Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Neozblade
Exiled Kings Circle-Of-Two
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 11:19:03 -
[1] - Quote
I have an idea for a Ship and mobile anchor able devices.
A command Battleship that is capable of erecting a POS like force field. It will protect all friendly ships within the shield until the shield is taken down. I figure a T2 Version of the Tier 3 Battleships. The force field will have moderate range of ~10km radius and will be directly projected as an external shield. Thus after taking down the shield you would then have to take out the Battleships shields, armor and hull. (Possibly requiring fuel to run the force field as well).
All rules for a POS shields will apply to the Battleships projected shields, however the Battleships projected shield will be far easier to remove. (If enemy ships are within the shield when erected they will not be cast out; however you will not be able to target within the shield but, giving the enemy a chance to bump your friendlies out)
Once a Battleship erects the force field it will be unable to move or warp. However the Battleship will be targetable as a POS is to remove the force field and as soon as the force field is down, the Battleship will able to be warp disrupted/scrammed.
As for the Mobile Anchor able structures, they will act like Warp interdiction bubbles. (Possibly requiring fuel). Small Med Large T1 and T2 versions. Range from ~3km to ~15km radius.
The concept of these force fields is someone could not only create a safe spot in space but create a portable SAFE location. As for the Battleships it could allow a force that encounters a larger force to potentially sacrifice a Battleship for the rest of the fleet or give a force time to collect themselves and engage the enemy.
Would love some feed back not just "This is stupid" or This is Great" kind of answers.
Thanks and Fly Dangerously. |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
942
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 11:30:35 -
[2] - Quote
It's not the first time someone had this idea.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Neozblade
Exiled Kings Circle-Of-Two
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 11:32:02 -
[3] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:It's not the first time someone had this idea.
I tried to locate if someone else had already come up with this with no success. Thank you. If someone else has already proposed the idea then I feel this will be short lived. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1608
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 12:36:43 -
[4] - Quote
"**** it was bait we're gong to lose the titan"
"Just shield up and jump it"
"Oh yeah"
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Neozblade
Exiled Kings Circle-Of-Two
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 16:34:43 -
[5] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:"**** it was bait we're gong to lose the titan"
"Just shield up and jump it"
"Oh yeah"
Disallow jumping but warping is fine, put up interdiction bubble to stop them
Also what if when the force field was erected, all ships inside can still target and shoot other ships inside as well. Just prevent targeting from inside to outside and vise versus. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2624
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 16:48:43 -
[6] - Quote
Neozblade wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:"**** it was bait we're gong to lose the titan"
"Just shield up and jump it"
"Oh yeah" Disallow jumping but warping is fine, put up interdiction bubble to stop them Also what if when the force field was erected, all ships inside can still target and shoot other ships inside as well. Just prevent targeting from inside to outside and vise versus.
You said the bubble cannot form if there are hostile in it's radius... |
Neozblade
Exiled Kings Circle-Of-Two
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 16:57:57 -
[7] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Neozblade wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:"**** it was bait we're gong to lose the titan"
"Just shield up and jump it"
"Oh yeah" Disallow jumping but warping is fine, put up interdiction bubble to stop them Also what if when the force field was erected, all ships inside can still target and shoot other ships inside as well. Just prevent targeting from inside to outside and vise versus. You said the bubble cannot form if there are hostile in it's radius...
My original post was: (If enemy ships are within the shield when erected they will not be cast out; however you will not be able to target within the shield but, giving the enemy a chance to bump your friendlies out)
However my new statement is, enemies inside CAN still attack. This is just an idea of course. I am not bias on whether you will be able to or not.
I do like disallowing the use of Jump drives however warping will be allowed, and to prevent warping out of the bubble interdiction bubbles will prevent that as they do on a normal POS.
Maybe allowing the use of Micro Jump Drives
I hope this clears the idea up. |
Crazy Kitten
The Fourth Great and Bountiful Human Empire
13
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 17:00:01 -
[8] - Quote
possible (ab)use scenarios: in highsec missions, bubble the accel gate to prevent ninja looting and mission gankers. in lowsec/null mission running, you'd no longer have to check dscan & local, you'd get a kill notification if anyone was coming for you |
Neozblade
Exiled Kings Circle-Of-Two
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 17:04:15 -
[9] - Quote
Crazy Kitten wrote:possible (ab)use scenarios: in highsec missions, bubble the accel gate to prevent ninja looting and mission gankers. in lowsec/null mission running, you'd no longer have to check dscan & local, you'd get a kill notification if anyone was coming for you
Would be expensive Kill notice and how about making it inoperable withing a set distance to objects such as stations, star-gates and acceleration gates. Maybe ban use in high sec all together. Figure a ship of this type would run about the same as a Murader or Black Ops. |
Crazy Kitten
The Fourth Great and Bountiful Human Empire
13
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 17:41:09 -
[10] - Quote
Neozblade wrote:Would be expensive Kill notice and how about making it inoperable withing a set distance to objects such as stations, star-gates and acceleration gates. Maybe ban use in high sec all together. Figure a ship of this type would run about the same as a Murader or Black Ops.
Neozblade wrote:I have an idea for a Ship and mobile anchor able devices.
as always, depends on the price, and also you might not lose it.
minimum distance would also have to include other anchorable devices and wormholes, and would need to be larger than twice the radius of the largest sphere, or you could still create a complete no-fly zone. coverable with citadels. that'd make one heck of a gatecamp...
restricting it to the same usage as warp bubbles sounds reasonable to me |
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1095
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 20:25:34 -
[11] - Quote
Crazy Kitten wrote:... restricting it to the same usage as warp bubbles sounds reasonable to me
Sorry I have to say this but putting a restriction on something that hasn't even been considered to be released doesn't need to be released at all.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Crazy Kitten
The Fourth Great and Bountiful Human Empire
13
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 21:12:10 -
[12] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Crazy Kitten wrote:... restricting it to the same usage as warp bubbles sounds reasonable to me Sorry I have to say this but putting a restriction on something that hasn't even been considered to be released doesn't need to be released at all.
*blinks* ok, let me rephrase: should this be something that is desireable in game, then applying an established type of restriction sounds reasonable to me, so it doesn't negatively affect the parts of the game that i consider myself qualified to talk about. as there are other parts of the game which are mostly outside of my experience, and the intended usage scenario for this item seems to be in that part of the game, i do not consider myself qualified to judge it's overall desirability, hence i should not dismiss this idea in it's whole.
or are you saying that the whole of eve should be either highsec, lowsec, npc nullsec, sov nullsec or wh space, so that you only have to learn one set of "rules"? in my opinion it is a good thing that this game supports different playstyles and has different areas in the game where one can enjoy those playstyles. these parts have different needs, and thus some items that are only beneficial to some playstyles should be restricted to the areas of the game where that playstyle is intended. sov-holding for example is a valid playstyle choice, but should neither be allowed unrestricted (jita being owned by some alliance isn't a good idea), nor should it be removed. and ideas that only benefit the sov playstyle (not saying that this applies here) are valid suggestions, but if they negativly influence other areas of the game, then they should be restricted in their usage. especially if there's already an established mechanic for that.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1612
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 21:19:08 -
[13] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Crazy Kitten wrote:... restricting it to the same usage as warp bubbles sounds reasonable to me Sorry I have to say this but putting a restriction on something that hasn't even been considered to be released doesn't need to be released at all.
While I don't like this idea the notion of "nope if you didn't get it right in your op so stop trying" is contrary to the point of f&I
Now in cases where people stay having to put a bunch of ridiculous or arbitrary limitations on their idea then it's generally a sign it's just plane bad. But a common restriction found on many items already in game is not unreasonable.
Now back to the idea I could see this brewing abused to keep dreads from being able to shoot I would only need to taos the bubble long enough to cause lock to break then it had to waist another 20-130 second relocking and one it has I just put it up again.
And while making out so you can't jump off inside one would solve the issue of using it so save caps you now have a new issue of it being used to tap them
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Iria Ahrens
Space Perverts and Forum Pirates
762
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 22:27:54 -
[14] - Quote
Every advantage should have a disadvantage.
Say you have a BS that can drop a shield.
Limit the advantages. 1. Temporary shield uses up a lot of fuel so it can only be maintained for a short period of time. 2. Battleship has to enter "Shield mode" or whatever. Offlining all offensive systems. BS can erect a shield, an that's pretty much it. 3. After turning off "Shield made" or whatever, BS cap is completely expended and ship cannot warp or perform any action until cap charges naturally back to full. BS either takes it for the team, or BS is remote reped, but otherwise BS cannot use this mini-shield in any kind of solo activity. 4. Warp bubble or POS effect, not both. Warp Bubble is taken by hic and interdictors, so I don't see a need for a BS HIC. The mini Pos Shield effect is interesting.
Not really supporting it. Just saying, that if we want to play with it, we should pile on the consequences too. Because a mini pos shield should definitely have some consequences.
My choice of pronouns is based on your avatar. Even if I know what is behind the avatar.
|
Corvald Tyrska
Dha'Vargar
65
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 23:26:19 -
[15] - Quote
Might be interesting if the shield was not a full bubble but an arc that could be manoeuvred around. Also could be interesting if it didn't block movement through it, just dispersed weapon fire so it wouldn't be as abusable.
I'd definitely see it as a mode for the ship like the siege mode on dreadnoughts or bastion mode on marauders. That way the ship is locked in for a time and potentially cannot move or manoeuvre but can be manoeuvred around. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
14309
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 23:38:19 -
[16] - Quote
Crazy Kitten wrote:let me rephrase: should this be something that is desireable in game
It rely is not.
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Iria Ahrens
Space Perverts and Forum Pirates
764
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 23:42:16 -
[17] - Quote
Corvald Tyrska wrote:Might be interesting if the shield was not a full bubble but an arc that could be manoeuvred around. Also could be interesting if it didn't block movement through it, just dispersed weapon fire so it wouldn't be as abusable.
I'd definitely see it as a mode for the ship like the siege mode on dreadnoughts or bastion mode on marauders. That way the ship is locked in for a time and potentially cannot move or manoeuvre but can be manoeuvred around.
I like the arc idea, and the interdiction of weapon fire only. Sort of a "Protection from Normal Missiles" field.
My choice of pronouns is based on your avatar. Even if I know what is behind the avatar.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1098
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 02:23:17 -
[18] - Quote
Crazy Kitten wrote:...or are you saying that the whole of eve should be either highsec, lowsec, npc nullsec, sov nullsec or wh space, so that you only have to learn one set of "rules"? in my opinion it is a good thing that this game supports different playstyles and has different areas in the game where one can enjoy those playstyles. these parts have different needs, and thus some items that are only beneficial to some playstyles should be restricted to the areas of the game where that playstyle is intended. sov-holding for example is a valid playstyle choice, but should neither be allowed unrestricted (jita being owned by some alliance isn't a good idea), nor should it be removed. and ideas that only benefit the sov playstyle (not saying that this applies here) are valid suggestions, but if they negativly influence other areas of the game, then they should be restricted in their usage. especially if there's already an established mechanic for that.
I don't know what you are getting at?
Anyhow, a similar mechanic is on the radar for the Rorqual, so let's wait how this pans out and see if there is a need for being invincible just because.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1612
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 04:51:30 -
[19] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Crazy Kitten wrote:... restricting it to the same usage as warp bubbles sounds reasonable to me Sorry I have to say this but putting a restriction on something that hasn't even been considered to be released doesn't need to be released at all.
While I don't like this idea the notion of "nope if you didn't get it right in your op so stop trying" is contrary to the point of f&I
Now in cases where people stay having to put a bunch of ridiculous or arbitrary limitations on their idea then it's generally a sign it's just plane bad. But a common restriction found on many items already in game is not unreasonable.
Now back to the idea I could see this brewing abused to keep dreads from being able to shoot I would only need to taos the bubble long enough to cause lock to break then it had to waist another 20-130 second relocking and one it has I just put it up again.
And while making out so you can't jump off inside one would solve the issue of using it so save caps you now have a new issue of it being used to tap them
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1612
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 04:55:25 -
[20] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Crazy Kitten wrote:...or are you saying that the whole of eve should be either highsec, lowsec, npc nullsec, sov nullsec or wh space, so that you only have to learn one set of "rules"? in my opinion it is a good thing that this game supports different playstyles and has different areas in the game where one can enjoy those playstyles. these parts have different needs, and thus some items that are only beneficial to some playstyles should be restricted to the areas of the game where that playstyle is intended. sov-holding for example is a valid playstyle choice, but should neither be allowed unrestricted (jita being owned by some alliance isn't a good idea), nor should it be removed. and ideas that only benefit the sov playstyle (not saying that this applies here) are valid suggestions, but if they negativly influence other areas of the game, then they should be restricted in their usage. especially if there's already an established mechanic for that. I don't know what you are getting at? Anyhow, a similar mechanic is on the radar for the Rorqual, so let's wait how this pans out and see if there is a need for being invincible just because.
Really 0.o
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
Amarisen Gream
Divine Demise Apocalypse Now.
210
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 07:00:02 -
[21] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Crazy Kitten wrote:...or are you saying that the whole of eve should be either highsec, lowsec, npc nullsec, sov nullsec or wh space, so that you only have to learn one set of "rules"? in my opinion it is a good thing that this game supports different playstyles and has different areas in the game where one can enjoy those playstyles. these parts have different needs, and thus some items that are only beneficial to some playstyles should be restricted to the areas of the game where that playstyle is intended. sov-holding for example is a valid playstyle choice, but should neither be allowed unrestricted (jita being owned by some alliance isn't a good idea), nor should it be removed. and ideas that only benefit the sov playstyle (not saying that this applies here) are valid suggestions, but if they negativly influence other areas of the game, then they should be restricted in their usage. especially if there's already an established mechanic for that. I don't know what you are getting at? Anyhow, a similar mechanic is on the radar for the Rorqual, so let's wait how this pans out and see if there is a need for being invincible just because.
Link for the Rorqual statement please.
"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger
All of his fury and rage.
He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels"
- The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1
DIDE- is open to new members
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1099
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 07:20:59 -
[22] - Quote
Amarisen Gream wrote:elitatwo wrote:Crazy Kitten wrote:...or are you saying that the whole of eve should be either highsec, lowsec, npc nullsec, sov nullsec or wh space, so that you only have to learn one set of "rules"? in my opinion it is a good thing that this game supports different playstyles and has different areas in the game where one can enjoy those playstyles. these parts have different needs, and thus some items that are only beneficial to some playstyles should be restricted to the areas of the game where that playstyle is intended. sov-holding for example is a valid playstyle choice, but should neither be allowed unrestricted (jita being owned by some alliance isn't a good idea), nor should it be removed. and ideas that only benefit the sov playstyle (not saying that this applies here) are valid suggestions, but if they negativly influence other areas of the game, then they should be restricted in their usage. especially if there's already an established mechanic for that. I don't know what you are getting at? Anyhow, a similar mechanic is on the radar for the Rorqual, so let's wait how this pans out and see if there is a need for being invincible just because. Link for the Rorqual statement please.
If I am not mistaken it was something CCP Fozzie was mentioning in one of the o7 shows but he didn't say that it will come, only that they are thinking about it.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1099
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 07:47:13 -
[23] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:While I don't like this idea the notion of "nope if you didn't get it right in your op so stop trying" is contrary to the point of f&I
Now in cases where people stay having to put a bunch of ridiculous or arbitrary limitations on their idea then it's generally a sign it's just plane bad. But a common restriction found on many items already in game is not unreasonable. ...
It wasn't my intention to shut the idea down or I would have just said so, I quoted one of the things my software development professor said in my first year of college, which I thought was fitting.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Neozblade
Exiled Kings Circle-Of-Two
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 12:27:53 -
[24] - Quote
I like all the input so far.
I believe for the deployed force fields, they should have all the rules of a Tower POS and all the restrictions of Interdiction bubbles. Not requiring fuel however having an anchor/online delay. Possibly making the size of them even smaller than earlier suggested.
As for the Battleship it should be limited to where it can be deployed, the cost for deployment should high to limit the number of uses in rapid succession and the module should act like the Bastion module with same ship restrictions. Or perhaps even the module itself is what takes damage, thus once the enemy has taken down your shield your module is destroyed, or other wise unusable.
Then with this idea maybe once the force field is erect, it does NOT break target locks and EWAR is still capable of penetrating the shield however the force field can absorb all incoming damage until destroyed.
The idea of having a forward facing ark shield is an interesting thought. Perhaps if this were the course taken, then the shield would allow friendly forces to fire through it and it would act as cover for friendly forces, yet useless if the enemy were to simply go around the ark.
How does this sound now? |
Iria Ahrens
Space Perverts and Forum Pirates
768
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 14:35:12 -
[25] - Quote
I don't think friendly forces should be able to fire through the shield arc at all.
My choice of pronouns is based on your avatar. Even if I know what is behind the avatar.
|
Takari
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
520
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 16:37:18 -
[26] - Quote
Being able to safe up on grid just sounds like it's against the spirit of the game.
"Roll the dice, don't think twice. This is the way of things.
Welcome to EVE." ~ CCP Falcon
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
820
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 03:07:38 -
[27] - Quote
Takari wrote: Being able to safe up on grid just sounds like it's against the spirit of the game.
Exactly. Why do you think CCP wants to do away with POS' current force field mechanic?
Because it's extremely contrary to the spirit of Eve.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
347
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 05:09:17 -
[28] - Quote
I don't see much in the way of legs of this idea, but if it were done it should have the following: 1 - ship bound high slot module 2 - places the ship in a form of triage 3 - burns stront 4 - the shields have the same resists as the ship and the strength a quarter of what a small POS can pump out. 5 - standard POS shield mechanics come into play 6 - the module burns out after x amount of time or when the shield is breached. Either way, it works once before it has to be repaired in station. 7 - cannot be activated withing X distance of an anchored structure or celestial - prevents 'bubbling' a gate, wormhole, undock, etc.
edit to add: 8 - only one can be fitted. it can only be fitted on BS class ships. 9 - when the module de-activates it implodes, taking out half the ships armor and hull.
Running for CSM 11. You should vote for me.
|
Moonlit Raid
State War Academy Caldari State
284
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 19:49:41 -
[29] - Quote
Crazy Kitten wrote:possible (ab)use scenarios: in highsec missions, bubble the accel gate to prevent ninja looting and mission gankers. in lowsec/null mission running, you'd no longer have to check dscan & local, you'd get a kill notification if anyone was coming for you A gates activation range is far too wide to prevent use with a 20km bubble.
If brute force isn't working, you're just not using enough.
Please Note: Any advice given comes with the caveat that nothing will be suitable for every situation.
|
Pandora Carrollon
Kingsman Tailors
49
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 21:10:07 -
[30] - Quote
From a game mechanic perspective, generally you wouldn't allow something mobile like a battleship to do something like this unless that was about ALL that ship could do. At that point, just make it an 'industrial' ship, akin to a mining barge (which is just a dedicated industrial for mining) that militaries build to do this function. The larger the ship class, the larger the field it can cast. You could even have a frigate sized one of these critters that could cover a small mining operation in an asteroid field that could suck up some damage but would take the first hit.
It really has two game effects:
Removes surprise so kills like those on small groups from gangs of covert ops ships should drop.
Makes for some tactical protection options of areas that currently don't exist as well as increases the sheer amount of shenanigans that can be and have to be taken into consideration before implementation. (A lot of these have already been pointed out but guarantee there's about double or triple that number out there to be tried.)
Fleet actions won't be impacted as much, it's just a minor barrier for an attacking fleet to overcome, no different than a POS.
My suggestion is that it be a dedicated ship that is DESTROYED when the shield is forced down (call it Thermal Overload, whatever) so it's not used lightly. Make it relatively expensive to build, some exotic materials, high priced blueprints, whatever. This baby should cost about as much as the best fully equipped ship in the size class currently does. Again, this will restrict it from being used for stupid crazy stuff. Long/Expensive training curve to use it.
As far as HiSec, LoSec and Null sec rules go, just make it an offensive action when its erected. Concord will deal with it in HiSec, and local Police could deal with it around stations and gates in LoSec. NullSec, all bets are off. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |