EVE Search - Flak Cannons: BSG Style and Turret Batteries

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Flak Cannons: BSG Style and Turret Batteries

» 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 - 1 post(s)
Donovan Seether Minmatar	Posted - 2010.04.17 03:51:00 - [1] You know...we have these massive ships, but, they dont really, FEEL massive. 8 Guns on a ship thats 17km long? My first idea really is about making battery slots. Basically, these would be whole batteries of guns rather than single items. So instead of just getting a pair on either side of the ship, they would be numerous and scattered over the hull. These could be lesser to the MAIN guns that we use at the moment, but able to pour out alot more fire. My second idea...is Flak Cannons. You know, the ones that can project a protective shell of exploding...err....shells, around a ship, giving it some protection from incoming missiles, fighters and smaller ships. They couldnt be targeted on a specific ship, but instead operate in an area around the ship using them. What do you think? I think they would be some good editions to the game. Maybe? Please be gentle...its my first post here. ______________________________________________________________________ Dont worry, I know some manouvers...we'll lose them. Is that it? You just listed lazily to the left?
Zions Child Caldari Carthage Industries	Posted - 2010.04.17 03:56:00 - [2] There was a thread about this a short while ago, really. I'm also pretty sure this gets asked pretty often. It would be fun to have, but it ruins all of the balance. They would have to completely rebalance the game, which considering CCP doesn't want to take the time to rebalance rockets... Yeah, you guessed it. I do however, think as a cosmetic function (cosmetic ONLY) it might be nice. But it would be difficult to explain and EXTREMELY difficult to implement... === Originally by: CCP Shadow This thread has been emasculated. click Originally by: CCP Shadow snip Castration successful. Shadow.
Phony v2 Caldari Unknown Soldiers Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.04.17 03:56:00 - [3] FLak cannons sound kinda cool, This should go into features and ideas forum though Develop it further? How would it work exactly? ______________________________________________ Yes? You, the idiot in the back, with the dumb question.
Donovan Seether Minmatar	Posted - 2010.04.17 04:03:00 - [4] Originally by: Phony v2 FLak cannons sound kinda cool, This should go into features and ideas forum though Develop it further? How would it work exactly? Well, depending on the cannons and ammo used, it would have an area of effect around the ship. It will have a % chance of doing damage to any ships in its area of effect modified by the size and speed. Anything above a frigate sized ship just wouldn't get effected by them. Ammo might be tricky unless you have it used the ammo over time rather than per shot. As for balancing it out...it doesnt need it. It can be made to easily fit into current game mechanics. ______________________________________________________________________ Dont worry, I know some manouvers...we'll lose them. Is that it? You just listed lazily to the left?
The Pricer	Posted - 2010.04.17 04:03:00 - [5] Battery slots: No Flak cannons: Defo! /thumbs up
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2010.04.17 04:33:00 - [6] Wrong forum, and its been suggested a thousand times before. The reason you won't see it is because it would mean battleships that can decimate waves frigates and drones. I've played the "bigger is better" version of EVE, and trust me, it sucks hardcore. And if you're going to get into the "unrealistic weapons" game in earnest, consider the following: - ignores line of sight - ignores friendly fire - visually never misses - visually, all guns have the same tracking speed - range in space is infinite - projectile and rail speeds are laughably slow - ignores firing arcs on some ships, that can fire with more or less guns than intended I love how EVE tries to be a serious game, but when it comes to mechanics, you have to consider how many major concessions were made because it was designed to run on a pentium 3 / geforce 2 computer on the client side and a single shard universe on the client side. You might as well build a new game with more realistic fundamentals instead.
Donovan Seether Minmatar	Posted - 2010.04.17 04:38:00 - [7] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Wrong forum, and its been suggested a thousand times before. The reason you won't see it is because it would mean battleships that can decimate waves frigates and drones. I've played the "bigger is better" version of EVE, and trust me, it sucks hardcore. And if you're going to get into the "unrealistic weapons" game in earnest, consider the following: - ignores line of sight - ignores friendly fire - visually never misses - visually, all guns have the same tracking speed - range in space is infinite - projectile and rail speeds are laughably slow - ignores firing arcs on some ships, that can fire with more or less guns than intended I love how EVE tries to be a serious game, but when it comes to mechanics, you have to consider how many major concessions were made because it was designed to run on a pentium 3 / geforce 2 computer on the client side and a single shard universe on the client side. You might as well build a new game with more realistic fundamentals instead. Why would they HAVE to decimate frigates? You are assuming that they would be designed to do so from the outset. If they are designed correctly, they will be a DANGER to frigates and fighters, making people rethink frigate tactics. Its NOT an unrealistic weapon and would not be difficult to put into the game. ______________________________________________________________________
Zions Child Caldari Carthage Industries	Posted - 2010.04.17 04:39:00 - [8] Originally by: Donovan Seether As for balancing it out...it doesnt need it. It can be made to easily fit into current game mechanics. Explain to me just how, exactly, this would fit into current game mechanics? Are you talking about a Titan being able to wipe out a cloud of frigate - cruiser sized ships on its own? Are you talking about letting battleships and up do this? Fighters would be screwed. So would drones. There would have to be considerable balancing. I'm talking about changes in HP and resistances. EVE at the moment is fairly well balanced, even with all the myriad ways to take advantage of specific things (10km/s Drams, anyone?). I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be done, but you ought to think it through a LOT more than percentage based hits and it'll only affect frigates. You would be adding either a large source of potential damage or next to none. If it's next to none, then it might as well be zero, in order to keep the balance of EVE. I'm all for it being cosmetic, but I'd rather have CCP working on keeping the market sources, weapon dps, ship hp, drone damage, lag fest fixing, Incarna, making sure PI is nice and balanced, etc. before they work on adding something that is completely and totally incapable of having a legitimate, logical, and effective counterbalance put in with it to balance it. Are you an alt, by any chance? You're a little young... === Originally by: CCP Shadow This thread has been emasculated. click Originally by: CCP Shadow snip Castration successful. Shadow.
Zions Child Caldari Carthage Industries	Posted - 2010.04.17 04:44:00 - [9] Originally by: Donovan Seether Why would they HAVE to decimate frigates? You are assuming that they would be designed to do so from the outset. If they are designed correctly, they will be a DANGER to frigates and fighters, making people rethink frigate tactics. Its NOT an unrealistic weapon and would not be difficult to put into the game. In answer to this, I don't think you quite understand frigate tactics. How, may I ask, would they be able to evade said fire? Have you seen a blobfest of capital ships before? Frigates have little to do with large capital fights already, this would just make sure no one uses them at all. And then there is the amount of processing power required. Think of the immense amount of client side graphics processing power needed to calculate the hits of about 300-400 capital ships all having their flak cannons fire simultaneously. Now think of the processing power required server side. Fleet fights are already a broken lagfest of doom, this would be yet another nail into the coffin. === Originally by: CCP Shadow This thread has been emasculated. click Originally by: CCP Shadow snip Castration successful. Shadow.
Donovan Seether Minmatar	Posted - 2010.04.17 04:56:00 - [10] No, I am not an alt. I have been out of the game for a while due to my loosing my job over a year ago. Finally got my money to a place where I can afford to play again. Firstly, you are the first to say it is a bad idea. I think you have this negative image stuck in your head, don't like it and don't want to think of anything that is positive about it. If you had read the post above all this where I explain how it would work, you would know that it would be an AOE damage effect. Anything in that area has a % chance of being hit modified by speed/mass/maneuverability/etc. You obviously didn't read that or you chose to ignore it completely. Its no where near as bad or as powerful as you are making it out to be or appear to think that it might be. As to how it can be balanced out, well, the above explains it well enough I think. Area of Effect weapon, Modified % Chance to hit anything in that AOE per second or whatever. That makes it 1 calculation per ship in the AOE of Flak Batteries per whatever interval. That easy enough? ______________________________________________________________________

Barton Foley	Posted - 2010.04.17 05:01:00 - [11] Edited by: Barton Foley on 17/04/2010 05:01:30 If you want a flak ship, fly an Assault Missile Caracal. 30km zone of death for frigates. Gives new players something to do if they can only fly a cruiser. EDIT: Oh you want AOE too? Gtfo.
Taxesarebad	Posted - 2010.04.17 05:07:00 - [12] been kinda suggested, but should be done. only problem is would require alot of balancing it would make sense to have auto targeting Point defense weapons. on cap ships but then again, cap ships become alot harder to kill. if it were only on Super Caps it might work... but then what do the weapons target? do you have to make a Titan lock on to the frigate to use the batteries? do they auto target? if so will they neutrals? will they do stupid stuff ( like shoot other super capitals when not designed too) in short. for the future i hope they have things like this but not for awhile
Donovan Seether Minmatar	Posted - 2010.04.17 05:08:00 - [13] Originally by: Barton Foley Edited by: Barton Foley on 17/04/2010 05:01:30 If you want a flak ship, fly an Assault Missile Caracal. 30km zone of death for frigates. Gives new players something to do if they can only fly a cruiser. EDIT: Oh you want AOE too? Gtfo. So you dont like Smart Bombs being in the game either then? ______________________________________________________________________
Zions Child Caldari Carthage Industries	Posted - 2010.04.17 05:15:00 - [14] Originally by: Donovan Seether No, I am not an alt. I have been out of the game for a while due to my loosing my job over a year ago. Finally got my money to a place where I can afford to play again. Firstly, you are the first to say it is a bad idea. I think you have this negative image stuck in your head, don't like it and don't want to think of anything that is positive about it. If you had read the post above all this where I explain how it would work, you would know that it would be an AOE damage effect. Anything in that area has a % chance of being hit modified by speed/mass/maneuverability/etc. You obviously didn't read that or you chose to ignore it completely. Its no where near as bad or as powerful as you are making it out to be or appear to think that it might be. As to how it can be balanced out, well, the above explains it well enough I think. Area of Effect weapon, Modified % Chance to hit anything in that AOE per second or whatever. That makes it 1 calculation per ship in the AOE of Flak Batteries per whatever interval. That easy enough? I understand the whole not being able to play thing, I've taken several very long breaks myself. As for a negative idea, I would actually enjoy it. I'm not too far from being able to fly a Chimera, and not far after that a Phoenix. It would be awesome to have flak cannons. The problem is that while not being impossible to balance, they become very, very difficult. Speed is not an effective balance, neither is "it'll only really affect frigates." And although it would only be calculated once for each ship in each area of fire of each capital ship... Well, just watch this video. You see the quantity of capital ships in that fight? At least a hundred. One frigate, travelling through at least 20 fields of fire at a time... Even if it only got hit say 20% of the time, thats 4 times. Plus, there would have to be friendly fire for it to make sense at all. Even if there weren't, it would still be a boatload of new processing routines. I support this as a purely cosmetic feature. Perhaps the flak can't penetrate the shields on frigate sized vessels or something. But as an actual game mechanic, it would severely destabilize the balance of nullsec fighting. Putting this on a battleship would be gun to head for frigates... === Originally by:* CCP Shadow This thread has been emasculated. click Originally by: CCP Shadow snip Castration successful. Shadow.
Obsidian Hawk RONA Legion	Posted - 2010.04.17 05:22:00 - [15] cool story bro, but you need to learn the forums. Features and Ideas forum is not here in GD
Taxesarebad	Posted - 2010.04.17 05:25:00 - [16] make a new cap ship that fit the flak batteries that auto targetd ships smaller than a BS for a decent range. it would have bonus's too tracking and ROF maybe give it some other role ( you dont want an AFK support fleet killer) so either logistics or some minor fire power against larger ships.
Donovan Seether Minmatar	Posted - 2010.04.17 05:30:00 - [17] Edited by: Donovan Seether on 17/04/2010 05:31:41 I just thought I would elaborate a little more on the idea and show what I think Flak Batteries could run like. As for the Cosmetic effect, I dont think there is anything in the game at the moment that would warrant a Flak Shell effect. Flak Turrets would have several statistics that would have to be considered; Outer Boundary: This is the furthest reach of the Flak Cannons. Outside of this area, ship cannot be hit. Within this range, ships stand a chance of being damaged by the Flak Batteries. Inner Boundary: The inner boundary would be where the Flak Shell starts. Inside of this range, ships cannot be hit, meaning that if a ship gets close enough it is safe from the ships Flak Batteries. Outside of this range but inside the Outer Boundary, ships can be hit. Flak Density: This provides the BASE chance for a ship inside of a Flak Shell to be hit. This will be modified by the type of ammo used, speed of the ships in the shell and ability to maneuver. Maximum Effected Mass: This will limit damage from Flak Cannons to ships under a certain size. Thus, larger ships would be unaffected by a Flak shell. Ammo Consumption Rate: This determines the rate at which ammunition is depleted when the Flak Batteries are active. Ammo is the next thing that needs to be considered for Flak Cannons. It would work differently to Main Gun Ammo, in that is is depleted over time rather than per shot. All damage statistics would be determined by the ammunition type used. Outer Boundary Bonus: Obviously this determines and bonus or penalty to the range of the outer boundary of the Flak Shell. Inner Boundary Bonus: As above but with the inner boundary of the shell. Damage type: As per usual Usage in game: Not targeting is required for Flak Cannons. You simply switch them on or off like a smart bomb. The effect is a constant shell of Flak Fire around the ship using the Flak Battery. Anything over a frigate in size will be immune to the effects of said Flak Cannons. For every cycle a Flak Battery remains active, it consumes so many units of Flak Ammo that is stored in the players Cargo Bay. Once through the Flak Shell however and inside the Inner Boundary, the ship is safe and can tackle and stuff with impunity. ______________________________________________________________________

CCP Applebabe	Posted - 2010.04.17 05:42:00 - [18] Moved from EVE General Discussion. Applebabe Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us

Donovan Seether Minmatar	Posted - 2010.04.17 05:42:00 - [19] Edited by: Donovan Seether on 17/04/2010 05:42:39 Originally by: Obsidian Hawk cool story bro, but you need to learn the forums. Features and Ideas forum is not here in GD Yes...I do. Heh...I know better now. Hopefully a Moderator will move the post to the correct part of the forums. Edit: Hah...just as I posted this it was moved. Thank you CCP person! ______________________________________________________________________
Torothanax	Posted - 2010.04.17 06:30:00 - [20] More guns and higher rates of fire means more calls on the server. That's bad. Now if it was just a graphic for "pretty" it would probably be ok.

Zilberfrid	Posted - 2010.04.17 08:27:00 - [21] Yet another person wishes to obsolete frigates and drones. You want to hit them? sacrifice high slots.
RootEmerger	Posted - 2010.04.17 09:30:00 - [22] Originally by: Donovan Seether So you dont like Smart Bombs being in the game either then? Exactly, we allready have smartbombs to do all that you want to do and they allready are quite balanced rangewise, rofwise and dpswise. if you want flak guns to be a new -graphical- effect to smartbomb, it could be fun. but start adding range or rof or dps (even only one of the options) to smartbombs and you'll imbalance eve heavily.
1600 RT	Posted - 2010.04.17 10:21:00 - [23] CCP please change the name of smartbombs in flak cannon so we get rid of those OPs
Donovan Seether Minmatar	Posted - 2010.04.17 12:02:00 - [24] Well, those last two comments were just rude, snotty and generally unpleasant. Why? ______________________________________________________________________
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.04.17 12:20:00 - [25] Originally by: Donovan Seether Well, those last two comments were just rude, snotty and generally unpleasant. Why? Could be the reason that you are like the 1000th person suggesting that ... the 999th person who was unable to use the search to find all the existing discussions and why most people rejected that idea. if you want to kill smaller stuff, fit for it. even large blaster boats can be made to kill small stuff. (hello mister heavy neutralizer, hello mister warp scrambler, hello misses stasis web) if that isnt enough ... eve is an MMO. multiplayer. you bring friends in other small ships to kill small stuff that you might encounter. to use the "real life" argument. you wouldnt see a large battleship/carrier without a support fleet either. not supported. this would especially overpower carriers
Zilberfrid	Posted - 2010.04.17 12:47:00 - [26] In ship terms: we are in the Dreadnaught era: you fit weapons as heavy as possible to your ship.


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.