These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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; How could we make them NOT game breaking?

First post
Author
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#41 - 2012-08-16 18:45:17 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Specifically, this game is all about duplication of effort. Being unique is by precedent an unwanted quality.
By precedent, they've had a lot of duplication. They've now noticed that this only leads to a lot of ships being left unused, which is part of the reason why this whole ship revamp and tiercide is going on. Pretty much all new ships come with a specific purpose these days and offer something that is not already in the game.

Quote:
As an example, the fact that you can use one of the four logistic ships to support multiple possible combinations of combat vessels does not begin to show the depths we have already.
You'll also notice that there are distinct differences between those four logis, split along two axes: group vs. solo and shield vs. tank. They also offer a function that no other ship can really match. Carriers come close but are for a completely different scale (not to mention speed) of engagement.

That's why I'm asking what the OP is after, because what's been described so far already exists. He's also suggesting things that have been deliberately locked out of highsec for reasons that seem to be the exact same as why he wants them there. Highsec caps simply won't happen; mass drone boats just for the sake of mass drone boats is just asking for lag, TiDi or no; artificial limitations to how many of anything you can bring are just… horribly non-EVE.

Quote:
I would suggest instead focusing on whether it could add something of value to the game,
Sure, and I'm sceptical. I don't see the gap that needs filling. I suppose that the much asked-for highsec ship transport could be a role, but that's something drastically different — that's basically an Orca with the mining and corp stuff ripped out for the sake of more ship hold.

Vakr Onzo wrote:
Really, you shouldn't shoot down the escort/light carrier idea.
I'm not. I'm simply asking what it's for. Why is it needed. What's its purpose.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#42 - 2012-08-16 18:46:51 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
(stuff)



Tippia's arguing against the addition of something "just because" (see: Titans for why this is bad).

So, out of my ass thoughts

Purpose --> Steping stone between T1 logi cruiser (which need fixed with tiericide) and carrier.
Unique Funtion --> fits large reppers (I know T2 logi can do this, but meh) and has some bonuses.
Why --> well, you've got me here Smile

I respect that the whole Titan thing may not have been the best addition to the game. There is no denying that they changed it significantly, and not always for the better.

Why --> A different approach to solving the needs of a fleet or competent roam keeps the PvP fresh and alive.
The analogy of certain ship combinations fitting the pattern of rock-paper-scissors game design I think is best countered by variety.
Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2012-08-16 18:50:22 UTC
First off, you stole an idea that has been discussed for months in this other thread Escort Carriers.

Then you gave it the same name and same concept art (without giving any credit to the artist).

Then you totally screwed up the idea.

You sir get the award for being the worst kind of douche on the internet.

Next time, do a search of the forums, if you find your idea already in active discussion, add to that discussion, don't make a new worse idea with the same freaking title.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#44 - 2012-08-16 18:51:34 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Why --> well, you've got me here Smile


The best reason I can think of is that the only other capital class ships in high sec are freighters and Orcas, which both fill necessary logistics roles. But there are more logistics roles than mass hauling and mining fleet support.

I don't like the idea of the ship being able to field any kind of significant offense. Not more than the Orca can. In highsec, the emphasis should be on support. Even a stripped down Orca that was basically the SMB and CHA from a full Orca would be welcomed by a lot of small corps.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Vakr Onzo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#45 - 2012-08-16 18:53:45 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vakr Onzo wrote:
Really, you shouldn't shoot down the escort/light carrier idea.
I'm not. I'm simply asking what it's for. Why is it needed. What's its purpose.
And haven't I provided a potential answer with the concept I laid out?
A large remote repair boat, a drone boat that doesn't deploy more than what Dominix can instead opting for better control range and boost to their effectiveness (maximum 25%) and somewhat large drone bay for a fair bit of versatility or replenishment instead of "massing drone", and a ship maintenance array in field like what Orca bring to the table for the industrial/mining corps.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#46 - 2012-08-16 18:54:18 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
(stuff)



Tippia's arguing against the addition of something "just because" (see: Titans for why this is bad).

So, out of my ass thoughts

Purpose --> Steping stone between T1 logi cruiser (which need fixed with tiericide) and carrier.
Unique Funtion --> fits large reppers (I know T2 logi can do this, but meh) and has some bonuses.
Why --> well, you've got me here Smile

I respect that the whole Titan thing may not have been the best addition to the game. There is no denying that they changed it significantly, and not always for the better.

Why --> A different approach to solving the needs of a fleet or competent roam keeps the PvP fresh and alive.
The analogy of certain ship combinations fitting the pattern of rock-paper-scissors game design I think is best countered by variety.



yeah, I was thinking something along those lines ... but I started thinking more about the new POS and whether people would just make them into outposts in HS (which would necessitate "capitals" to remove).

... then I figured "CONCORD says no", and couldn't figure out something useful...

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

Velicitia
XS Tech
#47 - 2012-08-16 18:56:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Velicitia
Loius Woo wrote:
First off, you stole an idea that has been discussed for months in this other thread Escort Carriers.

Then you gave it the same name and same concept art (without giving any credit to the artist).

Then you totally screwed up the idea.

You sir get the award for being the worst kind of douche on the internet.

Next time, do a search of the forums, if you find your idea already in active discussion, add to that discussion, don't make a new worse idea with the same freaking title.



I think you missed the part where he felt entitled to post it in GD (it was moved here by an ISD) because the linked thread was "old and dead"


edit -- found it, post 16.

Anslo wrote:
Katrina Oniseki wrote:
Anslo, stop being bad. There is already a huge thread in the features and ideas forum about this. It doesn't need a copy here in GD.


It's an old dead thread as far as I can see.

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

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#48 - 2012-08-16 18:57:00 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Specifically, this game is all about duplication of effort. Being unique is by precedent an unwanted quality.
By precedent, they've had a lot of duplication. They've now noticed that this only leads to a lot of ships being left unused, which is part of the reason why this whole ship revamp and tiercide is going on. Pretty much all new ships come with a specific purpose these days and offer something that is not already in the game.

Well put.

I think it is notable that pilots tend to look for the best possible combination of ships and modules, and tend to use them almost exclusively.

It is also of note that the game consequently filters which ships are working and which ships need to go back to the drawing board, if not get booted completely.

I happen to like the variety, and I admit that PvP demands certain standards be respected. This blocks serious use of any ship not in fleet doctrine, and usually with specific fittings.

Like Darwin's theories, the game chooses which ships succeed, and which end up gathering dust.
Anslo
Scope Works
#49 - 2012-08-16 18:57:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Anslo
Loius Woo wrote:
First off, you stole an idea that has been discussed for months in this other thread Escort Carriers.


No idea is being stolen, I stated it's already been talked about before, everyone who hasn't been under a ROCK had seen it before. I didn't want to necro a thread, so I made a new one and asked for input. The more threads that pop up about this with more and different people talking about it, the more (i hope) it will get noticed and MAYBE implemented in some way by CCP.

Loius Woo wrote:
Then you gave it the same name and same concept art (without giving any credit to the artist).


I directly linked it to deviant art, where the artist is clearly displayed. I never once said it was my art. I kept the name and concept the same because...it is the same. I'm showing MY interest in it as well as hoping others show there's and that more people come to the idea, as most people don't go past the first few pages on a forum nor will they necro a thread.

Loius Woo wrote:
Then you totally screwed up the idea.


No, I didn't. I gave my thoughts on it and asked for others to provide there's to hopefully concoct a viable and working solution to this potentially AWESOME ship.

Loius Woo wrote:
You sir get the award for being the worst kind of douche on the internet.


And you get the award for the biggest, uninformed, vapid, narrow minded ******* on the internet. Take a bow.

Loius Woo wrote:
Next time, do a search of the forums, if you find your idea already in active discussion, add to that discussion, don't make a new worse idea with the same freaking title.


lol@ same title? There was none, I looked. You're a liar. Fly into the sun.

EDIT: If you don't like it, don't read it, don't give it attention and let it die.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#50 - 2012-08-16 19:00:10 UTC
Velicitia wrote:


I think you missed the part where he felt entitled to post it in GD (it was moved here by an ISD) because the linked thread was "old and dead" (or some such ... should be P1 or P2 where OP makes that statement)


No I saw that. If he had searched for "escort carriers" in the forums, he would have found the other thread, that gets people talking on it about once a week at least, and that already has 10 pages itself and a 9 page previous version that is referenced.

Then he could have read that idea and see that his idea is dumb for all the reasons pointed out in those other threads and instead put his 2 cents into an active and more evolved idea than he has gotten here.

He also would have noticed that the F&I section of the forum existed for this purpose.

So in summary, he should learn to search the forums.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#51 - 2012-08-16 19:01:22 UTC
Anslo wrote:
It tells me something but I take offense from how you passive aggressively frame your questions as if to shame the other individual
So it's shameful to have to answer questions now? Asking what you're after is passive-aggressive? It's only one of the fundamental things that needs to be answered when adding stuff to the game.

Quote:
The purpose is to bring a faster, more affordable and potentially versatile class of carrier to more people in order to expand on carrier war fare and to potentially provide a ship that, finally, has anti-fighter turrets that can automatically protect the vessel or what it escorts.
Ok. Carriers are pretty darn versatile as it is, so making it even more so will be… let's call it “challenging” P

Automated turrets seem a bit antithetical to how EVE in general works, but I suppose that, as a completely different idea, XL-sized FoF-missile launchers could be a really fun idea (but they'd have to make FoFs work for that first).

Expanding on carrier warfare is good and well, but I still get the impression that the expansion you're envisioning is to allow them in highsec, which simply won't happen. If they're allowed in highsec, they will not be capships. They will be something with a few hundred EHP so they're still well within the reach of a gank. If by expanding it you mean it offers a different engagement profile than cynoing onto the field, turtling around and repping stuff and maybe spit out a drone or ten, then sure… but different how, and how will it differ from, say, a Domi?

Quote:
What unique and useful function will it fulfil? Affordable sub carrier (much like the Orca is to the Rorqual), a more mobile and versatile carrier, affordable "capital" ships, potentially even could act as a form of armed freighter or transport.
…and this is where I feel the idea breaks down. It's just feels like a Dominix++.
An actual ship transport would be something new, since the Orca can only carry so much (but is very versatile in what it can carry).

Quote:
Why, in short, should it be added to the game? Why should the industrial/miner people be the only one to have a high sec "capital" ship?
Largely because they don't have any alternative (and because, in spite of the building blocks used, it's far from a cap ship — it's more of a specialised battleship with a surprising amount of structure HP).
Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2012-08-16 19:03:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Loius Woo
Anslo wrote:


Loius Woo wrote:
Next time, do a search of the forums, if you find your idea already in active discussion, add to that discussion, don't make a new worse idea with the same freaking title.


lol@ same title? There was none, I looked. You're a liar. Fly into the sun.

EDIT: If you don't like it, don't read it, don't give it attention and let it die.


You posted this thread yesterday....

My thread here was posted 3 months ago with the title. Before that a thread called light carriers was posted and locked when the new thread came out. My thread was on page 1 of F&I YESTERDAY morning. Ive you had perused the correct section of the forum you would have seen it.

So just admit that you didn't search, apologize for being a jerk, and then post your ideas in the already mature thread about it.
Anslo
Scope Works
#53 - 2012-08-16 19:06:23 UTC
Loius Woo wrote:
Anslo wrote:


Loius Woo wrote:
Next time, do a search of the forums, if you find your idea already in active discussion, add to that discussion, don't make a new worse idea with the same freaking title.


lol@ same title? There was none, I looked. You're a liar. Fly into the sun.

EDIT: If you don't like it, don't read it, don't give it attention and let it die.


You posted this thread yesterday....

My thread here was posted 3 months ago with the title. Before that a thread called light carriers was posted and locked when the new thread came out. My thread was on page 1 of F&I YESTERDAY morning. Ive you had perused the correct section of the forum you would have seen it.

So just admit that you didn't search, apologize for being a jerk, and then post your ideas in the already mature thread about it.


1) I don't frequent F&I and stay on GD, didn't bother looking on here. It's a Forum, I don't feel I need to justify my discussion topic with research to make sure I don't hurt someone's feelings for making a similar post.

2) This is a forum topic. Stop making out like I stole your finest artwork without paying the proper royalties. Get over it.

3) With an attitude like yours, you won't be getting an apology anytime soon. :)

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Anslo
Scope Works
#54 - 2012-08-16 19:07:11 UTC
Tippia wrote:
too much stuff to quote


Then how do YOU envision them?

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#55 - 2012-08-16 19:25:58 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Then how do YOU envision them?
Depends which part of the name you want to focus on…

Escort carrier — strip the Orca of its command bonuses and special cargo holds and triple its ship hangar, making it a ship hauler.

Escort carrier — strip a normal carrier of its jump engine (still not allowed in highsec though), triage mode, large portions of its drone carrying (and fielding) capabilities, and give it the agility of a battleship, making it a short-range defensive ship (can't be hot dropped other than by gating via titand, at which point costs a bajillion in fuel, and can't follow as easily as a logi) that protects subcap ships against other supcap ships but dies horribly if anything remotely cap-sized appears on the field.
Anslo
Scope Works
#56 - 2012-08-16 19:29:00 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Anslo wrote:
Then how do YOU envision them?
Depends which part of the name you want to focus on…

Escort carrier — strip the Orca of its command bonuses and special cargo holds and triple its ship hangar, making it a ship hauler.

Escort carrier — strip a normal carrier of its jump engine (still not allowed in highsec though), triage mode, large portions of its drone carrying (and fielding) capabilities, and give it the agility of a battleship, making it a short-range defensive ship (can't be hot dropped other than by gating via titand, at which point costs a bajillion in fuel, and can't follow as easily as a logi) that protects subcap ships against other supcap ships but dies horribly if anything remotely cap-sized appears on the field.



.....i want them both.... D:

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

A Soporific
Perkone
Caldari State
#57 - 2012-08-16 19:31:36 UTC
I wouldn't mind seeing a ship that specializes in drones and remote ECCM, remote Sensor Boosting, Tracking Links, and other non-repping logistics. As far as I am aware, there really isn't any ship that bonuses these thing. If the drone bonus isn't to damage but ECM strength, Web Strength, repping, and other utility and ewar drones then you have yourself another category that currently doesn't have an exemplar.

I'd slot it as a Tech 2 or pirate faction battlehip. Yeah, it has much lower damage than existing Drone Battleships, but damage isn't the point. The logistic part of the Carrier is covered by the existing logsitics cruiser. The drone element of the carrier is a natural progression from the Dominix or Rattlesnake. So there really isn't an easy way to shoehorn in a mini-carrier.

Still there is a shortage of support ships in that class.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#58 - 2012-08-16 19:42:30 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Anslo wrote:
Then how do YOU envision them?
Depends which part of the name you want to focus on…

Escort carrier — strip the Orca of its command bonuses and special cargo holds and triple its ship hangar, making it a ship hauler.

Escort carrier — strip a normal carrier of its jump engine (still not allowed in highsec though), triage mode, large portions of its drone carrying (and fielding) capabilities, and give it the agility of a battleship, making it a short-range defensive ship (can't be hot dropped other than by gating via titand, at which point costs a bajillion in fuel, and can't follow as easily as a logi) that protects subcap ships against other supcap ships but dies horribly if anything remotely cap-sized appears on the field.

You have a flair for this.

Considering an interest in allowing this into high sec, I would suggest this for the second one, Escort carrier .
I would modify it down to Orca size or smaller at least. Let it keep the shape and appearance of the carrier, possibly.
(Storyline could refer to it as an early model carrier design brought back for support)

Also give it high sec specific limits to it's value: I would call it a leash law for this aspect.
It cannot use fighters in high sec. It might be able to physically launch them, but the ship would be immediately flagged by Concord for action if so.
Just normal drones like any other ship in High Sec.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#59 - 2012-08-16 19:47:39 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Anslo wrote:
Then how do YOU envision them?
Depends which part of the name you want to focus on…

Escort carrier — strip the Orca of its command bonuses and special cargo holds and triple its ship hangar, making it a ship hauler.

Escort carrier — strip a normal carrier of its jump engine (still not allowed in highsec though), triage mode, large portions of its drone carrying (and fielding) capabilities, and give it the agility of a battleship, making it a short-range defensive ship (can't be hot dropped other than by gating via titand, at which point costs a bajillion in fuel, and can't follow as easily as a logi) that protects subcap ships against other supcap ships but dies horribly if anything remotely cap-sized appears on the field.

You have a flair for this.

Considering an interest in allowing this into high sec, I would suggest this for the second one, Escort carrier .
I would modify it down to Orca size or smaller at least. Let it keep the shape and appearance of the carrier, possibly.
(Storyline could refer to it as an early model carrier design brought back for support)

Also give it high sec specific limits to it's value: I would call it a leash law for this aspect.
It cannot use fighters in high sec. It might be able to physically launch them, but the ship would be immediately flagged by Concord for action if so.
Just normal drones like any other ship in High Sec.


I like this ... though, shouldn't look like anything we currently have -- similar is OK, but exactly the same, no.

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

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#60 - 2012-08-16 20:23:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Considering an interest in allowing this into high sec, I would suggest this for the second one, Escort carrier .

I would modify it down to Orca size or smaller at least. Let it keep the shape and appearance of the carrier, possibly.
(Storyline could refer to it as an early model carrier design brought back for support)

Also give it high sec specific limits to it's value: I would call it a leash law for this aspect.
It cannot use fighters in high sec. It might be able to physically launch them, but the ship would be immediately flagged by Concord for action if so.
The problem is that, as soon as you design something like that to go into highsec, you have to drop pretty much all cap-like attributes, and that tends to remove the whole point of it.

I'm talking about hitpoints in the 100–200 EHP region; no cap reppers (local, remote or otherwise); in fact, pretty much no cap equipment of any kind, including those fighters. If you let it into highsec, it must die with ease when jumping into Jita and finding itself trapped in a suicide gank. If you apply this to the second role, you're once again back to it basically being a fancy Dominix, so why bother? Straight

I understand that highsec players would like to play with capships, but that's not going to happen because it has long ago proven to throw balance so far out the window it achieves self-sustained orbit. Caps are the reward you get for daring outside of those safe and comfortable borders, and the reason you can get them is because there is bigger fish out there that can and will chew them up and spit them out with no second thought.



edit: oooh! Just thought of a role bonus for the Escort version: moderate range-bonus for webs, and aggression-timer bonus when engaging allied/fleeted ships (so you can slingshot freighters with ease without getting stuck waiting for the timer on the outgoing gate) P