open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Combat Capital Ship?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

XGS Crimson
Posted - 2011.07.29 11:15:00 - [1]
 

I've recently been playing another spaceship game called sins of a solar empire and it's got me thinking.
In that game there are drones, carriers, and dreads but there are also combat capital ships that get a couple of drones (much like a regular battleship) but they are gunboats/missile boats/laser boats.

So this is my question, why are there no capital ships that are much like battleships, only much bigger. I mean a Capital Ship that would actually strike fear into it's opponents?

MisterNick
Gallente
The Sagan Clan
Pax Romana Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.29 11:21:00 - [2]
 

Titans Wink

XGS Crimson
Posted - 2011.07.29 11:40:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: MisterNick
Titans Wink


Titans arn't scary :/

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.07.29 12:43:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: XGS Crimson
So this is my question, why are there no capital ships that are much like battleships, only much bigger.


Because then there'd be no point to battleships.

XGS Crimson
Posted - 2011.07.29 13:30:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: XGS Crimson
So this is my question, why are there no capital ships that are much like battleships, only much bigger.


Because then there'd be no point to battleships.


This isn't true.
You could say the same for combat frigates being over taken by combat cruisers, and the same for cruisers with battlecruisers, and battlecruisers with battleships, the next in the chain would allow capital fleets to deal with support fleets more effectively and make a fun combat vessel to use (carriers and dreads are a little dull imo).

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.07.29 14:32:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: XGS Crimson
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: XGS Crimson
So this is my question, why are there no capital ships that are much like battleships, only much bigger.


Because then there'd be no point to battleships.


This isn't true.
You could say the same for combat frigates being over taken by combat cruisers, and the same for cruisers with battlecruisers, and battlecruisers with battleships, the next in the chain would allow capital fleets to deal with support fleets more effectively and make a fun combat vessel to use (carriers and dreads are a little dull imo).


You asked why there are "no capital ships that are much like battleships, only much bigger". Since you state that a dreadnought is not what you want, I can only assume that you want a jump-capable capital with lots of tank 'n' gank and BS-level tracking. You then confirmed this interpretation by stating that this ship would "allow capital fleets to deal with support fleets more effectively". Why would anyone fly a battleship when this ship, better than a battleship in all respects, exists?

Your comparison of frigates and cruisers is invalid, as cruisers have worse-tracking weapons and are less mobile, whereas these combat capitals would have similar tracking to BS, and be much more mobile because of their jump drives. Your comparison of cruisers and battlecruisers demonstrates the flaw in the concept of such a combat capital, because battlecruisers do obsolete combat cruisers. Specifically, the Hurricane can easily be fit to be faster and more agile, with more EHP and DPS and better tracking and range, than almost all sensible cruiser fits. This is why we see endless BC spam everywhere, which has damaged the diversity of combat and the ships seen in space.

Finally, enabling capital fleets to deal with support fleets more effectively is most undesirable, as it obsoletes subcapitals, c.f. supercapitals.

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.07.29 15:10:00 - [7]
 

How about a dread that can't siege and has enough weapon slots to do similar damage to a siege-mode dread?

That would be plenty scary to other capital ships, somewhat scary to battleships, and not much of a thread to BC and below.

Fire Starter55
Posted - 2011.07.30 07:35:00 - [8]
 

We don't need a completely new ship here, honestly what we need is balancing of the current classes. Personally I believe dreds need a slight buff, sc need a big nerf, tier 2 bc need a slight nerf as do pirate frigs. Bringing everything in line.

Fleets are supposed to be diverse, but all you see now are drakes, canes, abbys, and supers... I mean why fly something like a zealot when a cane can do the same job cheaper as an example. It's to the point tier 1 bc are laughed at when they show up in fleets,

Flynn Fetladral
Royal Order of Security Specialists
Posted - 2011.07.30 08:37:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Newt Rondanse
How about a dread that can't siege and has enough weapon slots to do similar damage to a siege-mode dread?

That would be plenty scary to other capital ships, somewhat scary to battleships, and not much of a thread to BC and below.


This!

Mfume Apocal
Minmatar
Origin.
Black Legion.
Posted - 2011.07.30 09:51:00 - [10]
 

Titans don't have problems hitting BSes and shield-tanked BCs.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.07.30 10:05:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Newt Rondanse
How about a dread that can't siege and has enough weapon slots to do similar damage to a siege-mode dread?


Then why would anyone fly a dreadnought?

Come on. After it's demonstrated to you that "combat capital" are undesirable because they obsolete a currently existing class, you come up with an idea that does exactly that again?

Drykor
Minmatar
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2011.07.30 10:17:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: XGS Crimson
I've recently been playing another spaceship game called sins of a solar empire and it's got me thinking.
In that game there are drones, carriers, and dreads but there are also combat capital ships that get a couple of drones (much like a regular battleship) but they are gunboats/missile boats/laser boats.

So this is my question, why are there no capital ships that are much like battleships, only much bigger. I mean a Capital Ship that would actually strike fear into it's opponents?


They're called motherships

Mattias Kerensky
Minmatar
The Flying Tigers
Intergalactic Exports Group
Posted - 2011.07.30 10:45:00 - [13]
 

I've always thought a lesser class of capital ship would be interesting, specifically an Escort Carrier type ship, with the ability to field 5 fighters and some smaller drones, and with gunslots/bonuses for large gun/missile types, shorter jump range, still no ability to use gates, increased speed relative to other capitals, basically a hybrid of a Black Ops BS (without the cloaking) and a carrier. Admittedly it might be a bit OP, but damn it'd be cool.

XGS Crimson
Posted - 2011.07.30 14:41:00 - [14]
 

Why always drones and fighters? what about the other weapon systems?

Todd4921
Gallente
Pioneer's of the Galantic Wars
IMPERIAL LEGI0N
Posted - 2011.07.31 13:13:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: XGS Crimson
Why always drones and fighters? what about the other weapon systems?

There are others?

Andy Landen
Caldari
Posted - 2011.07.31 15:11:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: XGS Crimson

So this is my question, why are there no capital ships that are much like battleships, only much bigger. I mean a Capital Ship that would actually strike fear into it's opponents?


Super carriers strike fear into my heart. Dreads are pretty mean too. The lack of weakness in the super makes it way OP combined with insane dps (10s of thousands of dps). If the super didn't strike this much fear into people's hearts, people woudn't be asking for dread dps buff without siege (I mean seriously?). A dread is basically a big BS and Tracking computers can make it hit things smaller than itself rather well considering.

As a carrier pilot, I am not interested in the dread becoming the new SC. Last thing I need is another reason why not to take my carrier into combat. First it was the Titan AOE Doomsday. Then it is the dps-whoring SC. Don't make it the Dread next.

PS: CCP, If fighter bombers continue, make them available to carrier pilots too, and make the ship bonus only enable 1 fighter bomber per level for either carrier or SC; even if it continues to enable 3 of any other kind of drone for the SC.

Drykor
Minmatar
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2011.08.01 08:23:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Andy Landen

As a carrier pilot, I am not interested in the dread becoming the new SC. Last thing I need is another reason why not to take my carrier into combat. First it was the Titan AOE Doomsday. Then it is the dps-whoring SC. Don't make it the Dread next.



Not sure I get this, the Titan AOE weapon barely had any effect on a carrier (other than losing part of its support fleet of course, but that's hardly a reason to leave a carrier out of combat specifically)

Originally by: Andy Landen

PS: CCP, If fighter bombers continue, make them available to carrier pilots too, and make the ship bonus only enable 1 fighter bomber per level for either carrier or SC; even if it continues to enable 3 of any other kind of drone for the SC.


Let me get this straight.. so if CCP wants to keep something that's currently overpowered, make it available to more ships too so at least you can use it?

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.01 13:52:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Newt Rondanse
How about a dread that can't siege and has enough weapon slots to do similar damage to a siege-mode dread?


Then why would anyone fly a dreadnought?

Come on. After it's demonstrated to you that "combat capital" are undesirable because they obsolete a currently existing class, you come up with an idea that does exactly that again?

And the existing dreads have a viable anti-supercap role?
They are one-trick ponies, and the change I propose doesn't supplant them in that role.

Where are the dread blobs downing titans and supercarriers?

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.08.01 14:15:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Newt Rondanse
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Newt Rondanse
How about a dread that can't siege and has enough weapon slots to do similar damage to a siege-mode dread?


Then why would anyone fly a dreadnought?

Come on. After it's demonstrated to you that "combat capitals" are undesirable because they obsolete a currently existing class, you come up with an idea that does exactly that again?


And the existing dreads have a viable anti-supercap role?
They are one-trick ponies, and the change I propose doesn't supplant them in that role.

Where are the dread blobs downing titans and supercarriers?


If you think that a new Dread that's basically the same as an old Dread but doesn't need to siege wouldn't completely obsolete old Dreads, then I really don't know what to say. Of course it would supplant them. If you have an idea that leads to the total obsolescence of a pre-existing ship, then you should propose it as a boost to that class, rather than a novel class.

The comments about supercaps are not relevant. There are no dread blobs killing supercaps, and this wouldn't change with new dreads, because supercaps are more pilot-efficient, flexible, don't require a support fleet and have much more EHP/DPS and RR potential than dreads, old or new.

Twisted Girl
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.08.01 14:24:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Twisted Girl on 01/08/2011 14:41:41
in modern eve, dreads are mainly used for pos bashing, for small to mid sized /semi poor alliances or disposable dps for ganking of supercaps.

You dont take a 50 man dread fleet and take on a 10-15 supercap fleet tho, unless your sucidal. Then again 50 dread loss is around 50b after insurence vs 200-250b loss with supers. You can however use 5-10 to add some much needed dps to gang to kill the solo super you caught with its pants down before hes backup can arrive. jet with insurence they are pretty disposable.


The dps of gank fit dread is equal/bether than most supers anyways, only downside with dreads is that they are immobile/stuck for 10min, only got so and so much ehp(but more than a carrier) but is not able to recive remote reps for the duration of the siege, making them very vunerable to overwhelming dps. Unlike a carrier gang with spider tank, the bigger the dread gang becomes doesnt mean it ability to defend itself increase due to said lack of ability to recive remote reps.

Play by its strength , and not try to bash in the door with head first all the time.
What you got is a insureable (give or take 1b loss a pop) 10k dps ship, as long as it doesnt get shot back at by more than 1 super it totaly fine.

Short version: Use dreads as cheap substitue of super dps , but understand that they are "glasscannon" and should be threated so.

If you wanted to buff dreads, I dont think removing the siege is the way to go, bether making it able to recive remote reps or something imo(increase its jump range).

Aamrr
Posted - 2011.08.01 14:40:00 - [21]
 

Here's what's astonishing to me: When dreadnoughts were introduced, the idea of anything capable of dealing 5000 DPS was such a threat to balance that they had to restrict it with total immobility, a 1000m signature resolution, a 50% tracking penalty, and a 10 minute commitment.

When supercarriers were buffed, not only did they eclipse dreadnought DPS by about 40% (75% for the Nyx), but they did so with a ship that not only lacks a 10 minute timer, but is in fact point immune. Moreover, if their primary weaponry is inappropriate, they can recall their bombers to use normal drones.

Even neglecting the difference in raw DPS/EHP these ships possess, the strategic discrepancy between these two ships is staggering. Am I the only one that sees a disconnect here?

Twisted Girl
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.08.01 14:44:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Twisted Girl on 01/08/2011 14:45:51
Originally by: Aamrr
Here's what's astonishing to me: When dreadnoughts were introduced, the idea of anything capable of dealing 5000 DPS was such a threat to balance that they had to restrict it with total immobility, a 1000m signature resolution, a 50% tracking penalty, and a 10 minute commitment.

When supercarriers were buffed, not only did they eclipse dreadnought DPS by about 40% (75% for the Nyx), but they did so with a ship that not only lacks a 10 minute timer, but is in fact point immune. Moreover, if their primary weaponry is inappropriate, they can recall their bombers to use normal drones.

Even neglecting the difference in raw DPS/EHP these ships possess, the strategic discrepancy between these two ships is staggering. Am I the only one that sees a disconnect here?

Any semi decent alliance can afford to loose a dread fleet in a evening. and come back same combat strength the day after(with new dreads). Try loosing 10 supers and your looking at a possible failcalscading alliance/possible pilots quitting eve.

risk vs reward imo.

Aamrr
Posted - 2011.08.01 14:54:00 - [23]
 

That might have some weight if there were actually any significant chance of losing an entire supercapital fleet. Particularly in lowsec, the idea of having sufficient interdictors to force the entire enemy force to commit is almost ludicrous.

Sure, it's significantly more damaging if a supercapital fleet gets totaled. But the force necessary to accomplish that is also correspondingly greater, so the logic doesn't really hold here. Rolling Eyes

Price alone is not a balancing factor -- particularly not when one tier of ships completely obsoletes another.

Twisted Girl
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.08.01 14:57:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Twisted Girl on 01/08/2011 14:59:26
Originally by: Aamrr
That might have some weight if there were actually any significant chance of losing an entire supercapital fleet. Particularly in lowsec, the idea of having sufficient interdictors to force the entire enemy force to commit is almost ludicrous.

Sure, it's significantly more damaging if a supercapital fleet gets totaled. But the force necessary to accomplish that is also correspondingly greater, so the logic doesn't really hold here. Rolling Eyes

Price alone is not a balancing factor -- particularly not when one tier of ships completely obsoletes another.


put 10 supers in a system and I show you its totaly doable. also a super pilot is stuck in his supern 24/7 while hes dread collega is home free to do whatever. You might say that to accually have a supercap cost u 350 mill a mothn in upkeep(for the plex), totaly unable to do anything else. then add pos cost so it accually got somewhere to sit semi safe.

you might aswell look at it as a stealthbomber(dread) vs a battleship(super). a super is not a faction/t2 variant of a dread its a totaly another shipclass/price tag.

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.01 16:33:00 - [25]
 

OK, so how do you make a dreadnaught variant that is merely as useful as a carrier in a non-siege battle?

Obviously it can't have the siege bonuses available, or it *does* supercede the existing dreadnaught classes, and it has to do more damage than an existing dreadnaught outside of siege mode or it is a useless piece of #### that nobody would waste SP or isk on.

Exactly where these numbers sort out on a percentage basis is subject to debate, but the overall shape of the solution is so obvious that it's a wonder that people even think it's worth arguing about.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.08.01 20:13:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Newt Rondanse
OK, so how do you make a dreadnaught variant that is merely as useful as a carrier in a non-siege battle?


Why do we need such a ship? What role do you see it fulfilling? Describe the niche, then make sure that the ship that you devise doesn't obsolete current Dreads or battleships, and isn't as comically overpowered as a supercapital.

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.01 23:18:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Newt Rondanse
OK, so how do you make a dreadnaught variant that is merely as useful as a carrier in a non-siege battle?


Why do we need such a ship? What role do you see it fulfilling? Describe the niche, then make sure that the ship that you devise doesn't obsolete current Dreads or battleships, and isn't as comically overpowered as a supercapital.

If for no other reason, than for a capital ship for people to fly who prefer direct damage to drones. Thiss is an MMORPG, and the RP stands for Role Playing, it isn't all about the minmax.

There should be a dreadnaught-type that can stand straight up to a carrier, unsieged (and unable to siege), just because that matches the characters a lot of people have developed in the game. It ought to be less powerful than any of the supercaps individually, but able to face them in small fleets without being terribly overmatched.

If that should happen to "obsolete" the existing dreadnaughts (like a Maelstrom obsoletes a Typhoon), then that is perfectly within the reasonable design parameters of the game. It should have skill requirements appropriate to it's power level.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.08.02 08:34:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Newt Rondanse

If for no other reason, than for a capital ship for people to fly who prefer direct damage to drones. Thiss is an MMORPG, and the RP stands for Role Playing, it isn't all about the minmax.

There should be a dreadnaught-type that can stand straight up to a carrier, unsieged (and unable to siege), just because that matches the characters a lot of people have developed in the game. It ought to be less powerful than any of the supercaps individually, but able to face them in small fleets without being terribly overmatched.

If that should happen to "obsolete" the existing dreadnaughts (like a Maelstrom obsoletes a Typhoon), then that is perfectly within the reasonable design parameters of the game. It should have skill requirements appropriate to it's power level.


Maelstroms don't obsolete Typhoons. They use different weapons, different tanks and are best used in different situations. They're different but balanced. But a Dreadnought that doesn't need to siege would obsolete old Dreads, because the old Dreads would offer nothing different.

Introducing new ships that make currently existing ships worthless is stupid game design. As seen by tier 2 battlecruisers (which have obsoleted tier 1 battlecruisers and cruisers that aren't the Blackbird) and supercapitals, which have have obsoleted almost everything. It leads to predictable, stagnant gameplay and reduces the diversity of ships in space. But the worst thing about introducing a new combat capital that obsolete battleships is that it's a giant FU to new players who want to contribute to large fleet fights. Instead of training for ~6-9 months to get into a well-fit battleship, they have to train for over a year to fly a capital. New players need to be able to think that they can seriously contribute in a sensible timeframe. And this is one of the reasons that supercaps need to be nerfed down to support platforms, rather than being the modern "fleet battleship".

Garresh
Minmatar
Opposite of Low
Posted - 2011.08.02 09:12:00 - [29]
 

Lot of good ideas in this thread. Just want to pipe up my 2 cents. What about a variant on the siege module itself, which allows for incoming RR, but still leaves it stationary, and putting out much less DPS. Might help the niche role you're trying to create without obsoleting the old style. Don't dreads attack from outside of POS range anyways when sieging?

Xearal
Minmatar
SOL Industries
Black Thorne Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.02 10:22:00 - [30]
 

Maybe instead of adding a new ship, add a new type of gun for dreads.
The Capital Siege Cannon.
This cannon would be a supercap killing cannon. While having the same tracking as a regular cannon, the signature it can hit would be much much bigger, so anything that is smaller than a dread would be almost impossible to hit with this cannon, on the upside, it would do a Truckload more damage, as being designed to specificly destroy capital size ships.
Maybe lower the signature radius of POS guns and POSses themselves, so this cannon can't be used effectively to instagank a POS, leaving that to dreads with regular guns on it.
This would make the dread capable of turning into a capital killer, not requiring the siege module, alternatively, a different siege module could be used as well, the 'capital siege module', where remote rep would still be available, a dread becomes immobile, and the guns do even more insane damage, but the tracking is reduced, and also the minimum signature of the weapons is massively increased, attaining the same result as the capital cannon mentioned above.

Another possibility could be a capital warp scrambler/disruptor that can only be mounted on dreads, and which would be able to stop a SC in it's tracks, preventing it from warping out like Hictors can, if the dread can do this, without sieging, it can receive remote rep, and would be much harder to kill than a simple hictor. The downside ofcourse would be that such a module would obsolete hictors swarms in fleet fights.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only