These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

[Proposal] Add Combat Functionality to Dreadnoughts

Author
Temmu Guerra
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2012-01-13 18:43:35 UTC
+1 for you good sir.

I am however in favor of adding a second dread per Xtover's recommendations. That would be more sensible for actual PVP combat. Granted The old dread will probably no longer get any use as the creating a more expensive version didnt work for the last ccp tried to do it with (super carriers) but with a few tweaks I think a sieged dread would be better used for a pos bash or station smashing where as the super dread as it were is better for pvp.

and for the love of god make it dockable!
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#22 - 2012-01-13 20:16:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuka Solo
TrollFace TrololMcFluf wrote:
Xtover wrote:
Kulmid wrote:
Such a horrible idea, you obviously know nothing about capitals. You've suggested multiple completely rediculous ideas, learn about things before you try and propose changes.

I can't tell if you're trolling, or just stupid.


Was thinking the same about you.


Was thinking the same about your toons face.

Heed not the trolls of cap haters. For they are space poor hobos that deserve to die in the cold. I say expand the capital hulls. Give us t2 dreads that swallow supers whole and t1 cap guns or t1 hulls that chew through sub cap blobs.

Balance between supers and sub caps will not be obtained by nerfing the bigger ships. We must instead nerf the smaller ones while expanding the larger ones.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

Temmu Guerra
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2012-01-13 20:23:49 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
TrollFace TrololMcFluf wrote:
Xtover wrote:
Kulmid wrote:
Such a horrible idea, you obviously know nothing about capitals. You've suggested multiple completely rediculous ideas, learn about things before you try and propose changes.

I can't tell if you're trolling, or just stupid.


Was thinking the same about you.


Was thinking the same about your toons face.

Heed not the trolls of cap haters. For they are space poor hobos that deserve to die in the cold. I say expand the capital hulls. Give us t2 dreads that swallow supers whole and t1 cap guns or t1 hulls that chew through sub cap blobs.

Balance between supers and sub caps will not be obtained by nerfing the bigger ships. We must instead nerf the smaller ones while expanding the larger ones.



I wouldnt go so far to say nerfing sub caps is necessary. I think instead caps just need to be adjusted (calling for both nerfs and buffs on various points). Sub caps seem to have everything balanced nicely.

As the old adage goes "if it aint broke dont fix it"
D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#24 - 2012-01-13 20:52:31 UTC
You know, i just figured out something obvious that I should have seen all along.

Instead of trying to take the dread and make a bunch of changes to it, why not just add new extra large weapons?

For the launchers, this would be gigantic heavy missile arrays that fire streams of missiles. The damage could be the same as 2 or 3 heavy missile launchers and there could even be a variant for assault missiles, or maybe even rockets.

For guns, there could be point defense artillery of a few varieties. Batteries of large or medium guns.

This would essentially accomplish the same goal as adding more slots, but it would be a lot easier to get implemented.
D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#25 - 2012-01-14 01:13:34 UTC  |  Edited by: D'Tell Annoh
Imagine taking 4x 425mm Prototype Gauss Guns, welding them together along with independent internal tracking computers and housing that in an extra large turret casing with high speed tracking servos. The powergrid and CPU demands for this module would be on par with other extra large modules.

As you'd expect, I used the 425mm Prototype Gauss Gun as a benchmark. For brevity, I'll use 425PGG instead of writing it all out. I'll explain my thinking:

The capacity (ammo) is huge. With 10 m3, it can hold 100 large hybrid rounds (they are 0.1 m3 each). The size of this ammo bay is the same as other extra large turrets; it just uses smaller rounds.
The volume is identical to the volume of the other extra large hybrid turrets.
The mass is identical to the volume of the other extra large hybrid turrets. Mass for some of these modules don't make any sense when you really look at them, so this is just a throwaway number.
The reload time is 10 seconds. This is considerably longer than any of the other extra large turrets (they reload in 5 seconds). I figured that it is appropriate for the number of rounds it holds. At 10 seconds, it takes as long to reload this as it would to reload a scan probe launcher.
The activation cost is 50 GJ per cycle. Each cycle represents 1 of the 4 guns in the battery discharging. While it shoots the equivalent of a 425PGG round, it uses almost 3 times as much capacitor as a single 425PGG does. This is because the module maintains a sustained ignition charge, rather than the spikes that 425PGG's use. The activation cost works out to be slightly more than the other extra large guns per second.
The structure hitpoints are identical to the structure hitpoints of the other extra large hybrid turrets.
The accuracy falloff is identical to the 425PGG.
The Tracking Speed is 0.005 rads/sec slower than a 425PGG. I justify this by considering most of the considerable bulk of this module is comprised of actuators and alignment drives. The combined volume of 4x 425PGGs is 80 m3, which leaves 3920 m3 of additional targeting computers, motors and fire control. The slightly lower tracking speed is a modest disadvantage over 4 individual 425PGGs.
The rate of fire is 3 seconds. I got this value by looking at the rate of fire of a single 425PGG, dividing it by 4 (2.375 seconds) and then rounding up. This battery fires one of the 4x 425PGGs every 3 seconds, cycling back through to the first in 12 seconds. This rate of fire is actually 20% slower than 4 single 425PGGs.
The damage modifier is identical to the damage modifier of a 425PGG.
The optimal range is identical to the optimal range of a 425PGG.
The signature resolution is identical to the signature resolution of 425PGG's.

Considering the high slot restrictions that I've been proposing workarounds for in this thread, modules of this type would solve all of the problems without necessitating elaborate changes. These modules would only be fittable onto dreadnoughts, and don't even begin to compare with the destructive capabilities of their extra large siege weapons. They would trade raw damage for tracking speed, and would allow dreadnoughts the ability to engage cruiser and battleship sized craft.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/209/thisdoesnotexistyet.jpg/
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#26 - 2012-01-14 06:27:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuka Solo
Temmu Guerra wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
stuff.



I wouldnt go so far to say nerfing sub caps is necessary. I think instead caps just need to be adjusted (calling for both nerfs and buffs on various points). Sub caps seem to have everything balanced nicely.

As the old adage goes "if it aint broke dont fix it"


I agree. Sub caps are balanced nicely.... vs other sub caps. Vs caps and supers they are OP in a group of 5 or less. never mind a blob.

Right now, our rock paper scissor equation is:
sub caps > caps < supers < sub caps

What we need is:

t1 sub caps <= t1 caps
ft1 sub caps (Battleships) = t1 caps
t2 sub caps (Battleships) >= t1 caps

sub caps < t2 caps

t1 caps <= t1 supers
ft1 caps = t1 supers
t2 caps > t1 supers

enough t1 supers in a blob >= t2 caps

Sub cap + super engagements need to be eradicated or made so useless and futile in influencing the outcome of engagements, that people will be willing to field more caps and supers in teh face of multiple hundred man strong sub cap blobs. Caps need to become the new sub caps in terms of super support. Faction caps need to become a super match while t2 caps need to become super killers.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

Goose99
#27 - 2012-01-14 06:29:53 UTC
Remove tracking penalty in siege so that Titans no longer speed tank them.Lol

Everything else is fine as is.
Tiger's Spirit
Templars of the Shadows
#28 - 2012-01-14 11:10:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiger's Spirit
Wolodymyr wrote:
Tiger's Spirit wrote:
Wolodymyr wrote:
I'd like to see the dreadnaught's tracking and accuracy go up a little so that it would be a viable tactic to jump them into a fight and let them shoot at battleships.



CCP wont do that, because they dont want to create PVE dreads. Thats was why they nerfed moros drone damages.

Hadn't thought of that.


A moros had before drone nerf 1500 dps with 5 ogre2.
Over 1000 DPS with sentry drones. That's why CCP nerfed. I know because i have dread 5 and i did missions with a navy apoc + a dread (Moros assist with sentry drones) in low sec.

6 Blocade mission with these ships was completed within 48 minutes. That was over 150m/hour ISK.
Maybe do you talking about second dread drone nerf, when they lost their all drones.
Previous page12