Player Features and Ideas Discussion

CCP tried this with t3 logi....and it was not a setup that got many fans on either side.


For the logi types the short range is not liked.

For the kill the logi types often times they settle for bumping (repped or repper) vice killing the t3 or hoping old boy/girl makes a mistake on charging up chargeable mods (tank or cap injects). This the often better course of action for faster removing reps off the field. As its less time than trying to kill the logi.

Current cruiser logi not being tank is imo a planned balance feature. Or else you'd have somewhat immortal logi on the field. At least for small scale stuff. We can argue carrier logi backup sucks but....if a few dropped and you don't have a few to counter the writing on the wall there really. Writing says tactical retreat would be wise lol.

This would be boring and in many scenarios a new era of N+1 crap. N+! to kill the logi (now tankier) countered by N+1 logi countered by N+1 logi killers...extend the cycle as much as you want.

In very large fleet battles, at the start, dps can often volley through anything subcap.

But as the fight continues, the damage for both sides continues to drop. Sooner or later both sides hit the point where they are not alphaing ships anymore. And when that happens logi once again becomes incredibly important.

This happens at a much lower level than you may expect because huge fights are grouped up into multiple smaller fleets on both sides, which have different targets they are shooting at.

So as soon as any of the smaller subfleets hits a point where they are unable to alpha through targets, their enemy logi comes back into play, massively slowing down the rate at which you are able to chew through the enemy.

TLDR: Logi are just as important in large scale combat as in small, although triage can be a workable option for low mobility fleets.

if you want more T2 bc's .. than they should make the current ABC's (talos/nado/oracle/naga) into T2.

pros
- partial T2 resists
- lower sig
- makes them less common and harder too come by
- allows 4 of the CBC's too be moved into attack bc's instead

cons
- more expensive
- more skill intensive (no bad thing personally)
- new skillbook needed

so it would a new branch of t2 bc's, granted they already exist but hey they are specialised already anyway, its the right thing too do.
and would allow greater variety in the current bc's, brutix/drake/harbinger/hurricane. and nerf the myrm's dps potential so brutix can actually do more would be nice.

pros
- lower sig
- higher speed/mobility
- bonuses could be changed for application bonuses (especially drake)

BUT I WANT MORE SHIPS!!! it's cooler that way

I agree that there needs to be some more variety in the battlecruiser class and the destroyer class as well. But the hard part is figuring out the proper was to get that variety.

As has been mentioned, the three base classes, frigate, cruiser and battleship, are all nicely fleshed out with adequate variety. The T2 versions of the frigate and cruiser rival or even surpass the T1 "middle children." This place in the progression of Eve ships turns them into "multi-roles" and increasing their power can lead to dangerous power creep.

The first idea that comes to mind would not be T2, but pirate faction variants. But, that can lead to the aforementioned power creep because battlecruisers and destroyers somewhat enjoy that "best of both worlds" position.

The other idea runs opposite the names of the classes. "Destroyer" and "Battlecruiser" both indicate warships. But, what about having T2 variants that are specialized at exploration or as hunter-killers for cloaked ships? That might work. Tailor all the fitting and slots towards that given specialized role but make their weaknesses quite huge. For instance, the exploration version would have a few highs, a lot of mids and some lows. It would have the CPU needed to fit an expanded probe launcher (or, the the CPU cost of the launcher would be a fraction of what it normally is) plus upgrades and analyzers. It could fit CovOps cloak, be super quick for its size and have exploration bonuses (increased range for analyzers, increased virus strength, probe bonuses). However, it would be fragile as hell, no weapon bonus and possibly a slow warp speed. This would work for both the middle classes. They could follow the T3 Destroyer model and have three modes: speed (faster, lower EHP and resistances), scanning (zero speed, a little more armor and decent scanning bonuses) and analyzing (higher HP and resistances, analyzer bonuses (coherence, strength and/or range, but nearly immobile with no offensive capabilities whatsoever (ie if the ship can use drones, any drones out while in this mode are disconnected)). The exploration version could also be used to mount exploration-related gang links.

The last idea could be a silly one, but what the heck. Scaled down carriers. These would sacrifice turret/launcher slots in favor of increased bandwidth and the ability to mount scaled down drone control units. They would not be able to use fighters or fighter bombers. For instance, the Algos micro-carrier would have the bandwidth to launch five medium drones (now only two) or the ability to mount control units to field up to ten light drones (now only five). Do the same with the battlecruiser class (mini-carrier). Bandwidth to field five heavy drones or sentries or mount enough control units to launch ten medium drones. Increase the control range to let them stand off, but make them clunky and lightly armored. Play with drone bonuses to make them viable but remain balanced.