These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Mini-Dreadnaught/Corvette Idea

Author
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2012-01-31 20:06:52 UTC  |  Edited by: HELLBOUNDMAN
Edited this...

So marauders are essentially the starting block of this.

They are balanced because they are quite weak in pvp due to sensor strength and sig res..
However, it would need a bit more balance and you could reduce the tracking of their weapons.
Then allow them to fit a siege module.

Leave everything else alone...
Except change their skins to be tier 3 bs's and make the rokh version a missile boat.

Allow these ships to have bonuses for either range weapons or dps weapons...
So like the golem, you'll either have high dps at close range, or moderate dps at long range depending on what weapons it fits.

However, they'll use torps/cruise/large turrets instead of capital class weapons.

The siege module will give them a buff, but only half that of what a dreadnaught gets.
So more around 3000-4000 as compared to 7-8k.

Now, so that these ships can be a bit more effective at sieging, when in siege mode they'll be a bit more tanky by bonuses given specifically while in siege mode, but also be substantially less accurate when in siege mode by debuffs that reduce tracking and whatever missile related effects.

So when they're in siege mode and more tanky plus more dps, then they're even less effective against those small ships.


So now you have a slow, fat ship with good dps, but weak in pvp that can go into siege mode and be able to tackle a high sec or wormhole pos and while in siege mode be able to withstand a good bit more dps than typically, but still requiring a backup fleet in case things get too hairy with resistance.

and the sig radius of these ships is a little bit more than an orca. Orca being 550m, these ships would be 600-700...

Oh, and these ships would be cost effective. 2 of these ships would be roughly the cost of one dread, but still not worth the cost in low/null situations because the dread has more tank, and more capable dps when in siege mode. However, the dread would stil be able to withstand more damage than two of these ships would be able to.

Edit... Perhaps these ships would need to be immune to SOME (not all) types of ewarfare. perhaps they're immune to jamming, but can be dampened. Immune to cap draining, but can be cap neuted. Immune to warp scram, but can be webbed into oblivion... Things like this that give them an advantage at their job, but still make them somewhat weak to ewar. Thus balancing them for high sec POS bashing where not being immune means they suffer, but having some immunity means players can do something against them since null sec tactics aren't usable...
Zirse
Risktech Analytics
#22 - 2012-01-31 20:57:09 UTC
If there were mini-dreads, why would anyone risk an actual dread?

The whole point of sieging green is that you're putting a ~2B ISK bet on the table and in return you get the benefit of big guns. A sub-cap with XL's would make dreadnaughts irrelevant.
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2012-01-31 21:02:23 UTC
Zirse wrote:
If there were mini-dreads, why would anyone risk an actual dread?

The whole point of sieging green is that you're putting a ~2B ISK bet on the table and in return you get the benefit of big guns. A sub-cap with XL's would make dreadnaughts irrelevant.



what I stated in my post(directly above yours) is that two of these ships would be set to cost around the same amount as a dread, BUT, since they are in high sec and wormholes where there aren't capitals in most cases, than two of these ships combined would have a good amount less tank than a dread.

Thus dreads would still be the much more prefered method for low/null sec POS bashing.
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#24 - 2012-02-01 03:28:17 UTC
Zirse wrote:
If there were mini-dreads, why would anyone risk an actual dread?

The whole point of sieging green is that you're putting a ~2B ISK bet on the table and in return you get the benefit of big guns. A sub-cap with XL's would make dreadnaughts irrelevant.

So long as they don't have jump drives, Dreads will still be relevant in lowsec and nullsec. At least, as relevant as they are now, which isn't much (they're supercap bait mostly).

And yeah cranking out 3.5k dps would be the maximum you'd want them to do. I think having less gun range (a built in range penalty on the ship itself) for capital weapons would be in order too.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

Velicitia
XS Tech
#25 - 2012-02-01 14:40:35 UTC
Galphii wrote:
Zirse wrote:
If there were mini-dreads, why would anyone risk an actual dread?

The whole point of sieging green is that you're putting a ~2B ISK bet on the table and in return you get the benefit of big guns. A sub-cap with XL's would make dreadnaughts irrelevant.

