These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Escort Carriers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#241 - 2012-08-23 05:44:49 UTC
Support Carrier
Retain bonus to fit capital repair modules
Receive NO bonus to repair amount or range.
Nerf capacitor so that the ONLY way to run the capital repairers is with capital energy transfers from real capitals.
So is this to be removed also?

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#242 - 2012-08-23 05:46:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Loius Woo
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Support Carrier
Retain bonus to fit capital repair modules
Receive NO bonus to repair amount or range.
Nerf capacitor so that the ONLY way to run the capital repairers is with capital energy transfers from real capitals.
So is this to be removed also?


Thats a tech two version...

What is your point?

Read the whole damn thread and stop wasting my time. I shouldnt have to re-state every iteration every time a lazy person comes into the thread and doesnt want to read it and says "depr derp I think its bad..derp"

LEARN TO READ!
Start with page one.

Read more than one page.

More good info on page 5

Most important change on page 9

1. READ
2. Understand
3. Make a constructive argument

Just admit that you read the first and last page and didn't know what you are talking about and we can all move on.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#243 - 2012-08-23 05:57:02 UTC
If it is more about reps and less about capital then just drop the ability the ability to use capital all together and give the t2 version a decent bonus to large rep amount, but no reduction to cap, that way it still needs energy to be effective. Another thing it would be easier to make the t1 hull a battleship that requires advanced spaceship command, make the escort carriers skill the t2 book, much how recon ships have split ships, less new skills in game and still helps close the "gap" to capital ships

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Ryshca
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#244 - 2012-08-23 09:11:53 UTC
Loius Woo wrote:
Ryshca wrote:
Awful idea, there is a good reason why there is no stronger sub-cap than the BS.
And i have to disapoint all of you guys, there won't come that one imba ships which will kill everything else, with its tousands combined roles (large dmg, logistic, mining?, ecm?) in one ship. It would just break the game, so as supercaps broke the game with their combined roles of different ships.
Think about a ship whichs fills out a real gap, logistic carrier which can fly with battleships isnt one it, you got logistics cruisers for sub-caps which are strong enough and you got carrier/motherships for caps.



You either didn't read the thread or you assumed that some of the terrible ideas posted in it have been carried through.

By your logic, if Battleships didn't exist now and the progression was Battlecruiser > Capitals then the suggestion of adding a "Battleship" class would be game breaking because it would "do everything" and we already have ships that do those things, but smaller...


Not my logic, CCPs logic.
CCP created only fr, cr and bs when eve started. And look at eve today: Strongest ship is still the BS, capitals are too special to talk with them in the same sentence...oh wait, they still broke eve, do you remember?
Eve is designed that the bs is the strongest usual ship. Every new ship ccp gave us, had ONE!!!!! special role. Oh not true, there is an expection the mothership. It had multiple roles, vs smaller ships, vs bigger ships, vs capitals ship and a logistic role, it had even ecm...and we had a broken game.

I pointed to 2 arguments, maybe it wasn't that clear.
1. That the BS is and will be the strongest, in way of HP and DMG, sub cap in eve. In that way stronger ships are just pointless. Capitals are special, since they are inmobile and limited to low-sec, 0.0.
2. Mixing 2 different roles in a single ship. This has been done with the supercapitals, escpecially with the mothership that just broke eve and made them imba.

If you add a ship, which has more HP, equal DMG as a bs together with a logsitcs role, which has the mobility as bs and can enter highsec, what do you think will happen?
Everyone will fly it, bs will become pointless since you can have a bs with logistic role which has even more hp. Logistics become pointless since you can fly the same ship with more hp as a bs and even high dmg.

Get the thought of a imba ship, which is stronger as existing, and/or has more than 1 role, out of your head and come back. Everyone will fly 'your' imba ship, and you got nothing from it.

Basic rules for new designs:
1. BS is stongest sub-cap.
2. 1 ship, 1 role.


Loius Woo wrote:
Make an actual suggestion. Read the F&I rules about constructive arguments then come back


I gave you critic, which are suggestion what you should NOT go for, since ccp won't do it anyway. If you like to waste your time, go ahead. Screw my 8 years of experience in eve....
Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#245 - 2012-08-23 15:23:07 UTC
Ryshca wrote:

Basic rules for new designs:
1. BS is stongest sub-cap.
2. 1 ship, 1 role.


The only reason you gave for number one is that that is how it has always been (except for capital ships...oh yea but you say they broke eve), when I have no idea why this should be the case...

Besides, this idea is more EHP, LESS damage than the best damage BS's and with utility through drones. The Tech 2 versions gain utility through repair and ship fitting. Tell me how that is any different than say a Baalgorn? Its all utility, better than most BS's out there...or the Vindicator, it has two roles, huge damage at close range AND heavy tackle in Vindy webs...

What about black ops...they have more than one role...but you will probably say they are broken too.

I dont agree with your argument for two reasons, BS's have no reason to be the strongest ships in Eve and in fact they are not, BS's routinely get ganked by HACs...so its all situational anyway, but even if BS's were in fact "the strongest" in Eve, that doesn't mean anything. And second, this idea is basically a new class of Battleships... If you look at the specs on page one you will see they are WAY WAY closer to a BS than they are to a carrier...

For clarification, these have around 10,000-12,000 HP in each HP type, Carriers have about 100,000HP in each type. That is a 10:1 difference. Battleships have 8,000-9,000HP in each type, so a 9:10 ratio.

Your arguments are flawed because the BS's are NOT the best in terms of HP and damage, there are HACs and command ships that have more EHP, there are ships that do more damage, it all depends on how they are fitted and what they are fighting and about 10 other variables that make a HUGE difference. if BS's were all the best damage and HP, then we would all be flying them and people like Kil2 wouldn't be streaming roams in cruisers. I am surprised that with 8 years of experience in Eve, you haven't learned that BS's are not the best in every situation.

Also, please read and understand the thread...
Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#246 - 2012-08-23 15:24:37 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
If it is more about reps and less about capital then just drop the ability the ability to use capital all together and give the t2 version a decent bonus to large rep amount, but no reduction to cap, that way it still needs energy to be effective. Another thing it would be easier to make the t1 hull a battleship that requires advanced spaceship command, make the escort carriers skill the t2 book, much how recon ships have split ships, less new skills in game and still helps close the "gap" to capital ships



That is a good suggestion. I will look at the math and see how that would work out.

As for the skills, I am not sure. I think that new skills that are not adding to the list of prerequisites that already exist is ok. I am not married to the idea of new skills, but it seemed to fit to me.
Ryshca
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#247 - 2012-08-23 18:32:41 UTC
Loius Woo wrote:
Ryshca wrote:

Basic rules for new designs:
1. BS is stongest sub-cap.
2. 1 ship, 1 role.


The only reason you gave for number one is that that is how it has always been (except for capital ships...oh yea but you say they broke eve), when I have no idea why this should be the case...

Besides, this idea is more EHP, LESS damage than the best damage BS's and with utility through drones. The Tech 2 versions gain utility through repair and ship fitting. Tell me how that is any different than say a Baalgorn? Its all utility, better than most BS's out there...or the Vindicator, it has two roles, huge damage at close range AND heavy tackle in Vindy webs...

What about black ops...they have more than one role...but you will probably say they are broken too.

I dont agree with your argument for two reasons, BS's have no reason to be the strongest ships in Eve and in fact they are not, BS's routinely get ganked by HACs...so its all situational anyway, but even if BS's were in fact "the strongest" in Eve, that doesn't mean anything. And second, this idea is basically a new class of Battleships... If you look at the specs on page one you will see they are WAY WAY closer to a BS than they are to a carrier...

For clarification, these have around 10,000-12,000 HP in each HP type, Carriers have about 100,000HP in each type. That is a 10:1 difference. Battleships have 8,000-9,000HP in each type, so a 9:10 ratio.

Your arguments are flawed because the BS's are NOT the best in terms of HP and damage, there are HACs and command ships that have more EHP, there are ships that do more damage, it all depends on how they are fitted and what they are fighting and about 10 other variables that make a HUGE difference. if BS's were all the best damage and HP, then we would all be flying them and people like Kil2 wouldn't be streaming roams in cruisers. I am surprised that with 8 years of experience in Eve, you haven't learned that BS's are not the best in every situation.

Also, please read and understand the thread...


1. I accept that you never have been in 0.0 and thus can't understand the problems of (s)caps over the history and currently.
2. Marauder is a carebear ship with utility slots for salvager and tactor beams. Large remote repper got a too short range to be used in regular fleets. Neutrs/Nos make it hard to fit full damage and full tank. So there is nothing with multiple roles. There drawback (omg they got one!!!): They got no sensor strength.
3. Vindicator has the role of a blaster boat, blaster (as you dont konw) only work on a very short range, thus they need something to pin down their target, since it is a faction ship it has a special bonus, the one to is the bonus to web strength. It is far away from being a heavy tackler, it is still a slow moving, slow locking bs. 2 roles? Nope.
4. Blackops are weaker (no dmg dealer) than usual bs, and got the roles for 'jump bridging' cloaked ships or jumping on their own. I fail to see here where you see 2 roles, but yes they are broken, people say so...or got it fixed can't remember?
5. BS is stronger than any hac, you just can fit hacs to kill bs, so as you can fit t1 fr to kill a bs, then it still depends on how the bs is fitted. This is eve. Eve is not designed that one ship can kill all other kind of ships which are 'weaker'.
6. The reason why not everyone is flying a bs is because a bs is only good in hp and dmg. To make sure it is not the only ship being used it has drawbacks: It is damn slow, has no tackle or logistic role and got a hard life to hit fast targets.
7. I never said that bs's are the best ships in every situation.
8. Your idea is to make a slow ship with more hp than bs, dmg around bs and a logistic role etc., not?
9. Try to read and undertand the posts from people who are giving you feedback.
Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#248 - 2012-08-23 18:53:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Loius Woo
Ryshca wrote:


1. I accept that you never have been in 0.0 and thus can't understand the problems of (s)caps over the history and currently.
2. Marauder is a carebear ship with utility slots for salvager and tactor beams. Large remote repper got a too short range to be used in regular fleets. Neutrs/Nos make it hard to fit full damage and full tank. So there is nothing with multiple roles. There drawback (omg they got one!!!): They got no sensor strength.
3. Vindicator has the role of a blaster boat, blaster (as you dont konw) only work on a very short range, thus they need something to pin down their target, since it is a faction ship it has a special bonus, the one to is the bonus to web strength. It is far away from being a heavy tackler, it is still a slow moving, slow locking bs. 2 roles? Nope.
4. Blackops are weaker (no dmg dealer) than usual bs, and got the roles for 'jump bridging' cloaked ships or jumping on their own. I fail to see here where you see 2 roles, but yes they are broken, people say so...or got it fixed can't remember?
5. BS is stronger than any hac, you just can fit hacs to kill bs, so as you can fit t1 fr to kill a bs, then it still depends on how the bs is fitted. This is eve. Eve is not designed that one ship can kill all other kind of ships which are 'weaker'.
6. The reason why not everyone is flying a bs is because a bs is only good in hp and dmg. To make sure it is not the only ship being used it has drawbacks: It is damn slow, has no tackle or logistic role and got a hard life to hit fast targets.
7. I never said that bs's are the best ships in every situation.
8. Your idea is to make a slow ship with more hp than bs, dmg around bs and a logistic role etc., not?
9. Try to read and undertand the posts from people who are giving you feedback.


1. I live in Geminate and have off and on for two years. (This character is a research alt)
2. Don't care about marauders, I mentioned Baalghorn, but that is a faction BS...
3. I said Vindicators are short range high damage with a buff to webs...not sure how you are correcting me.
4. BlackOps can bridge covops gangs AND at least one (the Widow) is an ECM boat. The others have either agility/speed (Sin/panther) or damage boosts (Redeemer).
5. That is exactly what I said... You can fit anything to kill anything depending on the situation so calling anything "stronger" is a misnomer.
6. I know that...you are the one that said "huh uh! nothing can be better than a BS cause it would break Eve"...
7.
you wrote:
Basic rules for new designs:
1. BS is stongest sub-cap.

8. Yes, sort of.
9. I didn't see any feedback from you, you just said, and I am gonna paraphrase here, "Awfull idea because battleships are and should remain the strongest sub capital ship and no ship should have more than one role" I don't see that as feedback, I see that as A: illogical for the reasons I have stated, and B: not constructive, ipso facto, not feedback.

Now, if you had said,
hypothetical you wrote:
Hey I don't like that it seems to have more than one role. Perhaps if you split the roles more cleanly between the tech one and tech two versions so that each ship has one clear role and not several unclear ones. I also think that BS's should remain the kings of HP and Damage combat and so perhaps you should nerf some of the drone damage or something to make them a little less damage than BS's. In the case of the notional T2 "Assault Carrier" perhaps make that one more like a true BS in terms of tank and agility and get the drone damage to about what a good BS would be doing and it can be just like the rest of the BS, but with a drone focus.
Either way, I think the idea is not very good because I believe that CCP have a core philosophy in ship balance that this idea would be violating...but since I am not CCP I cannot be sure.


See how that is different from what you wrote...but says the same thing without being esoteric/deliberately vague/rude? Also incidentally, I think that the one role per ship feedback is good and I will take it.
Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#249 - 2012-08-23 19:21:47 UTC
Original Post is Updated:
Added Tech 2 version ideas to OP
Ship Maintenance Bay removed from Tech one version
Removed capital remote repair and changed to Large remote repair
Bonuses updated to reflect a single role per ship focus in the following manner:
--->Escort Carrier: Support/Utility BS with decent damage but not great
--->Assault Carrier: Damage BS with focus on Drone damage and speed
--->Support Carrier: Short range burst logistics and utility
Nerfed fittings to reflect change away from Capital repair modules.

Discuss!
CaleAdaire
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#250 - 2012-08-23 19:46:21 UTC
I've read alot of these ideas for "Mini-Carriers" and quite a bit I see "Bridging the gap between BS's and Carriers" as a big supporting argument. Just so those people know, there already is a pretty strong carrier line to follow, it starts with cruisers (Osprey, Augoror, Exequror, and the Scythe) and builds into their T2 counterparts. From there you go for Fleet Command ships, being a good Logi Pilot is gonna take some time anyways so don't worry about the training time. When you get the Command ships you train for Black Ops BS's, it takes even longer to be a good FC so practice up on that long wait. When you get to Black Ops, Lo and Behold!! You have Racial BS to 5, jump skills, logi and FC experience and are ready to be a capital pilot.

TL;DR - Already a well established skill tree to get you to carriers and be well and able to fly them, this gets a resounding no.

Trust in God, Have Faith in Fusion.
Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#251 - 2012-08-23 19:49:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Loius Woo
CaleAdaire wrote:
I've read alot of these ideas for "Mini-Carriers" and quite a bit I see "Bridging the gap between BS's and Carriers" as a big supporting argument. Just so those people know, there already is a pretty strong carrier line to follow, it starts with cruisers (Osprey, Augoror, Exequror, and the Scythe) and builds into their T2 counterparts. From there you go for Fleet Command ships, being a good Logi Pilot is gonna take some time anyways so don't worry about the training time. When you get the Command ships you train for Black Ops BS's, it takes even longer to be a good FC so practice up on that long wait. When you get to Black Ops, Lo and Behold!! You have Racial BS to 5, jump skills, logi and FC experience and are ready to be a capital pilot.

TL;DR - Already a well established skill tree to get you to carriers and be well and able to fly them, this gets a resounding no.


Real TL:DR;
"I don't like one of the several arguments that form the basis of your idea and didn't read/care about any of the other things you said and am saying no based solely on that"

Thanks for your well thought out and insightful feedback.

CaleAdaire wrote:
When you get to Black Ops, Lo and Behold!! You have Racial BS to 5, jump skills, logi and FC experience and are ready to be a capital pilot.

Where are the drone skills? o.0
Bentakhar
ANKOU INITIATIVE
#252 - 2012-08-23 23:48:49 UTC
There is something on these forums that is fascinating:

People don't want new ships added to the game.Ugh

When incarna was deployed there was this massive 'riot' of people complaining that the core aspect of the game (spaceships) was neglected and so on .
And everytime someone makes a thread for a new ship class everybody freaks out and says it sucks before even considering things and trying to work out reasonnable stats and roles. The immediate reaction is that it would break the balance of the game altogether and its gonna be a super powered imba ship for missions runners. And that is just sad.



> This is a Features and Ideas thread. nobody is pretending to be devs and have knowledge about what would be balanced or not.
It's just an idea for a new ship class that is currently lacking and could be a lot of fun to fly. Which would add even more diversity of gameplay.


Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#253 - 2012-08-24 00:05:43 UTC
Bentakhar wrote:
There is something on these forums that is fascinating:

People don't want new ships added to the game.Ugh

When incarna was deployed there was this massive 'riot' of people complaining that the core aspect of the game (spaceships) was neglected and so on .
And everytime someone makes a thread for a new ship class everybody freaks out and says it sucks before even considering things and trying to work out reasonnable stats and roles. The immediate reaction is that it would break the balance of the game altogether and its gonna be a super powered imba ship for missions runners. And that is just sad.



> This is a Features and Ideas thread. nobody is pretending to be devs and have knowledge about what would be balanced or not.
It's just an idea for a new ship class that is currently lacking and could be a lot of fun to fly. Which would add even more diversity of gameplay.




Thank you, someone had to say it.
Liem Achasse
Sudden Eclipse
#254 - 2012-08-24 04:48:40 UTC
I just got through reading the entire post (I skimmed some of the trolls) and I can't believe what OP has to put up with.

2 Cents
In order to get Dev attention, I think the simplest proposal is often the best. I think substantial amendments have been made to the initial "Light Carrier" idea and is something I generally think would be good to implement. However, breaking the initial idea into several other ships becomes a bit of a development nightmare, simply because balancing becomes somewhat theoretical until the ships can be brought to Sisi at the very least. So, IMO, to keep Dev interest, I would only be in favor of a single (4 racial) light carrier (details to be hatch by CCP).

All in all, this is a legitimate post in Features and Ideas.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#255 - 2012-08-24 15:13:44 UTC
Bump

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#256 - 2012-08-24 16:16:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Loius Woo
Liem Achasse wrote:
I just got through reading the entire post (I skimmed some of the trolls) and I can't believe what OP has to put up with.

2 Cents
In order to get Dev attention, I think the simplest proposal is often the best. I think substantial amendments have been made to the initial "Light Carrier" idea and is something I generally think would be good to implement. However, breaking the initial idea into several other ships becomes a bit of a development nightmare, simply because balancing becomes somewhat theoretical until the ships can be brought to Sisi at the very least. So, IMO, to keep Dev interest, I would only be in favor of a single (4 racial) light carrier (details to be hatch by CCP).

All in all, this is a legitimate post in Features and Ideas.


I would say that a notional development timeframe that would work would be to take the concept art that exists now, run with it and create models while the ship balancing continues. Then when BS's are reiterated sometime next year, start working on these (the tech one version only) to balance them against other BS's. Then, after either the next round of ship balancing or after the Black Ops and Marauders get balanced, then introduce the tech 2 versions and balance them as well.

I would say it would take about 2 years or so to implement and balance, with the basic Escort Carriers coming next summer of next winter and the Tech 2 Assault and Support Carriers coming a year after that. That is IF someone at CCP said "Do It" right now. Which is highly unlikely.

I would never expect to have a new ship class with one Tech one and two Tech two versions appear at the same time. Development doesnt work that way.
Usagi Toshiro
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#257 - 2012-08-24 19:43:12 UTC
I like the idea of a high sec carrier. I support it having limited use of fighters for defense.

Why?

Because fighters are cool. It adds a bit of immersion for those of us that RP in our minds if not in actions. I like the idea that I am sending out a wing of pilots to defend my ship or that of a fleet mate. Bear

Trolls are like stray cats. If you feed them they multiply. Please do not  feed the trolls.
Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#258 - 2012-08-24 19:55:18 UTC
Usagi Toshiro wrote:
I like the idea of a high sec carrier. I support it having limited use of fighters for defense.

Why?

Because fighters are cool. It adds a bit of immersion for those of us that RP in our minds if not in actions. I like the idea that I am sending out a wing of pilots to defend my ship or that of a fleet mate. Bear


I initially agreed with you for the same reasons, but there have been some very compelling arguments against allowing fighters in high sec and so I stripped them off.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#259 - 2012-08-24 20:19:18 UTC
If it were only 5 AND they could not be assigned to any other ship maybe, but with how these escort carriers would be setup, it would be way too broken

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Revolution Rising
Last-Light Holdings
#260 - 2012-08-24 20:37:04 UTC
Awesome idea.

Sometimes wish CCP would check out sins of a solar empire and X3 for some cool ideas ;)

.