Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
156
|
Posted - 2014.05.11 16:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
Eve has been getting a lot of fancy deployable structures lately, and I love it. In the last year's worth of expansions, we've gotten deployables that can do everything from refitting ships to shutting down cyno fields. These have all done wonderful things and enabled new forms of gameplay. Now, I present an idea to further the role of deployables: The combat engineer.
This would be a T2 frigate based on the current frigate logistic ships. It's role would be specialization in the construction AND destruction of deployable structures. It would be equipped with a very large but specialized hold that can only carry deployable structures (Yurts, MTUs, repackaged cans, etc) and would have a bonus (either fixed or per level) to deployment/on-lining speed allowing it to rapidly construct structures and carry many different options. For example, several of these in a fleet would be able to quickly construct a blockade of bubbles or micro jump units in a combat zone to assist their fleet in out-maneuvering an enemy, or assist in the speedy construction of a POS (possibly used to invade enemy territory) by deploying turrets and shield hardeners quickly.
It would be just as good at blowing up structures via a special weapon system that I will refer to as demo charges for the sake of this thread. Basically, a demo charge would be a missile with incredible amounts of damage, but a very low speed and incredibly and/or unrealistically slow explosion velocity. It would be excellent at applying massive damage to stationary targets while almost completely unable to significantly hit other ships. The low speed would also make it a short range weapon, meaning that it has to get in close to take down its target. The opposite of the above example, this could be used to break a blockade or quickly kill cyno jammers. It would also be decent at breaking down POS's and other sov structures, although its nearly non-existent damage against other pilots would make them virtually defenseless outside of a regular fleet dedicated to this purpose. Much like their T1 counterparts, these would support and enhance the role of any fleet without replacing anything already existing.
All in all, I think a ship with a role like this would fit in excellently with where the game is going. It would provide more gameplay options, serve a specific purpose, and not require substantial re-balancing to compensate for its introduction due to it's self balancing design, IE it counters itself. Being a frigate hull, they would be easily dispatched if focused, preventing them from becoming a tiny anti-structure juggernaut (unless the enemy fleet is completely incompetent, in which case they deserve what they get). Thoughts? You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
157
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 07:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sorry for the shameless bump, but it would be nice to get at least a little feedback on this before it zips off the page. There are way to many stickies in the features forum... You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Ruaro
Space monitoring
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 09:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
I like the idea in general.
Only one thing I can think off to be checked forbalancing - High sec POS bashing. Just not to make it too easy. But that is somehow balanced by having reduced requirements for POS setting up. |
Bob Maths
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 09:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
That's a pretty cool idea. What would the ships look like? |
ZecsMarquis
Destroyer's Inc.
6
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 10:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
I like your line of thinking. I feel like a T3 frigate configuration should be something this specialized. One of the 5 or so configs a t3 frigate could be. Very specialized. Maybe just make the T2 logi frigs more comparable to their t2 cruiser counterparts but make the materials cheaper so it's similar to the price of an inty or AF. Nice idea! On that line of thought hopefully they can introduce t3 frigs in very specialized roles such as one you propose and make them have a lot lower building requirements so that they are not as expensive to make and buy as well since they are only frigate hulls after all. |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
158
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 11:04:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ruaro wrote:Only one thing I can think off to be checked forbalancing - High sec POS bashing. Just not to make it too easy. But that is somehow balanced by having reduced requirements for POS setting up.
A simple solution would be to give the demo charges very long cycle time. They'd be strong enough to one-shot most deployable structures found in a battle, but against a POS they wouldn't be as efficient due to the defenses (that should be) in place. Again though, if the enemy isn't able to put up a reasonable counter measure, or at least muster the strength to take down a frigate, that's less an issue of balance and more of who is the better player.
ZecsMarquis wrote: On that line of thought hopefully they can introduce t3 frigs in very specialized roles such as one you propose and make them have a lot lower building requirements so that they are not as expensive to make and buy as well since they are only frigate hulls after all.
A fun concept, but I think that a T3-style frigate would be way too overpowered. Perhaps the combat engineer ship could have the enormous Deployables cargo hold be a module rather than built in though. Or maybe it could start with X amount of space for deployables, but be increased with a specific module. Hell, the idea of a deployables hold highslot module sounds like it could be fun in itself. Something like this would mean that you could make a combat engineering ship be an effective frigate with the capability to build OR destroy, or you could make it do both by sacrificing armament. Food for thought.
If enough people think combat engineers sound cool, I'd love to see what the Dev's think about how this could play into the game and if it is even a possibility. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
134
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 11:16:00 -
[7] - Quote
I really like the idea! More than a special weapon system for destroying the deployables, I'd suggest something like being able to hack these deployables in order to "unanchor" them and take them... which is one of the ideas proposed for unanchoring abandoned POS at W-space.
In fact, I imagine a line of T2 ships whose role is the anchoring and unanchoring of structures: the frigate proposed by the OP would be about deployables and a larger ship with similiar bonuses would be about POS and similar sized structures.
I'm really liking this; I think it deserves a good review. +1 |
Tinukeda'ya Naskingar
Minmatar Expeditions ltd.
49
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 12:00:00 -
[8] - Quote
I kinda like this idea, with one small exception. I believe frigate hull is a little too small for this. I would made it either cruiser or even an hauler line ship. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --á Arthur C. Clarke |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
158
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 12:03:00 -
[9] - Quote
Komodo Askold wrote: In fact, I imagine a line of T2 ships whose role is the anchoring and unanchoring of structures: the frigate proposed by the OP would be about deployables and a larger ship with similiar bonuses would be about POS and similar sized structures.
Perhaps a T2 industrial or cruiser focused on the anchoring, hacking, and unanchoring of POS modules. Leave the frigate for small deployables and have a large ship that can speedily anchor towers and hack large modules to take them over, as long as they're past their reinforce timers.
I think that frigates would be a great size for a combat engineer ship that has to zip around the field quickly to put modules up and take them down. Tinukeda'ya is probably right though, when it comes to POS modules at least the ship should be bigger. Perhaps the role could be split into something like Field Engineers and Heavy Engineers. The former stays on the battlefield to assist in laying and removing traps, while the latter focuses on larger scale construction. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Shivanthar
Thrilling Institution of TaTas Permanent Mental Syndrome
70
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 12:08:00 -
[10] - Quote
Players, make a warm welcome to our recent proposed role: Shamans in the space! |
|
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
136
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 12:09:00 -
[11] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote:Komodo Askold wrote: In fact, I imagine a line of T2 ships whose role is the anchoring and unanchoring of structures: the frigate proposed by the OP would be about deployables and a larger ship with similiar bonuses would be about POS and similar sized structures. Perhaps a T2 industrial or cruiser focused on the anchoring, hacking, and unanchoring of POS modules. Leave the frigate for small deployables and have a large ship that can speedily anchor towers and hack large modules to take them over, as long as they're past their reinforce timers. I think that frigates would be a great size for a combat engineer ship that has to zip around the field quickly to put modules up and take them down. Tinukeda'ya is probably right though, when it comes to POS modules at least the ship should be bigger. Perhaps the role could be split into something like Field Engineers and Heavy Engineers. The former stays on the battlefield to assist in laying and removing traps, while the latter focuses on larger scale construction. I agree with the POS ship being either a cruiser or a hauler. A hauler would make more sense due to the large size of the structures, but a cruiser would be in line with the deployables frigate... The Field/Heavy Engineers split is interesting too and makes sense.
|
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
20080
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 12:13:00 -
[12] - Quote
I think it's a role suitable for a larger ship... for what you described it's the industrials that come to mind.
+1 for this idea tho. Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing
196
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 13:50:00 -
[13] - Quote
Think of how fast you could setup a POS! |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
232
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 15:03:00 -
[14] - Quote
+1, nice idea! |
Duchess Starbuckington
Starbuckington Manor
260
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 18:28:00 -
[15] - Quote
Commenting to bump. I actually think ships based around tactical use of deployables is a really awesome idea and could add a whole new dimension to things. |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
165
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 04:08:00 -
[16] - Quote
Liafcipe9000 wrote:I think it's a role suitable for a larger ship... for what you described it's the industrials that come to mind.
I really like the idea of a small fast ship dedicated for deployment and destruction of battlefield deployable equipment. Since they would have little armament in order to stay balanced, they would need to rely on speed and maneuverability to stay alive for any length of time. For POS modules though, you're absolutely right, something this small would be an odd choice. This is why I also suggested the field engineer/heavy engineer split. This is kind of what I have in mind for each, although any decisions like this would be up to the devs and need to be run through several rounds of balancing first.
First, being a T2 ship, they would require new skills (Lets call them Combat Engineering and Starbase Engineering for the sake of comparison), each of which would be dependent on the Anchoring skill in some way (Perhaps Combat Engineering could require Anchoring V, and Starbase Engineering could require Starbase Defense Management IV). Combat engineering would apply to the field engineering ships, while Starbase engineering would apply to the heavy engineer ships capable of quickly deploying POS towers and structures.
Onto specs, I would think something like this.
Field Engineer ship bonuses:
Racial frigate: 5% bonus per level to racial weapon system (Some kind of defense, but would still be anemic compared to most ships) 5% bonus per level to Deployable hold size
Combat Engineering: 10% bonus per level to anchoring speed 4% bonus to Demolition Charge Damage
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MWD sig radius penalty Ability to fit Demolition Charge launcher
Heavy Engineer ship bonuses:
Racial Industrial: 5% bonus per level to agility 4% bonus per level to Shield/Armor resistances (depending on race)
Starbase Engineering: 7.5% bonus per level to deployable onlining time (Including POS modules) 10% bonus per level to Deployable hold size
Role Bonus: Ability to fit Demolition Charge launcher +1 Warp Core Strength
With these bonuses, the frigate would be a fast and agile ship at home on the battlefield, able to set up fortifications quickly and take down enemy systems equally effectively. Meanwhile, the Heavy engineer would be much more geared toward starbase construction. This would make them an excellent way to quickly establish a forward command point if you are attempting to invade an area or get operations up and running in risky territory. Each would have a relatively small normal cargo hold so that they can carry basic supplies but won't become resupply tenders for fleets. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
20126
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 08:55:00 -
[17] - Quote
I'm really loving these ideas... But they probably need more opinions being heard. Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
475
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 09:02:00 -
[18] - Quote
I like these ideas also, perhaps a role bonus on the heavy engineer ship to reduce anchoring time for POS components? |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
170
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 09:12:00 -
[19] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:I like these ideas also, perhaps a role bonus on the heavy engineer ship to reduce anchoring time for POS components?
Also a very good idea. I threw in the warp strength role bonus on my suggestion because, as a (probably) industrial ship that is designed to be part of an invading force, it would need to at least be able to evade people. If it would be possible to give a bonus to the on-lining time of a module deployed by this ship, I think that would be much more useful for a ship dedicated to putting up starbases (And pocos, if it was used that way). It's been a while since I've done much with a POS, but if I remember correctly, it's the on-lining time that usually takes longer. Being able to reduce that time by a third would really be helpful if you're trying to deploy in a hurry. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
172
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 03:44:00 -
[20] - Quote
I'm curious, does anyone see anything about this that wouldn't work? Lots of people have pitched in saying that it looks cool with a couple tweaks, but is there anyone that thinks this would be flat out bad? And if so why? Always good to hear both sides when brainstorming... prevents later surprises. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
598
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 04:24:00 -
[21] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote:I'm curious, does anyone see anything about this that wouldn't work? Lots of people have pitched in saying that it looks cool with a couple tweaks, but is there anyone that thinks this would be flat out bad? And if so why? Always good to hear both sides when brainstorming... prevents later surprises. I actually think it might be because its its a new role that hasnt been filled before so implications are fuzzy aside from speculation. I like it though. |
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
136
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 10:34:00 -
[22] - Quote
I'm bumping this a bit; I think it deserves more discussion and a look by the devs.
Auduin Samson wrote:I'm curious, does anyone see anything about this that wouldn't work? Lots of people have pitched in saying that it looks cool with a couple tweaks, but is there anyone that thinks this would be flat out bad? And if so why? Always good to hear both sides when brainstorming... prevents later surprises. Right now I can't come up with a disadvantage... It would be a brand new role. Having ships that can easily set up and destroy deployables and POS would probably increase the usage of the former (which would fit very well with even more deployable types) and vastly make the removal of the latter easier, in terms of abandoned POS (which are a problem in W-space, but no so much in K-space).
About the proposed ideas, I find the deploy/anchor time quite fitting and desirable.
About what ships should they be, I'm thinking ORE could say something about this. Even though I like racial ships, ORE is an expert in all things industrial, and they're still making new ships (read this devblog, especially the part it talks about the Prospect is the first of a new line of ships, "Expedition Frigates"). Those ships being ORE would easy things up for balancing, and as posted before, it could be a nice role for the Primae (or yet another Noctis variant!). The thing is the combat role part, since ORE is more about defending itself when necessary... Perhaps drones?
|
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
176
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 11:38:00 -
[23] - Quote
I was thinking Ore would be fitting as well and gave some serious thought in my original post. However, the one thing that turned me away is that these ships, or at least the field engineering ships, are at home on the battlefield. Ore ships are designed to take a beating, but not to actively seek out fights with fleets (Unless you're one of those crazy battle rorq pilots). It seemed like a better choice to me to suggest T2 variants of the current frigate logi ships, as they're the only frigs right now that don't have an upgraded version and it would continue the role of field support, albeit in a different way.
ORE is the undisputed king of industry, but these roles would be less about industry and more of what I would call "Aggressive Engineering," which could be a profession in it's own :P You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Bohneik Itohn
Periphery Bound
93
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 15:27:00 -
[24] - Quote
Can I restructure this a bit with some suggestions?
First I think it'd be a good idea to make these ships Battlecruisers. I will admit that this opinion is partially based upon the fact that BC's are the most thinly populated subcap hull type, but it also fits rather well, and I'll try to explain why.
