Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Evelgrivion
Athanasius Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.16 06:28:00 -
[1]
Siege Battleships Designed by: Antithysis and Evelgrivion Credit for original idea: Tarminic & solarwinds
The Status Quo With the proliferation of defended towers in high security space, it is a difficult proposition to take down starbases belonging to entities with whom you are at war. There are additional difficulties faced against cynosural system jammers located in moderate to heavily defended solar systems, due to widespread adoption of Titans within 0.0 space. To solve these issues, a ship with appreciable firepower, strong armor and defenses, and the ability to use conventional stargates is needed.
Solution: The Tech II Siege Battleship A good candidate is a new, Tech Level II battleship based on the Tier 3 hulls of the four major empires. Tech II's higher skill requirements will keep the vessel out of the hands of young players, making them impractical as an every-man weapon, while also encouraging intelligent deployment, rather than wasteful tactics. The ability to use conventional stargates allows this ship to be deployed in high security space and in systems which have cynosural system jammers online.
- Amarrian Hull: Abaddon
- Caldari Hull: Rokh
- Gallente Hull: Hyperion
- Minmatar Hull: Maelstrom
Each race's battleship is engineered with a respect to their native defense methods, and to use either their long range or short range turret weapons. To survive an extended siege against heavy weapons, each ship has heavy armor and shielding, and significant bonuses to the effectiveness of armor repair modules. In order to provide an appropriate amount of fuel, each ship has a large fuel bay for Strontium Clathrates. To keep these ships balanced, they maintain the lower Tech 1 resistances of their counterparts, but gain significant hitpoint buffers. The ship's repair system bonuses are divided by the number of repair modules fitted to the ship to provide balance, and additional strategic possibilities.
Advanced Note: Statistics not listed are statistics not decided. All listed statistics are, obviously, subject to change. These ships are intended for fighting at relatively close ranges to avoid creating a new king of sniper warfare. |
Evelgrivion
Athanasius Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.16 06:30:00 -
[2]
Reserved |
Evelgrivion
Athanasius Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.16 06:30:00 -
[3]
Reserved |
Antithysis
Gallente Athanasius Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.16 07:04:00 -
[4]
I approve of this poast.
-Anti
|
Builder One
|
Posted - 2008.11.16 07:23:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Builder One on 16/11/2008 07:23:52 With the total lack of real area control or corporate control, it is absurdly easy to shut down a cyno jammer.
Slowly, over time, sneak in AFK cloaky ships. They are utterly immune to everything once they get to a safespot. Once you have 50 or 60 decent max range sniper DPS ships in system, have a cov ops set up a couple BMs that are 250km from the cyno jammer.
Shoot cyno jammer till it pops. Sure, you will lose ships, but who cares, you would lose a lot more trying to force your way into a cap defended system with a battleship fleet. If there are defenders in annoying numbers, hop around the edges of the POS's grid, re-acquiring the cyno as you can. Once you pop the cyno jammer, cyno in cap fleet. ****, pillage, destroy.
If the defenders are looking too strong, meh, no biggie, just camp 23/7 in system using your AFK "I Win" cloaker button until you bore them to death.
Or you can just bribe someone a few billion isks, and have them turn the jammer off, or remove it's fuel. Since CCP has not designed basic security measures like requiring multiple officers for certain critical POS activities, this is not as hard as it might seem.
Area control in EVE is pathetically lacking as it is, and you want to make it harder to defend?
|
Antithysis
Gallente Athanasius Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.16 07:28:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Antithysis on 16/11/2008 07:28:35
Originally by: Builder One Area control in EVE is pathetically lacking as it is, and you want to make it harder to defend?
Are you living in the same universe as the rest of us? It's absurdly easy to control an area in eve what with cyno jammers, jump bridges and multiple titans defending them. The defender has overwhelming odds in their favor.
-Anti |
Builder One
|
Posted - 2008.11.16 07:40:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Antithysis Edited by: Antithysis on 16/11/2008 07:28:35
Originally by: Builder One Area control in EVE is pathetically lacking as it is, and you want to make it harder to defend?
Are you living in the same universe as the rest of us? It's absurdly easy to control an area in eve what with cyno jammers, jump bridges and multiple titans defending them. The defender has overwhelming odds in their favor.
-Anti
Did you even read anything other than the last line? |
Evelgrivion
Athanasius Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.16 07:50:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Builder One
Originally by: Antithysis Edited by: Antithysis on 16/11/2008 07:28:35
Originally by: Builder One Area control in EVE is pathetically lacking as it is, and you want to make it harder to defend?
Are you living in the same universe as the rest of us? It's absurdly easy to control an area in eve what with cyno jammers, jump bridges and multiple titans defending them. The defender has overwhelming odds in their favor.
-Anti
Did you even read anything other than the last line?
I think you can rest assured that the post was read. The fact of the matter is that the game already has a strong bias towards the well defended. A tool like this, as proposed, really wouldn't make it particularly easier to mount an initial assault on an unprepared entity. What it would allow is more of a fighting chance against those who are well entrenched.
The sieges between Band of Brothers, The Northern Coalition, and prior to that, the defunct RedSwarmFed, proved that it is extremely difficult, to almost inhumanly difficult to capture a system under that level of lock down. |
Builder One
|
Posted - 2008.11.16 08:20:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Evelgrivion
I think you can rest assured that the post was read. The fact of the matter is that the game already has a strong bias towards the well defended. A tool like this, as proposed, really wouldn't make it particularly easier to mount an initial assault on an unprepared entity. What it would allow is more of a fighting chance against those who are well entrenched.
The sieges between Band of Brothers, The Northern Coalition, and prior to that, the defunct RedSwarmFed, proved that it is extremely difficult, to almost inhumanly difficult to capture a system under that level of lock down.
Which is exactly as it should be, except more so. It should be damn near impossible to shake a decent sized alliance out of a cynojammed system with one or two entry points. If the number of combatants are similar, defenders should always have a massive advantage at a chokepoint. Alternatively, when the numbers of combatants are similar, attackers should have advantages when there are multiple possible points of attack. |
narccissa
|
Posted - 2008.11.16 08:49:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Builder One
Originally by: Evelgrivion
I think you can rest assured that the post was read. The fact of the matter is that the game already has a strong bias towards the well defended. A tool like this, as proposed, really wouldn't make it particularly easier to mount an initial assault on an unprepared entity. What it would allow is more of a fighting chance against those who are well entrenched.
The sieges between Band of Brothers, The Northern Coalition, and prior to that, the defunct RedSwarmFed, proved that it is extremely difficult, to almost inhumanly difficult to capture a system under that level of lock down.
Which is exactly as it should be, except more so. It should be damn near impossible to shake a decent sized alliance out of a cynojammed system with one or two entry points. If the number of combatants are similar, defenders should always have a massive advantage at a chokepoint. Alternatively, when the numbers of combatants are similar, attackers should have advantages when there are multiple possible points of attack.
did you not read their post about its use in empire?
And, no, it should not be damn near impossible to shake a decent sized alliance out of a cynojammed system. They should have to continually work for their space.
I like this idea, expensive battleships with a specific role to destroying pos' and useful in a niche situation.
|
|
eliminator2
Gallente Fatality. United Federation of Capsuleers
|
Posted - 2008.11.16 09:53:00 -
[11]
i agree with this
/me sits on a gate with the siege BS and blows everything up :D |
Batolemaeus
Caldari Athanasius Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.16 12:16:00 -
[12]
Mh, the possibility of giving them the abiity to let a Black Ops Bs portal them somewhere could open up for some epic luls, but also interesting and new tactics.
So far, i like the idea of a miniature dread, if only to kill those annoying empire pos. ----------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
|
Muskiet
Serenity Aeronautics
|
Posted - 2008.11.16 13:46:00 -
[13]
Sounds a bit too much like a mission runner's dream to me.
|
Antithysis
Gallente Athanasius Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.16 17:23:00 -
[14]
Originally by: eliminator2 i agree with this
/me sits on a gate with the siege BS and blows everything up :D
Not feasible due to the huge tracking penalty associated with the Overcharge module, and the inability to be remotely assisted while the module is active. You could use smartbombs, but if you intend on having the siege tank you will be limited to 3, and even a HIC would be more deadly than that on a gate.
Originally by: Muskiet Sounds a bit too much like a mission runner's dream to me.
Again, the same problem with tracking is there; anything that is not the size of a POS or a capital ship that has any transversal at all will be near impossible to track. As for the tank, I have never seen a tank needed that a lone guardian backup cannot provide.
-Anti |
Antithysis
Gallente Athanasius Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.17 16:31:00 -
[15]
Bump for moar discussion.
-Anti
|
Alaina Buzzard
|
Posted - 2008.11.17 21:00:00 -
[16]
Looks like a solid idea, however a few details were not laid out and I was curious.
Are these ships going to fit XL guns or L guns? if XL then they will need to have a reduce pg and CPU function in their racial abilities as giving these ships enough PG or CPU to fit 3 XL guns would make them monsters for everything else. IF L guns, then there was no mention of a damage bonus in the module description. You would need at least 125% damage, to be on par with Marauders, damage if large guns and probably some smaller percentage if XL guns.
Also a little worried about how much HP these ships have, 100K+ seems a little excessive? Especially with the tank bonuses it would be an ideal gate-camping ship because you would not need to activate the Siege battleship module to tank everything and not to mention 4 highs you could fit turrets and a smart bomb or something. Sure your DPS would not be amazing but you would be rather hard to kill. These ships would also need to be very expensive to make and make sure that when in their siege mode that they can not hit a BS sized target with a transversal of anything more than 10m/s otherwise they would show up in sniper fleets as well as POS killing fleets.
These ships would also be useful against Dreads, Mom's, carriers and titan's.
|
Dyaven
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2008.11.17 21:16:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Dyaven on 17/11/2008 21:15:59
Originally by: Muskiet Sounds a bit too much like a mission runner's dream to me.
3 unbonused guns, unless you use the Seige module, in which your immobile and get -96% tracking? Yeah, good luck using that in missions.
|
Jason Edwards
|
Posted - 2008.11.18 02:24:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 16/11/2008 06:54:23
Overcharge Module I Similar to it's Siege Module I counterpart, this module provides an increase in firepower and in the defensive abilities of the Siege Battleships. A new module was chosen because the current siege module would require too many counter-bonuses for practicality. The Overcharge Module I has the same skill requirements as a Siege Module I, such as Weapon Upgrades and Advanced Weapon Upgrades Level 5.
Why not just give a fitting bonus to the siege module ingame?
To be honest... I cant seem to see the damage modifier in your module? Why would people siege without damage modifier? You essentially make them pay for increased tanking? tanking against what? You incapacitate any turrets at the pos. Any other use would be stupid because you cant really tank any fleets... they kill dreads...
With no dmg bonuses... from siege or ship... what do you do? 200dps? Nobody will bother.
With the 625% dmg mod on the siege module. That would be quite respectable dps. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. |
Evelgrivion
Athanasius Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.18 02:54:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Jason Edwards
Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 16/11/2008 06:54:23
Overcharge Module I Similar to it's Siege Module I counterpart, this module provides an increase in firepower and in the defensive abilities of the Siege Battleships. A new module was chosen because the current siege module would require too many counter-bonuses for practicality. The Overcharge Module I has the same skill requirements as a Siege Module I, such as Weapon Upgrades and Advanced Weapon Upgrades Level 5.
Why not just give a fitting bonus to the siege module ingame?
To be honest... I cant seem to see the damage modifier in your module? Why would people siege without damage modifier? You essentially make them pay for increased tanking? tanking against what? You incapacitate any turrets at the pos. Any other use would be stupid because you cant really tank any fleets... they kill dreads...
With no dmg bonuses... from siege or ship... what do you do? 200dps? Nobody will bother.
With the 625% dmg mod on the siege module. That would be quite respectable dps.
My mistake not listing the damage modifier. We were actually thinking of a 1000% damage bonus, because 625% didn't make it any bit better than a damage fit battleship.
As for the new module, when I was looking at the numbers in the original proposal, I found that changing a siege module would mean adding a lot of code and bonuses to the ship. New code and special bonuses leads to bugs. It's a lot easier to draw a new icon and give it the specific bonuses right off the bat than to tweak an existing one and make sure it works right on one specific ship class, and not affect dreadnoughts at all. |
geomatica
Infusion. G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.11.18 05:42:00 -
[20]
Signed... Love this idea.
Sig Coming Soon(TM)
|
|
Nayannia Night
Channel 4 News Team
|
Posted - 2008.11.18 05:52:00 -
[21]
I like it, if only for sieging empire pos's
|
Cheopis
One Stop Mining Shop
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 04:45:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Dyaven Edited by: Dyaven on 17/11/2008 21:15:59
Originally by: Muskiet Sounds a bit too much like a mission runner's dream to me.
3 unbonused guns, unless you use the Seige module, in which your immobile and get -96% tracking? Yeah, good luck using that in missions.
Yup, is a perfect mission ship. Aggro everything in a lvl 5 mission, then after everything is aggroed, tank it all while your alt's Dominix turns loose drones.
|
Evelgrivion
Athanasius Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 05:12:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Cheopis
Originally by: Dyaven Edited by: Dyaven on 17/11/2008 21:15:59
Originally by: Muskiet Sounds a bit too much like a mission runner's dream to me.
3 unbonused guns, unless you use the Seige module, in which your immobile and get -96% tracking? Yeah, good luck using that in missions.
Yup, is a perfect mission ship. Aggro everything in a lvl 5 mission, then after everything is aggroed, tank it all while your alt's Dominix turns loose drones.
Until its capacitor is eaten alive by energy neutralizers, with no capacity for logistics help. If you work out the logistics, good on you, you probably deserve to win for making it work solo. Oh, and good luck hiding from anyone who decides to probe for your tasty little siege-moded I-cant-move-machine. |
Nikita Alterana
Gallente The Antikythera Mechanism
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 06:27:00 -
[24]
I like the suggestion, however, I wouldn't put it on the Tier three BS hull, I would put it on a new sub-capital freighter sized hull. Keep the skill requirements high, BS V, etc, but I don't think I could stand the thought of an Abaddon with only 3 guns. Also, if you put it on a larger, slower hull, it would make it more critical to think through tactics and plan ahead, again lowering the chance of them becoming a new staple of combat. Because what your describing could be very easily used as a mission running ship by carebears, which I'm fairly certain is not its designed purpose. |
Sirimna
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 09:30:00 -
[25]
Totally agree!
|
AndzX11
Caldari House of Tempers
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 11:31:00 -
[26]
Edited by: AndzX11 on 19/11/2008 11:32:00 Well its all good. But heres the kicker. Moros has 187 000 armor no skills taken into account. And that T2 proposed abaddon would have around 100 000 armor HP.
I'd propose that the siege battleships would not have more than 30 000 - 50 000 HP armor or shield. Simply because it seems much more realistic when looking at the difference between ship sizes of dreadnoughts and battleships alone. More so perhaps these ships could have a description of something like this(as to where the extra HP for armor or shield came from from example):"This specialy designed siege hull of <tier 3 BS T2> was manufactured to have extra <armor or shield> hitpoints however due to that it suffers from severe reduction of hull hitpoints as well as <armor or shield>." Basicly you 'd have a BS with 1k hull hp and 30 - 50k of shields or armor and depending if it uses say shields then reduced amount of armor to say 2k only. Makes sense doesn't it? You can't get extra space if you don't sacrifice something too.
Lets do the price prediction. If a Paladin, Kronos etc cost from 600 - 700M a piece and most dreadnoughts no equipment included are around 1.6 Billion ISK, then T2 Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion and Maelstrom would be somewhere close to 1Billion a piece. Seems appropriate right? According to other T2 ships prices yes, but not according to capabilities of dreadnoughts in comparison to these siege battleships... I'd say this makes them seem very costly and you're better off using falcons/rooks to jam high-sec pos guns while your bs fleet shoots them... I mean it seems expensive and for a niche role too.
If these siege BS don't have the ridiculous 100k hp then I support the idea. And given they don't exceed 1000DPS(well rails for example and 1000dps for a BS I think its ok because Kronos can't hit 1000dps on rails...). |
Evelgrivion
Athanasius Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 11:43:00 -
[27]
Originally by: AndzX11 Edited by: AndzX11 on 19/11/2008 11:32:00 Well its all good. But heres the kicker. Moros has 187 000 armor no skills taken into account. And that T2 proposed abaddon would have around 100 000 armor HP.
I'd propose that the siege battleships would not have more than 30 000 - 50 000 HP armor or shield. Simply because it seems much more realistic when looking at the difference between ship sizes of dreadnoughts and battleships alone. More so perhaps these ships could have a description of something like this(as to where the extra HP for armor or shield came from from example):"This specialy designed siege hull of <tier 3 BS T2> was manufactured to have extra <armor or shield> hitpoints however due to that it suffers from severe reduction of hull hitpoints as well as <armor or shield>." Basicly you 'd have a BS with 1k hull hp and 30 - 50k of shields or armor and depending if it uses say shields then reduced amount of armor to say 2k only. Makes sense doesn't it? You can't get extra space if you don't sacrifice something too.
Lets do the price prediction. If a Paladin, Kronos etc cost from 600 - 700M a piece and most dreadnoughts no equipment included are around 1.6 Billion ISK, then T2 Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion and Maelstrom would be somewhere close to 1Billion a piece. Seems appropriate right? According to other T2 ships prices yes, but not according to capabilities of dreadnoughts in comparison to these siege battleships... I'd say this makes them seem very costly and you're better off using falcons/rooks to jam high-sec pos guns while your bs fleet shoots them... I mean it seems expensive and for a niche role too.
If these siege BS don't have the ridiculous 100k hp then I support the idea. And given they don't exceed 1000DPS(well rails for example and 1000dps for a BS I think its ok because Kronos can't hit 1000dps on rails...).
You make a decent argument, and 100,000 armor or shield might be a bit extreme. However, it is important to consider that these siege battleships, by design, don't have the regenerative capacity of a dreadnought. They can't sit around and repair the entire damage output of a death-star, unlike a Moros or Revelation. If the buffer is too small, the tower will simply fry the ship before it can make a difference.
As for damage output, they aren't terribly good investments if they can't do 1500+ DPS with their nigh impossible to aim cannons |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |