Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
476
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 10:56:00 -
[121] - Quote
Good idea for a new role, you get a +1 however....
The destruction of the deployed structures is a difficult one to do due to the game mechanics of weapon damage.
So, might I suggest this.....
A special module (high slot maybe) that can only be fit by combat engineers that "hacks" the powercore of the structure, overloads it and causes the structure to explode or become incapacitated. This could simply be the hacking mini game we already have or a new mini game to overload the powercore or the structure. Be interesting to have to frantically hack a structure under combat to diable/destroy it. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1296
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 13:33:00 -
[122] - Quote
I see this ship benefitting from having a cruiser sized ship with better on-grid survivability in fleet, and another industrial ship size with larger bonuses, bigger bays, and possibly having bonuses or roles to help it move through dangerous territory (interdiction, nullification, warp core bonus, or cloak) |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
23638
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 06:29:00 -
[123] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:Good idea for a new role, you get a +1 however....
The destruction of the deployed structures is a difficult one to do due to the game mechanics of weapon damage.
So, might I suggest this.....
A special module (high slot maybe) that can only be fit by combat engineers that "hacks" the powercore of the structure, overloads it and causes the structure to explode or become incapacitated. This could simply be the hacking mini game we already have or a new mini game to overload the powercore or the structure. Be interesting to have to frantically hack a structure under combat to diable/destroy it. yet another viable and excellent idea. Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
276
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 11:27:00 -
[124] - Quote
I very much like the idea of implementing the hacking minigame with the takedown of structures. The difficulty of the hack could scale with the type of structure being attacked. For example, yurts and MTUs could have a relatively easy hack, while POS modules and towers would be incredibly difficult. Upon completion of the hack, the module wouldn't necessarily be destroyed, but would do whatever damage a demo charge would have already done. In some cases this will mean instant distruction/reinforcement, while in others it will just do severe damage to whatever is targeted.
Not only would this add a bit more skill requirement for an effective combat engineer pilot, but it would also give explorers another cross-over role in combat situations should they decide to join a fleet.
It could also be implemented that a failed hack will trigger some sort of self defense mechanism and damage the engineer's ship, but I think that "playing a minigame in a live fire situation" is enough difficulty to overcome.
Further food for thought. I like where this is going, but as always, more constructive criticism is nice. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Jane Shapperd
SUPERFLUOUS WANDERLUST Gentlemen's.Club
83
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 08:17:00 -
[125] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote:I very much like the idea of implementing the hacking minigame with the takedown of structures. The difficulty of the hack could scale with the type of structure being attacked. For example, yurts and MTUs could have a relatively easy hack, while POS modules and towers would be incredibly difficult. Upon completion of the hack, the module wouldn't necessarily be destroyed, but would do whatever damage a demo charge would have already done. In some cases this will mean instant distruction/reinforcement, while in others it will just do severe damage to whatever is targeted.
Not only would this add a bit more skill requirement for an effective combat engineer pilot, but it would also give explorers another cross-over role in combat situations should they decide to join a fleet.
It could also be implemented that a failed hack will trigger some sort of self defense mechanism and damage the engineer's ship, but I think that "playing a minigame in a live fire situation" is enough difficulty to overcome.
Further food for thought. I like where this is going, but as always, more constructive criticism is nice.
I like that idea +1
Tho hacking a tower is a bit extreem |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
775
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 08:41:00 -
[126] - Quote
I like the idea of a T2 frigate or destroyer with a bonus to setting up deployables.
But as far as a T2 frigate for taking down POS, you can already do that with Stealth Bombers.
Really, don't give us some super POS bashing frigate, or we'll put together a 200 man fleet of them with an FC that doesn't sleep. You will all regret it. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
481
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 11:12:00 -
[127] - Quote
Jane Shapperd wrote:Auduin Samson wrote:I very much like the idea of implementing the hacking minigame with the takedown of structures. The difficulty of the hack could scale with the type of structure being attacked. For example, yurts and MTUs could have a relatively easy hack, while POS modules and towers would be incredibly difficult. Upon completion of the hack, the module wouldn't necessarily be destroyed, but would do whatever damage a demo charge would have already done. In some cases this will mean instant distruction/reinforcement, while in others it will just do severe damage to whatever is targeted.
Not only would this add a bit more skill requirement for an effective combat engineer pilot, but it would also give explorers another cross-over role in combat situations should they decide to join a fleet.
It could also be implemented that a failed hack will trigger some sort of self defense mechanism and damage the engineer's ship, but I think that "playing a minigame in a live fire situation" is enough difficulty to overcome.
Further food for thought. I like where this is going, but as always, more constructive criticism is nice. I like that idea +1 Tho hacking a tower is a bit extreem
GOOD LUCK GETTING INTO HACKING RANGE OF AN ONLINE TOWER |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
355
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 13:06:00 -
[128] - Quote
I didn't read the whole thread, so I'm going to assume that using this as a super POS basher would be viewed as a potention balancing issue with the sound of something like this. If I'm wrong and the idea of this being exceptionally good at killing POSes is generally well recieved, then ignore the following.
Maybe make the demo charge sort of like a smartbomb with similar range limitations? Enough range so it can be used effectively on deployables, but not enough to threaten towers. Key note, this would mean defensive batteries could be hit since they are stationed outside the shield wall, though the tower would require a different ship to kill due to the very same thing.
Nice idea either way. +1, would definitely buy a few.
|
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
776
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 17:18:00 -
[129] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Maybe make the demo charge sort of like a smartbomb with similar range limitations? Enough range so it can be used effectively on deployables, but not enough to threaten towers. Key note, this would mean defensive batteries could be hit since they are stationed outside the shield wall, though the tower would require a different ship to kill due to the very same thing.
Smartbomb bonus would be interesting. No ship gets a bonus to those, and that would limit them to bashing deployables and mods outside the POS, and give them an interesting buff because they can use it even if jammed.
Overall, the game doesn't really need any more POS bashing ships. You can use massed stealth bombers, drone boats up to carriers with sentries, battleships (with lasers if you are lazy), and of course dreadnoughts. |
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
184
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 14:46:00 -
[130] - Quote
I think some people is wrong thinking about this ship as a POS basher. It could use a special hacking module, only used for hacking structures deployed by players. By doing so, it a) makes them selfdestruct or initiates a countdown the owner could use for trying to revert the process or b) it unanchors them, perhaps with the same countdown. That means it will have a very small range. Also, I'd say make it unable to be used on online or reinforced POS towers. In fact, in terms of POS, I'd limit its use to Offline POS, so it can be used to easily take away abandoned towers in W-space and Highsec, and wouldn't make Dreadnoughts, Marauders and Battlecruisers useless.
Just my thoughts about these ships' capabilities of taking away structures.
|
|
Malcolm Lionel
The Ascended Fleet Intrepid Crossing
31
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 15:23:00 -
[131] - Quote
Its a very interesting idea. +1 |
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
142
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 17:14:00 -
[132] - Quote
+1 for the concept..
I totally support the idea of having sub caps being able to be extremely efficient in attacking structures, including deployables. Also implement its counter part, I.e. A subcap able to repair structures.
Having only end game ships like capitals able to significantly affect structures is a big advantage to mega corps and alliances. The small units should be able to have dedicated sub caps for such tasks. "surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/2014/05/ok-now-im-betting-man.html |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
282
|
Posted - 2014.09.14 05:06:00 -
[133] - Quote
Saisin wrote:Having only end game ships like capitals able to significantly affect structures is a big advantage to mega corps and alliances. The small units should be able to have dedicated sub caps for such tasks.
Coming from Providence, where all out cap warfare is rare, I can tell you that a bunch of logis will work when you don't have carriers to spare. To be fair though, a sub cap that can do a carriers job would be pretty overpowered. As much as it sucks, a ten-thousand man alliance with trillions of isk SHOULD have the upper hand against a small corporation. It's not fair, but if we wanted everyone to play fair we wouldn't be here You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
23707
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 11:42:00 -
[134] - Quote
you just provided the one reason why not to add combat engineering ships to the game. (._.)
also, the game. Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
23755
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 05:01:00 -
[135] - Quote
I think I accidentally this thread... I didn't mean to, sorry!
back on topic - I'm still waiting to see a CCP say something about deployable-oriented ships introduced into EVE. Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
283
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 13:41:00 -
[136] - Quote
Nah, it's all good. Any idea SHOULD go through a lot of constructive criticism before implementation, otherwise balance issues will run rampant. This would definitely need to be dealt with carefully, as there is a fine line between an effective combat engineering concept and a swarm of expendable POS clearing frigates. However, I think that it is possible to balance these. Some solutions that have been proposed:
Hacking game with various difficulty levels depending on target
Scaling damage depending on target
Target-specific module activation (IE Can use on structures, not ships)
Sig radius based damage
While all of these have their own ups and downs, I think a careful combination of the two (Hacking minigame with scaling damage?) could be easily implemented by the right minds. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Arla Sarain
81
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 20:36:00 -
[137] - Quote
A wild good suggestion appears.
CCP falls asleep. |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
23756
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 14:50:00 -
[138] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:A wild good suggestion appears.
CCP falls asleep. IKR.
Auduin Samson wrote:Some solutions that have been proposed(...)
While all of these have their own ups and downs, I think a careful combination of the two (Hacking minigame with scaling damage?) could be easily implemented by the right minds. I think the best way to start is to add a large ship that can deploy and repack a POS and carry the structures in its specialized holding bay.
easy steps is the way to go, so for a start let's not include structure offensive oriented ships eh? Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
24337
|
Posted - 2014.10.13 11:22:00 -
[139] - Quote
Bumping Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Arla Sarain
87
|
Posted - 2014.10.13 12:58:00 -
[140] - Quote
Could someone from CCP at least go like - "hey this is a cool idea".
??? |
|
FireFrenzy
Satan's Unicorns
65
|
Posted - 2014.10.13 13:19:15 -
[141] - Quote
i would actually skill for something like this if it looked something akin to an orca (ie sleek but hella industrial) |
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
416
|
Posted - 2014.10.13 14:07:21 -
[142] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:Could someone from CCP at least go like - "hey this is a cool idea".
???
Or at least "yes, we have seen this".
The idea itself gets a +1 from me. It introduces something totally new to Eve.
Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene.
|
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2398
|
Posted - 2014.10.13 14:28:47 -
[143] - Quote
Unlike the usual drivel that is suggested, this is a good idea. +1 |
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
300
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 19:08:54 -
[144] - Quote
any CCP responded yet?
I'm still looking forward to seeing a whole new ship category in EVE
A.K.A Hodor Von Grootenberg
|
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
300
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 05:49:51 -
[145] - Quote
this silence is the CCPs' way of saying "You shall not pass!"
A.K.A Hodor Von Grootenberg
|
Gaan Cathal
Angry Mustellid The Periphery
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 10:40:00 -
[146] - Quote
This idea is so good it's made me actually log into the forum for the first time since it migrated.
On the front of the "what class?" discussion, I'd say Destroyer hulls make sense for the smaller vessel, which leads me to think Battlecruisers would be the logical base hull for a larger model. I do kinda get why some people have suggested the un-T2-ed Battleships for it, but it seems like an odd "upgrade" for what are supposed to be the premier line-ships.
The "anti-deployable" weapon I'd preffer to see as a "hack to unanchor" device - which would inherently only function on POS modules in the case of an offline POS, solving the "what about dreads/bombers" issue. If it is going to be a weapon, a limpet-mine approach would work much better than a launched warhead - that's what bombers are for.
As far as mines go, this would be great. But to avoid the issues that lead to the removal of mines in the past, I'd propose they were designed as follows:
-Make them drones. -Allow them to carry several "flights". -Set bandwith to X for a Light Mine and 5X for a Heavy Mine. -Give a CES 5X Bandwith, and a HCES 25X Bandwith. -When launched, deploy them in a "four corners and centre" spread if in a group, or just singly if not. -Make resists/hp such that one can survive four, but not five, detonations by mines of the same size and energy type. -Give them a bomb-style AOE, but very small (1km?) -Replace the obviously useless "engage, assist, etc" drone controls with state controls - "Unarmed. Armed FOF. Armed Dumb." -Unarmed mines would not explode or appear on overviews, brackets, dscan, etc. -Armed mines would "fire" when an acceptable target comes into range of the mine (not cluster), moving towards them at a very high velocity and acceleration, detonating when within say 250/500m. -"Armed FOF" would attack anything that constitutes a legal target (irrespective of system security), exclusive of members of the pilot's fleet. -"Armed Dumb" would attack anything.
Either tag them only useable by CES and HCES or give them big, big bonuses to damage (and resists), explosion velocity etc to allow for nerfing their use by other ships dramatically.
Oh, and make Bombs detonate on destruction? Allows use of mines as a bomb-screen and use of bombs as mine-clearance.
TL:DR - Bump |
Gaan Cathal
Angry Mustellid The Periphery
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 10:40:37 -
[147] - Quote
This idea is so good it's made me actually log into the forum for the first time since it migrated.
On the front of the "what class?" discussion, I'd say Destroyer hulls make sense for the smaller vessel, which leads me to think Battlecruisers would be the logical base hull for a larger model. I do kinda get why some people have suggested the un-T2-ed Battleships for it, but it seems like an odd "upgrade" for what are supposed to be the premier line-ships.
The "anti-deployable" weapon I'd preffer to see as a "hack to unanchor" device - which would inherently only function on POS modules in the case of an offline POS, solving the "what about dreads/bombers" issue. If it is going to be a weapon, a limpet-mine approach would work much better than a launched warhead - that's what bombers are for.
As far as mines go, this would be great. But to avoid the issues that lead to the removal of mines in the past, I'd propose they were designed as follows:
-Make them drones. -Allow them to carry several "flights". -Set bandwith to X for a Light Mine and 5X for a Heavy Mine. -Give a CES 5X Bandwith, and a HCES 25X Bandwith. -When launched, deploy them in a "four corners and centre" spread if in a group, or just singly if not. -Make resists/hp such that one can survive four, but not five, detonations by mines of the same size and energy type. -Give them a bomb-style AOE, but very small (1km?) -Replace the obviously useless "engage, assist, etc" drone controls with state controls - "Unarmed. Armed FOF. Armed Dumb." -Unarmed mines would not explode or appear on overviews, brackets, dscan, etc. -Armed mines would "fire" when an acceptable target comes into range of the mine (not cluster), moving towards them at a very high velocity and acceleration, detonating when within say 250/500m. -"Armed FOF" would attack anything that constitutes a legal target (irrespective of system security), exclusive of members of the pilot's fleet. -"Armed Dumb" would attack anything.
Either tag them only useable by CES and HCES or give them big, big bonuses to damage (and resists), explosion velocity etc to allow for nerfing their use by other ships dramatically.
Oh, and make Bombs detonate on destruction? Allows use of mines as a bomb-screen and use of bombs as mine-clearance.
Edit: Possibly use a cap-requiring highslot module to enable the "share yurt" functionality? Deploy yurt, lock yurt, activate yurt-beam. Requires cap usage and remaining within arbitrary range of the yurt.
TL:DR - Bump |
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
300
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 12:43:36 -
[148] - Quote
I can't really see how any current non-support combat ship would become a combat engineer. but I'm sure that because SPACE and SCIENCE something can be figured out as sort of a way to turn a dessy which has a large cargohold for a small combat ship into a combat engineer.
A.K.A Hodor Von Grootenberg
|
Humang
Sefem Velox Swift Angels Alliance
75
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 15:04:01 -
[149] - Quote
Anything that lets me "unanchor" dead sticks in WH space for profit or lols has my support.
General ideas that I liked in my skimming over the pages:
Offensive Function
- Destroyer sized hull with the same EHP levels as current dessies/dictors
- Launches a stationary charge of some kind (must be within 2500k of a ship or anchored structure)
- Requires a timer to launch (activating ship must be stationary) + timer to activate/detonate
- Charge can be destroyed during this period, by focused fire or the detonations of other charges; this inures no damage (like bombs)
- Small explosion radius, causes structure damage (amount is debatable)
Logistical Function
- Bonus to the Anchor/Unanchor/Activation timers on structures
- Bonus is scaled based on the number of deployabes already deployed (Think the new jump fatigue mechanic)
- Not a large, but decent cargo bay for deployable structures
- Maybe allow for a Warfare Link that benefits logi in some way? (might be a good way to ease into logi mechanic nerfs)
To the possible issue of what the offensive functionality has in relevance to caps: If they are on the field and one of theses ships has time to motor over, sit stationary for a time and survive, then the said capital did not have the proper fleet support it required, and likewise for structures, there was no-one around to defend it.
AFK cloaking thread Summary - Provided by Paikis
Good Post Etiquette - Provided by CCP Grayscale
|
Ben Ishikela
Moira. Villore Accords
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 17:48:34 -
[150] - Quote
First up, i did not read the 8 Pages. I very much like this idea.
I would like to see this frigate in the ORE faction on the MiningFrigate Skill. The Venture is kind of lonely. (and who trains this skill to 5 besides the WH-Gas-Huffers?). Of course the skill needs to be renamed to "Industrial Frigates" and the T2-Skill will be "engineering frigates". Make a T1 and T2 variant of it! That way, new players can emphasize that gameplay early on and can spezialise later.
5 months old thread. who cares? there is still hope. @CCP: I do not need a new blackbird/moa/pirate model. Do this engineering Frigate thingy first! (it adds gameplay hugely)
@DemolitionCharges: Very good idea in general, but id like to share my ideas about it. So this should be a deployable structure to fit into the role of the "combat engineer". A deployable does not move. Very Important is a cooldown, so it is not spammed and causes server-load. For example it would take 5minutes to anchor/online and then it explodes immediately. Lets use these damageModels for easier implementation: So there is this mechanic called "smartbombs". They do damage all around them. Signature independent. (there will be enough time for small ships to go out of the radius of imfluence. There are (stealthbomber's)"bombs" already in the game and they have a nice feature: they do damage to each other and more interesting: they have resistance to their type of damage. so you can only deploy a limited number of bombs on one target at one time or the others will be destroyed uselessly. That would be Fun on deployable Bombs! ofc, the damage would have to be way higher then these of smartbombs/StealthBombs.
+Feature: EngineeringShips could be T3 with a subsystem that gives them 100% resistance for one damage type but 0% on all others.
+Feature: Make the T2 variant able to fit a "remote cloaking device". its cloaks the target. It can only be used on Deployables. It drains Cap proportional to TargetSize. There will be grafix in space, so decloaking is easier.
+Feature: Make only these ships have the option to deploy mobile depots or MTUs for corp/alliance also.
EDIT: +1 for destroyer Hulls. xD |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |