Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
loard doktor
tradersbear
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:28:00 -
[1] - Quote
During war world 2, the united states had a type of ship called a q-ship. Other nations had simular ships by other names. Id like to see them added to the game.
During ww2, one of the biggest problems for freighters were subs. Due to lack of armor and weapontry, they were sitting ducks outside of convoys. If a ship developed problems and had to fall out of the convoy, it was seldom lucky enough to reach port. Because torpedoes were so expensive, most of the time the sub would surface and sink it with its deck guns (much cheaper). This is where the q-ships came into play.
The navy would take an old ship that couldnt keep up with the convoy's and load her cargo with balsa wood or ping pong balls (light weight water tight balls that were mostly air). Then they would seal the hatches so that air couldnt excape it. They would increase the armor invisibly be low the waterlines to help protect against torpedoes. With everything below the water line sectioned in small area, a hit would not take on much water. Above deck what appeared to be cargo containers were in fact armored gun emplacements and depth carge launchers. What appeared to be simply safe targets for subs were infact sub hunters and chasers.
With the resent anouncement that hulkageddon would never end, I think its time to make people think twice about attacking "safe" targets. The game IS all about combat isnt it? What this new class of ship would be is a freighter that carries a small cargo, or a miner that has a tiny (for its size) cargohold. It appears to look exactly like ever other freighter or miner, but it cant do those jobs well. Instead it has armor out the wazoo and a few guns, or drones for attacking. Electronic and mechanic skills spacific to this class of ship allows it to "spoof" other cargo. Instead of showing 5 mil of cargo, a q-freighter would show 500 or more, depending on your skill levels. Instead of a q-miner showing 100 m3 or or it would show as carrying as much as a normally full miner ship of the type its based on.
Obviously these could not be t1 ships. They would have to be built using the ship type they were meant to be mimicing. New pbc's would have to be researched spacifically for these types of ships. Im thinking these should be t3's but thats not set in stone (of course). Perhaps they could be some what individualized, with the person choosing to give up hull space for drones, gun hardpoint, armor, missile hardpoints or electronic as they choose. Race preferences would of course have some say in the matter, but I believe it should be fully up to the players.
Imagine the fun of watching a pirate gang jump your miner in low sec, and watching their communications when suddenly your miner explodes in drones or begins firing missiles at them.
Im sure the pirates that read this will hate it.
Imagine the fun of running a freighter into jita showing a billion and a half cargo of modules, and getting attacked by gankers, and watching them get swatted by concord without ever denting your armor.
Gankers would of course hate this.
The point is, it would all be a new way of fighting. These ships would appear to be innocent haulers and miners, and can still could be killed, BUT it would allow those that enjoy a bit of dirty fighting to have a new way to find targets. |
loard doktor
tradersbear
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
Here an example of what im thinking would work.
A player takes a sigil bpo and makes a bpc that he researches, to make a q-sigil bpc. When its complete, he takes a sigil, and the bpc and manufactures the q-sigil. It has 1/10th the cargo, meaning it has little it can carry, but his skills enable him to make it appear to have the same cargo size loaded with what hes carrying. the remainer he puts into armor and a 3 small turrets.
While entering a low sec, he gets jumped by frigates but is able to handle their weapontry and is able to dish out enough damage to take out 3 or 4 of them before he jumps to a station for repairs. This allows him to take out the ones that are warp disrupting him. Emptying his cargo, he returns to salvage the ships he killed. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1234
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Christ I hate these silly decoy ideas.
It's overly complicated, it doesn't really solve anything and it would never be used. Unless you really think you're going to sit in a belt for hours straight until someone fail suicide ganks you?
As for outside of high sec, if you get caught off gate you're still going to die. If you get caught on gate, you're probably still going to die. Unless you have a cyno, in which case you should have just put it on a drake like a normal person.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
loard doktor
tradersbear
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:18:00 -
[4] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Unless you really think you're going to sit in a belt for hours straight until someone fail suicide ganks you?
...
As for outside of high sec, if you get caught off gate you're still going to die. If you get caught on gate, you're probably still going to die.
Not going to be that different than normal mining. You would still be able to transfer the ores to a container and you would still have the same mining ability that you would have with the normal miner. In the end, the ores you get will be no different. The big differenceis that you are going to be out there looking for a fight, in areas you know you are going to be at risk at.
As for low sec, imagine a corp with a miner like this, and a stealthed industrial picking up the jetcans. Not far away, youve got corp mates running protection. If these protectors hang round close, no one is going to attack you unless they know they can take out your protectors too. But if they are a fast warp away, youll likely be dead in a normal miner before they arrive. With a q-miner, not only will you survive long enough for them to arrive, but you will be able to fight back to some degree as well.
IF you get caught on a gate by a large team using larger ship, yes, youll die. As i said, this isnt meant to be a safe way to play, its meant to give you another way to fight. If your in a large cargo ship, and you haveit set up right, youll be able to take out battleships instead of frigates. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1234
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:30:00 -
[5] - Quote
loard doktor wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:
Unless you really think you're going to sit in a belt for hours straight until someone fail suicide ganks you?
...
As for outside of high sec, if you get caught off gate you're still going to die. If you get caught on gate, you're probably still going to die.
Not going to be that different than normal mining. You would still be able to transfer the ores to a container and you would still have the same mining ability that you would have with the normal miner. In the end, the ores you get will be no different. The big difference is that you are going to be out there looking for a fight, in areas you know you are going to be at risk at. Now, you have a choise of either carebearing your mining, or not mining. This way, your a bear with teeth. As for low sec, imagine a corp with a miner like this, and a stealthed industrial picking up the jetcans. Not far away, youve got corp mates running protection. If these protectors hang round close, no one is going to attack you unless they know they can take out your protectors too. But if they are a fast warp away, youll likely be dead in a normal miner before they arrive. With a q-miner, not only will you survive long enough for them to arrive, but you will be able to fight back to some degree as well. IF you get caught on a gate by a large team using larger ship, yes, youll die. As i said, this isnt meant to be a safe way to play, its meant to give you another way to fight. If your in a large cargo ship, and you haveit set up right, youll be able to take out battleships instead of frigates. I don't think you get it, in fact I'm certain you don't. The fact that you believe a sigil would be attacked on gate entering low sec by frigates suggests to me you've never been in low sec before?
As for having the same mining ability as a normal miner... Lol, just lol.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Xhaiden Ora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
83
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:39:00 -
[6] - Quote
There's no point in adding a new type of ship that performs an incredibly specific role in an incredibly specific scenario. Especially when the effect of that role ( Deterrant ) is already covered by countless other ships and strategies. If you want to deter gankers, tank your barge/exhumer and get some cloaker friends. If you just want to survive, give up some of your yield and pay attention. |
Katie Frost
Asgard. Exodus.
48
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:53:00 -
[7] - Quote
OK... let us examine where your idea may potentially have uses and then let us consider what is already in the game versus to what you are trying to introduce and see what we come up with. Finally, we can thereafter determine whether your proposal actually gives the game something new and useful or proposes something that will not be used and would therefore cause a waste of time to implement.
Option 1 - High-Sec
- The 'q-ship' as it currently stands in your proposal would be a decoy miner/industrial/whatever with some of its original usefulness intact (i.e. it could still mine but with much lower yield) but with new offensive capabilities to deal with: a) war targets and b) suicide gankers.
> What is stopping you from tanking/fitting your current mining ship or freighter to withstand a gank or fight back? You would sacrifice yield/cargo space, but you could technically do it and this option would not require a completely new type of ship.
Option 2 - Low-Sec
- Besides the above option, except with the replacement of option b) from suicide gankers to pirates, you could use this new ship to bait others as well perhaps?
> What is stopping you from tanking/fitting your current mining ship or freighter to withstand a gank or fight back? You would sacrifice yield/cargo space, but you could technically do it and this option would not require a completely new type of ship.
Option 3 - Null-Sec
GǪ I think the point is well and truly made, but:
> What is stopping you from tanking/fitting your current mining ship or freighter to withstand a gank or fight back? You would sacrifice yield/cargo space, but you could technically do it and this option would not require a completely new type of ship.
So, if you consider the possible applications of your proposal, the conclusion is simple and inevitable. Though perhaps your idea sounds like it would be useful and/or fun - it really adds very little to the game and in fact doesn't introduce anything inherently new or suggest a new aspect of the game that isnGÇÖt already in use.
Thank you for the history lesson, there were some aspects of the q-ships that I did not know about, but that is unfortunately about as useful as your proposal gets.
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
753
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 07:25:00 -
[8] - Quote
I'm surprised no one has pointed out that the database and core coding of EVE would most likely have to restructured in order to allow for this. It's not as simple as "add ship" and "add ability."
Now... you might counter that "cloaks are an example of an altered state and thus supports the viability of this idea." Not so fast. Cloaking effectively removes the ship you are in from the grid itself... leaving just a "sphere" (which has a 2500m radius) around a single point (which is the player). This "sphere" cannot be seen, targeted, and is pretty much non-interactable to everything else on grid... unless something enters it or is turned off... in which case the "state" ceases to exist and ship is brought back into the system.
To make your Q-ship idea work, you'd have to either redesign the existing system to allow you to target and attack while in an altered state, or make a new system altogether (which has it's own set of problems). Either way, the alterations may or may not agree with EVE coding.
This is all not to say that I don't think CCP would find a way to make it all happen... it is their system and they are the experts. But it just godawful amount of time, effort, and resources just for one niche thing. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
705
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 08:59:00 -
[9] - Quote
And this is better than a mining rokh because...?
Hell, you can get a battleship to have several thousand km3 cargo if you want a tanky hauler, or you can just plate up a DST.
Also, other than one fight off Australia that ended with both ships sinking, did q-ships or armed merchants ever actually take out warships? |
Forums Terrorist
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:11:00 -
[10] - Quote
They weren't made to engage warships, they were primarily an anti-submarine measure IIRC. And this idea is dumb, if you want to flub a gank put some actual ******* tank on your Hulk you goddamned Jew. |
|
Jafit
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
229
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:41:00 -
[11] - Quote
loard doktor wrote:Imagine the fun of watching a pirate gang jump your miner in low sec, and watching their communications when suddenly your miner explodes in drones or begins firing missiles at them.
Let me tell you about these cool modules that CCP only recently introduced that allow you to do something pretty similar:
1 2
Live action demonstration of the modules in action |
Carnadyne
Galactic Alta Imperata Dark Phoenix Rising.
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:01:00 -
[12] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=9899
I had brought this same concept up up about 8-9 months ago. The concept of turning the tables on pirates, thinking they have a nice easy kill, seems to bother people.
Bitter vets don't like change, so they will just bash, rather than offer constructive suggestions. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
330
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:25:00 -
[13] - Quote
How about something way simpler.
Put out a variety of mining lasers and strip miners, DONE.
Put out a skill that lets you use these weapons on ships instead.
The strip miners could even have specialty crystals like amarrian beam weapons. (Picture a Hulk with scorch crystals) Your mining yield would seriously tank, but the moment Joe Ganker warped in, you could shoot back at him.
Exhumer specific armor: Throw in a role bonus that barges and exhumers can mount this armor type. Eats precious slots used for mining yield. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1237
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:40:00 -
[14] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:How about something way simpler.
Put out a variety of mining lasers and strip miners, DONE.
Put out a skill that lets you use these weapons on ships instead.
The strip miners could even have specialty crystals like amarrian beam weapons. (Picture a Hulk with scorch crystals) Your mining yield would seriously tank, but the moment Joe Ganker warped in, you could shoot back at him.
Exhumer specific armor: Throw in a role bonus that barges and exhumers can mount this armor type. Eats precious slots used for mining yield. People already don't bother to tank their hulks, why would they fit DPS mining crystals? And if they wanted to kill a thrasher that gets the first shot they would also need to tank their hulks.
Meaning they'd have to fly a tanked hulk with inefficient mining crystals. I can see that being very popular. Oh and they wouldn't be able to go AFK or it would defeat the purpose. Oh and if they got ship scanned they'd be screwed.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
236
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:54:00 -
[15] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Christ I hate these silly decoy ideas. lol, he said you would. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/OldST.jpg[/IMG] |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1238
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:00:00 -
[16] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:Christ I hate these silly decoy ideas. lol, he said you would. Pity I'm not a ganker, eh?
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
236
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:01:00 -
[17] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:People already don't bother to tank their hulks, why would they fit DPS mining crystals? And if they wanted to kill a thrasher that gets the first shot they would also need to tank their hulks.
...beside the point and really has nothing to do with the idea.. If this irrelevant arguement the only debate against this idea, I say go for it. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/OldST.jpg[/IMG] |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1238
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:03:00 -
[18] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:People already don't bother to tank their hulks, why would they fit DPS mining crystals? And if they wanted to kill a thrasher that gets the first shot they would also need to tank their hulks. ...beside the point and really has nothing to do with the idea.. If this irrelevant arguement the only debate against this idea, I say go for it. That isn't an argument against the OP's proposal, it is an argument against Nikk's proposal.
And the fact that something is useless is not "irrelevant".
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
loard doktor
tradersbear
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 03:47:00 -
[19] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:
I don't think you get it, in fact I'm certain you don't. The fact that you believe a sigil would be attacked on gate entering low sec by frigates suggests to me you've never been in low sec before?
As for having the same mining ability as a normal miner... Lol, just lol.
Actually I have and I was attacked by frigates. Several of them infact. Just because thats not the way you operate doesnt mean thats not the way anyone else does. I used sigils in the example because its on the level with the frigates. Bestowers would be on the level with destroyers and cruiser. itties would be on the level with battleships and higher.
Since the q-miner is built using the same frame and everything of the miner, it would have every ability it has SAVE the cargo space. Otherwise it would be obvious what it was and would never be attacked.
Xhaiden Ora wrote:There's no point in adding a new type of ship that performs an incredibly specific role in an incredibly specific scenario. Especially when the effect of that role ( Deterrant ) is already covered by countless other ships and strategies. If you want to deter gankers, tank your barge/exhumer and get some cloaker friends. If you just want to survive, give up some of your yield and pay attention.
Then you have no idea what the point of this is.
Currently, your either a carebear miner, or your a fighter, possibly setting around doing nothing but waiting for your friends to get attacked.
IM suggesting a way that people can be in the middle. They arent carebears and they arent just setting around being bored to death waiting for anyone to attack. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1238
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:13:00 -
[20] - Quote
loard doktor wrote:Actually I have and I was attacked by frigates. Several of them infact. Just because thats not the way you operate doesnt mean thats not the way anyone else does. I used sigils in the example because its on the level with the frigates. Bestowers would be on the level with destroyers and cruiser. itties would be on the level with battleships and higher.
Since the q-miner is built using the same frame and everything of the miner, it would have every ability it has SAVE the cargo space. Otherwise it would be obvious what it was and would never be attacked. You were attacked on a gate in low sec by frigates? Pics or it didn't happen.
The only useful aspect of your proposal is mining ships that can survive long enough in low sec for help to come, but since CCP have already said the new skiffs will have BS EHP it's somewhat redundant.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
|
loard doktor
tradersbear
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:16:00 -
[21] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:I'm surprised no one has pointed out that the database and core coding of EVE would most likely have to restructured in order to allow for this. It's not as simple as "add ship" and "add ability."
...
This is all not to say that I don't think CCP would find a way to make it all happen... it is their system and they are the experts. But it will probably require a godawful amount of time, energy, and resources to be spent for just for one niche thing.... which could be better spent on stuff that is "not-so-niche."
I fail to see why this would require a lot more coding than a normal ship change. Some freighters have all slots now, just not many. A sigil has a single high slot that can carry a weapon. Low level freighters have low and med slots that would enable them to use tank modules. Ive never done a t3 or even a t2 ship, but from what Ive heard their ability to have various slots and armor are dependant on the way they are put together. a q-ship would be no different.
I dont believe this would require any additional coding other than that used when other "niche" things are added, such as ore ship or salvage ships or electronic warfare ships.
Danika Princip wrote:And this is better than a mining rokh because...?
Hell, you can get a battleship to have several thousand km3 cargo if you want a tanky hauler, or you can just plate up a DST.
Also, other than one fight off Australia that ended with both ships sinking, did q-ships or armed merchants ever actually take out warships?
Ive not been in a rokh so I dont know much about it, but if they are that great at attacking and defending themselves, are they ever targeted that much? The purpose of these is to make the miner or freighter a target that gankers will want to attack, only its able to defend itself. |
loard doktor
tradersbear
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:21:00 -
[22] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:You were attacked on a gate in low sec by frigates? Pics or it didn't happen.
The only useful aspect of your proposal is mining ships that can survive long enough in low sec for help to come, but since CCP have already said the new skiffs will have BS EHP it's somewhat redundant.
It happened over a year ago, on another account. Ive not been in low sec since my returned. Even if i had taken pictures, id not have saved them this long.
Then entire purpose is so people that are mining CAN ATTACK BACK, not just survive. |
Kaikka Carel
White syndicate Wormholes Holders
56
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 06:18:00 -
[23] - Quote
If only CCP could react as fast as WW2 US Navy we could have had it. But you know what else reacts as slow as they? The comment ques... |
Forgotten Deity
Cadre Assault Force Initiative Mercenaries
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 06:31:00 -
[24] - Quote
Why not have it introduced as a Super Rig (As CCP are playing with this idea).
1 Rig that allow 50% more armour with the downside of 50% less cargo space on all holds.
Means the rest of the tanking is down to you and any form of ship could be used.
Perhaps a 2nd rig that adds 2 turret or 2 missle hardpoints with a downside of 50% more Mass to the ship.
Means you could make a q-ship using a normal ship without too much effort and no complexities. |
loard doktor
tradersbear
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 06:36:00 -
[25] - Quote
Forgotten Deity wrote:Why not have it introduced as a Super Rig (As CCP are playing with this idea).
1 Rig that allow 50% more armour with the downside of 50% less cargo space on all holds.
Means the rest of the tanking is down to you and any form of ship could be used.
Perhaps a 2nd rig that adds 2 turret or 2 missle hardpoints with a downside of 50% more Mass to the ship.
Means you could make a q-ship using a normal ship without too much effort and no complexities.
thats a possiblity, but wouldnt it still be scanable? perhaps it could have a module that would allow people to spoof other cargo. |
Xhaiden Ora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
83
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 06:47:00 -
[26] - Quote
loard doktor wrote:Then you have no idea what the point of this is.
Currently, your either a carebear miner, or your a fighter, possibly setting around doing nothing but waiting for your friends to get attacked.
I'm not a miner in any way shape or form. Too mindnumbing. But thanks for the sweeping proclamation on what you think my playstyle is as if that matters.
What your suggesting is a ship with a role far too specific to be worth investing development resources in that will fall to the wayside as a joke ship and never be used except by a handful of people such as yourself. Whom are seemingly incapable of realising the game already provides the tools to achieve the ends you're seeking.
You are demanding the game adapt to you rather than adapting to the game.
|
loard doktor
tradersbear
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 06:51:00 -
[27] - Quote
As I understand it, the same arguement was made for salvaging ships, yet we have the noct. |
Xhaiden Ora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
84
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 07:01:00 -
[28] - Quote
loard doktor wrote:As I understand it, the same arguement was made for salvaging ships, yet we have the noct.
Salvaging is a legitimate and widescale profession based around a core game mechanic.
"I can't figure out how to ward off gankers so I want a special ship with special new mechanics to do it for me" isn't.
|
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
709
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 08:35:00 -
[29] - Quote
I love how every time anyone suggests an alternative, you just say you don't know how it works and ignore the point entirely.
Want an industrial bait ship? Tank a deep space transport. Want a tanky miner? Use a battleship, or wait for the patch CCP say will contain skiffs with battleship grade tank.
Also, I doubt very much that frigates attacked you in lowsec on a gate, as gate guns vaporise them far too quickly to make it worthwhile.
And incidentally, from skimming wikipedia, other than 14 subs in world war one, Q-ships don't seem to have actually killed anything.
And furthermore, our submarines are called stealth bombers. |
loard doktor
tradersbear
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 11:23:00 -
[30] - Quote
Xhaiden Ora wrote:loard doktor wrote:As I understand it, the same arguement was made for salvaging ships, yet we have the noct. Salvaging is a legitimate and widescale profession based around a core game mechanic. "I can't figure out how to ward off gankers so I want a special ship with special new mechanics to do it for me" isn't.
Actually, Ive never been ganked. Im not that interested in having something that makes me inverable while mining or traveling. Im wanting something that gives me a chance to fight in a very dirty manner |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |