These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Rubicon 1.1] Sisters of EVE Battleship

First post First post First post
Author
stoicfaux
#2141 - 2014-01-24 17:15:06 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

This is a ship that is meant to function at pirate faction meta level

SoE are bad pirates.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

Vincintius Agrippa
Crimson Serpent Syndicate
#2142 - 2014-01-24 17:16:00 UTC
shame it doesnt fit in line with the other soe ships.
Only YOU can prevent internet bullying!
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2143 - 2014-01-24 19:34:46 UTC
Ryan Paladin wrote:
The scanning/hacking bonuses as well as the laser bonuses should be axed..


It's a sisters ship.... no. It probably is meant to be a ghost site runner. At any rate the scanning is a must on a SOE ship.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]

I am disposable
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#2144 - 2014-01-24 21:17:52 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
By request I'm posting to say the ship isn't going to have any changes before 1.1

We want to see what activity looks like the way it is currently and make adjustments after. I'd also really like to look at finding ways to drop sisters ships outside of LP so that we can have some effect on the price in a way other than lowering the LP cost, but I'm not sure when we can get that figured out and implemented.


Why do you bother to start feedback threads?
Victor Khisander
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2145 - 2014-01-25 02:08:33 UTC
I am disposable wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
By request I'm posting to say the ship isn't going to have any changes before 1.1

We want to see what activity looks like the way it is currently and make adjustments after. I'd also really like to look at finding ways to drop sisters ships outside of LP so that we can have some effect on the price in a way other than lowering the LP cost, but I'm not sure when we can get that figured out and implemented.


Why do you bother to start feedback threads?


A legitimate question really. It's painfully obvious that CCP shows little to no respect towards their customers nowadays. I've seen a lot of good topic related ideas here, posted by people who show more passion and knowledge of EvE than certain CCP developers themselfes. 99% of those have been ignored. So pls feel free to imagine my dirty middle finger pointed in your direction CCP. You f...ing deserve the shitstorm coming towards you.
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2146 - 2014-01-25 02:21:56 UTC
I am disposable wrote:
Why do you bother to start feedback threads?


So long as at least one person likes it and at least one person hates it they can simply declare the feedback "mixed". Then they can go along with whatever they wanted to do anyway and also get kudos for being a Good(tm) company that Cares(tm) about their customers opinions.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#2147 - 2014-01-25 05:09:51 UTC
Sal Landry wrote:
So long as at least one person likes it and at least one person hates it they can simply declare the feedback "mixed". Then they can go along with whatever they wanted to do anyway and also get kudos for being a Good(tm) company that Cares(tm) about their customers opinions.

Oh man… Isn't that the truth.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

ASadOldGit
Doomheim
#2148 - 2014-01-25 17:01:17 UTC
Victor Khisander wrote:
I am disposable wrote:
Why do you bother to start feedback threads?


A legitimate question really. It's painfully obvious that CCP shows little to no respect towards their customers nowadays. I've seen a lot of good topic related ideas here, posted by people who show more passion and knowledge of EvE than certain CCP developers themselfes. 99% of those have been ignored. So pls feel free to imagine my dirty middle finger pointed in your direction CCP. You f...ing deserve the shitstorm coming towards you.

That's a little harsh, isn't it? Inaccurate too. Put it in the context of the rest of 1.1 - CCP have made significant changes to their first version of those modules/deployables based on player feedback. The Nestor is the exception , not the rule.

This signature intentionally left blank for you to fill in at your leisure.

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#2149 - 2014-01-25 18:29:30 UTC
ASadOldGit wrote:
Victor Khisander wrote:
I am disposable wrote:
Why do you bother to start feedback threads?


A legitimate question really. It's painfully obvious that CCP shows little to no respect towards their customers nowadays. I've seen a lot of good topic related ideas here, posted by people who show more passion and knowledge of EvE than certain CCP developers themselfes. 99% of those have been ignored. So pls feel free to imagine my dirty middle finger pointed in your direction CCP. You f...ing deserve the shitstorm coming towards you.

That's a little harsh, isn't it? Inaccurate too. Put it in the context of the rest of 1.1 - CCP have made significant changes to their first version of those modules/deployables based on player feedback. The Nestor is the exception , not the rule.


When none of the changes proposed are really necessary, or where necessary are ill-conceived, that really doesn't count.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#2150 - 2014-01-25 22:54:14 UTC
Sapheni
Black Moon Mining
#2151 - 2014-01-26 01:37:41 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
By request I'm posting to say the ship isn't going to have any changes before 1.1


I'm posting to say I'm not going to bother running missions to get this ship. I'd already saved up a bit, but I'll stop now as it is clearly not worth the investment of time. In short: The design as it stands is not fit for solo exploration and if you're exploring with a team then there are more effective and cheaper options. The sad part is that it almost looks like it could work.

* The low mass, large cargo bay, large drone bay, armour resists are good.
* The damage application, remote rep and the mixed bag of exploration bonuses are not so good.

Clearly CCP don't want to mess around with the balance of PvP by creating a monster, but to meet their objective of creating an exploration-focused battleship we need something flexible and solid, especially considering the price. I don't think the answer is to give it hundreds of "role" or "special ability" bonuses, but it does need to have slot space and fitting capacity to carry out the mixed set of functions that are intended. As a solo explorer I would like to see:

* Keep: Amarr Battleship Bonuses: 4% Armor resistances per level;
* Keep: Gallente Battleship Bonuses: 10% drone damage and hitpoints per level;
* Add: Special Ability: 100% bonus to Large Energy Turret damage (reduce to 3 turret slots so it can fit utility mods);
* Add: 1 low slot so it can fit drone/laser damage mods and a tank that can stand up to Sleepers etc;
* Add CPU and tweak some of the other base stats (e.g. + cap recharge, - sig radius);
* Remove all the other miscellaneous bonuses and...
* Add a set of Sisters Faction LP modules that only the Nestor (or SoE ships) can fit, like the Echelon's data analyser, ensuring that they incorporate some juicy stats and say it has something to do with the hull design like the Astero/Stratios.

Sisters Remote Armor Repairer (logistics stats but limit to 24km range?)
Sisters Armor Repairer (deadspace stats - alternative to remote rep for solo explorers)
Sisters Salvager (0.5 x cycle time)
Sisters Tractor beam (range bonus)
Sisters Data/Relic analysers (with inbuilt virus strength bonuses)
Sisters Cloak (no cloaky warp but no speed/sensor penalties)

* Maybe nerf sensor strength (since I've proposed some Marauder-style bonuses) so it has an obvious PvP weakness.
* Maybe reduce the price of the ship since some of the functions are moved to new modules in the faction store.

It would be solid enough, but would give players the flexibility to fit whichever modules they need for exploration.
I'm Down
Perkone
Caldari State
#2152 - 2014-01-26 03:52:42 UTC
Just a thought, if you're so worried about a SOE BS being OP with a cloaked warping ability, why don't you add some preventative modules to make sure it's not an OP fleet ship.

You already have the bastion module, so why don't you tweak it for this particular ship so that it can get the offensive projection with the downside's it would need to keep it relatively weak in fleets.

You could easily make the module do something like:

+50% drone tracking, damage, and HP
+50% optimal range

+300% mass.... can warp and move, but turns into a slug
+200% Remote repair range
80% reduction to remote repair capacitor use
+50% to armor repairer repair amount.

Cannot be remote assisted while the state is active

When that module isn't active, it can move about, but with much weaker offense.



It makes the ship appealing for explorers in small packs, but large groups would find it relatively worthless
Jia Jianyu
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#2153 - 2014-01-26 10:50:06 UTC
As a character created to make use of the Asteros and Stratios, I was most anxious to see what the SoE battleship involved. Now that we know, I have mixed feelings.

As a roleplayer, I appreciate what is being attempted with the Nestor. The rep bonuses and drone capabilities all conceptually fit the idea of a deep space search and rescue vessel. Should a new search and rescue mission type be introduced later (a combination of exploration, logistics and combat), this ship would excel at it. However, after several years of playing other characters, I recognize that roleplaying is but a small niche in New Eden, and something best left to character bios and chats instead of starship design. The high LP cost of this ship means it will always have a target on it, even in high sec space (like the Stratios after its introduction, but more so), meaning those few with the LP or ISK to spend may own a Nestor, but will never fly it.

The Nestor should keep the exploration bonuses, as that is the unifying characteristic of the SoE vessels. The Stratios and Asteros both had the mix of energy weapons and drones in order to be most self-sufficient during solo exploration. If the idea is for the Nestor to be able to tackle the ghost sites and null sec exploration sites that the Stratios cannot, than purify the design to that end. Remove the rep bonuses and improve its agility or durability (if needed...I can't say if it is), and add an additional bonus for the drones. Perhaps add specialized drone bandwidth that allows the launching of five (or one per level of Gallante battleship) EWAR or logistic drones in addition to the wing of combat drones or sentries to make the Nestor more like the Guardian or a carrier. I also liked the idea of the Nestor having a small craft bay for shuttles or frigates (from the concept art) and someone mentioned a medical bay/clone vat, which would also be in keeping with the SoE concept but also be more practical for deep space exploration.

Yes, all this would require a significant rework. I understand the developers wanting to get the Nestor off Sisi and out to where players can use it and actual feedback can be collected. My fear is with the Nestor's excessive price tag, all that feedback will be in the form of kill-mails (which may actually be to the benefit of all of us looking for a rework).

For the record, I want to fly this ship, and want it to be worth the risk to do so. In its current form, it isn't.

Just my $0.02...
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2154 - 2014-01-26 12:38:18 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:

This is a ship that is meant to function at pirate faction meta level

SoE are bad pirates.




They are like Robin Hood but in space...

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2155 - 2014-01-26 12:39:53 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
Just a thought, if you're so worried about a SOE BS being OP with a cloaked warping ability, why don't you add some preventative modules to make sure it's not an OP fleet ship.

You already have the bastion module, so why don't you tweak it for this particular ship so that it can get the offensive projection with the downside's it would need to keep it relatively weak in fleets.

You could easily make the module do something like:

+50% drone tracking, damage, and HP
+50% optimal range

+300% mass.... can warp and move, but turns into a slug
+200% Remote repair range
80% reduction to remote repair capacitor use
+50% to armor repairer repair amount.

Cannot be remote assisted while the state is active

When that module isn't active, it can move about, but with much weaker offense.



It makes the ship appealing for explorers in small packs, but large groups would find it relatively worthless


CCp does nto want to risk even more firepower able to jump trough a covert cyno using a back ops bridge.

That might indicate that they intend to buff black ops themselves.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#2156 - 2014-01-26 18:24:07 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:

Well I went that way a few months back, when I first heard about the placeholder on Singularity.

But I like this one too.
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#2157 - 2014-01-26 18:47:29 UTC
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci wrote:
Catherine Laartii wrote:

Well I went that way a few months back, when I first heard about the placeholder on Singularity.

But I like this one too.

I just realized how similar my idea is to this one.. I haven't looked at it in months Shocked
Divi Filus
New Xenocracy
#2158 - 2014-01-26 19:43:52 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
CCp does nto want to risk even more firepower able to jump trough a covert cyno using a back ops bridge.


Which is probably why it's been suggested a few dozen times in this thread that this ship not be covert bridgeable if DPS is a concern.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#2159 - 2014-01-27 03:45:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Herzog Wolfhammer
stoicfaux wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:

This is a ship that is meant to function at pirate faction meta level

SoE are bad pirates.




SoE - bad habits abound.


So, is this ship going to get anything special to justify the price or is this going to be a big fat blingy gank magnet?

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2160 - 2014-01-27 04:49:19 UTC
Fat gank magnet.
I'm disappointed in the whole range really. They don't actually feel like an Amarr/Gallente hybrid. The lasers aren't effective due to cap use so you are better off using projectiles so you can actually run your guns. Making them just a Drone/Exploration ship, which is actually a bad combination.

But the Battleship is just terrible.