These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

warning, incoming new ship ideas!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#21 - 2013-12-09 06:54:36 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
killer persian wrote:
If there are 43 sub caps and only 4 "true" capitals that is a 10:1 ratios.. not exact but the point is there.

The reason there are only 8 capitals and 8 supercapitals is because, again, they are already [more or less] VERY good at what they do.

Adding more ships for the sake of having more ships is not a very good reason unless you have a more specific role for them that does not step on the toes of other ships.

edit:
killer persian wrote:
But what if you had 10 or 15 drones with those same bonuses in any of those ships? That is what you're missing. A carrier has 10 to 15 drones with most skills maxed. SC having 20 to 25.
Your right that having good skills in a drone boat makes them more effective. But then you add more and thus the damage is there.

Cool... so I can potentially have a Dominx that has 15 to 25 drones... which deals about ~1500 to ~3700 damage per second... not even a carrier can get that much damage!

Now make a 100 man fleet composed entirely of this type of ship... that doesn't have to be put into Triage or Siege Mode. As if the Pantheon (remote repping carriers), Das Boot (Dominixs), and Mini-boot (Ishtars) fleets were not already wildly popular!

How did you Veterans start?
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#22 - 2013-12-09 06:55:36 UTC
It's also worth noting that even though the dominix lost it's ability to field more than 5 drones, the changes to it's skill bonus make the 5 drones it launches equal to the 10 it used to be able to field.
killer persian
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2013-12-09 07:00:45 UTC
Drake Doe wrote:
killer persian wrote:
Drake Doe wrote:
Exactly what niche could a new class between caps and subcaps fill that isn't already filled, the same goes for T2 capitals. Also, how do you come up with statements like "30+ subcaps and really only 4 capital ships?" When for gallente alone there are 6 counting freighters and 43 sub caps not counting industrial ships?

I don't include freighters or jump freighters to be true "capital" ships bases on their one role. Along with industrial ships.
That is also why I said 30+ dip tard. 43 last time I checked is larger than 30 and that was just a buffer. Your comment even further hardens what I'm saying. If there are 43 sub caps and only 4 "true" capitals that is a 10:1 ratios.. not exact but the point is there..

And as I have said for tech 2 capitals. More drone oriented carriers and about the other 2 I'm not sure..
And what is the damage difference between a battleship and a dreadnought in siege mode? Hugely different. The same goes for the sudor drone boats and the two carriers.

That's just one race, meaning there are closer 182 subcaps not counting pirate/special edition ships and 16 of what you consider true caps, so you should try thinking about what you post before doing sp. What is the exact need for drone only carriers other than for your convenience? Why does the dps difference matter if there isn't a need for a ship between them?


So let's just say there are 200 sup cap ships in the game right now. Probably more. And there are 17 capital ships. The one faction carrier.
So that's ok with you?
You don't want anything more?

My convenience? How about every solo pve player out there that uses any of the carriers?
And what else is there? Marauder? But hey look it got something new and shiny that wasn't necessary needed. But it got it. And now it's better than ever.

You don't need them, that doesn't mean everyone else has to suffer.
killer persian
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2013-12-09 07:02:15 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
It's also worth noting that even though the dominix lost it's ability to field more than 5 drones, the changes to it's skill bonus make the 5 drones it launches equal to the 10 it used to be able to field.

BUT WHAT IF IT COULD STILL HAVE 10! With those bonuses what would those 10 be??
killer persian
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2013-12-09 07:05:37 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
killer persian wrote:
If there are 43 sub caps and only 4 "true" capitals that is a 10:1 ratios.. not exact but the point is there.

The reason there are only 8 capitals and 8 supercapitals is because, again, they are already [more or less] VERY good at what they do.

Adding more ships for the sake of having more ships is not a very good reason unless you have a more specific role for them that does not step on the toes of other ships.

edit:
killer persian wrote:
But what if you had 10 or 15 drones with those same bonuses in any of those ships? That is what you're missing. A carrier has 10 to 15 drones with most skills maxed. SC having 20 to 25.
Your right that having good skills in a drone boat makes them more effective. But then you add more and thus the damage is there.

Cool... so I can potentially have a Dominx that has 15 to 25 drones... which deals about ~1500 to ~2200 damage per second... not even a carrier can get that much damage!

Now make a 100 man fleet composed entirely of this type of ship... that doesn't have to be put into Triage or Siege Mode. As if the Pantheon (remote repping carriers), Das Boot (Dominixs), and Mini-boot (Ishtars) fleets were not already wildly popular!

Ok, what about the new battle cruisers? They can use battleships sized guns.. "stepping on the battleships toes"
Why not have a battleship capable of using capital guns?
Why? Cause why not.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#26 - 2013-12-09 07:06:22 UTC
Around 1500 damage per second with potential for more. Again... carriers don't even deal that much damage.

How did you Veterans start?
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#27 - 2013-12-09 07:07:54 UTC
killer persian wrote:
Ok, what about the new battle cruisers? They can use battleships sized guns.. "stepping on the battleships toes"
Why not have a battleship capable of using capital guns?
Why? Cause why not.

Because Attack Battlecruisers should be removed from the game entirely. They step all over Heavy Assault Ships in sniper and skirmishing roles.

How did you Veterans start?
Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#28 - 2013-12-09 07:08:27 UTC
So what exactly is the point of adding dozens of carbon copy ships other than to waste developer time that could be used to actually add content to the game? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm almost certain that carriers, like other cap ships, are built around a pvp purpose and are meant to be used in fleets, hence the dependence on cynos, so again, why should dev time be wasted on what you want if a ship already does it fine?

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
killer persian
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2013-12-09 07:10:06 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Around 1500 damage per second with potential for more. Again... carriers don't even deal that much damage.

1500 dps is the max.. Without going absolutely apeshit..

They don't even deal that much damage... THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT.
killer persian
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2013-12-09 07:12:38 UTC
Drake Doe wrote:
So what exactly is the point of adding dozens of carbon copy ships other than to waste developer time that could be used to actually add content to the game? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm almost certain that carriers, like other cap ships, are built around a pvp purpose and are meant to be used in fleets, hence the dependence on cynos, so again, why should dev time be wasted on what you want if a ship already does it fine?

So am I just bound to sub caps for the rest of my eve career?
I hate pvp and that ALL the capital ships service only part of the eve community irritates me. Why can't there be pve oriented capitals??
killer persian
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2013-12-09 07:13:59 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
killer persian wrote:
Ok, what about the new battle cruisers? They can use battleships sized guns.. "stepping on the battleships toes"
Why not have a battleship capable of using capital guns?
Why? Cause why not.

Because Attack Battlecruisers should be removed from the game entirely. They step all over Heavy Assault Ships in sniper and skirmishing roles.

That's your opinion.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#32 - 2013-12-09 07:16:03 UTC
killer persian wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
Around 1500 damage per second with potential for more. Again... carriers don't even deal that much damage.

1500 dps is the max.. Without going absolutely apeshit..

They don't even deal that much damage... THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT.

So your point is to create a sub-capital carrier that can deal more damage than a normal carrier (and most battleships) while maintaining some capital qualities... which I am going to assume meaning tanking ability.

If the tanking ability is not included... then you already have the ship you want... it's called a Dominx and Dominix Navy Issue.


Welcome to the hellish circle that is game balance.

How did you Veterans start?
Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#33 - 2013-12-09 07:18:06 UTC
killer persian wrote:
Drake Doe wrote:
So what exactly is the point of adding dozens of carbon copy ships other than to waste developer time that could be used to actually add content to the game? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm almost certain that carriers, like other cap ships, are built around a pvp purpose and are meant to be used in fleets, hence the dependence on cynos, so again, why should dev time be wasted on what you want if a ship already does it fine?

So am I just bound to sub caps for the rest of my eve career?
I hate pvp and that ALL the capital ships service only part of the eve community irritates me. Why can't there be pve oriented capitals??

Because that isn't how any capital ship, including the industrial ones but freighters and jf to a lesser extent is designed. What's so special about flying a slow, cyno dependent capital when there are sub cap drone alternatives?

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#34 - 2013-12-09 07:22:23 UTC
killer persian wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
killer persian wrote:
Ok, what about the new battle cruisers? They can use battleships sized guns.. "stepping on the battleships toes"
Why not have a battleship capable of using capital guns?
Why? Cause why not.

Because Attack Battlecruisers should be removed from the game entirely. They step all over Heavy Assault Ships in sniper and skirmishing roles.

That's your opinion.

It's fact that all abcs have greater damage projection than their similar hac counter part ie. Eagle to naga, zealot to oracle l, etc.

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
killer persian
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#35 - 2013-12-09 07:22:51 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
killer persian wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
Around 1500 damage per second with potential for more. Again... carriers don't even deal that much damage.

1500 dps is the max.. Without going absolutely apeshit..

They don't even deal that much damage... THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT.

So your point is to create a sub-capital carrier that can deal more damage than a normal carrier (and most battleships) while maintaining some capital qualities... which I am going to assume meaning tanking ability.

If the tanking ability is not included... then you already have the ship you want... it's called a Dominx and Dominix Navy Issue.


Welcome to the hellish circle that is game balance.

What about the the three other races....?
What if I don't want to be constricted to only ONE ship.
And of course it wouldn't tank like capital.
This game is such a hypocrisy. Game balancing with the lore of eve... ok.
My argument is a mute point.
killer persian
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#36 - 2013-12-09 07:24:15 UTC
Drake Doe wrote:
killer persian wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
killer persian wrote:
Ok, what about the new battle cruisers? They can use battleships sized guns.. "stepping on the battleships toes"
Why not have a battleship capable of using capital guns?
Why? Cause why not.

Because Attack Battlecruisers should be removed from the game entirely. They step all over Heavy Assault Ships in sniper and skirmishing roles.

That's your opinion.

It's fact that all abcs have greater damage projection than their similar hac counter part ie. Eagle to naga, zealot to oracle l, etc.


But the point was to output tons of dps but a glass tank?
The other ships compensate for having both.
Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#37 - 2013-12-09 07:31:33 UTC
killer persian wrote:
Drake Doe wrote:
killer persian wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
killer persian wrote:
Ok, what about the new battle cruisers? They can use battleships sized guns.. "stepping on the battleships toes"
Why not have a battleship capable of using capital guns?
Why? Cause why not.

Because Attack Battlecruisers should be removed from the game entirely. They step all over Heavy Assault Ships in sniper and skirmishing roles.

That's your opinion.

It's fact that all abcs have greater damage projection than their similar hac counter part ie. Eagle to naga, zealot to oracle l, etc.


But the point was to output tons of dps but a glass tank?
The other ships compensate for having both.

Except the fact the the projection difference between abcs and these range bonused hulls have made them more viable at both general use and filling the role of hacs. Also, under lofi which is normal for pretty much all large fleets, base tank starts meaning less as the ships putting out more dps start alphaing the others off the field.

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
killer persian
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#38 - 2013-12-09 07:36:59 UTC
Then I guess hacs pilots better get better and deal with it, such as I and everyone else has to in this game.
Cardano Firesnake
Fire Bullet Inc
#39 - 2013-12-09 09:15:07 UTC
Before bringing such new ships, it would be great to finish the ships balancing.
Do not forget that new ships should fill a mission that do not already exist.

Posted - 2010.07.01 11:24:00 - [4] Erase learning skills, remap all SP. That's all.
Previous page12