| Author |
Topic |
Mikael Mechka
Gallente
Time Bandits.
|
Posted - 2008.09.28 23:47:00 - [ 1]
Okay, chances are I'll probably get badly flamed for these ideas, but here goes.
I was browsing the ship entries and found that destroyers don't have much in the way of T2 counterparts. The Interdictor is the only T2 destroyer, while even battlecruisers and battleships get 2 T2 varients.
I really like the destroyers, and it seems few people fly them, so why not give them more incentive to do so? In the form of new T2 destroyers:
The Gunship: this ship would essentially be a T2 version of your standard destroyer, much like the Vaga is the to Stabber, much like the Diemos is to the Thorax. Up to 8 guns, keep the range and tracking bonus, change the ROF penalty to a 5% ROF bonus per level along with a base 10% extra resist to shields/armour, but reduce the damage by 10%.
This would lead to a ship that can fill the sky with a hail of fire, keeping Interceptors away from the fleet. The damage reduction should I HOPE give a small niche for assault frigates as well: To charge through the hail of gunfire and gut the gunship at short range.
The Forward Command Ship: This would be a small version of the command ships. T2 resists and the ROF penalty still applies, but with a -99% CPU need for warefare links. Allowing for a single warfare link may make it useful enough for a roaming gang to consider taking one, especially when a fully fledged command ship would be too unwieldy and slow.
RP wise: the gunship is a way for fleets to keep high speed interceptors away from the snipers thus providing a warp in point for hostiles, while the need for stronger co-ordination in long range scouting and harassment gave birth to the Forward Command Ship.
Comments? Suggestions? |
Sir Substance
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service |
Posted - 2008.09.29 01:33:00 - [ 2]
 Originally by: Mikael Mechka
Okay, chances are I'll probably get badly flamed for these ideas, but here goes.
I was browsing the ship entries and found that destroyers don't have much in the way of T2 counterparts. The Interdictor is the only T2 destroyer, while even battlecruisers and battleships get 2 T2 varients.
I really like the destroyers, and it seems few people fly them, so why not give them more incentive to do so? In the form of new T2 destroyers:
The Gunship: this ship would essentially be a T2 version of your standard destroyer, much like the Vaga is the to Stabber, much like the Diemos is to the Thorax. Up to 8 guns, keep the range and tracking bonus, change the ROF penalty to a 5% ROF bonus per level along with a base 10% extra resist to shields/armour, but reduce the damage by 10%.
This would lead to a ship that can fill the sky with a hail of fire, keeping Interceptors away from the fleet. The damage reduction should I HOPE give a small niche for assault frigates as well: To charge through the hail of gunfire and gut the gunship at short range.
The Forward Command Ship: This would be a small version of the command ships. T2 resists and the ROF penalty still applies, but with a -99% CPU need for warefare links. Allowing for a single warfare link may make it useful enough for a roaming gang to consider taking one, especially when a fully fledged command ship would be too unwieldy and slow.
RP wise: the gunship is a way for fleets to keep high speed interceptors away from the snipers thus providing a warp in point for hostiles, while the need for stronger co-ordination in long range scouting and harassment gave birth to the Forward Command Ship.
Comments? Suggestions?
a BC can already fit 1 link, so the forward command ship is a bit silly. on the other hand, if you made it be able to fit two links, but only use one at a time, it could be dead handy for tactical usage. fit a mining link and a shield link for example, in a 0.0 op. the instant an enemy warps in, it becomes less about the miners and more about the defence force, so you swap links. as for the gunship, i would advocate a very high sensor strength as well, so not only can it trash intys, but when in the standard inty-falcon-HAC combo, it can totally trash the falcon. that would make it a ship worth training for. |
Mikael Mechka
Gallente
Time Bandits.
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 06:45:00 - [ 3]
I was thinking more along the lines of as a possible replacement for a BC during a roaming op, where the slow base speed and align time of the battlecruiser would slow down or even be lethal to the whole group, but a 2nd link might work too.
High sensor strength for the gunship sounds good, but as a Falcon can pretty much keep any target permajammed, it would need the sensor strength of a battlecruiser at least, just to be able to have the odd chance to escape the jam. As T2 ships tend to be specialised, giving it the ability to shred inties and resist ECM (I'd like to be able to say "ewar" but not really seen any other ewar ship in a while) would give it too much strength.
It would seem more like a anti-inty and anti-falcon ship, than an anti-inty ship. We'd be going down a dark road if we're designing ships to specifically take out a single ship rather than a class of ship (anti-ewar is fine, anti-falcon is not, as much as I am getting sick of them). |
Sir Substance
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service |
Posted - 2008.09.29 08:28:00 - [ 4]
Originally by: Mikael Mechka
1)I was thinking more along the lines of as a possible replacement for a BC during a roaming op, where the slow base speed and align time of the battlecruiser would slow down or even be lethal to the whole group, but a 2nd link might work too.
2)High sensor strength for the gunship sounds good, but as a Falcon can pretty much keep any target permajammed, it would need the sensor strength of a battlecruiser at least, just to be able to have the odd chance to escape the jam. As T2 ships tend to be specialised, giving it the ability to shred inties and resist ECM (I'd like to be able to say "ewar" but not really seen any other ewar ship in a while) would give it too much strength.
3)It would seem more like a anti-inty and anti-falcon ship, than an anti-inty ship. We'd be going down a dark road if we're designing ships to specifically take out a single ship rather than a class of ship (anti-ewar is fine, anti-falcon is not, as much as I am getting sick of them).
1. it depends. a t2 ship by definition is a high cost ship.a t2 dessie will cost you at least 15mil (thats the cost of an assault frig) and possibly as much if not more then a BC. in return you get a more fragile ship. being able to scarper in this case will be less important then being able tank and being able to lose the ship without worrying about it. people will never train for and buy a t2 dessie when a BC can do it just as well, once you strap it full of nano mods. 2. im thinking even higher. im talking 40+ this leads us onto... 3. i agree that making a ship class to kill a specific ship is ******ed, thats not really what im aiming for. what im aiming for is a ship that can break up the normal tackler-jammer-DPS combo. realistically, a tackler and a DPS are required, however, a jammer is not, and a jammer is the thing most people find so annoying. most of the time, this is a falcon, thus the falcon was the one i mentioned. it could as easily be a scorp, a blackbird, even something like a celestis, using jammers instead of dampers. we did have a ship to avoid a specific module before (the blockade runners inherent bonus against warp scrammers) and in some ways this could be construed as an anti-gallente recon ship. but its not, and thats what id like to see for this gunship. not an anti falcon ship, but an anti jammer cruiser frig. |
Mikael Mechka
Gallente
Time Bandits.
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 09:31:00 - [ 5]
Originally by: Sir Substance
1. it depends. a t2 ship by definition is a high cost ship.a t2 dessie will cost you at least 15mil (thats the cost of an assault frig) and possibly as much if not more then a BC. in return you get a more fragile ship. being able to scarper in this case will be less important then being able tank and being able to lose the ship without worrying about it.
people will never train for and buy a t2 dessie when a BC can do it just as well, once you strap it full of nano mods.
2. im thinking even higher. im talking 40+ this leads us onto...
3. i agree that making a ship class to kill a specific ship is ******ed, thats not really what im aiming for. what im aiming for is a ship that can break up the normal tackler-jammer-DPS combo.
realistically, a tackler and a DPS are required, however, a jammer is not, and a jammer is the thing most people find so annoying.
most of the time, this is a falcon, thus the falcon was the one i mentioned. it could as easily be a scorp, a blackbird, even something like a celestis, using jammers instead of dampers.
we did have a ship to avoid a specific module before (the blockade runners inherent bonus against warp scrammers) and in some ways this could be construed as an anti-gallente recon ship. but its not, and thats what id like to see for this gunship. not an anti falcon ship, but an anti jammer cruiser frig.
1. A good point, one which I had not considered. Though a nano'd BC acting as a forward command point may be counterd with the impending nano-nerf. I agree that currently a nano'd BC would likely do the job better and have more tank, but if we're talking about polycarbs rather than overdrives and nanofibers (I've never speed fit a BC before) then the cost would be a balance. If not, then the option of 2 warfare links is sound. 2+3. If you have a sensor strength that high (I believe a regular T1 cruiser has about 15 strength?) then it would make the ship specially suited to fighting Caldari ewar. Unless each race's gunship has a ewar resist bonus for the racial enemy: Gallente having high sensor strength to resist ECM Caldari have extreme lock ranges to counter damps Amarr getting small sig radius to reduce target painter effectiveness and Minmatar getting tracking bonus to off-set tracking disrupters, then it would for all intents and purposes be anti-Caldari. Another option is to just give them ewar immunity, but that's going way overboard I think. |
Sir Substance
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service |
Posted - 2008.09.29 10:25:00 - [ 6]
an ewar immunity is an intriguing idea. people are complaining that the nano-nerf will make it impossible for gangs of young players to defeat gank squads of experienced players. if all this is is a dessie with ewar immunity and t2 resists, with perhaps a bonus to PG and CPU per lvl, it would make a ship ideally suited to hunting gank squads of that kind. DPS will obliterate these ships, of course.
something to think about..... |
|
All Channels
Features and Ideas Discussion