The combat engineer as described is someone who is on the field for extended periods of time supporting fleets. They are also playing a primarily support role, and there is already a mechanic in game that complements extended activity in a single system and support role ships: Warfare links. Giving Combat Engineer ships a single Warfare Link slot with a bonus equal to a command ship would make them very handy to have in between the periods when they are doing their structure oriented tasks, meaning that this ship won't be something that you pull out to accomplish a certain task and then immediately put back in the hangar. It will have a purpose in the fleet, and not just as a swiss army knife to be pulled out of the pocket when the opportunity arises.
Making it a BC also solves a lot of other sticky questions at the same time. A support role frigate could easily be caught and melted in seconds by any interceptor while it is doing tasks where it wouldn't be desirable to keep backup on the grid because that would put your reinforcements at unnecessary risk. A BC hull would have plenty of time to call in backup or assess the situation and determine that he shouldn't call anyone, because it could likely lead to more losses with little strategic gain. You can give it enough DPS to make bashing enemy structures feasible, and you reduce the likelihood that these vessels just become a cheap tool for harassment, where combat engineer ships warp into one of your structures and start tearing it apart at a very accelerated rate and then immediately leave when you show up to defend because lol frigates warp fast and "they're not fit for PvP".
You also don't have to use the bag of infinite holding trick to give them a large, specialized cargo hold. The Gnosis has 900m3 of standard cargo space, it's not unreasonable to ask for 1500m3 of specialized cargo space or maybe a bit more with that precedent being set.
I just think a BC hull would fit the role more properly and would circumvent having to introduce a lot of possibly janky mechanics to allow the ship to serve it's purpose.
There has also been a lot of people asking for the ability to pull down abandoned POS's, and I think you could roll that ability into a combat engineer ship nicely. |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
180
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 16:23:00 -
[25] - Quote
Bohneik Itohn wrote: (restructured suggestions)
I like this quite a bit. At the very least, make the heavy engineer a battlecruiser as you suggested. I like the idea of a fast and agile ship for engineering duties, but perhaps it could be toned down a bit to prevent becoming just an obnoxious way to quickly harass people. For example, there could be an engineering frig dedicated to quickly setting up deployables, but without the large hold and the demo charge option. This would still make it useful (and allow it to maintain combat effectiveness), especially for small gangs moving quickly. For example, one of these ships in a small strike force of assault frigates could carry a cyno jammer and a warp disruption field generator that could be quickly deployed to allow the fleet to evade enemies.
The heavy version, on the other hand, could have the large cargo hold necessary for extensive fortifications, demo charges, and (if it's ever implemented) the ability to hack and reclaim abandoned structures. It would be an effective engineering platform while maintaining utility and combat effectiveness. This would be in the invasion force to set up a forward position quickly, or in a WH colonization fleet to set up a POS and be able to defend itself. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Arla Sarain
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 17:25:00 -
[26] - Quote
Neat idea.
Specifically because it's not a combat role labeled as Combat Engineer with the typical MMO/FPS traits of a regular front-line brute.
Pretty interesting ship role. |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4230
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 17:39:00 -
[27] - Quote
I would find it interesting if the ship had a fleet operating mode, where it would enter a form of siege / bastion mode that gave it heavy ECM counters against being targeted directly.
I would specify that this would only work so long as two conditions were met:
1. Like a boosting effect, another ship must not just be on grid with it, but in locking range of an opponent's ship. Any hostile attempt by a non fleet member to lock the vessel would transfer the lock to another ship in the fleet. (This is why some other fleet ships MUST be in lock range to grant this benefit, they will be locked instead)
2. No offensive weaponry actively mounted. This boat is pure support only.
The ship could not leave grid if things went south, but as long as they had allies in range, they would be fairly safe from harm.
It's the smart bombs and similar non targeting weapons that can bypass this. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
184
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 10:20:00 -
[28] - Quote
I don't know, the idea of transferring locks to other ships in the fleet sounds like a recipe for disaster. If everyone is focusing that ship, reps would be on it. If all of those locks got set to other ships which may or may not be able to handle the aggro would make the logi's job a nightmare. Not to mention nobody would want to fly in a fleet when the obvious loot pinata will end up costing their ship because of it's derpy aggro management. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
20155
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 11:33:00 -
[29] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:I would find it interesting if the ship had a fleet operating mode, where it would enter a form of siege / bastion mode that made it untargetable so it would be such an epic troll because it would just sit between thousands of ships going "f**k you all, yoloswag420" FTFY. Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Jur Tissant
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
53
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 11:40:00 -
[30] - Quote
Only if we can introduce the Spy ship as well. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |