| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kodama Ikari
Concordiat
Spaceship Samurai
26
   |
Posted - 2013.03.11 16:53:00 -
[31] - Quote
Orion Wolff wrote:
So how many times do I have to ask others for input on how it could WORK, as opposed to NOT work? I'm fine with criticism, but I see nothing positive here. No brainstorming on parts of K space where it would be useful. I could think of several - low/null gassing/mining, an additional tanking option for fleets on the hunt, put it up around a group of ships working any sites issuing, using drones inside the field to defend against frigates or cruisers. And if you're worried about making this unbalanced by making it too cheap, make it a tech 2 interdictor or equivalent in cost. More ISK on the field means more risk to use.
Seriously, are you guys this closed minded?
Take it to Features & Ideas?
You're starting off with the massive unwarranted assumption that the final form of your idea will be perfectly balanced and not completely broken despite introducing all kinds of new mechanics. If that's truly the case, then sure bring it on. But you're basically so far off in fantasy land already that I doubt anyone here is much interested (otherwise we'd be posting in features & ideas). Instead we grab the concrete thing in your post ie "how do i make sniper BCs work in c5s" and post about that. I'm not specifically trying to **** on your idea, I'm just not interested in brainstorming it.
Some first-hand PI tips |
Varkul
Airmail Explosives
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 20:00:00 -
[32] - Quote
Well, since you want ways to make it work: instead of a giant shield that encompasses a fleet, how about transporting the shield to each ship?
This beamed shield would reinforce the target's shield, using the ship's capacitor, kinda like a shield booster, except it'd be remote. And to make it a little more balanced, we'll limit the module to one target instead.
Let's call it a "Shield Transporter." |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
297
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 20:41:00 -
[33] - Quote
Orion Wolff wrote:
So how many times do I have to ask others for input on how it could WORK, as opposed to NOT work? I'm fine with criticism, but I see nothing positive here. No brainstorming on parts of K space where it would be useful. I could think of several - low/null gassing/mining, an additional tanking option for fleets on the hunt, put it up around a group of ships working any sites issuing, using drones inside the field to defend against frigates or cruisers. And if you're worried about making this unbalanced by making it too cheap, make it a tech 2 interdictor or equivalent in cost. More ISK on the field means more risk to use.
Seriously, are you guys this closed minded?
One of the best ways to find out something can work is to pull it apart and explore every possible way it can break.
IF once you've broken it and any associated issue it breaks along die it then you may have something that can work. This however does not mean it is 'balanced' just that it 'works'. You need to go through the process again with your 'wokring' prototype but this time focused on balance.....then and only then may you have something that works AND is balanced.
This not a trivial or easy task. Why do you think is take so long to get new stuff out?!?!?
That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything. |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
694
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 22:25:00 -
[34] - Quote
3-4 Battleships is enough to run c5 sites. Carriers not required.
Stop being bad. |
Ignitious Hellfury
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 23:54:00 -
[35] - Quote
Orion Wolff wrote:lol @ you thinking anything in C5 could be made easy.
I live in a c6. It's really not hard if you know how to capitalize on your system bonuses and sleeper mechanics. In the interest of being helpful, I genuinely think you should reevaluate your technique to sleeper sites. Hell, I'm actually pretty sure you can handle c6 sites with 3 guardians and faction (re: not deadspace even) bs very comfortably. If 6 people is a lot you to you, you may want to reconsider living in a c5 as the logistical complexities of wh kind of demands a little bigger community than that. |
Zappity
Kurved Space
14
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 10:45:00 -
[36] - Quote
I don't like it as a solution to your problem but I do like the concept. It would be extremely difficult to balance though.
Hooray, I'm l33t! -á(Kil2: "The higher their ship losses...the better they're going to be.") |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
129
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 13:40:00 -
[37] - Quote
I would suggest that a "force field" ship which is simply a tank to provide a hitpoint shield for your squishies while still allowing them full scale of operation (including shooting, ewar...etc). (as the OP suggests) is inappropriate. Not least because it totally negates one of the major effects of the Sleeper AI.
What I can see working however (though it would need to be carefully approached with regard to the number of HPs it has (and many other factors) would be a sort of mobile POS bubble.
A portable harbour if you like, providing no benefits beyond its limited protection, preventing locks, logistics and neutering offensive actions... right up until the bubble collapses under the incoming fire.
It would not prevent losses among the OP's glass cannon but it might allow them to get close before exposing themselves to Sleeper fire. |
StoneCold
House of Sparrows
82
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 13:51:00 -
[38] - Quote
Jacob Holland wrote:I would suggest that a "force field" ship which is simply a tank to provide a hitpoint shield for your squishies while still allowing them full scale of operation (including shooting, ewar...etc). (as the OP suggests) is inappropriate. Not least because it totally negates one of the major effects of the Sleeper AI.
What I can see working however (though it would need to be carefully approached with regard to the number of HPs it has (and many other factors) would be a sort of mobile POS bubble.
A portable harbour if you like, providing no benefits beyond its limited protection, preventing locks, logistics and neutering offensive actions... right up until the bubble collapses under the incoming fire.
It would not prevent losses among the OP's glass cannon but it might allow them to get close before exposing themselves to Sleeper fire.
I see how this would totaly not effect any other part of gameplay.
EDIT:
In WingCommander (Origin) there was this cheat:
While showing the Origin-Logo you moved your joystick in this order (with pressing the firing key):
Up (fire) down (fire) left (fire) right (fire) up-left (fire) down-right (fire) down-left (fire) up-right (fire).
Then you were able to let the locked target explode by pressing ctrl + del.
Disclaimer: All depicted violent acts relate only (and exclusively) on ingame events.
I support Psychotic Monk for CSM8 |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
672
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 14:47:00 -
[39] - Quote
@OP
It's simple, you're using the wrong tool for the job.
Instead of using the right one, and doing it right, you keep yourself entitled in your greedy ideas and would want the game to change to suit your needs instead.
Pick more friends with logistics
Pick BS's instead, Pirate BS or Marauders (T2 resists)
Pick T3's instead
Change for a lower class of WH since you don't like that one
You have choices, why don't you explore some of them instead?
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Cambarus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
282
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 02:15:00 -
[40] - Quote
Orion Wolff wrote:
So how many times do I have to ask others for input on how it could WORK, as opposed to NOT work? I'm fine with criticism, but I see nothing positive here. No brainstorming on parts of K space where it would be useful. I could think of several - low/null gassing/mining, an additional tanking option for fleets on the hunt, put it up around a group of ships working any sites issuing, using drones inside the field to defend against frigates or cruisers. And if you're worried about making this unbalanced by making it too cheap, make it a tech 2 interdictor or equivalent in cost. More ISK on the field means more risk to use.
Seriously, are you guys this closed minded?
As a general rule, if you come up with an idea, and take it to the forums, not to ask people to show its flaws but to ask them to come up with ways it could be made useful, the core idea is probably bad. You really have to weigh the good with the bad here, because introducing a new ship, with a new mechanic, would cause an absurd amount of headaches when it comes to balancing. Changes to balancing mechanics damn near always have some sort of side-effects that weren't predictable, and balancing takes a lot of time and fine-tuning, so ask yourself this: is the need for the idea you've put fourth really big enough to justify the inevitable headaches that would follow its implementation?
It seems to me like you just want to be able to field glass cannon ships, without having to worry about their HP, which is odd, since that's exactly what you're supposed to be worrying about when flying glass cannons. You're using a hammer to put in a screw, then insisting that CCP make a new attachment to your hammer to let you do it properly. Eve is all about using the right tool for the right job, and in this case that means that glass cannon setups don't work in sleeper sites because they're not SUPPOSED to. The problem isn't the game, it's your own greed and laziness.
If you can't assemble the people, or can't assemble the fleets needed to run sites in a c5, then you shouldn't be running sites in a c5. Period. It's not CCP's job to make group content more available to people who can't reliably group up, especially not when highsec pretty much does this on its own.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |