These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Six new ships for summer expansion

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#221 - 2014-04-28 10:14:43 UTC
DeadDuck wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Here's your hint:


One category provides more advanced version(s) of one of the most popular ships classes in EVE.



Betting on Tec 3 Frigates Cool


i'll take that bet!

what's your wager? I pick T3 mining subsystems

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#222 - 2014-04-28 10:51:01 UTC
Kyra D'Jinn wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:


They don't fill the role at all.

A large POS takes about 800 battleship minutes to kill, or about 90 dreadnaught minutes in space where dread use is practical (C5-6, low, null). Less if the ships in question do not need a local tank.

Attack battlecruisers are just more agile, less well defended battleships and still take around 800 minutes to destroy a large POS. The void worth filling is a ship that uses stargates, and can kill a large POS in 4-5 hours (possibly with unique drawbacks, much as dreadnaughts have to give up their mobility and capacity to receive remote assistance to do that damage).

This is particularly important with the upcoming increased proliferation of POSes that highsec can expect with the industry changes and standing requirement changes. There is a reason that even offline POSes are seldom killed in highsec - the process of killing one is downright miserable.



Whether this void is filled by a ship that is generally useful or extremely niche, it is something that the game needs now.


your math on a dread/massive battleship fleet killing a pos, is miles off the mark. It would literally take one dread less than an hour to kill a pos. 5 dreads dealing 15k dps will do just over 22 million damage in one siege cycle.


15k is a Moros with absolutely no tank and a more blinged than average fit. My math is based on a more realistic estimate of around 10k (and the battleships at 1200). Of course you can get higher, but that requires either fielding a lot more ISK or alternately, fielding multiple 0 DPS logi ships.




Rivr Luzade wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:

Whether this void is filled by a ship that is generally useful or extremely niche, it is something that the game needs now.


Oh, sure the game needs more tools to make it even easier. And of course CCP needs to introduce even more tools to the game to make the life of Industrialists even more troublesome after this patch. And of course in an Industry themed expansion, even more tools of destruction for PVP need to be introduced.

Do you even listen to yourself or read what you type? Roll


Getting rid of tools that make the game 'easier' is exactly why highsec POSes need to be realistically able to be killed. Attackers invest 10-15 player hours destroying one and the defenders invest 2-3 hours acquiring the ISK to replace it and then anchor it elsewhere. Why would you defend a POS against aggression when it's so much more efficient to surrender it and rebuild it elsewhere?

Almost nothing else in the game takes so much more effort to destroy than it does to create. And by god it will get worse when POSes are in 0.8-1.0 space. Within a few months, there will probably be more than ten thousand abandoned POSes in highsec.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#223 - 2014-04-28 10:59:10 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:

Getting rid of tools that make the game 'easier' is exactly why highsec POSes need to be realistically able to be killed. Attackers invest 10-15 player hours destroying one and the defenders invest 2-3 hours acquiring the ISK to replace it and then anchor it elsewhere. Why would you defend a POS against aggression when it's so much more efficient to surrender it and rebuild it elsewhere?

Almost nothing else in the game takes so much more effort to destroy than it does to create. And by god it will get worse when POSes are in 0.8-1.0 space. Within a few months, there will probably be more than ten thousand abandoned POSes in highsec.


So? Invest a bit of ISK and hire RVB (that's what I constantly get told here in the forums. Roll) to murder the abandoned POS if you really need a POS in a system where everyone else is going to do the same to you or where, with your desired new tools of destruction, is going to do the same to you. Hopefully you see your flawed logic. Roll

Besides, with a 800 DPS Oracle fleet of 10 or 15 it takes only marginally longer than 2 hours (if at all) to remove an abandoned POS. I don't see a problem with investing this much effort into it. If you want easier fights or easier removal of things, go to Low sec. High sec should not be turned more into a Aunt Sally than it already is the case.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#224 - 2014-04-28 11:35:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
My guess (and I'm hoping for) for one category is T2 destroyers with boosts on pilot leadership skills

Small on grid support from a more powerful squad leader, or simply better combat support for escort duties.

*taps foot patiently waiting for a tech II algos*

Edit: I seem to remember CCP Fozzie saying something a while back about destroyers neding some love but can't remember what...

Another change I would like would be for BC's and BS's to be built from subsystem (T1 and maybe T2, not T3) rather than an amorphous blob of fittings. This wouldn't impact existing BS as they would now be represented by subs that provide the current stats, but players could now customize to there preferred flying style.
Anogra
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#225 - 2014-04-28 11:49:21 UTC
what if one of the new ships are a hauler that can haul ice products? its a hauler ship thats been missing, and wont make a large impact

Anogra
Darth Felin
Monkey Attack Squad
Goonswarm Federation
#226 - 2014-04-28 11:52:46 UTC
2 new AT prize ships and t2 versions for Noctis/Venture/Orca/Rorqual?
Ren Coursa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#227 - 2014-04-28 12:00:02 UTC
Darth Felin wrote:
2 new AT prize ships and t2 versions for Noctis/Venture/Orca/Rorqual?


Why are people mentioning AT prizes? Is that something ccp usually count as "a new ship" when talking about expansions?

Think it would be very stupid to hype everyone on new ships and then include them in that number.
The Sinister
Interbellum
#228 - 2014-04-28 12:44:36 UTC
OMG OMG OMG T2 Talos, Naga, Oracle and Tornado?

also Navy Destroyers

and maybe a T2 venture....
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#229 - 2014-04-28 13:08:43 UTC
interesting too see in the patch today that only frigs got a non-empire section on the market ..
so there must be a new none pirate frig too be released in the summer ...

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#230 - 2014-04-28 13:11:39 UTC
On th log in screen we have Ventures with three lasers, so I guess that one could be considered confirmed.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Beofryn Sedorak
#231 - 2014-04-28 13:19:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Beofryn Sedorak
Abrazzar wrote:
On th log in screen we have Ventures with three lasers, so I guess that one could be considered confirmed.


False. You shouldn't ever try to speculate based on a graphic that isn't specifically designed to reveal something. There are tons of graphics exactly like this that don't in any way represent actual gameplay. It's just a pretty picture.

Edit: To clarify, I'm not arguing that the venture won't get a t2 variant. I'm merely stating that the venture in that image is NOT the t2 model that's already been found. Additionally, It's very common for CCP to misrepresent weapons systems and turret/launcher count in their graphics for the sake of aesthetics.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#232 - 2014-04-28 13:22:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
Abrazzar wrote:
On th log in screen we have Ventures with three lasers, so I guess that one could be considered confirmed.


good spot Big smile

Admittedly I stopped at 'Ooh that's nice and blue...'
stoicfaux
#233 - 2014-04-28 13:43:59 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
On th log in screen we have Ventures with three lasers, so I guess that one could be considered confirmed.

You mean like the launcher background that had a Raven shooting a planet with lasers?


P.S. sorry about the link being a forum link instead of an actual link to a pic of the launcher. My google-fu failed me.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#234 - 2014-04-28 13:49:25 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Abrazzar wrote:
On th log in screen we have Ventures with three lasers, so I guess that one could be considered confirmed.

You mean like the launcher background that had a Raven shooting a planet with lasers?


Well... Raven has 4 turret hardpoints? Big smile
Beofryn Sedorak
#235 - 2014-04-28 14:55:04 UTC
Nalelmir Ahashion
Industrial Management and Engineering
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#236 - 2014-04-28 15:39:54 UTC
Venture + 3 mining lasers on the new character selection screen.

shoot.
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#237 - 2014-04-28 15:49:59 UTC
New Ore Q-ships. Reactive weapons only (can't target and fire - they do that)

They look like all the other Or ships (no new ship artwork needed - just some kind of "transition" effect) but when attacked, they suddenly unleash devastating return-fire while having the tank of a HIC. No ability to mine, only "fake it", they'd be just a trap parked there looking like it was mining or harvesting gas or what not.

Avoidance: Best ship-scan it first.

Best use: Fly down to lowsec or nullsec and go "mining".

Kind of a miner's version of a Jita scammer. If you check, you can avoid it. If not ...
Caviar Liberta
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#238 - 2014-04-28 17:08:49 UTC
Dorijan wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

One category provides more advanced version(s) of one of the most popular ships classes in EVE.


Faction Supercarriers confirmed. :toot:


Fed Navy Issue Nyx. Now you to can crash into stations causing collision damage just like in the trailer.
IDGAD
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#239 - 2014-04-28 17:17:01 UTC
I don't know why people keep mentioning navy dessies. A navy dessy would be a horrid idea.... faction frigs are already 20~40 mill so a navy dessy would be around 80~120 mill most likely. A dessy is designed to be anti-frig more or less, and all you would get out of a navy one is marginal more range, double the tank, etc. The truth is they will still be squishy against larger ships, and at that price I seriously doubt they will be worth using. The only reason people use regular faction (not pirate) frigs is because they EXPECT them to1V1 non faction frigs. Look at all the faction frigs in FW sites, they only use them and their higher cost because they have a way to unnaturally control the field. Faction dessies would not do as well in FW because the main farming happens in frigs and main anti-frig combat happens in frigs with the occasional dessy.

Sad truth: Faction dessies without getting a niche role would not be a great addition, we would be much better off with T3 frigs, or faction logi.
Bezulian Askintosh
Black Iron Fists
#240 - 2014-04-28 17:21:50 UTC
Nalelmir Ahashion wrote:
T3 ore miner.

make it happen,
I'll bite.

Also no limit on high\low\null sec access.

I want mining carrier with Venture size mining drones :P


lol