These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

T2 Capitals
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1 - 2014-06-10 14:47:30 UTC
seems odd there are no T2 capitals but i guess its because the carrier/SC's do so many things already which is odd for T1

so split the current carriers and super-carriers into T2 categories so it actually takes effort too specialize and there are some trade offs

Carriers
Basic T1 carriers - remove logi and link bonuses, triage mods .. should be just fighter damage based,

Carrier Bonus (per skill level)
15km drone control range per level
Can deploy 1 additional Fighter per level

Role bonus:
can only carry fighters

Super Carrier Bonus: (per skill level)
15km drone control range per level
Can deploy 1 additional Fighter and fighter bomber per level

Role bonus:
can only carry fighters and fighter bombers

then specialize carriers and supercarriers into command/logi/damage variants

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#2 - 2014-06-10 15:01:13 UTC
BugraT WarheaD
#3 - 2014-06-10 15:05:07 UTC
T2 Capitals ...

Yeah why fixing the game while you can definitively ruin it by a stupid idea ?
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#4 - 2014-06-10 15:08:11 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Why?


look at cruisers ... if you had a vexor that could do logi and links aswell as damage it would be a little odd wouldn't it?

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#5 - 2014-06-10 15:16:56 UTC
People with constructive posts get shot down about stupid ideas like yours, what makes you think your downscaled copy paste will fare any better -.-

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Emizeko Chai
Freight Club
#6 - 2014-06-10 17:22:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Emizeko Chai
Harvey James wrote:
seems odd there are no T2 capitals but i guess its because the carrier/SC's do so many things already which is odd for T1


False. Jump freighters are T2 capitals.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#7 - 2014-06-10 17:27:25 UTC
Emizeko Chai wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
seems odd there are no T2 capitals but i guess its because the carrier/SC's do so many things already which is odd for T1


False. Jump freighters are T2 capitals.


ah so there is .... but i was thinking more on the combat capital side.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#8 - 2014-06-10 17:32:04 UTC
How would this benefit the game?

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#9 - 2014-06-10 18:33:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Aliventi
You're doing it wrong. T2 ships should fill a specialized role that does not already have a ship filling that role, not simply be a better version if the T1 ship. All capital ships are "specialized". No other ship does what a carrier, dread, super or titan does.

However, this does not mean T2 capitals can not exist. Take a look at Freighters and Jump Freighters which are both specialized. One of the best T2 capital ideas I have seen was a T2 dread that upon sieging and activation of the capital sized module would put up a 200km radius hictor bubble. It is very specialized and no other ship can do what it does. Think up ideas like that then restart this thread.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#10 - 2014-06-10 20:34:05 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
How would this benefit the game?


This.

Capital combat could probably use a bit more diversity, but they're all fairly specialized already. T2 hulls are specialized variants of the T1 hull. There's no point to T2 capitals beyond power creep.

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
Vesan Terakol
Trollgrin Sadface
Dark Taboo
#11 - 2014-06-10 20:38:42 UTC
There is some credibility to this idea from an industrial point of view. Currently, the only use the t2 capital components see is in JF production. Yet, all combat capitals are faction specific... so why not label them T2 and include the faction components in their production?
Station Sitter
Heavy Star Industries
#12 - 2014-06-10 22:42:20 UTC
I dunno, I kinda see OPs point. I could see a Combat Logistics Carrier and an Assault Carrier, with the CLC focusing on remote assistance modules, and unable to fit Drone Control Units or, possibly, have fighters at all, whereas the Assault Carrier would focus on damage mods for sub-capital ships, while nerfing its ability to damage capital ships.
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#13 - 2014-06-10 22:58:24 UTC
You know sometimes the upgrade from T1 - T2 does not involve "specialization", just doing the job of the T1 better.

Example -

Mining Barges - Exhumers

Attack Frigates - Interceptors

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#14 - 2014-06-10 23:06:19 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
You know sometimes the upgrade from T1 - T2 does not involve "specialization", just doing the job of the T1 better.

Example -

Mining Barges - Exhumers

Attack Frigates - Interceptors


mm.. well inties and AF's are at least partial specs .... AF's are slower than T1 frigs generally .. and inties are light on tank..
straight upgrades should be the field of navy ships really

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#15 - 2014-06-10 23:29:19 UTC
Remove any reason anyone has for ever actually using a carrier, and instead push them into t2 versions?

What possible good could come of that?
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#16 - 2014-06-10 23:41:47 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Remove any reason anyone has for ever actually using a carrier, and instead push them into t2 versions?

What possible good could come of that?


that line of thinking would suggest all T1 ships are useless and we have no reason too fly them ... do you actually believe that???

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
w3ak3stl1nk
Hedion University
#17 - 2014-06-11 00:14:06 UTC
I thought mothership and Titan were the tech 2 equivalent. Maybe if linked directly with carrier and marauder might make an easy fix while changing nothing.

Is that my two cents or yours?
Director Blackflame
Voidspace Solutions
#18 - 2014-06-11 03:54:21 UTC
I think the versatility of current capitals is the reason there isnt room for more and is probably something that should be addressed in the capital balance pass.
Daoden
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2014-06-11 05:42:20 UTC
I don't even want to imagine how much material would be required to build a T2 cap ship.....
And I don't think we need T2 cap ships. As is I would like to see more work done on sub caps before capital ships.
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
#20 - 2014-06-11 07:35:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Samillian
There would be no point in introducing T2 capitals until the current T1 hulls get there rebalance pass at the very least. Indeed all other issues aside I very much doubt that there is a need or a role for T2 caps.

NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
12Next page