carrier isn't that bad, but as soon as you start throwing more in everything goes to hell.

Edit2: Oh yeah, and this is without even bringing triage into this. 16k DPS tank and ridiculous RR ability. Try killing anything in a fleet that has a few of those Big smile


I'm sorry this comes up as simply thought out. The thing about it is that its meant to be the flagship in my idea. Yes they can tank extraordinarly well, but you just as easily face enemy carriers as well. The whole point is to make them hard to defeat, but if you take out the drones they're just tanks without guns. Also as its high sec no one could get shot without a war dec. Speaking of which, if you know the enemy has carriers, either make sure you have them or run. If nothing else, they could always implement a one carrier per user or per corp rule in high sec.
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#14 - 2011-09-08 10:59:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington
Quote:
The thing about it is that its meant to be the flagship in my idea. Yes they can tank extraordinarly well, but you just as easily face enemy carriers as well

Yeah, the problem with that is the fact they won't be used so much as a flagship as 30 flagships.

Quote:
but if you take out the drones they're just tanks without guns.

No, if you take out the drones they're horrifically tanky and powerful remote rep ships with less firepower than usual that make their escorting battleship fleet stupidly hard to kill.

Seriously, how do you just not understand that drones are a distant secondary role for carriers and the real power is in the RR?

It's simple really: allowing carriers into highsec would mean that all major battles depend on nothing but who has more carriers - just like nullsec warfare depends on nothing but who can field the most supers.

Quote:
If nothing else, they could always implement a one carrier per user or per corp rule in high sec.

Any system like this you put in can be worked around easily.
Jarome Ambraelle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2011-09-08 11:16:31 UTC
Duchess Starbuckington wrote:
Quote:
The thing about it is that its meant to be the flagship in my idea. Yes they can tank extraordinarly well, but you just as easily face enemy carriers as well

Yeah, the problem with that is the fact they won't be used so much as a flagship as 30 flagships.

Quote:
but if you take out the drones they're just tanks without guns.

No, if you take out the drones they're horrifically tanky and powerful remote rep ships with less firepower than usual that make their escorting battleship fleet stupidly hard to kill.

Seriously, how do you just not understand that drones are a distant secondary role for carriers and the real power is in the RR?

It's simple really: allowing carriers into highsec would mean that all major battles depend on nothing but who has more carriers - just like nullsec warfare depends on nothing but who can field the most supers.

Quote:
If nothing else, they could always implement a one carrier per user or per corp rule in high sec.

Any system like this you put in can be worked around easily.


This is all very true, but I do wish high sec had some sort of capital ship besides battleships. The way supers seem to have been designed make me question if the capital ship system needs rebooting or not. Numbers and power are a force to be reckoned with, but tactics and abilities should be more important than "Hey! I have one more dreadnought than you! The rest of your fleet is pointless next to me!"
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#16 - 2011-09-08 11:23:23 UTC
Quote:
but I do wish high sec had some sort of capital ship besides battleships.

And why does it need them?

Quote:
"Hey! I have one more dreadnought than you! The rest of your fleet is pointless next to me!"


Pretty much. Allowing this to spread into highsec would be the worst thing to do right now.

Oh and regarding the rest of the OP on adding a load of new ships - how about fixing the dozens of broken piles of fail we have now before adding a bunch of new stuff?
Jarome Ambraelle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2011-09-08 11:29:11 UTC
Duchess Starbuckington wrote:
Quote:
but I do wish high sec had some sort of capital ship besides battleships.

And why does it need them?

Quote:
"Hey! I have one more dreadnought than you! The rest of your fleet is pointless next to me!"


Pretty much. Allowing this to spread into highsec would be the worst thing to do right now.

Oh and regarding the rest of the OP on adding a load of new ships - how about fixing the dozens of broken piles of fail we have now before adding a bunch of new stuff?


It doesn't need them per say, I'd just like to see a ship that's used more as a command ship and only available in limited numbers.

Ah, now on those old ships, yes, we do have some crappers. That's why I support some form of user personal customization, however my thread is about adding what we lack. I hope CCPs fixes some of it's broken ships, but I don't count on it.
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#18 - 2011-09-08 11:33:03 UTC
Quote:
It doesn't need them per say, I'd just like to see a ship that's used more as a command ship and only available in limited numbers.


So basically just "because".

Quote:
my thread is about adding what we lack.


Which fill what niché, precisely?

Quote:
I hope CCPs fixes some of it's broken ships, but I don't count on it.


Actually they have been steadily for years, just not as quickly as they should be. For example; pirate faction ships, navy frigates and stuff that uses rockets. They're looking at a buff to the Oneiros as well, and hybrids are on the cards - so it's hardly fair to say they aren't likely to do anything.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#19 - 2011-09-08 11:40:15 UTC
Jarome Ambraelle wrote:
All I'm suggesting is adding this lower tier capital to high sec so that corps in the areas have a mobile BoO and mothership without making it devastating to BSs (like super carriers, dreadnoughts, and titans)

Its called an Orca, and its built to be exactly what you are looking for.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.

Firartix
Parallax Heavy Industries
#20 - 2011-09-08 11:50:24 UTC
Oneiros buff? It sounds pretty op to me already. 4 TLs and T2 Reps man, with a guardian buddy >_>
But i guess i cant really tell, i'm a logi player, but i haven't skilled the oni (yet?)

Also, why did everyone ditch my mini-carrier talk ;(
IMO The game really, really needs something about the size of an Orca, but more combat focused.
And T3 Battleships could totally be mini-carriers :S

I mean, when i saw the Orca and people talked to me about it when i started the game, i really imagined it to have tank and fittability comparable to a BS Sized Ship (except for PG of course, else you could easily turn them into neut-boats)
When i looked at the actual stats... man, i don't even understand why anyone use them anymore.
It got BS size, it's slower than a BS, but it fits worse than a cruiser. U kiddin r8 br0 ?
123Next pageLast page