Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
191
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 19:24:00 -
[61] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote:I'm curious, does anyone see anything about this that wouldn't work? Lots of people have pitched in saying that it looks cool with a couple tweaks, but is there anyone that thinks this would be flat out bad? And if so why? Always good to hear both sides when brainstorming... prevents later surprises. I think the deconstruction idea with the missiles is a little far-fetched and awkward, but the general premise you made about the t2 logi frigs being these 'combat engineer' ships is absolutely brilliant. A ship bonus on timer reduction of deployables would be excellent in conjunction with special hold expansion.
Another critique I might have come to think of it would be just using a larger ship for this; you'd run into a lot of problems with having a cargo hold on a ship that's big enough to fit itself in it, so here's an idea I'll pitch you could use to integrate that particular feature:
-as part of the t3 rebalance, they would make a new class of t3 ships that would supplant things like logistics on the current t3 ships after the get their defensive subs somewhat nerfed (resists on everything but the adaptive sub get brought down to recon levels), and get their cloak sub rolled into an electronics sub, namely the locus analyzer dropping its tractor bonus in favor of the covops.
-the new t3 cruiser would perform a support and industrial role; it would appropriate some of the electronic warfare bonuses from the other ship, namely ecm from the tengu, but leave the others intact and support with the gallente having damps, amarr having tracking disruption, etc. While it would have more limited combat usability than its current t3 counterpart, it would have decent offensive abilities along the lines of combat recon boats. One of the main features for electronics would be this structure deployment bonus you're talking about, and it would have a special cargo bay of a base of around 5k m3, giving it slightly less space than the smaller courier industrials.
Now granted this bonus could EASILY be appropriated into another t2 ship, but the main factor you'd have to consider would be that if you wanted a ship that could anchor starbase structures quickly, it would have to be cruiser-sized or large due to logical cargo constraints. Would you be against them making new industrial ships for caldari and amarr, and make the ship in question you're talking about a t2 indy? |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
191
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 19:27:00 -
[62] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote:Komodo Askold wrote: In fact, I imagine a line of T2 ships whose role is the anchoring and unanchoring of structures: the frigate proposed by the OP would be about deployables and a larger ship with similiar bonuses would be about POS and similar sized structures. Perhaps a T2 industrial or cruiser focused on the anchoring, hacking, and unanchoring of POS modules. Leave the frigate for small deployables and have a large ship that can speedily anchor towers and hack large modules to take them over, as long as they're past their reinforce timers. I think that frigates would be a great size for a combat engineer ship that has to zip around the field quickly to put modules up and take them down. Tinukeda'ya is probably right though, when it comes to POS modules at least the ship should be bigger. Perhaps the role could be split into something like Field Engineers and Heavy Engineers. The former stays on the battlefield to assist in laying and removing traps, while the latter focuses on larger scale construction. This...I like this a lot this is brilliant. +1 to you good sir! |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
191
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 19:36:00 -
[63] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:These demo charges. if their limiting factor is explosion velocity, can they be used to gank marauders in bastion mode? kind of like an anti-siege weapon. And triage carriers and sieged dreads for that matter. No way to have them affect structures only? If DD's can only target caps, then it must be code-able to allow a mod to only target structures. Didn't think about seige'd dreads and marauders. You're right, if there is a way to limit the demo charge's target to structures only, that would be ideal. While realistically a charge made to take down a structure should be just as effective against a parked ship, it would wreak havoc on game balance. Maybe bring back the codes for Mines in the game, and have them only applicable against structures? That and giving them the ability to use hacking modules to recover structures, both for the frig and combat engineer would be excellent for POS reclaimation in w-space. |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
191
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 19:38:00 -
[64] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:As a base idea I like the ship (me I see a blockade runner hull for the idea industrial with purpose)
Issue would be what the alpha of a fleet of these would be for dropping pos's. Don't think individual but grouping, apply Malcanis's law.
m Proper coding for unique weapon types like mines or specialized salvager that ONLY works on structures you yourself in that ship have deployed would be ideal in this situation, although I'm not entirely sure of the feasibility of that. Perhaps hacking them with either the minigame for structure reclaimation or a new method would be ideal, and they could just scoop them at their leisure if they're offlined. For onlined structures, something like a mine would be ideal; a set charge with a timer that goes BOOM and does damage only to structures or capitals that happened to be parked nearby and aren't inside the shield bubble. The code would be set that you could ONLY set the charges up near structures, not capitals, to avoid things getting messy. |
Solhild
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1472
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 20:57:00 -
[65] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote:Solhild wrote:The same lore that gives the ship a drag in space could protect ships from these devices so they are only effective on anchored structures. Little off topic, but could you link that? I honestly didn't know there was any lore that explained why my ships slow down :P Back on topic though, yeah, if there was a way to make the demo charge only be able to target anchored structures, that would be ideal. As much as I love the idea of a fleet of combat engineers finally getting even with a dreadnought, I'm pretty sure that would break the game.
Currently on holiday in Paris so Internet and link time is not a strength here. I got it from an EVE novel or short story but I'm sure a quick search will turn something up. Warp core inertial drag is the CCP excuse for the lack of Newtonian Physics bit the game and is a well known explanation for our submarine in space effect. |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
21450
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 09:19:00 -
[66] - Quote
bumping this. Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Amarisen Gream
Galactic Republic of Entrepreneurs and Militiamen
29
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 09:37:00 -
[67] - Quote
I saw this the other day. Didn't have any post. Not going to read them all. But +1
The thing on this I think would be best, is that it be a pirate faction (ORE) that develops these ships. CCP keeps feeding us combat ships, but we need utility ships. Ships for deployables. Smaller salvage ship. POS assistant ship. We need options when it comes to our industrial side of the game. I would still love to see a mid range hauler for intra-system hauling. Sub freighter hold, but can't use jump gates when it has cargo. Plus the current industrial support ships need a major over haul. xoxo Amarisen Gream
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2243
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 10:19:00 -
[68] - Quote
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what a post in F&I is supposed to look like. Bravo OP, well done and may your ships take unusually long to die.
More to the topic though, I admittedly didn't read all four pages (I read the first and skimmed the second) but while I absolutely support this idea, has anyone raised the topic of demo charges being a bit OP even against structures? A large fleet of these could make POS bashing a very different situation than it is now - especially with how amazing POS guns are at locking frigate-sized signatures. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
576
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 11:04:00 -
[69] - Quote
Perhaps rather than demo charges they can have a 'mortar' weapon system much like the spigot mortars that actual combat engineer vehicles use for structure demolition. Short range heavy charge doing heavy damage but with slow explosion velocity so not much use against moving ships. More of a massive plasma charge than and explosive charge. The CEV would need a pretty good brick tank though for POS bashing... |
Arla Sarain
14
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 12:04:00 -
[70] - Quote
TheMercenaryKing wrote:Think of how fast you could setup a POS! I think the purpose of locking this role to a frigate hull is to prevent POS blitz set-ups.
It being a frigate, and a fleet of them would mean that these groups would specialise in putting up/taking down defensive and debiliating structures, rather than homes/hangars/POSs.
I think I've said it once and I'll say it again - this is a very interesting role and I would look forward to being able to play it. |
|
Valkin Mordirc
Abysmal Gentlemen
26
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 12:30:00 -
[71] - Quote
I think this would be a great add-on to the game, it would make small time logistics far easier, also since CCP wants to add more mobile structures. I would love to be able zip around setting up systems for my own personal use, and maybe benefiting the corp in some way. ++++++1 Psychotic Monk for CSM9 |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
245
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 12:57:00 -
[72] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Perhaps rather than demo charges they can have a 'mortar' weapon system much like the spigot mortars that actual combat engineer vehicles use for structure demolition. Short range heavy charge doing heavy damage but with slow explosion velocity so not much use against moving ships. More of a massive plasma charge than and explosive charge. The CEV would need a pretty good brick tank though for POS bashing...
The only problem is that in space, mortars don't arc because of the lack of gravity. For the sake of coding, it would be easier just to model it on missiles and give it very specific stats.
What it can target is the most iffy thing I can think of. While I like the idea of it just being a missile with such an incredibly slow explosion velocity that hitting moving targets would do virtually nothing (BUT STILL SOMETHING!), there is no way in this system to make it extra effective against anchored structures without making it insanely overpowered against seiged dreads and bastioned marauders. Only allowing it to be fired at structures would alleviate this, but also remove some versatility.
Perhaps add a spec to structures that makes them take extra damage from demo charges? That way it could be applied against dreads and marauders with about the effectiveness of a torpedo from a stealth bomber while still being able to quickly pop structures. I dunno, I'm just brainstorming. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
580
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 13:38:00 -
[73] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote:
The only problem is that in space, mortars don't arc because of the lack of gravity. For the sake of coding, it would be easier just to model it on missiles and give it very specific stats.
What it can target is the most iffy thing I can think of. While I like the idea of it just being a missile with such an incredibly slow explosion velocity that hitting moving targets would do virtually nothing (BUT STILL SOMETHING!), there is no way in this system to make it extra effective against anchored structures without making it insanely overpowered against seiged dreads and bastioned marauders. Only allowing it to be fired at structures would alleviate this, but also remove some versatility.
Perhaps add a spec to structures that makes them take extra damage from demo charges? That way it could be applied against dreads and marauders with about the effectiveness of a torpedo from a stealth bomber while still being able to quickly pop structures. I dunno, I'm just brainstorming.
Agreed that's what I meant, a very slow fusion torpedo, small slow blast radius but hideously destructive. Like a Thermite torpedo or something, splats against the hull and just burns... |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4281
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 14:06:00 -
[74] - Quote
Declare that mining lasers work against structures, in a manner more efficient that conventional weaponry.
Logic for backstory: Structures, like asteroids, can be destabilized by the mining lasers. Regular ships are effectively immune to this effect because they are able to get out of the way before enough of the energy accumulates to reach damaging amounts.
(ANALOGY: The structure, like a bank vault, can be drilled into by industrial equipment far better than military hardware. On the other hand, most people can easily step away from a heavy duty drill before it can affect them the way a gun can)
Then, point at the Barges / exhumers. Structures require a specialized and more expensive crystal to chew through their armor and shields, but nothing is more efficient than a mining laser.....
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
49
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 15:39:00 -
[75] - Quote
i don't like the idea. it would be abused soo much .....
let's wait for sov revmap ... |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
21739
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 16:01:00 -
[76] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:This, ladies and gentlemen, is what a post in F&I is supposed to look like. Bravo OP, well done and may your ships take unusually long to die.
More to the topic though, I admittedly didn't read all four pages (I read the first and skimmed the second) but while I absolutely support this idea, has anyone raised the topic of demo charges being a bit OP even against structures? A large fleet of these could make POS bashing a very different situation than it is now - especially with how amazing POS guns are at locking frigate-sized signatures. I think we've already established earlier on that demo charges are pretty much bombs with more power and therefore are a bad idea. Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Ari Kelor
Promethean Society
14
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 20:45:00 -
[77] - Quote
This ship screams a redesign of the Eschelon just as the Noctis was a redesign of the Primae.
I had an Idea concerning the Demolition Charges. Make them more like real charges, not launched but 'put' onto the target. The Engineer ship must come withing 2500m of the target and anchor the charge to the structure, should take some time (10-30 sec), ship bonuses could bring it down. After that the charge has a timer (15-30 sec) where it show's a global countdown similar to anchoring timers. When the charge detonates, it only does structure damage to the Structure, and pushes out a smartbomb-like effect that deals enough damage to kill all but the most heavily tanked frigates at a range of 5000m. The charge would also clear out any other active/inactive charges on the Structure, hopefully minimizing abuse.
Mechanics similar to bombs should be employed so that 4-5 ships must work in concert to get maximum effectiveness. Also any AoE effects that would hit the structure would also destroy the charges making defensive smartbombing or bombing a viable tactic to counter. They should be limited to Low-sec and below because of the AoE effect.
When interacting with POS structures because it is 'anchored' to the tower the online tower can and will mount an active defense preventing democharges from being used. Deployables don't have that luxury and may be attacked at any stage of there lifetime save for the depot's reinforcement stage.
I believe that this will be a viable alternative to taking down dead towers in small groups as you'd have to be close to the structure to plant the charges, and the small mass footprint of frigates are ideal for moving around WH Space.
Ari |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2259
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 01:24:00 -
[78] - Quote
Ari Kelor's post above mine (I'm not inclined to quote it) details what I feel is an excellent way to implement structure demolition charges that will neither be hilariously OP nor useable in any way against ships. |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
251
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 03:34:00 -
[79] - Quote
I really like the sticky-bomb type of thing that Ari mentioned, along with the POS protection system. I don't like the multi-kilometer damage radius though. With that, they WOULD feel too much like bombs 2.0. Everything else you mentioned sounds awesome though. Making them effective while preventing trololo-speed pos breaking would make this much more balanced. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
David 10th Tennant
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 05:24:00 -
[80] - Quote
Mines would be fantastic if properly balanced.
-I'm not sure why, but I feel like this should be a null-only option, similar to bombs. That being said, maybe mines could work in low. Who knows? -Distance between mines should be 8km minimum, with a detonation radius of 2.5km. This makes manual flying even more emphasized. -Mines should have superb explosion velocity, but not a large explosion radius. Not sure how that would mechanically work. I feel like any sort of mine should be a legitimate threat to frigates, but larger ships who have trouble avoiding them due to their inherent size, they should actually have less damage done to them. I'm not 100% sure I'm sold about ships in warp activating them or not, but hey, discussion, yeah? -5 mine limit per ship, 40-mine limit on grid or something like that. I think grid-limitations would keep this from being abused horribly. -Mines become "inert" after 10 minutes or so, and then have to be replaced.
I love love love this idea. CSM, bug CCP to make this a thing, please. |
|
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
256
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 08:57:00 -
[81] - Quote
IIRC, Mines used to be a thing and were removed because ReasonsGäó. I wasn't around then, so I'm not sure of details. If they could be balanced to work and brought back though, this ship would make for a mean mine layer. Perhaps make mines role specific so that, like the demo charges, they could only be deployed from combat engineers.
Also, rather than grid limitations, perhaps distance limitations. For example, areas of effect couldn't overlap. That way you can't stack a ton of them in one spot to insta-splode everything that comes in. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
22525
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 06:51:00 -
[82] - Quote
I'd rathr this thread didn't sink into oblivion. Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Lugia3
Intentionally Dense Easily Excited
1000
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 07:56:00 -
[83] - Quote
+1
Frigate and Cruiser variants, no indy ships. Mobile depots launched from this ship should grant the whole fleet refitting services (if in range, of course). Also should be able to deploy "mini pos's". Or maybe whole pos's post pos balance. Imagine a pos held together by beams, walls, and sections, rather than a giant force field.
Drop a small defensive instalation that provides some additional DPS and field-refitting before a battle starts. Or during, because balls. "CCP Dolan is full of ****." - CCP Bettik |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
260
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 23:01:00 -
[84] - Quote
Shameless bump. Most people that have posted seem to like this, so I would love to hear of the Devs are taking any interest in this. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Arla Sarain
33
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 23:49:00 -
[85] - Quote
Will say it once again - this is a genuinely interesting role.
I am however afraid it may delegated to alts, same as covops scanning ships are - used in conjunction with other chars by the same person to circumvent various issues (trust, security, EVE 1st world problems).
I'd still be extremely excited for these.
Whether it'd be assigned to empire ships or pirate is another story. Considering how specialized the role is, perhaps it suits a more exciting label, hence I'd vouch for ORE to receive ships of this role, in large to due the sweet industrial/maintenance-esque textures and a matching design philosophy. Say what you will but Noctis/Primae have very nice models/textures. |
Grenn Putubi
Swag Co. SWAG Co
56
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 00:00:00 -
[86] - Quote
I haven't read the entire thread, but I think the idea has merit and is worth considering.
Personally I think having a light and heavy version of this type of ship would be a good idea. I think the new Destroyer hulls would probably work well in this role for the light version and maybe we could get the BS hulls that haven't been reused already (Rohk, Mael, Hyp, and Abb) for use in the Heavy role.
I don't really think the idea of a frigate carrying around thousands of m3 worth of deployables is really a good one, especially when you're talking about hulls like the Burst. I think using the new Destroyer hulls (Dragoon, Corax, Algos, and Talwar) make a lot more sense visually. Also, given the notion that these ships will be fast and heavy hitting against immobile targets using an attack ship as a base is a better starting point than using the T1 logi frigs.
As for the Heavy version I'd envision it as being something that's really meant for clearing the field of deployables in an instant and then having to weather the storm of the counter attack afterwards. Instead of the extremely mobile puncher that the light version is the Heavy version would be the bulldozer, slow but unstoppable with the ability to wipe its target off the map. As such using a much larger and slower hull, such as a BS would be a good starting place. Just take away some weapons, increase the tank, and give it access to the specialized 'anti structure' weapons.
For flavor adjust how they deploy their special weapons to fit their style. The light engineer ships would be able to apply their demolition charges from range, say 15-35k having range increase with skill, but with a long reload timer like a bomb launcher. The Heavy engineer ships would be able to fit 2 or 3 of the charge launchers so they can hit multiple targets quickly or a single target with devastating effect but not have the increased range of the lighter ships, so instead of trying to maintain a large combat field 1 target at a time the Heavy engineer stakes a claim to an area and can quickly destroy anything that's deployed in range.
I don't know if anyone would agree with this, but I think this may be a good time to consider an alternative to treating the demolition weapon as a missile or projectile too. I think it may be interesting to instead make it a specialized type of Smart Bomb. The Demolition Bomb could function similarly to the HAC's Warp Disruption Field Generator. In normal mode it could function like a normal smart bomb and deal damage to an area around the Engineer ship and allow it to be fit with a script that turns it into a single target device with a much longer range. |
Rendiff
Funk Soul Brothers Northern Associates.
79
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 00:48:00 -
[87] - Quote
I like it! |
masternerdguy
The Great Harmon Institute Of Technology Enemy Spotted.
1764
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 00:51:00 -
[88] - Quote
My only issue with this idea is that if it becomes too quick or convenient to deploy mobile structures they will be spammed out of control and a new "Erecting a Dispenser!" mentality will emerge. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Arla Sarain
33
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 00:52:00 -
[89] - Quote
I'd like to add that perhaps the possibility of using tractor beams to drag deployables in space (incurring suspect status if on unowned stuff) to pile them up in order to destroy several in one go with the repeatedly mentioned demolition charge (which is proposed to have a long cooldown and operate similarly to a bomb) as an available strategy. |
Phaade
Perimeter Defense Systems Templis CALSF
205
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 01:30:00 -
[90] - Quote
Great idea. Multiple objectives during a POS fight. No reason CCP shouldn't do this. Of course they won't though, they are not bold enough. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |