ORE Salvage "Destroyer"

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

The current ORE faction has availability for a ship that would regularly go into the category of destroyers. Why not make it so the ORE destroyer acts as a small noctis? EVE development has already show that, with the porpoise, they are willing to cooperate with small operations and make ships more dedicated to that role via price, size and more I don’t see why adding an option in the salvage resource harvesting line would be detrimental.

Currently, more people use “salvage destroyers” anyway due to their cheap cost, mobility, and high slots it would be quite a blessing to have a destroyer that was built for the role. Of course this would also have to come with partial noctis buffs as well to assure it’s role and spot as a tankier large-scale vessel in comparison.

A salvage destroyer should have good:
Cap regen
Sign radius
Inertia

While the noctis should have good:
Shield tank
Storage capacity
Range

So how about the following
“Salvage destroyer” - Lugger
6H3M2L
Requires ORE industrial I & Salvaging I
Receives
1% additional salvage access
5% to salvage time per level
2% bonus to ship inertia
Role bonus
-50% capacitor penalty for equipping mwd
No drone bay, base cargo 500m3
Typical t1 resistance with 800 shield, 500 armor, 600 structure
250 max velocity
Base time to warp 6.5 seconds
Max locked targets 6
Sign radius 52

Adjusting the noctis slightly to fit it’s future role would look kind of like:
Same ship requirements
8H2M4L
1500 base shield
3000 armor
2750 structure
3000 base cargo capacity
Reduced volume to cruiser level (10,000)
500m3 fleet hangar (for storage of MTU and or small deployables)
Keep the drone bay
Requires ORE industrial
5% reduction to salvager and tractor beam duration
60% improved tractor length and speed
Role bonus
100% bonus to salvage drones access attempt

Ideally this would help give both ships a good niche and not just create outright favoritism for one or the other.

Ideally the salvage destroyer should sit around 8 mil to produce, noctis should also be somewhat less expensive too, reducing total cost to more of a 20~30 mil to produce. It is a t1 ship, for some reason focused on a battlecruiser size instead of a cruiser size. I always found that to be a bizarre long-lasting error.

Here’s hoping that my pitch appeases the older vets.

3 Likes
2

Burn the heretic!

JJ…good work and idea…I like the notion of a more dedicated entry level salvage auxiliary destroyer.

2 Likes
3

Entry level is a t1 destroyer. This thing is more like a t2 with it’s bonuses.
There just isn’t a need for 2 classes of salvage vessel. You can salvage any hull without needing a noctis anyway.

4

True, I’ve used a Cormorant to with much success in the past. I think the OP is looking for a bridge between the a (currently) 70M ship and a 2M ship. Nothing with combat bonuses (hence the auxiliary tag) but just something better than a T1…probably a Navy/Pirate variant in the 20-30M range.

I know this is very frivolousness but it’s fun to just spitball sometimes.

5

A salvage destroyer is completely unnecessary. For starters, the existing meta where 1. exploration frigs have salvage bonuses 2. non-bonused salvage destroyers are fitted well for salvaging 3. the Noctis is great and not terribly expensive 4. MTUs can be used by any ship in addition to or instead of their own tractors is just fine. We don’t need to squeeze in a fifth meta - it is not needed or beneficial.

I cannot emphasize enough that the Noctis is not expensive at all whatsoever. It costs less than half of a T1 battleship and less than a T2 mining barge. Do we really need a junior/inferior version of a ship that is already cheap? A well fitted Noctis already has high agility and great also, so it’s not as if it is too sluggish or flimsy to be impractical to use.

Some of your proposed stats are also absurdly high and even have features the Noctis doesn’t have (why???), though really the concept itself as a whole has to go.

Older vets want to see less, not more. For starters, the MTU has to go. Here is a classic older vet sentiment:

Introducing a salvage-bonused dessy makes a bad situation worse in that the Noctis is already a grossly neglected and underutilized ship (due to the MTU mistake) even though it is extremely affordable to use. We’re not going to address this imbalance by introducing an unneeded and unwanted ship. (Speaking of unneeded and unwanted ships: look at the mistake CCP made and is still making by introducing Trig and EDENCOM ships)

6

I’ll support the ORE salvage destroyer idea. It fills a common role as a small salvage craft typically filled by T1 destroyers. This really helps those looking for salvage proficiency and small size for mobility, at the expense of offense or drones. The stats might be OP and need tweak, but I like that it is virtually a duck with a bullseye on it.

Please don’t touch the Noctis, it’s fine as it is.

7

Noctis is underused because it is expensive, clunky, has mediocre tank, has no cargo capacity, and has a gross amount of storage space requirements for what it actually gives.

Compared to 2 MTUs and an explorer frig it’s slow and obnoxious and honestly only worth the isk if you’re going to be salvaging a huge amount of wrecks in a single stretch. Which means high quality lvl4’s or fleet battles.

No one complained when empire cruisers and frigates lost mining bonuses to be specialized in their roles (that I know of). How is this any different?

8

While I believe salvaging as a profession deserves attention, I think the developers should focus on improving the Noctis rather than creating a new ship. There is no reason why it can’t have a larger cargo capacity - after all, the Porpoise, which is essentially the same platform, has room for a 50K M3 ore hold and a 5K M3 fleet hangar.

A unique role bonus that lets it scan down wrecks would increase utility and help justify the price tag. I’d also like to see the BPOs offered through Deep Core Mining along with the Orca.

2 Likes
9

Tech1 dessies would be entry level. Noctis would be highest capacity and isk/hour. But a new salvager based on speed and evasion wouldn’t be a bad idea.

Quick align time. Super tractor speed rather than range. High salvage chance but fewer slots and target locks. Maybe warp stability.

A probe launcher that finds wrecks? :crossed_fingers:

I can see it based on the venture model.

See. This. ^^^

2 Likes
10

I mainly started with a ship “destroyer” size because most people use salvage dessies and the ship size equivalent doesn’t exist yet.

Maybe not as much as a bridge or entry ship, but just a good solo ship.

11

So you’re looking for a small cheap agile alternative to the Noctis?

May I present my favourite salvager, the Imicus.

  • Short salvaging cycle bonuses
  • Four salvaging drones
  • Aligns and warps like a frigate, because it is
  • Tiny signature radius
  • Huge cargo bay for a frigate (400m3)
  • 2660 m/s (3800m/s heated)

[Imicus, WALL-E]

‘Halcyon’ Core Equalizer I
‘Halcyon’ Core Equalizer I
‘Halcyon’ Core Equalizer I

5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive
Small Shield Extender II
Small Azeotropic Restrained Shield Extender
Small Azeotropic Restrained Shield Extender

Salvager II
Salvager II
Salvager II

Small Salvage Tackle I
Small Salvage Tackle I
Small Salvage Tackle I

Hornet EC-300 x4
Salvage Drone I x4

Mobile Tractor Unit x1

As a member of Brave Newbies Inc. I know how to clear a battlefield after a fight, and this little agile thing is perfect for such an occasion.

In case you want more peaceful salvaging done you could swap some of the defences (shield extenders, warp core stabilizers) out for capacitor regeneration capabilities for prolonged salvaging around a MTU.

If you aren’t scooping up a battlefield while the enemy is still around, the next step up would be the Noctis, or if you really want 8 salvagers and cannot yet fly or afford the Noctis, a T1 destroyer. I see no reason why we should have another ship in between.

If we need any changes to the salvaging ships, I think we need some changes to the Noctis itself. I’ve never felt the urge to get one, even though I can fly it.

1 Like
12

See the funny thing is I use a Probe for the same thing. People laughed at me for some unknown reason.
I’d still like a nice mid range to reduce my dependency on MTUs though but it’s what I’ve been using so far.

13

We have access to MTUs, why not use them?

By the way, my Imicus has one salvage drone more than your Probe. :wink:

14

Yes, but the probe looks more like a tugboat.
Imicus looks like a lazy sausage.

15

LOL… :joy:

16

Reason number #5640968750967534096583409564 to remove MTUs from the game.

And the LAST thing we need is another salvage ship.

-1 Pointless ship creep is bad.

17

Interesting fit. Pyfa claims I’m over the PG allotment by about a third of a MW. The “all fives” character in pyfa is under the allotment, so there’s some skill or skills I don’t have maxed that affects this, but I can’t find it. It’s not PG, that’s at 5. I dunno. Maybe I should check the in game simulator.

Nope, same problem in game. And all stabs have the same PG requirement, so using a different module there won’t work.

18

@Corwin_Dnari It’s a tight fit, but it should fit according to Pyfa. The version I use ingame is similar, but I don’t think I have the salvager IIs. Also my ingame fit only uses T1 rigs, which saves a lot of ISK. I’ve updated the fit above.

Pyfa says it’s 26.25/26.25 PG for an all-fives character, but there’s more room for CPU. Most of the PG comes from the shields and MWD, so try to get your Shield Upgrade skills to 5. You can swap the single T2 shield for another restrained to save some PG (or compact if you also want to save CPU), or you could use a compact MWD, but I really prefer using the restrained MWD where possible. :wink:

19

Interesting. Tactical Shield Manipulation 4 -> 5 seems to do it. I did not expect that one! Thanks for the hint. :slight_smile:

20

Fit it properly, and Noctis has both high speed and agility. I have ZERO idea how you’re fitting it because my Noctis is like a race car being able to very quickly zip around making tight turns and fast dives. Given it’s insane tractor range, it’s kind of weird that you feel the need for speed since you only need to fly within a very small space in order to tractor everything.

While salvage takes up negligible space, individual items eat up space rapidly, so while you can complain about the cargo capacity of the Noctis, claiming that the cargo capacity sucks and then opting to use an exploration frigate whose capacity is orders of magnitude lower, some of which is wasted on turtle-slow MTUs, is farfetched. You can literally have like 4 items fill up an exploration frig. And cargo expanders are available to the Noctis just as they are available to exploration frigs.

I’m not sure if you noticed, but the tractor speed of the Noctis is also orders of magnitude faster than the MTU, so while you might complain of the Noctis being slow speedwise from being fitted poorly, you more than make up for the improper fit with far, far, far superior tractor speed and the ability to use more tractors than you can deploy MTUs. The numbers are not adding up in your favor.

Tanking is largely irrelevant to the Noctis, though if tank is such a concern (yes, I do tank my Noctis race car), that’s also what escorts are for in collaborative gameplay (this is an MMO).

I believe it was you mentioned the whole “nomadic lifestyle” thing in the other thread… you’re in the “Minus-3 Sigma” demographic here, but if it mattered so much then note that the Noctis is so damn cheap that you could basically buy several of them and scatter them throughout the universe. The Noctis is only expensive to those who don’t play EVE well. That is not an insult, that is a fact.