EVE Search - [Proposal] shiptype: Hijjacker

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal] shiptype: Hijjacker

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sybilla Prior	Posted - 2009.09.17 06:32:00 - [1] I propose a frigate-hull shiptype that can use a module which can pull another ship along in it's warp. The pulled ship drops free mid-warp. The idea behind the ship is that it can be used to pull large capital fleets apart, dispurse them so you can quite liturally 'devide and conquer'. The hijjacker module can only be used on these ships, and have a maximum range of 2500 meters, so the hijjacker has to approach, lock and warp before the capital ship can lock it. This has another effect that capital fleets would do well to have a support fleet of smaller ships which can lock fast and warpscramble the incoming hijjackers. (think interceptors and the like) The reason that the hijjacked ship drops free mid-warp and not end-warp is that in the latter option it's too easy to trap the hijjacked ship in a bubble or otherwise trap it can't possibly get out of, making the hijjacker too powerfull. I propose a fitting somewhat like this: 2 high, 2 med, 1 low. The hijjacker module would fit on a high slot, leaving it one spot for a turret or missle launcher: this is not ment to be a combat effective ship. In the med you'd often find a mwd or afterburner (or both) because these ships need to get really close to their targets before their targets can lock onto their small signature radius. This also makes these ships mostly uneffective against small ships with faster locking speeds. Big capital ships are it's prime target, though they should also be usable against small gangs but this should be harder.
Uronksur Suth Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate	Posted - 2009.09.17 07:11:00 - [2] No, especially since you didn't explain WHY.
Sybilla Prior	Posted - 2009.09.17 10:00:00 - [3] Originally by: Uronksur Suth No, especially since you didn't explain WHY. 2 reasons: - to make small ships usefull in capital ship engagements. - to be able to disperse large blob-fights into smaller engagements. (an anti-blob tactic that doesn't depend on the soon to be gone aoe DDD)
darius mclever	Posted - 2009.09.17 10:17:00 - [4] small ships got a role in cap fights: 1. kill support and drones/fighters 2. tackle. your split battle in many smaller doesnt make much sense imho. not supported.
Sybilla Prior	Posted - 2009.09.17 12:19:00 - [5] Originally by: darius mclever small ships got a role in cap fights: 1. kill support and drones/fighters 2. tackle. your split battle in many smaller doesnt make much sense imho. not supported. Well, think about it this way, what other ship could temporarily take support ships, or ecm ships away from the battlefield, taking a minute or perhaps less to get back in the battle. Also, if the warp-tug defeats scrambling then perhaps it can be used to pull a friendly out of a warp-scram. (if the hijjacker isn't warp-scrammed itself.
Cancer Face Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.17 12:27:00 - [6] Originally by: Sybilla Prior Well, think about it this way, what other ship could temporarily take support ships, or ecm ships away from the battlefield, taking a minute or perhaps less to get back in the battle. No other ship can do that, and I'm not sure why we need a ship that can.
Sybilla Prior	Posted - 2009.09.17 12:30:00 - [7] Originally by: Cancer Face Originally by: Sybilla Prior Well, think about it this way, what other ship could temporarily take support ships, or ecm ships away from the battlefield, taking a minute or perhaps less to get back in the battle. No other ship can do that, and I'm not sure why we need a ship that can. Well how is having more diversity on the battlefield a bad thing?
Cancer Face Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.17 12:34:00 - [8] Edited by: Cancer Face on 17/09/2009 12:34:41 Originally by: Sybilla Prior Originally by: Cancer Face Originally by: Sybilla Prior Well, think about it this way, what other ship could temporarily take support ships, or ecm ships away from the battlefield, taking a minute or perhaps less to get back in the battle. No other ship can do that, and I'm not sure why we need a ship that can. Well how is having more diversity on the battlefield a bad thing? Have you ever tried to command a fleet? These ships would make that basically impossible. Any ship the "hijacker" managed to pull away would be essentially dead. Hijacker + covops + a few dedicated BS = anything that is tackled being dead. Does this seem overpowered to you?
Sybilla Prior	Posted - 2009.09.17 12:38:00 - [9] Originally by: Cancer Face Edited by: Cancer Face on 17/09/2009 12:34:41 Originally by: Sybilla Prior Originally by: Cancer Face Originally by: Sybilla Prior Well, think about it this way, what other ship could temporarily take support ships, or ecm ships away from the battlefield, taking a minute or perhaps less to get back in the battle. No other ship can do that, and I'm not sure why we need a ship that can. Well how is having more diversity on the battlefield a bad thing? Have you ever tried to command a fleet? These ships would make that basically impossible. Any ship the "hijacker" managed to pull away would be essentially dead. Hijacker + covops + a few dedicated BS = anything that is tackled being dead. Does this seem overpowered to you? The reason a hijjacked ship pulls free mid-warp is to prevent it from being dead for certain.
Cancer Face Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.17 13:21:00 - [10] Originally by: Sybilla Prior Originally by: Sybilla Prior Well, think about it this way, what other ship could temporarily take support ships, or ecm ships away from the battlefield, taking a minute or perhaps less to get back in the battle. No other ship can do that, and I'm not sure why we need a ship that can. Well how is having more diversity on the battlefield a bad thing? Have you ever tried to command a fleet? These ships would make that basically impossible. Any ship the "hijacker" managed to pull away would be essentially dead. Hijacker + covops + a few dedicated BS = anything that is tackled being dead. Does this seem overpowered to you? The reason a hijjacked ship pulls free mid-warp is to prevent it from being dead for certain. That does not work at all. Hijacker warps to a spot less than 100,000km away. covops can already have probes out. Covops can gangwarp BS to scan hit. Target is dead for certain. Thanks for playing.
Sybilla Prior	Posted - 2009.09.17 13:23:00 - [11] Originally by: Cancer Face Originally by: Sybilla Prior Originally by: Sybilla Prior Well, think about it this way, what other ship could temporarily take support ships, or ecm ships away from the battlefield, taking a minute or perhaps less to get back in the battle. No other ship can do that, and I'm not sure why we need a ship that can. Well how is having more diversity on the battlefield a bad thing? Have you ever tried to command a fleet? These ships would make that basically impossible. Any ship the "hijacker" managed to pull away would be essentially dead. Hijacker + covops + a few dedicated BS = anything that is tackled being dead. Does this seem overpowered to you? The reason a hijjacked ship pulls free mid-warp is to prevent it from being dead for certain. That does not work at all. Hijacker warps to a spot less than 100,000km away. covops can already have probes out. Covops can gangwarp BS to scan hit. Target is dead for certain. Thanks for playing. Are you saying that they can scan where it dropped out of warp, warp to it, scram it and kill it before the victim of the hijjacker can click 'warp to "random object"'?
Cancer Face Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.17 13:44:00 - [12] Yes. I am. A covops can have a scan on something and be warping within 5-10 seconds if it has probes out. Lock time is negligible. Carriers can take time to align warp.
Sybilla Prior	Posted - 2009.09.17 13:50:00 - [13] Originally by: Cancer Face Yes. I am. A covops can have a scan on something and be warping within 5-10 seconds if it has probes out. Lock time is negligible. Carriers can take time to align warp. Fair enough, how about this: a hijjacked ship is automatically alligned to warp back to where it came from. Better?
Mr Laden	Posted - 2009.09.17 14:10:00 - [14] we need a ship that can spit out a huge shockwave of millions of dps which could wipe out entire fleets. Perhaps 3 of them at the same time could wipe out an entire bs fleet!!! oh wait...
Drake Draconis Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.17 14:33:00 - [15] Not supported. Serious/obvious lack of foresight and experience. Not to mention requires a vast overwrite/change of warp mechanics to one ship class. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com =========================
Sybilla Prior	Posted - 2009.09.17 16:05:00 - [16] Originally by: Drake Draconis Not supported. Serious/obvious lack of foresight and experience. Not to mention requires a vast overwrite/change of warp mechanics to one ship class. It would help if you could elaborate on the foresight/experience that is missing.
Drake Draconis Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.17 16:54:00 - [17] It would help if you actually listened to the people who responded to your OP in the first place. I don't need to repeat what has been said. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com =========================
Uronksur Suth Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate	Posted - 2009.09.17 19:21:00 - [18] Originally by: Sybilla Prior Originally by: Drake Draconis Not supported. Serious/obvious lack of foresight and experience. Not to mention requires a vast overwrite/change of warp mechanics to one ship class. It would help if you could elaborate on the foresight/experience that is missing. Apparently any understanding of how EVE PvP works and just how ridiculous including this ship would be?
Nekmet Awai	Posted - 2009.09.18 00:34:00 - [19] Originally by: Sybilla Prior Originally by: Uronksur Suth No, especially since you didn't explain WHY. 2 reasons: - to make small ships usefull in capital ship engagements. - to be able to disperse large blob-fights into smaller engagements. (an anti-blob tactic that doesn't depend on the soon to be gone aoe DDD) you seriously don't see how insanely overpowered this would be?
Sybilla Prior	Posted - 2009.09.18 10:08:00 - [20] Originally by: Nekmet Awai Originally by: Sybilla Prior Originally by: Uronksur Suth No, especially since you didn't explain WHY. 2 reasons: - to make small ships usefull in capital ship engagements. - to be able to disperse large blob-fights into smaller engagements. (an anti-blob tactic that doesn't depend on the soon to be gone aoe DDD) you seriously don't see how insanely overpowered this would be? I can see that it would change pvp combat a lot, but if I look at how people can adapt to counter this ship, it's not that hard. You fly with a destroyer escort and this ship is toast. I mean, frigate hull, has to get really close to hijjack, it's quite counterable. People will change their tactics to accomodate this ship. Also note that if you bring a wing of these than those pilots aren't flying dps-boats instead, so you sacrifice something. In the end, players adapt, and it ballances itself out. Or atleast, that's the goal. If it doesn't meet that goal, how would you change the design so it does?
darius mclever	Posted - 2009.09.18 11:01:00 - [21] just a thought: you would need to apply the current bumping mechanics (mass behavior esp.) to your idea. it would take your hijacker frigate ages to pull anything larger than another frigate up to the speed for warp. (warp mechanics have to apply aswell of course.) so you have a frigate size engine that tries to accelerate a cruiser/BS/capship size mass to its own warp speed. lets say 250m/s which is a reasonable frigate base speed, given it should work as kind of a tackler and has to move itself quickly through the field. with all those problems i dont see a role for it. you want to eliminate ships from the field? shoot them. makes them gone for much much longer.
Sybilla Prior	Posted - 2009.09.18 11:51:00 - [22] Originally by: darius mclever just a thought: you would need to apply the current bumping mechanics (mass behavior esp.) to your idea. it would take your hijacker frigate ages to pull anything larger than another frigate up to the speed for warp. (warp mechanics have to apply aswell of course.) so you have a frigate size engine that tries to accelerate a cruiser/BS/capship size mass to its own warp speed. lets say 250m/s which is a reasonable frigate base speed, given it should work as kind of a tackler and has to move itself quickly through the field. with all those problems i dont see a role for it. you want to eliminate ships from the field? shoot them. makes them gone for much much longer. Well, looking at it that way, the ship has more applications. A few of these could 'tug' a larger friendly ship outside of a warp-bubble for instance. Or if the pulling force isn't enough to pull a ship into warp, it'll still move it a fair bit, for instance back out of blaster-range. Think of bumping a ship to prevent it from docking, but more effective.
AizenSousuke Gallente STK Scientific The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.09.18 16:49:00 - [23] This would make a perfect lol ship. I can see all the people raging as their ships are pulled away from what they are doing. I could see this mechanic abused to oblivion just for the lols. I can see CCP facepalming thinking "What have we done??" as the forums fill up with YET ANOTHER bunch of whiners and the griefers trolling them. Not to mention the new vids popping up with Benny Hill music.. See where I'm going? Not supported. While it is a freaking hilarious idea, it doesn't make sense in the battlefield. If you want to move a ship, bump it. -------------------------------------------------- Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
Uronksur Suth Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate	Posted - 2009.09.18 16:56:00 - [24] Originally by: Sybilla Prior Originally by: darius mclever just a thought: you would need to apply the current bumping mechanics (mass behavior esp.) to your idea. it would take your hijacker frigate ages to pull anything larger than another frigate up to the speed for warp. (warp mechanics have to apply aswell of course.) so you have a frigate size engine that tries to accelerate a cruiser/BS/capship size mass to its own warp speed. lets say 250m/s which is a reasonable frigate base speed, given it should work as kind of a tackler and has to move itself quickly through the field. with all those problems i dont see a role for it. you want to eliminate ships from the field? shoot them. makes them gone for much much longer. Well, looking at it that way, the ship has more applications. A few of these could 'tug' a larger friendly ship outside of a warp-bubble for instance. Or if the pulling force isn't enough to pull a ship into warp, it'll still move it a fair bit, for instance back out of blaster-range. Think of bumping a ship to prevent it from docking, but more effective. I feel like PvP is fine as it is. Your ship would be just a ridiculous complication that would **** people off.

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.