These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Strategic Battleship (Dreadnought Baby & Carrier)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Citricioni
#21 - 2015-02-03 03:50:24 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Quote:
So if you want Logistics in "larger fights" you need Logistics MANY MANY MANY Logistics (T2 Cruisers) and/or Carriers. Why don't add a Battleship for that.

Because...

- Tech 2 Logistics cruisers are pretty much battleship-class in everything but name and tank (they use large RRs). In fact, Logi ships over a certain number are ALREADY notoriously difficult to kill (with 4 Large RRs each one can rep ~300 raw hp/sec).

- Carriers are basically oversized versions of Logi ships... but are MUCH more vulnerable without proper support (it can barely defend itself against a lowly frigate) and has the added option of using the Triage Module (which gives it even more vulnerabilities in exchange for being even more specialized towards remotely and locally repping).


There is no "gap" between these two ships because they both scale incredibly well for all types and sizes of fleets.


Navitas:
96 Armor/s
~ x2
Exequror
208 Armor/s (2,17 times the Navitas)
~ x2
Oneiros
341 Armor/s (1,64 times the Exequror / 3,55 times the Navitas) (~x4 from the frig)
~ x10 (thats no gap?!?!)
Thanatos
3600 Armor/s (Triage II, 3x Reps) (10,56 times the Oneiros / 17,31 times the Exequror / 37,5 times the Navitas)


Put in the Battleship with ~1200 Armor/s and the gap is closed
Citricioni
#22 - 2015-02-03 04:08:25 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Citricioni wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
A dread is stationary for five minutes and cannot receive remote reps.

This thing is stationary for one minute and can be repped. Half the price for a third of the DPS, immunity to DDs, and a massive buff to survivability.



And if you want RR battleships, buy a nestor.


Half the price: why? (because you say its half the price)
Immunity to DDs: why? (so only because a ships make X DPS more than a Battleship it need to be doomsday'd)
Massive buff to survivability: why? (Just to get together, how many EHP / HP/s Tank you think about 999.999.999?
Thats again the reason why there is no sense in talking about numbers without a finished idea of a ship.

- The price will have to be around 1 billion ISK because that is how much Tech 2 battleships cost.
Generally speaking... Tech 3 prices are no more than 20 to 30% more than Tech 2 prices (these days at least).

- Titans cannot target subcapitals. At all. Ergo, they are immune to Doomsdays (unlike Carriers and Dreds).

- Mobility = survivability. A ship that is only pinned down for 1 minute but can still repped has a massive survivability advantage versus a dreadnought... which is pinned down to one spot for 5 minutes and cannot receive remote assistance.

- it is not just the numbers we are questioning (you have to include some kind of range or at least a reasonable reference point to a ship that already exists).
We are also questioning the concept itself. You are taking all the advantages of capitals (high dps, high RR abilities, jump drive)... adding them to the advantages of subcapital ships (mobility, remote repairs, small size)... and then adding on extra versatility that no ship in the game has... with only token drawbacks (special modules).


- T3 prices are no more than 20 to 30% more than T2
Arazu 160m - Proteus 180m YEAH but wait, i can't undock with that proteus

- Titans cannot target subcapitals
(easy to solve: add a exception) There are everywhere exceptions for something and everything. thats a part of eve.

- You are taking all the advantages of capitals
3 Carriers still better than 3 of that BS
All what you don't want is that 5 BS are maybe better than 3 Carriers but why? you need the 20 BS because thats the gap which don't exist in "your" eve
Dread: higher DPS/Damage and still the capitaltank
Carrier: Maybe not higher DPS, but the tank bro.....
RR Ability: No Support in Defense mode. so....
"jump versatility that no ship has": okay, because something not exist, we can't add it. so we have to remove everything. jesus
Chimpface Holocaust
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2015-02-03 05:52:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Chimpface Holocaust
I really like the idea of a T3 battleship that can switch between offensive and triage modes, however I think the OP described it so vaguely that it's difficult to tell what he wants aside from a ship that can do literally everything.

What I'm proposing shares only the same basic idea of a ship that can swap between DPS and triage mid-engagement but more specific on the details of the ship.

The ship would be able to fit both a Bastion module and a similar triage module but can only run one at a time.

The ship would have base stats identical to marauders (resists/mounts/etc) perhaps with slightly more EHP

The ship itself would have one racial offense and defense skill bonus

This ship does not have an MJD reactivation bonus

100% racial weapon damage bonus while the bastion module is active

the last two notes are to keep marauders from becoming useless because while the marauder can continue dishing out loads of DPS while running down a target or jump immediately after a single bastion cycle, this ship cannot

The triage module would work the same way as the bastion module and have the following bonuses

-100% maximum velocity bonus
200% bonus to racial remote rep range
25% bonus to racial remote rep effectiveness
30% bonus to all resistances
100% bonus to racial repair modules
NOT immune to Ewar and remote assistance
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#24 - 2015-02-03 06:08:47 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Citricioni wrote:
Navitas:
96 Armor/s
~ x2
Exequror
208 Armor/s (2,17 times the Navitas)
~ x2
Oneiros
341 Armor/s (1,64 times the Exequror / 3,55 times the Navitas) (~x4 from the frig)
~ x10 (thats no gap?!?!)
Thanatos
3600 Armor/s (Triage II, 3x Reps) (10,56 times the Oneiros / 17,31 times the Exequror / 37,5 times the Navitas)


Put in the Battleship with ~1200 Armor/s and the gap is closed

Your numbers were good up until you go to the capital level.

With 4x Capital Remote Repairs...

~1200 raw hp a second
~2400 raw hp a second with Triage Mode


As for that "gap" between Tech 2 Cruisers and carriers... again... there is none. Tech 2 Cruisers are already "Battleship Level" in terms of repairs and have proven this for many, many years. In fact, they are so effective that people occasionally grumble about nerfing them.

I'm pretty sure if you started a topic about creating a dedicated Battleship Logi you would be met almost unanimously with the answer "no."


Plus, the way you are framing things... it seems that if there is any disparity between ships it should be filled "just because."

In which case...
- the speed disparity between Frigates and Destroyers is too large! Frigates can often go 3000 to 4000 m/sec while Destroyers often max out at 1400 to 2500 m/sec... so we should create a sub-destroyer class ship with the DPS of a destroyer but the speed of a Frigate!

- the HP disparity between Carriers/Dreds and Superscapitals is too massive (600k to 2.2 million EHP vs. 15 to 50 million EHP). We should create new capitals between the two so that there is no "gap!"


Yes, yes... obviously hyperbole... but that's the point. Your argument of "because there is a gap in stats" is dumb.


The questions you should be asking yourself when creating a new ship are...

- what role/specialty does this ship perform?
- does it step on other ship's "toes?" (i.e. does it obsolete certain ships?)
- what is its weakness? (NOTE: if Tech 2 or above, the weakness has to be VERY obvious)
- how will players "abuse" it?


Citricioni wrote:
- T3 prices are no more than 20 to 30% more than T2
Arazu 160m - Proteus 180m YEAH but wait, i can't undock with that proteus

- Titans cannot target subcapitals
(easy to solve: add a exception) There are everywhere exceptions for something and everything. thats a part of eve.

- You are taking all the advantages of capitals
3 Carriers still better than 3 of that BS
All what you don't want is that 5 BS are maybe better than 3 Carriers but why? you need the 20 BS because thats the gap which don't exist in "your" eve
Dread: higher DPS/Damage and still the capitaltank
Carrier: Maybe not higher DPS, but the tank bro.....
RR Ability: No Support in Defense mode. so....
"jump versatility that no ship has": okay, because something not exist, we can't add it. so we have to remove everything. jesus


Ishtar: ~180 million ISK
Deimos: ~190 million ISK
Eagle: ~200 million ISK
Cerberus: ~190 million ISK

Proteus Hull: ~185 million ISK
Proteus subsystems (the most popular): ~265 million.
Total Price: 450 million ISK

Okay... so yeah... I was off the mark there. Though... I am expecting the price to drastically drop in the coming months (to something akin to the disparity between Tech 2 Destroyers and Tech 3 Destroyers).


- With exceptions being made so Titans can target them... I'm not a fan of making exceptions within the overall system to make a single idea work. That just highlights how bad the idea really is.


- Wow. I think it is safe to assume that you have never actually fought capital ships in any "small" battle.

3 carriers against 3 battleships is a STALEMATE... possibly leaning in the carriers' favor.
The battleships can't kill the carriers (assuming they are fit to rep) and the carriers can't kill the battleships (because unbonused drones die easily). The carriers can potentially refit to use Warp Core Stabilizers in order to escape... but this would leave them VERY vulnerable if they are caught by a HIC or the battleships have 8 points of warp disruption between them.
5 Battleships against 3 carriers is a fight tipping in favor of the battleships... assuming that the battleships have some energy neutralizers (which they should). I have personally fought such a battle. It was tough, but my small battleship gang won. Then we were hotdropped by Brave Newbies and their frigate fleet. Sad

3 battleships against 3 dreadnoughts... automatic win for the battleships (unless the Dreds are Phoenixes).
Dreds are stupid easy to pin down. And their ability to fight back against sub-capitals is less than carriers. The trick is to keep moving in tight orbits around them and focus fire until the dred has exhausted its capacitor (energy neutralizes help here too).

How did you Veterans start?
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2015-02-03 06:25:20 UTC
How about you learn to use the search tool?
Citricioni
#26 - 2015-02-03 09:45:28 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Citricioni wrote:
Navitas:
96 Armor/s
~ x2
Exequror
208 Armor/s (2,17 times the Navitas)
~ x2
Oneiros
341 Armor/s (1,64 times the Exequror / 3,55 times the Navitas) (~x4 from the frig)
~ x10 (thats no gap?!?!)
Thanatos
3600 Armor/s (Triage II, 3x Reps) (10,56 times the Oneiros / 17,31 times the Exequror / 37,5 times the Navitas)


Put in the Battleship with ~1200 Armor/s and the gap is closed

Your numbers were good up until you go to the capital level.

With 4x Capital Remote Repairs...

~1200 raw hp a second
~2400 raw hp a second with Triage Mode


As for that "gap" between Tech 2 Cruisers and carriers... again... there is none. Tech 2 Cruisers are already "Battleship Level" in terms of repairs and have proven this for many, many years. In fact, they are so effective that people occasionally grumble about nerfing them.

I'm pretty sure if you started a topic about creating a dedicated Battleship Logi you would be met almost unanimously with the answer "no."


Plus, the way you are framing things... it seems that if there is any disparity between ships it should be filled "just because."

In which case...
- the speed disparity between Frigates and Destroyers is too large! Frigates can often go 3000 to 4000 m/sec while Destroyers often max out at 1400 to 2500 m/sec... so we should create a sub-destroyer class ship with the DPS of a destroyer but the speed of a Frigate!

- the HP disparity between Carriers/Dreds and Superscapitals is too massive (600k to 2.2 million EHP vs. 15 to 50 million EHP). We should create new capitals between the two so that there is no "gap!"


Yes, yes... obviously hyperbole... but that's the point. Your argument of "because there is a gap in stats" is dumb.


The questions you should be asking yourself when creating a new ship are...

- what role/specialty does this ship perform?
- does it step on other ship's "toes?" (i.e. does it obsolete certain ships?)
- what is its weakness? (NOTE: if Tech 2 or above, the weakness has to be VERY obvious)
- how will players "abuse" it?


Citricioni wrote:
- T3 prices are no more than 20 to 30% more than T2
Arazu 160m - Proteus 180m YEAH but wait, i can't undock with that proteus

- Titans cannot target subcapitals
(easy to solve: add a exception) There are everywhere exceptions for something and everything. thats a part of eve.

- You are taking all the advantages of capitals
3 Carriers still better than 3 of that BS
All what you don't want is that 5 BS are maybe better than 3 Carriers but why? you need the 20 BS because thats the gap which don't exist in "your" eve
Dread: higher DPS/Damage and still the capitaltank
Carrier: Maybe not higher DPS, but the tank bro.....
RR Ability: No Support in Defense mode. so....
"jump versatility that no ship has": okay, because something not exist, we can't add it. so we have to remove everything. jesus


Ishtar: ~180 million ISK
Deimos: ~190 million ISK
Eagle: ~200 million ISK
Cerberus: ~190 million ISK

Proteus Hull: ~185 million ISK
Proteus subsystems (the most popular): ~265 million.
Total Price: 450 million ISK

Okay... so yeah... I was off the mark there. Though... I am expecting the price to drastically drop in the coming months (to something akin to the disparity between Tech 2 Destroyers and Tech 3 Destroyers).


- With exceptions being made so Titans can target them... I'm not a fan of making exceptions within the overall system to make a single idea work. That just highlights how bad the idea really is.


- Wow. I think it is safe to assume that you have never actually fought capital ships in any "small" battle.

3 carriers against 3 battleships is a STALEMATE... possibly leaning in the carriers' favor.
The battleships can't kill the carriers (assuming they are fit to rep) and the carriers can't kill the battleships (because unbonused drones die easily). The carriers can potentially refit to use Warp Core Stabilizers in order to escape... but this would leave them VERY vulnerable if they are caught by a HIC or the battleships have 8 points of warp disruption between them.
5 Battleships against 3 carriers is a fight tipping in favor of the battleships... assuming that the battleships have some energy neutralizers (which they should). I have personally fought such a battle. It was tough, but my small battleship gang won. Then we were hotdropped by Brave Newbies and their frigate fleet. Sad

3 battleships against 3 dreadnoughts... automatic win for the battleships (unless the Dreds are Phoenixes).
Dreds are stupid easy to pin down. And their ability to fight back against sub-capitals is less than carriers. The trick is to keep moving in tight orbits around them and focus fire until the dred has exhausted its capacitor (energy neutralizes help here too).


- Now I'm back from my bed and still like my idea :p

- Because they can't move, have less Tank and Damage than a Dreadnought/Carrier. I think there is no need that a Titan can Doomsday them.

- To your "Small Scale" Carrier Fight. i got 2 Fights like that and i was on the side with the "Smaller Ships". It is always little bit "dangerous" to use Carrier or Dreads in such small battles.
Every idiot owns a titan/carrrier/dread, so the possibility to get ****** right when you click siege/triage is always very high.

That ship with the lower cycle timer on the module can be a very helpful friend and this small engagements.
If it somewhere between 2k-3k DPS it is still 1/3 to 1/5 of a Dread and the RR Tank on the armor one between 800 and 1300 Armor/s.
Then there is still the need of a (Triage)Carrier and a Dreadnought. But you got a ship which is usefull in both ways.
It can do almost the same as a Carrier or Dread but is smaller and safer in cost of their power.
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
#27 - 2015-02-03 10:37:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Samillian
Why is it that almost every one of these T3 ship threads seem so intent on obsoleting a multitude of ships and wrecking havoc with game balance? Have people learned nothing from the complete mess that is T3 cruisers?

Yes, it would be an impressive ship if it ever existed but it would be pretty much the only thing anyone would use and monocultures are always boring.

Not supported.

NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
Citricioni
#28 - 2015-02-03 10:46:06 UTC
Samillian wrote:
Why is it that almost every one of these T3 ship threads seem so intent on obsoleting a multitude of ships and wrecking havoc with game balance? Have people learned nothing from the complete mess that is T3 cruisers?

Yes it would be an impressive ship if it ever existed but it would be pretty much the only thing anyone would use and monocultures are always boring.

Not supported.


tbh if you read the whole thread, you see that it is not that good as you think
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
#29 - 2015-02-03 11:28:20 UTC
I did read the thread, it is a very boring day at work and it is very OP.

NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
Lugh Crow-Slave
#30 - 2015-02-03 12:20:45 UTC
Citricioni wrote:
Samillian wrote:
Why is it that almost every one of these T3 ship threads seem so intent on obsoleting a multitude of ships and wrecking havoc with game balance? Have people learned nothing from the complete mess that is T3 cruisers?

Yes it would be an impressive ship if it ever existed but it would be pretty much the only thing anyone would use and monocultures are always boring.

Not supported.


tbh if you read the whole thread, you see that it is not that good as you think




It's better than any ship needs to be

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#31 - 2015-02-03 15:16:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Serendipity Lost
Um.... Ooops. (see post below for details)

This idea would be terribly OP in low end wh space though. If the baby dread came to pass I would immediately do the following:

1. pull my corp and assets out of wh space (c5)
2. get all my guys in baby dreads
3. wreak havoc on low end wh space
4. move back into my c5 a year or so later once there is no one left to feast upon

With a decent group of guys you could level and loot a wh system once every 3 days more or less.

(sorry for lumping you in w/ that other guy - I multi task at work as poorly as I dual box in eve - my bad)
Citricioni
#32 - 2015-02-03 15:20:01 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Looking at the pattern of his various ideas - the guy want's to bash wh POS in easy mode AND get ALL the possible loot. (see the SMA lockdown idea)

It's a player owned STATION - it's supposed to take time and be difficult to tip over. I'm sorry you find the current POS mechanics too balanced and difficult. (I'm speaking to defenses only here, not the roles hoo haw and what not)



POS - large space object that is difficult to attack when properly set up and defended.

Tasty Morsel - small snack that is popped in ones mouth and enjoyed with ease.


See the difference?


If eve gets this, then I also want a can opener feature so that can pry any pilot out of any station I want to pry them out of. You could balance it by allowing only 1 pry out per hour. Seems fair to me.


wrong thread?
Previous page12