These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Rubicon 1.1] Sisters of EVE Battleship

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1261 - 2013-12-10 01:30:29 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Of course it'll never be implemented, because people are irrationally afraid of the idea of a ship having more than 5 drones that isn't a capital or a limited edition.

And CCP's stuck on their vision for the ship - bonuses to everything, and consequently useful for nothing. Because people just love flying the Gnosis.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1262 - 2013-12-10 01:39:42 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Except it's not a given that SoE LP will remain at their current conversion price.

At present, if you are a hisec missioner, it would be rational to move to Osmon and mine SoE missions in preference to any other hisec mission. Eventually the carebear horde will catch on to the "cash on the table" and the price of BPCs will begin to drop.



SoE isn't going to attract the hardcore carebears because running their missions will tank your Caldari State faction, and with only one agent available without traveling dozens of jumps you can't just filter out all the missions that pit you against Amarr/Caldari.
Roy Alleyne
Dark Knowledge.
#1263 - 2013-12-10 01:50:46 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Of course it'll never be implemented, because people are irrationally afraid of the idea of a ship having more than 5 drones that isn't a capital or a limited edition.

And CCP's stuck on their vision for the ship - bonuses to everything, and consequently useful for nothing. Because people just love flying the Gnosis.


It isn't an irrational fear, having that many drones on the field is worthless when compared to just bonusing the 5 you do have. In addition to that, you would need an even larger drone bay just to carry them all around not to mention having to replace them more often and all the other problems involved.

As to their jack of all trades thing, I can rationalize it as not wanting to spend all that time designing a ship only a small niche will use. The Gnosis was probably the most efficient ship ever designed from a player use/development hour standpoint. However, I do agree that this approach makes a ship useless with out drowning in bonuses.
Celia Therone
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1264 - 2013-12-10 02:54:13 UTC
There's not much point in giving this ship a fleet maintenance bay/refitting service now that we have dirt cheap mobile depots.

Medium drones are pretty horrible. They're slow enough and fragile enough that they die like flies without having the dps or tracking to be interesting.
Vincintius Agrippa
Crimson Serpent Syndicate
#1265 - 2013-12-10 02:56:11 UTC
Roy Alleyne wrote:
Savira Terrant wrote:


No worries.

Well I guess what I am saying is, that the predicted high price is detrimental to the balancing discussion, because naturally people will cry for an overpowered ship since they want bang for their buck.

I do agree to what you and others already said about missing downward pressure and the price it will end up with. I am trying hard to not let myself be confused between a ship that was well balanced into it's envirnment and a ship that had a high price attached - for whatever reason I can only guess - and then powercrept to meet the players expectations for a specific (predicted) price.

Having said that, I think it may have been a mistake to publish the price at all in this early stage, instead of giving room to both a balancing discussion and a price discussion after that.

While I ask myself why not more people ran SOE missions before, I think the new ships are a final wakeup call to those highsec folks. So the market will regulate the price by itself to what the players value such items. This can lead to a massive price drop of Sisters LP, but also stay rather stable. The important thing to argue here would be to keep the ship and item prices in the same relation the other pirate shiptypes have. To that end mission achieved.
Now, the missing downward pressure from the not existing blueprint drops in exploration sites is a valid arguement to desist from the price markup in highsec in my eyes. This balances the fact that you can get a "pirate" ship in highsec - the argument for the markup - and the non-existent bpc drops.

Edit: I want to make clear that any comments on pricing are unrelated to balancing ideas i might have.


People will always cry for OP ships, it would be funny if they weren't so persistent.

I'm relieved that Im not the only one conflicted between performance and cost. Setting aside price, currently the Nestor will be very useful in RR BS gangs and I'm sure a few players will utilize its hacking and probing bonuses at some point. However, I don't feel that the Nestor lives up to the SoE line up from a balancing point of view. The current SoE ships are highly mobile exploration and combat platforms that benefit greatly from their hacking and scanning bonuses. Calling a BS 'highly mobile' on its own is laughable and before Rise dropped the 'free bonus' bomb on us I supported the elimination of them completely in favor of a mobility advantage. This was back when I naively thought the Nestor would be priced similar to other pirate ships and thus a non-issue.

When you do factor in price, only large power blocks would be able to field these for RR BS gangs and individual owners would be restricted to high sec or would get popped by the first gang to spot it on dscan. The high cost making them simultaneously difficult to obtain and obvious primaries, with the RR bonus not helping in that regard.

The added survivability and speed that a mobility bonus would provide would allow the Nestor to compete with T3s and logi cruisers for fleet positions and justify using them to support exploration missions in hostile space.

On a side note, As much as I hate to resurrect the mini carrier idea from way back when but if the Nestor could be used to increase the mobility of other ships through a fitting service and small fleet hanger, it may be effective as a mobile anchoring point for long deployment Wspace exploration. I'll support anything that makes the Nestor valuable enough for a 'highly mobile' fleet to slow down a little for it.




I an actually in favor of a mini drone carrier. I feel that what we need it, bad. from each race. Predominate traits: Can field 1 extra drone per level. Can field 10 heavy drones (250Mbit). Various drone bonuses
Only YOU can prevent internet bullying!
Vincintius Agrippa
Crimson Serpent Syndicate
#1266 - 2013-12-10 03:08:24 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Of course it'll never be implemented, because people are irrationally afraid of the idea of a ship having more than 5 drones that isn't a capital or a limited edition.

And CCP's stuck on their vision for the ship - bonuses to everything, and consequently useful for nothing. Because people just love flying the Gnosis.


If I remember correctly, ships smaller than capitols used to be able to launch 10 drones. CCP nerfed because of server load. Which is why I suspect they have such blatant hatred for missiles.

Shame on you CCP NERFZILLA and CCP FIZZLEWAFFE!


Upgrade you servers bitches.
Only YOU can prevent internet bullying!
Roy Alleyne
Dark Knowledge.
#1267 - 2013-12-10 03:14:41 UTC
Celia Therone wrote:
There's not much point in giving this ship a fleet maintenance bay/refitting service now that we have dirt cheap mobile depots.


A ship mounted service would be available to everyone in the fleet as opposed to having to carry their own, freeing up a lot of space for loot, ammo, and anything else you would need on an extended mission. This kind of thing has already been done with Orcas in the past, though I wouldn't recommend anything as large as the bays the Orca has.

Either way my thinking is that this option is less desirable than a BlOps cloak bonus, though may be more preferable, from a balance standpoint, than a covert jump drive.
Roy Alleyne
Dark Knowledge.
#1268 - 2013-12-10 03:32:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Roy Alleyne
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:

I an actually in favor of a mini drone carrier. I feel that what we need it, bad. from each race. Predominate traits: Can field 1 extra drone per level. Can field 10 heavy drones (250Mbit). Various drone bonuses


Vincintius Agrippa wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Of course it'll never be implemented, because people are irrationally afraid of the idea of a ship having more than 5 drones that isn't a capital or a limited edition.

And CCP's stuck on their vision for the ship - bonuses to everything, and consequently useful for nothing. Because people just love flying the Gnosis.


If I remember correctly, ships smaller than capitols used to be able to launch 10 drones. CCP nerfed because of server load. Which is why I suspect they have such blatant hatred for missiles.

Shame on you CCP NERFZILLA and CCP FIZZLEWAFFE!


Upgrade you servers *******.


This is exactly why I didn't want to dredge up the mini carrier thing again. There is no point to fielding more than 5 drones. The only reason Carriers can launch more is because it is kinda their 'thing'. It is much better to just apply bonuses to drone use both for server load considerations and for a plethora of logistics (as in service) problems for players, including having to manage more drones both on and off the battlefield just to achieve the same effect. If the Nestor does move toward the role of a mini carrier, it will be from the fleet logistics (again as in service) manager angle, not the 'fields tons of drones for no reason' angle.
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#1269 - 2013-12-10 03:44:13 UTC
Roy Alleyne wrote:

This is exactly why I didn't want to dredge up the mini carrier thing again. There is no point to fielding more than 5 drones. The only reason Carriers can launch more is because it is kinda their 'thing'. It is much better to just apply bonuses to drone use both for server load considerations and for a plethora of logistics (as in service) problems for players, including having to manage more drones both on and off the battlefield just to achieve the same effect. If the Nestor does move toward the role of a mini carrier, it will be from the fleet logistics (again as in service) manager angle, not the 'fields tons of drones for no reason' angle.

Well there is a point to it- it spreads out the damage, first of all, making them harder to take down completely, and it'd honestly be a lot of fun.

I want the ship to stay exactly the way it is now, but it could go this way if it wanted to-

Nestor

Amarr BS Bonus:
4% bonus to armor resistances per level

Gallente BS Bonus:
+1 active drone per level

Role Bonuses:
50% bonus to drone optimal range, tracking, and velocity
50% bonus to armor repair drone effectiveness
50% bonus to optimal range of Large Energy Turrets
625% bonus to cloaked velocity

Drones under the Nestor's control will not be targeted by sleeper drones

Slots: 6H, 6M, 7L; 5 turrets, 0 launchers

625m3 drone bay, and 200mbit/sec bandwidth, so it's limited to 8 heavies/sentries

Ship Maintenance Bay: 350,000 m3

It could work, and I'd like to fly it Big smile

However, the current Nestor is awesome already Cool

"A City made of Dreams is built in heaven"
Roy Alleyne
Dark Knowledge.
#1270 - 2013-12-10 04:09:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Roy Alleyne
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci wrote:
Roy Alleyne wrote:

This is exactly why I didn't want to dredge up the mini carrier thing again. There is no point to fielding more than 5 drones. The only reason Carriers can launch more is because it is kinda their 'thing'. It is much better to just apply bonuses to drone use both for server load considerations and for a plethora of logistics (as in service) problems for players, including having to manage more drones both on and off the battlefield just to achieve the same effect. If the Nestor does move toward the role of a mini carrier, it will be from the fleet logistics (again as in service) manager angle, not the 'fields tons of drones for no reason' angle.

Well there is a point to it- it spreads out the damage, first of all, making them harder to take down completely, and it'd honestly be a lot of fun.

I want the ship to stay exactly the way it is now, but it could go this way if it wanted to-

Nestor

Gallente BS Bonus:
+1 active drone per level

Role Bonus:
625% bonus to cloaked velocity

Ship Maintenance Bay: 350,000 m3

It could work, and I'd like to fly it Big smile

However, the current Nestor is awesome already Cool


Fielding more than five drones just adds cost and headache to players and server load to CCP. There is no way the Nestor would get the equivalent of lvl 5 BlOps skill on the hull, we would be lucky to get 400%. As for the bay size... I could work with that. I'm not exactly a fan of the Nestor carrying around other ships in its belly and would recommend limiting it to a corp hanger but it could work.
killer persian
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#1271 - 2013-12-10 04:30:03 UTC
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:
Roy Alleyne wrote:
Savira Terrant wrote:


No worries.

Well I guess what I am saying is, that the predicted high price is detrimental to the balancing discussion, because naturally people will cry for an overpowered ship since they want bang for their buck.

I do agree to what you and others already said about missing downward pressure and the price it will end up with. I am trying hard to not let myself be confused between a ship that was well balanced into it's envirnment and a ship that had a high price attached - for whatever reason I can only guess - and then powercrept to meet the players expectations for a specific (predicted) price.

Having said that, I think it may have been a mistake to publish the price at all in this early stage, instead of giving room to both a balancing discussion and a price discussion after that.

While I ask myself why not more people ran SOE missions before, I think the new ships are a final wakeup call to those highsec folks. So the market will regulate the price by itself to what the players value such items. This can lead to a massive price drop of Sisters LP, but also stay rather stable. The important thing to argue here would be to keep the ship and item prices in the same relation the other pirate shiptypes have. To that end mission achieved.
Now, the missing downward pressure from the not existing blueprint drops in exploration sites is a valid arguement to desist from the price markup in highsec in my eyes. This balances the fact that you can get a "pirate" ship in highsec - the argument for the markup - and the non-existent bpc drops.

Edit: I want to make clear that any comments on pricing are unrelated to balancing ideas i might have.


People will always cry for OP ships, it would be funny if they weren't so persistent.

I'm relieved that Im not the only one conflicted between performance and cost. Setting aside price, currently the Nestor will be very useful in RR BS gangs and I'm sure a few players will utilize its hacking and probing bonuses at some point. However, I don't feel that the Nestor lives up to the SoE line up from a balancing point of view. The current SoE ships are highly mobile exploration and combat platforms that benefit greatly from their hacking and scanning bonuses. Calling a BS 'highly mobile' on its own is laughable and before Rise dropped the 'free bonus' bomb on us I supported the elimination of them completely in favor of a mobility advantage. This was back when I naively thought the Nestor would be priced similar to other pirate ships and thus a non-issue.

When you do factor in price, only large power blocks would be able to field these for RR BS gangs and individual owners would be restricted to high sec or would get popped by the first gang to spot it on dscan. The high cost making them simultaneously difficult to obtain and obvious primaries, with the RR bonus not helping in that regard.

The added survivability and speed that a mobility bonus would provide would allow the Nestor to compete with T3s and logi cruisers for fleet positions and justify using them to support exploration missions in hostile space.

On a side note, As much as I hate to resurrect the mini carrier idea from way back when but if the Nestor could be used to increase the mobility of other ships through a fitting service and small fleet hanger, it may be effective as a mobile anchoring point for long deployment Wspace exploration. I'll support anything that makes the Nestor valuable enough for a 'highly mobile' fleet to slow down a little for it.




I an actually in favor of a mini drone carrier. I feel that what we need it, bad. from each race. Predominate traits: Can field 1 extra drone per level. Can field 10 heavy drones (250Mbit). Various drone bonuses

THANK YOU!!!! someone who agrees with me.. where were you in my post, everyone eating me alive and not even thinking about the actual need for a ship of that type.
Savira Terrant
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1272 - 2013-12-10 05:12:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Savira Terrant
Upgrading servers or not, I blatantly disagree with more than 5 drones on a subcapital for the sole reason of serverload - there will always be even bigger fights that bring the server to its (time dilation) knees.

Other than that I think right now is the worst time to introduce an SOE battleship that doesn't strictly follow the Astero and Strateos line of ships - even than it's not the best time.
We first need the planned rebalance of Black Ops, pirate ships and T3 ships, get used to them and then find out which niche was not fulfilled yet.
So I humbly ask CCP to completely forget about the Nestor, prioritize on balancing the mentioned shipclasses - without having the Nestor nagging in the back of their heads - and then introduce a Nestor with unique capabilities that has value to the players.

I know that bringing new bling to the game is always the most fun and the best thing PR wise (if it looks better than it's current design P ), but for the health of the game, can we get the rebalance of mentioned classes in a point release between now and summer and a Nestor in the summer expansion?
It's just without knowing the "final" stats of those ships we can hardly argue for features that the Nestor actually benefits from compared to those.

.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1273 - 2013-12-10 05:58:32 UTC
Xequecal wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Except it's not a given that SoE LP will remain at their current conversion price.

At present, if you are a hisec missioner, it would be rational to move to Osmon and mine SoE missions in preference to any other hisec mission. Eventually the carebear horde will catch on to the "cash on the table" and the price of BPCs will begin to drop.



SoE isn't going to attract the hardcore carebears because running their missions will tank your Caldari State faction, and with only one agent available without traveling dozens of jumps you can't just filter out all the missions that pit you against Amarr/Caldari.


The faction loss with Calldari is trivial, they are +2 with gallente so a 14% storyline is +6% gallente and like -0.16 with caldari.



....if you can't figure out how to manage that...well lol.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1274 - 2013-12-10 08:01:11 UTC
Savira Terrant wrote:
Upgrading servers or not, I blatantly disagree with more than 5 drones on a subcapital for the sole reason of serverload - there will always be even bigger fights that bring the server to its (time dilation) knees.

Nobody's going to blob these unless there's an actual advantage to doing so, and I don't think there would be. Scout drones aren't well suited to that type of combat since they're too susceptible to smartbombs.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#1275 - 2013-12-10 08:38:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Debora Tsung
Roy Alleyne wrote:
It isn't an irrational fear, having that many drones on the field is worthless when compared to just bonusing the 5 you do have. In addition to that, you would need an even larger drone bay just to carry them all around not to mention having to replace them more often and all the other problems involved.

No, it isn't.

If You loose one of 10 drones you loose only one tenth of your drone dps, if you loose one of five drones you loose one fifth of our dps.

So 10 unbonused drones are actually better than 5 five bonused drones.

EDIT: I can however agree with the argument of having only 5 bonused drones for the sake of server load.

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
Savira Terrant
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1276 - 2013-12-10 09:17:02 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Savira Terrant wrote:
Upgrading servers or not, I blatantly disagree with more than 5 drones on a subcapital for the sole reason of serverload - there will always be even bigger fights that bring the server to its (time dilation) knees.

Nobody's going to blob these unless there's an actual advantage to doing so, and I don't think there would be. Scout drones aren't well suited to that type of combat since they're too susceptible to smartbombs.

Even if this particular ship were never to be used in environments causing such loads, my fear is the opening of hells gate regarding future iterations of other ships.

.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1277 - 2013-12-10 09:18:20 UTC
Most of you should have stopped posting about 30 pages ago.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Roy Alleyne
Dark Knowledge.
#1278 - 2013-12-10 09:18:57 UTC
Debora Tsung wrote:
Roy Alleyne wrote:
It isn't an irrational fear, having that many drones on the field is worthless when compared to just bonusing the 5 you do have. In addition to that, you would need an even larger drone bay just to carry them all around not to mention having to replace them more often and all the other problems involved.

No, it isn't.

If You loose one of 10 drones you loose only one tenth of your drone dps, if you loose one of five drones you loose one fifth of our dps.

So 10 unbonused drones are actually better than 5 five bonused drones.

EDIT: I can however agree with the argument of having only 5 bonused drones for the sake of server load.


Server load aside let's say you have a drone bay that is 100m3 and you want to field med drones. With that much space you can put all ten unbounded drones on the field at once, and when one is destroyed you only loose 1/10th of your dps and that's not so bad.

Now let's say you only have 50mb/s, limiting you only to five drones at a time but now you also have a 100% drone damage bonus. Your overall damage that you can apply is the same but when one is destroyed you now loose 1/5th of your dps, twice as much as before. However, this time you have extra drones in your bay just waiting to be deployed. This means that you can launch another drone and be back up to full damage in seconds instead of being permeantly down 10% of your dps.

What you are asking for is mearly to accomplish the same thing with more material. The only significant things that will change would be the number of green squares on your screen and how much less computing power everyone else has to deal with because of it. Limiting sub caps to 5 drones doesn't just help with game performance, it prevents you from having to deal with the logistics of buying and managing two or three times as many drones as you do now, just to achieve the same result. If you have your heart set on seeing that many squares buzzing around on your screen, buy a Gardian-Vexor. They exist in the game for the very reason that people like you enjoy seeing all those pretty boxes.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1279 - 2013-12-10 09:20:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Mournful Conciousness
Debora Tsung wrote:
Roy Alleyne wrote:
It isn't an irrational fear, having that many drones on the field is worthless when compared to just bonusing the 5 you do have. In addition to that, you would need an even larger drone bay just to carry them all around not to mention having to replace them more often and all the other problems involved.

No, it isn't.

If You loose one of 10 drones you loose only one tenth of your drone dps, if you loose one of five drones you loose one fifth of our dps.

So 10 unbonused drones are actually better than 5 five bonused drones.

EDIT: I can however agree with the argument of having only 5 bonused drones for the sake of server load.


on the other hand, 10 unbonused drones will die to smart bombs twice as fast, so it's swings and roundabouts. on that note I'd like to see the 20%/level bonus applied to utility drones as well as dps drones. that's because I am a perfect domi & Ishtar pilot and I'm totally unbiased :-)

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#1280 - 2013-12-10 09:23:20 UTC
Roy Alleyne wrote:


What you are asking for is mearly to accomplish the same thing with more material. The only significant things that will change would be the number of green squares on your screen and how much less computing power everyone else has to deal with because of it. Limiting sub caps to 5 drones doesn't just help with game performance, it prevents you from having to deal with the logistics of buying and managing two or three times as many drones as you do now, just to achieve the same result. If you have your heart set on seeing that many squares buzzing around on your screen, buy a Gardian-Vexor. They exist in the game for the very reason that people like you enjoy seeing all those pretty boxes.


A) I am not asking for anything regarding drones... Except for better drone UI, better drone AI, fixed drone backend and Ewar drones that are not useless, overpowered or borked... Did I miss anything?

B) Your argument that nothing changes besides the squares on your screen is still invalid because of flight time.

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.