So long as they don't have jump drives, Dreads will still be relevant in lowsec and nullsec. At least, as relevant as they are now, which isn't much (they're supercap bait mostly).

And yeah cranking out 3.5k dps would be the maximum you'd want them to do. I think having less gun range (a built in range penalty on the ship itself) for capital weapons would be in order too.


Agreed on the range, they probably shouldn't get better than 30-35km (after boosts) tops, might even need to use a lower DPS ammo (e.g. Uranium or Plutonium instead of Antimatter for hybrids), so that they have to be humping a large POS bubble.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#26 - 2012-02-02 01:15:17 UTC
Oh and they'd be limited to three capital weapons as well, simply because capital turrets are roughly 10% of the size of a tier 3 battleship Cool Even then the models will still need to be customized with large mounting points along the hull, but visually it works.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#27 - 2012-02-02 01:17:07 UTC  |  Edited by: XXSketchxx
If you want to play with caps, you'll have to leave the Concord blanket behind.
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-02-02 01:37:22 UTC
XXSketchxx wrote:
If you want to play with caps, you'll have to leave the Concord blanket behind.


It's not about playing with caps, it's about having a reasonable ship for high sec POS popping without needing a massive fleet to do so.
McOboe
Viscosity
#29 - 2012-02-02 01:43:58 UTC
My thoughts- T1 hull, high skills, tanks like a Tier 1 battle-cruiser, and only 1-2 turret/launcher slots with an extra utility slot. Effectively, they'd be similar to how the Tier 3 BC is set up now. The Tier 3 BC has the tank of a cruiser (one step down) and the weapons of a BS (one step up). This would have a couple weapons of a capital ship (one step up) with the tank of a BC (one step down). Like the Tier 3 BCs, they'd have immense trouble with ships smaller than themselves. Additionally, I would limit their low/mid slots to a total of 9, just like the current distribution for the Tier 3 BCs. The intent of this thing would be to hit capitals and POSes, and that's about it. Also, no jump-drive.
Xolve
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#30 - 2012-02-02 20:03:17 UTC
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
It's not about playing with caps, it's about having a reasonable ship for high sec POS popping without needing a massive fleet to do so.


Make Friends. Stop Being Bad.

High sec moons have no strategic importance, so the very idea of having Capital Weapons in Highsec is completely irrelevant and stupid. People sperg out these quickly thought up plans to "make EvE better" and fail to see that ideas like this won't fix anything and will get abused to hell by people smarter then you.

Furthermore, whats the point of having Cap Guns in highsec when they don't have any other capitals to be fired at? While this may seem all fine and great up in CONCORD land, you fail to realize the impact that a change like this would have in Low/Null, what would fleets of 1500+ of these ships look like?


HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2012-02-02 20:47:08 UTC
Xolve wrote:
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
It's not about playing with caps, it's about having a reasonable ship for high sec POS popping without needing a massive fleet to do so.


Make Friends. Stop Being Bad.

High sec moons have no strategic importance, so the very idea of having Capital Weapons in Highsec is completely irrelevant and stupid. People sperg out these quickly thought up plans to "make EvE better" and fail to see that ideas like this won't fix anything and will get abused to hell by people smarter then you.

Furthermore, whats the point of having Cap Guns in highsec when they don't have any other capitals to be fired at? While this may seem all fine and great up in CONCORD land, you fail to realize the impact that a change like this would have in Low/Null, what would fleets of 1500+ of these ships look like?





I personally don't agree with the cap guns either. If you notice, my suggestion was to set these ships up like marauders that could have a bonus to battleship weapons.. The only difference is these ships would be able to fit a siege module.

I also believe that they have to be t2 ships, 2 should cost as much as one dread, and a dread should still be way more powerful in tank, dps, jump drive...pretty much anything that makes dread specifically for low/null.

My suggestion was that these ships would be marauders, only siege-able and getting a bigger tank and more dps when sieged. Also immune to being jammed and things like that when sieged. However, they would have bad tracking and/or a missile related restriction, and when in siege mode, it's even worse.
Previous page12