These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

idea for new ship design idealogy, give me feedback please.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
kardjaval
Curtana Joyeuse and Durendal Security
#1 - 2012-03-07 01:45:03 UTC  |  Edited by: kardjaval
Yes, it has already been posted in the idea thread, but i do not want dev in this thread, i want player, and user feedback, i wanna toss this idea back and forth in conversation, solely about this idea, and not about the multitudes of other ideas in a single thread, rant about, say it's stupid, but tell me why, give me constructive criticism.

New idea, this is a doozy of a idea, which also required the creation of new ships, as well as new modules


First i will go over the basic level, which would be a destroyer hull, possibly even a tier 2 destroyer

Now, here is the idea, Integrated weapon system, if you have ever seen the design philosophy behind UNSC frigates and cruisers in the halo series (or the ion beam ships in the homeworld series) the idea is simple, the ship, is BUILT around a singular weapon system, another example would be the real world A-10 thunderbird, and it's GAU-8 autocannon


here is a example ship, namely, this would show a Caldari destroyer which would fall into this class

Caldari Goshawk
The Goshawk is a unique ship which research, development, and creation have been a tightly-kept secret in the State's inner circle.The goshawk has a very unique weapon system, allowing it to not only engage crafts of similar hull size, but a unique integrated weapon allow it to pose a threat to much larger, more armored crafts as well, especially when used in conjunction with other integrated weapon ships.
Fitting
CPU : 215
Powergrid : 55
Calibration : 400
Low slots : 1
Med slots : 4
High slots : 7
Launcher hardpoints : 1
Turret hardpoints : 5
Rig Slots : 3
Structure
Structure hit points : 475
Capacity : 550 m
Drone Capacity : 0 m
Drone bandwidth : 0 Mbit/se
Mass : 2,200,000 k
Volume : 64,000.0 m3 (5,000.0 m3 packaged
Inertia Multiplier : 1.9
EM Resistance : 0
Explosive Resistance : 0
Kinetic Resistance : 0
Thermal Resistance : 0
Armor
Armor hit points : 620
Armor EM Resistance : 60
Armor Explosive Resistance : 10
Armor Kinetic Resistance : 25
Armor Thermal Resistance : 45
Shield
Shield hit points : 620
Shield recharge time : 625 second
Shield EM Resistance : 0
Shield Explosive Resistance : 50
Shield Kinetic Resistance : 40
Shield Thermal Resistance : 20
Capacitor
Capacity : 650
Recharge time : 433.33 second
Targeting
Maximum targeting range : 55
Maximum locked targets : 3
Scan resolution : 475
Gravimetric sensor strength : 12 point
Signature radius : 90
Other
Max velocity : 275 m/se
Ship warp speed : 4.0 AU/
Magpulse propulsion strength :

Destroyer Skill Bonus
10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret tracking speed
10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret optimal range per level
5% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret damage modifier per level
Bonus: Can fit a Kessler Missile Integrated Weapons System


now, on to the Kessler weapon

Kessler Missile Integrated Weapons Systems
Any impact between two objects of sizable mass spalls off shrapnel debris from the force of collision. Each piece of shrapnel now has the potential to cause further damage, creating even more space debris

Basically, this is a baby doomsday device, as this is a Caldari variant, it wil have very similar characteristcs to current missile systems, with a few differences

For one, it's ammo will be weapon specific ammo type, they will behave like missile, and will have the same benefit as missiles(damage type selective) (so, there will be 4 missiles, one for each damage type, while the Amarr version would have a single crystal (or possibly 2 crystals, one with bonus damage, the other with bonus range) which would burn out after the burst fire, and thus need to be reloaded, the Gallente would use special hybrid ammo (one type of ammo for range, other for damage) which they load 3 rounds,fire and would then reload) while the Minmatar would have projectile ammo (same rules as above))but as well as the same cons (travel time, vulnerability to defender missiles, explosive radius) The launcher will have 9 m3 ammo capacity (each round will take up 3 m3 space) the weapon will also have a 1 second fire rate (so, all three rounds would fire in 3 seconds) but the amount of time it takes to reload will be significant (i was thinking 180 seconds) The weapon will take up a high slot, but will not require a hard point. As there are three rounds, the weapon will effectively fire in a quick 3 round burst, but each round will of course require it's own cycle time, now, this weapon will require cap usage (all integrated weapons require cap) the cap usage will be 33% of the ships base capacitor. the idea is to allow a destroyer to have a cruiser alpha strike, at least once, to use against either ships which outclass itself weight wise, or to use against a particularly tough ship within his own weight class. and, should a gang of these ships group up, their collective alpha fire power, should allow them to take on particularly tough, and much larger ships



Ok, i admit, he needs fleshing out, but don't they all? Give me feedback.
CCP Phantom
C C P
C C P Alliance
#2 - 2012-03-07 11:54:05 UTC
Off topic posts removed. Please stay on topic, constructive and polite, thank you!

CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer
Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#3 - 2012-03-07 12:06:20 UTC
I like the basic idea of a mini doomsday device... but here is my own altered idea that I got from yours... Signature based dmg for anti capital.... :) where vs a battleship, it wouldn't do that much dmg, maybe 500-1000 dmg before resistances (if mwd is not on)

but a capital ship, one round of this would do about 10000-20000 dmg before resistances (okay maybe less than the alpha than a 1400mm howlitzer but in that range?)... and make it able to fire at the cost of 90-95% cap, (that means it can repeat this volly every time it recharged enough cap :) (so basicly it does high dps vs capitals, specially if provided with remote energy transfere, but should be very fragile, not that fast, high signature size (80-120m), but the module should proberly have a cycle time of at least 15sec so it doesn't get too much dmg per sec)

Basicly a high alpha anticapital destroyer for fleets, in fleet vs fleet it would be easy to kill if the fleet has just a few subcapitals...

it should not be better than a normal destroyer other than the ability to do high damage vs capitals, it should actually be unable to kill frigates if you ask me :)

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
kardjaval
Curtana Joyeuse and Durendal Security
#4 - 2012-03-07 13:16:02 UTC  |  Edited by: kardjaval
Bubanni wrote:
I like the basic idea of a mini doomsday device... but here is my own altered idea that I got from yours... Signature based dmg for anti capital.... :) where vs a battleship, it wouldn't do that much dmg, maybe 500-1000 dmg before resistances (if mwd is not on)

but a capital ship, one round of this would do about 10000-20000 dmg before resistances (okay maybe less than the alpha than a 1400mm howlitzer but in that range?)... and make it able to fire at the cost of 90-95% cap, (that means it can repeat this volly every time it recharged enough cap :) (so basicly it does high dps vs capitals, specially if provided with remote energy transfere, but should be very fragile, not that fast, high signature size (80-120m), but the module should proberly have a cycle time of at least 15sec so it doesn't get too much dmg per sec)

Basicly a high alpha anticapital destroyer for fleets, in fleet vs fleet it would be easy to kill if the fleet has just a few subcapitals...

it should not be better than a normal destroyer other than the ability to do high damage vs capitals, it should actually be unable to kill frigates if you ask me :)



You get the gist of it, thats for sure, what my expanded idea was, would be the mini doomdays device, their would be two ship weight classes with their own intregrated weapon system, a destroy class, (which would be frigate size, and would give a decent alpha vs battlecruisers, and cruisers while at frigate size hull, and than a battleship size intregrate weapon ship, which would give it a alpha against capitol ship, i was gonna expand on the idea mor,e to include that, right now, i only included the destroyer hull size, because for one, currently their is only one teir of destroyer and according to one of the sticky thread, "true" destroyers is something alot of people want.I also feel that a destroyer hull, would be the best test platform, because destroyer, and cruisers/battlecruiser are in far more populance, than capitals, as well as the abundence of such combat in both highsec, and low sec space.



also, in terms of your "less than current destroyer" remark, i sorta disagree with that, this ship follows the idealogy of glass cannon and en masse attack, the training for the above ship would be significantly higher than that required for a simple destroyer (i'm thinking spaceship command V, and advance spaceship command IV, as well as small intregrated weapon systems II the whole would be to allow a cheaper, enmasse attack vs larger and better fitted singuler targets, all the while, being incredibly vulnerable, the volley/salvo of the intregrated weapon, would also severely limit the capictor by draining 100% of base capacitor(3 quick shots each draining 33.33% rounded up upon all 3 shots), outfitting the ship in such a way where their is significant cap left would require non offensive, and non defensive modules to be taken away, thank you alot for the feedback, now that all said, i do agree that reduction in effectiveness againt frigs, i simply don't agree with the complete inability to destroy frigs.

p.s. if you look over the stats and compar them to the cormorant, i do remove some defensive capabilities, as well as some offensive fitting capabilities.
Delici Feelgood
Doomheim
#5 - 2012-03-07 14:15:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Delici Feelgood
Dear Jim CCP can you fix it for me to make it possible for a destroyer like the new BC's with high alpha strikes so I can make suicide ganking even more easier than it already is for its range of ships, or others slightly more challenging when used in numbers.

Make the weapon specifically targetable against certain ship classes (e.g. large and capital) or like bombs make it a null sec capability weapon or even as the suggested signature specific use for certain ship class focus for the weapons and I'll believe the purpose for what it is intended. Otherwise its just another OP gank idea to push those capabilities even further imho. And considering the recent crucible buffs already out of balance as a result.
kardjaval
Curtana Joyeuse and Durendal Security
#6 - 2012-03-07 15:21:08 UTC  |  Edited by: kardjaval
Delici Feelgood wrote:
Dear Jim CCP can you fix it for me to make it possible for a destroyer like the new BC's with high alpha strikes so I can make suicide ganking even more easier than it already is for its range of ships, or others slightly more challenging when used in numbers.

Make the weapon specifically targetable against certain ship classes (e.g. large and capital) or like bombs make it a null sec capability weapon or even as the suggested signature specific use for certain ship class focus for the weapons and I'll believe the purpose for what it is intended. Otherwise its just another OP gank idea to push those capabilities even further imho. And considering the recent crucible buffs already out of balance as a result.



well, you sound mad, point in fact, suicide ganking is gonna happen, it's already easy, and nothing, can make it easier, the above suggestion is not something which is gonna one shot stuff, i am expecting decent alphas, but by no mean, one shots from singular ships, against, larger ships,this is designed for group warfare, to benefit focus fire, but, if you paid attention you would know, that the alpha is not a true alpha, the weapon suggested works on a quick burst fire principle, the damage was not a single instant alpha, but in stead a quick firing burst, i may of been misleading by saying alpha, but i want the damage principle to be on par alpha strike from the the larger ship, (ei, the strike of the kessler system total damage, would be on par with the alpha is a moderately fitted battlecruiser, or maybe a poorly fitted battleship) but it would be over the course of 3 seconds, and three firing cycles, thus allowing a ship to activate defensive systems, or to give repair system time to cycle.

nice job failing to read about the proposed weapon idea though.

i am expecting 10-15k(3.3k-5k damage per actaul strike, so 3.3-5k damage per second for 3 seconds) damage from this weapon against ships of appropriate size, that is before resistance is taken into account, if you assume 50% resistance (by no means unattainable on these larger ships) my drake has ~65% passive resist, as well as ~14k shield health, so this alpha strike would drain roughly a third of my shield *more around a quarter) of my shields away, by no means a instant one pop, and even if a mass of destroyers were to start using their intregrated weapon, my sheilds would regenerate, and the damage would be much more negligable should i activate my active resists (which, because it's a three shot system, would give me more than enough time, so, the suicide gank would for all intent be inpossible unless of course, they get me with their first shot, which would require ... over 10 of these destroyers.( estimated from a single round doing 5k damage, which is then reduced by 65%, which allows a single round to actually do 1750 damage, which would require atleast 8 destroyers to blast though the shields, and would require another 3 to get though the armor, )

and if you are in a single battlecruiser taking on 10 player own destroyer you were screwed from the outset. now if we asume these integrated weapon ship are even moderately expensive (a tech 2 destroy cost 50mil, a tech 1 seems to cost a smidge below 1mil, so lets just say to fit, and purchase these ship, they would cost 7.5 mil, so, thats is 75 milllion isk, used to take out a single ship, which with tech two equipment and rig costs around 75 million.




it's not profitable as such a ship.
kardjaval
Curtana Joyeuse and Durendal Security
#7 - 2012-03-08 16:32:07 UTC
is bumping allowed?
kardjaval
Curtana Joyeuse and Durendal Security
#8 - 2012-03-18 09:45:19 UTC
CCP Phantom wrote:
Off topic posts removed. Please stay on topic, constructive and polite, thank you!



you know, i am kinda interested in what the offtopic posts actually said...i'm a masochist that way rofl.
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2012-03-18 10:26:11 UTC
kardjaval wrote:
you know, i am kinda interested in what the offtopic posts actually said...i'm a masochist that way rofl.


http://eve-search.com/thread/77850-1

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
kardjaval
Curtana Joyeuse and Durendal Security
#10 - 2012-03-18 12:42:37 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
kardjaval wrote:
you know, i am kinda interested in what the offtopic posts actually said...i'm a masochist that way rofl.


http://eve-search.com/thread/77850-1



hmm, those are interesting...


is it just me, or does every single idea instantly get shot down, and the original uploaders get harassed and verbally assaulted by atleast one other user whenever any idea is put forth?
Morgan North
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#11 - 2012-03-18 13:58:57 UTC
There's folks here who object to anything really.

Either way its really a matter of persistance and having a simple enough idea.

This one is seemingly nice, but I only see it for gank-mobiles.
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#12 - 2012-03-18 14:14:29 UTC
The issue with ideas like this is that players can and will exploit anything in the game they possibly can. Ships like this would end up being used mostly for ganking (see tier3 BCs). While the idea of "Big gun on a destroyer" sounds cool, in reality it wouldn't be good for the game as a whole; and doing stuff just because it sounds cool doesn't end well for the game.
JoeTwo PointOh
Did he say Jump
Dock Workers
#13 - 2012-03-18 15:02:17 UTC
I personally think this could be an interesting idea, although I'm with others in thinking that without proper thought put into them these would turn into the new gank machines. If done right I can't really foresee these being the go to ships for anything pvp related (as battlecruisers currently are in many ways) as they would have a very specialized role. Seems like something that CCP is trying to steer towards with planned removal of tiers.

Perhaps something to do would to make the "integrated weapon system" a single type (IE missiles) and give a racial damage bonus. This would allow exp radius and speed to be factored in a bit better against it's intended targets, and less against smaller, weaker targets. This would allow the use of tactics such as defender missiles (what are those things anyhow?) and smartbombs to have a chance at negating their damage, and might help prevent one integrated weapon system type from being the FOTM over the other types.

Just a quick thought to interject in, what if these ships were made into a destroyer sized stealth bomber, to help with their intended role of sneaking past support and striking key ships. Thoughts?
Rommel Rottweil
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2012-03-18 16:46:07 UTC
Boosting CovOps combat doctrine and less centralized combat tactics could contribute to the anti-blob effort P

U-boats in eve?
How do you like this?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=934471#post934471
kardjaval
Curtana Joyeuse and Durendal Security
#15 - 2012-03-20 08:22:17 UTC
mxzf wrote:
The issue with ideas like this is that players can and will exploit anything in the game they possibly can. Ships like this would end up being used mostly for ganking (see tier3 BCs). While the idea of "Big gun on a destroyer" sounds cool, in reality it wouldn't be good for the game as a whole; and doing stuff just because it sounds cool doesn't end well for the game.



you bring up a very valid issue, but i did put some forethought into such a design, the weapon damage is actually separated over a small duration, removing the ability of insta popping, the ability also significantly hampers a ship offensive, and defensive capabilities by draining significant cap, therefor reducing a ships overall combat effectiveness, i thought specifically about the currect t3 battlecruisers, namely the sheer damage potential that they afforded by use of being able to constantly, use bs sized weapons,


other considerations can also be taken into perspective, such as the afor mentioned specifics which would severely limit the damage potential against ships, this idea is still in the rough, and my knowledge of the high level mechanics are also sorely lacking, moreover my experience is also sorely lacking, i do enjoy the constructive feedback you guys provide, they truly opens up new trains of thought for this idea.