| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Derek Degenerante
   |
Posted - 2005.12.09 05:32:00 -
[1]
I was wondering if that would ever become reality in Eve.Right now you have ships that have drones as their major offensive weapons and they can lose them in an engagement.I was wondering if we could have all turrets in game able to be targeted by smaller caliber weapons(sig radius and all that good stuff).
Then I was reading in my Eve EON mag about HAC's.I was reading up on the Ishtar and how the drones being its major offensive weapon if lost was crippling to this ship.Then I read this and wondered if this was a sign of things to come?!?
""That means the ishtar can be put out of service after a single failed engagement,so the greatest drawback of piloting one is similiar to piloting a Zealot and having your lasers shot out"".
|
Dust Angel
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 05:55:00 -
[2]
1x tracking disrupter- half the range and half the tracking rate. effectivly disables a turret ship.
|
RawCode
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 06:27:00 -
[3]
But he wants to destroy them as if they were drones. So if you take out the ships turrets, it is effictively disabled. I think it would be kinda cool
|
CitzNo 097864
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 06:36:00 -
[4]
Drones are cheap and expendable. Many guns are not.
|
Derek Degenerante
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 06:43:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: RawCode
But he wants to destroy them as if they were drones. So if you take out the ships turrets, it is effictively disabled. I think it would be kinda cool
Exactley....*****EN!!
In the EON magazine it doesnt say that the zealot lasers were disrupted,it says shot out.Adding this to eve would give AF's/Interceptors better roles instead of just being tacklers.Let them tackle and also target the turrets.And its only fair that if a drone ship has the drawback of losing its armament then all turrets should be able to be destroyed.
|
Rafein
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 06:44:00 -
[6]
it's something they are looking into, making combat longer, so there is more stragedy with RmR. Afterwards, add more stragedy with being able to attack modules directly.
Probably will drastically reduce the damage you can cause to a ship, as they will probably need specific high slot mods. Something more for fleets than one Vs. one.
|
Brastagi
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 08:28:00 -
[7]
Signed
---------
Watch me gravitate Ha ha ha ha ha....
|
Teles666
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 08:34:00 -
[8]
I think the game in general would be better for the ability to target key systems. Engines, guns, life support 
Fleet battles would be more interesting if lots of ints were used to take out large turrets and piracy would be a little less like griefing if you could disable or capture ships.
|
Ortu Konsinni
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 08:43:00 -
[9]
While I like the idea, this would make frigates greatly overpowered.
---
Ortu Konsinni
Chief diplomat - French Force Alliance
---
EVE Player Ship Gallery |
Piotr Anatolev
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 09:06:00 -
[10]
Would also be interesting if a direct wrecking hit to the lifesupport subsystem or pod iself could kill the command crew and render the ship "dead in the water", sending the podpilot back to his cloning station.
The ship left behind would be out of comission and impossible board, thus requiring anyone laying claim to the wreckage to actually tow it back to a naval/repair yard facility to get it back in operational state.
Same would apply if propulsion was hit and damaged, although it would be logical you could atleast board it then.
Something along these lines would be really interesting.
|
Jaketh Ivanes
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 09:15:00 -
[11]
Could be very interresting indeed. Would also make the logistic ship even more usefull, as it would be the only ship that could repair the damage modules back to operational state in space.
But it should be hard to hit specific targets, even for a frig. but it could be so cool. Imagine just totally rendering a pirate dead in the water, and just leave him there, unable to do anything  
|
ErrorS
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 09:19:00 -
[12]
I would love for ships to have MUCH more structure, to the point where the large ships are nearly impossible to destroy.. but you can destroy individual components. "Reactor" for example would cause the ship to explode. Most ships would run after losing all of its weapons.
Big ships should be harder to lose.. but should be more expensive to maintain. Repairing a ship for 60% of the cost after a losing battle seems a lot more fun than buying a new one after losing a battle..
________
I'm strict Caldari
"The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think?
-ErrorS |
Sharcy
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 09:26:00 -
[13]
This is an excellent idea. Think StarWars, X-Wings attacking the Death Star... or Battlestar Galactica, Vipers attacking the Cylon motherships... Their primary concern most of the time was disabling the turrets and launchers, not "doing as much damage to the armor or hull", because that's like a bee trying to sting a rhino. But if that bee pokes the rhino in the eye, it's much more useful...
--
Press [Alt][F4] for my witty signature... |
Lucus Ranger
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 09:27:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Lucus Ranger on 09/12/2005 09:28:33
I think it's a good idea, but like said before let it be more for general use targeting engines, weapons and other systems. Maybe disable the slot temporarily rather then destroying it.
Also it should be allowed for all ships not just frigs.
Below is from a dev blog which says it might be implimented in the future.
Dev Blog
![]() |
Derek Degenerante
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:04:00 -
[15]
Can a dev comment on ""That means the ishtar can be put out of service after a single failed engagement,so the greatest drawback of piloting one is similiar to piloting a Zealot and having your lasers shot out"".
Is this a mistake in the writing of the mag?Or can we shoot out lasers on the zealot???
|
Deja Thoris
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:17:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Derek Degenerante
Can a dev comment on ""That means the ishtar can be put out of service after a single failed engagement,so the greatest drawback of piloting one is similiar to piloting a Zealot and having your lasers shot out"".
Is this a mistake in the writing of the mag?Or can we shoot out lasers on the zealot???
You dont need a dev to tell you that you cant shoot out the lasers on a zealot
|
Grimpak
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:21:00 -
[17]
aahh.. taking out turrets and engines from a ship...
*remembers Freespace 2/Starlancer/HW2*
...ya know, that would be nice, specially now that you have titans.
Send in a squad of interceptors and bombers to take out the jumpdrive and the doomsday device, then proceed to take out the docking bays, then the engine..
...omg the possibilities
-------------------
Celestial Horizon: we go zerg on you |
Skyscorcher
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:30:00 -
[18]
It'd be nice, but I don't see it as happening. Large Turrets are just too expensive for it to work out. I mean... people would form Battleship Turret Gank squads, going around in hisec space ransoming mission runners for their weapons.
"Pay up, or we destroy your Turrets! ARRR"
Too easy to grief with, basically.
______________________________
PLAY LIKE YA GOT A PAIR! |
Locke DieDrake
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:38:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Grimpak
aahh.. taking out turrets and engines from a ship...
*remembers Freespace 2/Starlancer/HW2*
...ya know, that would be nice, specially now that you have titans.
Send in a squad of interceptors and bombers to take out the jumpdrive and the doomsday device, then proceed to take out the docking bays, then the engine..
...omg the possibilities
That makes me drool just thinking about it.
Also, to go along with this, modules on a ship should take damage based on slot (high, med, low) and the hit type. If you do a wreking hit, and the ship has less than 75% of it's total HP left, it's med slot items take X% damage. If you do same and the ship has less than 50% of it's total HP, all slots take X% damge and so on and so forth. Combined with the ability to target specific high slot modules (turrets/launchers) and the specialized weapons to go with that, man the possibilities for strategy are HUGE.
You could even tie it into the war system and allow disabled ships to be captured and used by the winners of a battle. Hit the engines, the warp/jump drive and all weapons, plus sensors and whatever else, and the ship is dead in space. Now the pod is forced to eject by a boarding drone (drone sized shuttle with marines on it), or even make a boarding frig that is cheap but weak. Then work in logistics ships with repair ability and freighters with the ability to scoop up a battleship from space (or use tractor beams to tow into dock range of a station/capital ship) and you've got an incredibly deep system of strategy and reward. Some ships would be immune. Like say frigs, you simply can't do enough damage to the systems on a frig to disable it without also destroying it. And uber capital ships like carriers and up can't be disabled for more than X hours because they have full repair facilities onboard.
___________________________________________
The deeper you stick it in your vein, the deeper the thoughts there's no more pain.
___________________________________________ |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:41:00 -
[20]
"people would form Battleship Turret Gank squads, going around in hisec space ransoming mission runners for their weapons.
"Pay up, or we destroy your Turrets! ARRR"
Too easy to grief with, basically."
Since it'd trigger CONCORD response just like attacking people does it now, how would it be any different from current ability to ransom or lack thereof..?
as far as original suggestion goes, i'd be pretty cool. Turrets and other such points would obviously need much smaller signature radius than the ship itself, though... and more than 10 hp or so they have now o.O;
|
Jason Kildaro
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:44:00 -
[21]
In the interview at www.evenews.com Something to this effect was mentioned by Oveur. That and the implentation of "overheating" guns and such. It is towards the last part of the interview.
|
Rogue Ieader
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:51:00 -
[22]
"drone ships" like domi can send out more wave's of drones..
so if they let you disable turretships in one new way( the old ones is tracking disruptor, nos's and dampners ) by destroying the guns, should we then be able to fit new ones in mid battle? that would be a bit.. eh.. silly dont you think?
"OMG, he took out my megapulse t2's, thank good i got new ones in my trunk. now where did i put my darn tools oh and where is that bloody space suit again?"
|
Thomus
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:51:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Ortu Konsinni
While I like the idea, this would make frigates greatly overpowered.
which wouldn't be a bad thing for newer players who can fly and afford them, thus effectively cutting out the need for newer players to 'catch-up' with the rest of us if they can also join in effectively.
----------------
Tom |
Kayla Feyth
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:58:00 -
[24]
Originally by: j0sephine
"people would form Battleship Turret Gank squads, going around in hisec space ransoming mission runners for their weapons.
"Pay up, or we destroy your Turrets! ARRR"
Too easy to grief with, basically."
Since it'd trigger CONCORD response just like attacking people does it now, how would it be any different from current ability to ransom or lack thereof..?
as far as original suggestion goes, i'd be pretty cool. Turrets and other such points would obviously need much smaller signature radius than the ship itself, though... and more than 10 hp or so they have now o.O;
I can see it being more like how Homeworld was done with the Battlecruisers, you needed to you smaller ships like bombers or intercepters. So i guess the equivelent would be frigs and cepters in EVE. Would be very cool if CCP is able to put this in, also being able to disable engines would be great
|
Sira Tharchon
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:59:00 -
[25]
The main reason I think this idea wouldn't work is eve's reliance on the more major fitted modules as apposed to less important ones.
Example. Armor repairers. Blow it up, the hardeners fitted that no-one bothers to target are virtually useless.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 18:04:00 -
[26]
"I can see it being more like how Homeworld was done with the Battlecruisers, you needed to you smaller ships like bombers or intercepters. So i guess the equivelent would be frigs and cepters in EVE."
That's what the very small signature radius for these modules would be for ^^ would pretty much enforce using of very precise weapons like small turrets to take the modules out, and these weapons have such short range, only small ships can bring them into that range fast enough...
|
Great Wandell
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 18:29:00 -
[27]
You don't have to "destroy" the turret, once it's hp's are reduced to 0, it' becomes unable to activate, without returning to the station and repairing it, for a meager sum. Then you can have "damange control" skills and modules added to the game whic repair turrets and other subsytems, so people then had to choose between tanking their armour, or tanking their modules -- which could open up new realms of large ship strategy.
Choose between overall surviability of a vessel or overall damage infliction.
|
Lori Carlyle
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 20:01:00 -
[28]
Would be a very nice idea, also inderpendant shield areas, Port, Starboard, ect ect. I'm all for this as fleet based combat would be a lot better, however rats... they lock and move forward.. very basic AI and wold need a complete rewrite to give them the I in there name. but
SIGNED....
|
Gorion Wassenar
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 20:31:00 -
[29]
SOme thing similar that could be done in a way wit the current build of EVE would to have critical damage "stun" or disable certain modules.
For example, I crtically hit a ship with not much shield left. Most of the damage bleed through the shield to the armor. Because the critical hit was so much more then the shields had left, the shield boosting module the ship has equip is stuned for 10 sec. Or something like that.
------------------
Fast and free, follow me.
Time to make the sacrifice,
we rise or fall. |
Mercade
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 21:26:00 -
[30]
Homeworld anyone?
I agree but this would require a massive revamp of the combat system to truly be effective.
Honestly that is one part I always thought was off in this game. Battleships should be massive, with little capability of a fighter being able to do damage to it. But they could with continual assault and in groups take out engines, drone bays, any major modular aspect. Warp drive etc.
Reasonably the disparity in HP between all ships would need to inflate massively. Battleships and battleship killing heavy cruisers should engage on one level. Destroyer and light cruisers should engage on another. Light cruisers and flak anti frigate heavy frigates or intercpetors another. Bombers bringing the level of frigate back around to connect with battleships.
So you might have 2 battleships in a fleet, with 3 battlecruisers there to support against anti capital ship cruisers and help to allow your frigates to penetrate their cruiser lines which would eliminate their frigate responses and allow bombers open access to the subsystems of the enemy fleets battleships.
I always thought that a swarm of frigates shouldn't be able to penetrate a battleship's shields by themselves. But a few frigates escorting a wing of bombers could disable a battleship allowing a lone capital engaging heavy cruiser to finish it off.
Where you would have interceptors functioning as they do now but frigate HP being threatened not Battleship HP by them. escorting bomber frigates like kestrels which launch torpedo's fitted for eliminating hardpoints. while a HAC is on standby to come in and take down the shields.
Then a single anti frigate cruiser escorting said battleship would tip the scales and so forth.
Bah. an entirely different game, but a goal I think that combat should work towards. Maybe then, insurance could be nerfed back into place.
see any thread on insurance cost increases per loss.
Originally by: kieron
...possible causes for an extended downtime, I think playing WoW would be close to the bottom of the list, probably between shaving cats and having dental work done w/o anethesia. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |