These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

ORE Freighter: smaller but armored like a real capital ship
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#21 - 2014-12-03 11:14:05 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
There are a lot of Goons agreeing with ideas that are contrary to what most laypeople think is a good idea. This is no conspiracy, however, but merely evidence of the deficit of experience among the general majority. One key element to note is that several of Goonswarms' enemies who have a lot of EVE experience will tend to agree with Goons on these subjects.

Or it may mean that the people who are opposing goons play a very similar game to the goons as far as activity set, and thus share the starting point of reality and have similar enough biases to come to the same conclusion.

Back to the topic at hand: If the bowhead works out well, creating something similar with more tank but less capacity would be interesting.

If it flops entirely, repurposing it to this might be interesting.

Doing it now or even before the bowheads can settle to around where they will sit price wise, is premature.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Ceawlin Cobon-Han
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2014-12-04 19:05:11 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
That doesn't handle the same problem. A T3 hauler would be great for the small hauling, but while a lot of freighter pilots would be happy to give up cargo space for something durable, they don't want to give up so much as to be using a subcap for hauling or they would already be doing that.

The cargo module for this hauler could be 300k m3, for example. 2 of them would give 600k, and there would be a single module for tank. ELSE could fit a single cargo module for 300k m3, and 2 tanks for more defence. It's not as if a T3 hauler would be stuck with using the same modules as a combat ship, or with the same restrictions.

It's a new idea, and you can think outside the current constraints.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2014-12-04 22:36:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
300k m3 is way too high for a subcap. 600k is basically a freighter. Or maybe I misunderstood and you're talking about a capital T3 hauler? I think this game is a bit early in development for any T3 capital. We don't even have more than one T2 capital just yet.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#24 - 2014-12-05 00:14:34 UTC
I like the idea overall of freighters being capable of tanking more than they currently can. From a logistics point of view, they are the weakest link to any movement of goods and apart from High Sec use are worthless in Low or Null Sec going gate to gate. Something with more resilience and the ability to withstand a few barrages of fire while a support fleet keeps it alive and destroys the attackers is good.

If it is traveling alone, it should die a horrible death, but there is no reason a decent support fleet should be unable to keep it alive.

Does it have to be made by ORE?

One would think the makers of the Charon, Obelisk, Fenir, and Providence would further update their freighter lines to have something that can reasonably survive gank attacks. Oh, they have so far with the additional lows that allow bulkheads to be added. But the OP is right that something sturdier for non-High Sec should be employed. Something that with cargo expanders falls short of a non-expanded freighter but has a better tank than a tanked freighter even if that something has cargo expanders.

Not seeing the need for High Slots.

The idea of warp stab bonus is interesting.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#25 - 2014-12-05 00:54:11 UTC
I would love a line of tanky t2 freighters with capacity between JFs and regular freighters but no jump drives.

Say for cargo, drop to 75% of max freighter capacity when fully fit for hauling over align speed or tank, which pushes it comfortably above JFs, but still well below regular freighters.

For tank, similar base resists to a JF and around 100k of their primary tank, with a 0/3/3 layout for shield and 0/0/6 layout for armor.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2014-12-05 01:23:15 UTC
Meyr wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
OR.......
We could just give freighters a real capital ship layout & fitting allowance. And stop automatically gimping all industrial ships.
If someone wants to use their Jump Freighter as a Smart Bomber with it's 6 high slots (as an example), why is this an issue?

By deliberately leaving Industrials gimped on slots and fittings we will always have these issues. If we give them a real fitting layout and allowance comparable to other ships of their size, then we actually create a much more interesting Meta when they are capable in their own right.


Love the idea, but, as we can see by the post regarding IS Boxer and command broadcasting across multiple clients, gankers are already sobbing into their glasses, and we can't pile too much more onto them right now. Actually giving hauler pilots truly meaningful fitting options just might cause mass ganker IRL suicide, and we wouldn't want to be guilty of that, would we?

Actually we're mostly thanking ccp for nerfing high sec miners.

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2014-12-05 05:44:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Petrified wrote:
Not seeing the need for High Slots.

Capacitor transfers so it can spider tank for improved on-board repping power and neut resistance.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2014-12-05 07:13:20 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
A lot of folks are complaining that their freighters aren't durable enough. Of course, people explain that we don't want to have giant cheap cargo ships that are also extremely durable and also allowed into highsec.

So I have a proposal for a cargo vessel with significantly reduced carrying capacity over a freighter (but still very large) with capital-level defenses for when you want to haul in dangerous space. Perhaps to balance it out, you can't bring this ship into highsec at all--but it can use stargates in lowsec and nullsec even though it also has a jump drive. It also has several different types of bays, so if you take advantage of several or all of them at once along with cargohold expanders you can net a total amount of storage space similar to a freighter.

ORE Freighter

5 High Power Slots, 0 turret hardpoints, 0 launcher hardpoints
7 Medium Power Slots, 4 Low Power Slots
Drone bandwidth: 125 Mbit/sec
Drone bay space: 25,000m3

ORE Freighter skill bonuses:
+5% cargohold and fleet hangar capacity per level
-4% shield resistances per level
+20% drone damage and hit points per level
Role bonuses:
2x Warp Strength from fitting Warp Core Stabilizers
300% bonus to ship scanners range
+ Can fit Clone Vat Bay
90% reduction to effective distance traveled for jump fatigue

Cargohold: 80,000 m3
Fleet Hangar: 150,000 m3
Mineral Hold: 50,000 m3
Planetary Materials Hold: 50,000 m3
Fuel Bay: 50,000 m3
Ship Maintenance Hangar: 250,000 m3


I'm not sure what hit point/powergrid/capacitor values to use but I'm thinking similar to a Thanatos. Its mineral cost should be similar to a Rorqual but probably a bit cheaper. Powergrid should probably be reduced since it'll mostly be for fitting on-board reps. It doesn't need enough to fit capital modules in the high slots.


Use the bowhead and please stop asking for additional ships when something similar is already getting to implemented.

-1
Gadget Helmsdottir
Gadget's Workshop
#29 - 2014-12-05 12:28:28 UTC
I don't hate this idea, but I think it might be better as a T2 option to JF's. Like Transport Ships have two versions: the cloaky one and the tanky one, Freighters could have 2 versions: the Jumpy one and the tanky one.

--Gadget

Work smarter, not harder. --Scrooge McDuck, an eminent old-Earth economist

Given an hour to save New Eden, how would respected scientist, Albertus Eisenstein compose his thoughts? "Fifty-five minutes to define the problem; save the galaxy in five."
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2014-12-05 16:06:24 UTC
Tabyll Altol wrote:
Use the bowhead and please stop asking for additional ships when something similar is already getting to implemented.

-1

How exactly is the Bowhead even remotely similar?

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Previous page12