Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
453
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 12:06:57 -
[151] - Quote
ORE don't do combat ships, silly
A.K.A Hodor Von Grootenberg
|
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
290
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 07:13:45 -
[152] - Quote
While I like the idea of T1 and T2 engineering ships, I feel like these would be better served as being purely T2 ships. T1 ships are often generalized, while T2 ships are specialized (IE Interceptors, marauders, and blockade runners have very specific functions). Any ship can deploy and attack structures, but these would be dedicated to that task and would do it better than other options. |
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
530
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 09:51:46 -
[153] - Quote
+1
and I would even let them shoot capitals (from very short range), since any support fleet would murder then quickly anyway
W-Space Realtor
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
722
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 10:07:08 -
[154] - Quote
Hmmm, these could be an excellent variant of tech 3 destroyers except the inflight reconfigs would have it switch between engineering functions that are highly speciaized much like the Hobart's Funnies in the D-Day landings.
1 mode for structure management, another mode for POS bashing (even modelled as huge dmg bonus on lasers with massive range/tracking penalty), another mode for any other engineering support services people think of. |
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
856
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 15:11:16 -
[155] - Quote
T3? NOPE. just T2
A.K.A Hodor Von Grootenberg
|
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
290
|
Posted - 2014.10.27 09:26:13 -
[156] - Quote
Yeah, I'd have to agree. The last thing we need is the proliferation of T3 ships. T2 could do everything we need without making balancing impossible. |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
290
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 06:26:34 -
[157] - Quote
Gaan, I really like the idea you had for deploying mines. The only suggestion I'd make is to only allow them in nullsec, much like bombs. Hisec minefields would be a hillarious disaster.
Also, I will +1 anything called "yurt-beam." |
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
943
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 07:17:07 -
[158] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote:Gaan, I really like the idea you had for deploying mines. The only suggestion I'd make is to only allow them in nullsec, much like bombs. Hisec minefields would be a hillarious disaster.
Also, I will +1 anything called "yurt-beam." YURRRRRRRT BEEEEEEEEEAM
what's a yurt beam?
A.K.A Hodor Von Grootenberg
|
Gaan Cathal
Angry Mustellid The Periphery
13
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 07:32:39 -
[159] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote:Gaan, I really like the idea you had for deploying mines. The only suggestion I'd make is to only allow them in nullsec, much like bombs. Hisec minefields would be a hillarious disaster.
Also, I will +1 anything called "yurt-beam."
I would say disallow "dumb targeting" in Highsec, same as AOEs and DDs are disallowed. I've removed the idea of the teeny AOE because it's fairly pointless and would only cause Lowsec issues when people kite them into gates. Just make them work like missiles in the Explosion Velocity/Explosion Radius sense. Just need to set it to give them decent damage application. They'd be no more of a lag issue in Highsec than drones are since they are, basically, drones. The most abuse they could be is slapping them on Jita Undock and waiting for a wartarget to undock, but that's easily solved by giving them a short 'lock time'.
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame wrote: YURRRRRRRT BEEEEEEEEEAM
what's a yurt beam?
It's a beam for your yurt.
More seriously, a cap-draining highslot module that allows your fleet access to an owned yurt that you're targeting in line with the 'buffed anchorables' aspect. I'd rather it not be needed personally because I despise the underlying mechanic of the yurt, but while carriers can refit off eachother the yurt is a "lesser of two evils" kind of good. Ergo yurt beam. |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
292
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 12:47:22 -
[160] - Quote
Any sort of AOE explosion in hisec is a massive liability though (Smartbombs are just allowed, they just almost always end with the summoning of your friendly neighborhood CONCORD enforcer). With a ship, you have the ability to position yourself so that your smartbomb will have the least chance of hitting something it shouldn't, but mines introduce a wild card. Losing mines would mean that there is something floating around out there that could detonate at any moment, boop a neutral, and suddenly CONCORD rains down on you in your shiny battleship that you hopped into after you forgot that there were still lose mines floating around.
This could be solved by making them drones if they deactivate when out of control range, but that's still a big liability. A simple solution to taking out a mine layer would be bringing a neutral friend and/or alt in a noobship with you into the minefield. They get hit in the blast and the minelayer gets concordokken'd. More mine-functioning mines (Deploy, arm, leave, profit) would be a fun toy but would need to be in nullsec to not have massive-if-not-funny consequences. If mines could be treated as a deployable, they would be a great counterpart to combat engineering vessels that could lay many of them rapidly as an area denial weapon. |
|
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1078
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 13:16:55 -
[161] - Quote
I still have no idea what a yurt is...
oh well...
TO GOOGLEFINITY AND BEYOND!
A.K.A Hodor Von Grootenberg
|
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
293
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 14:56:33 -
[162] - Quote
Yurts are the community-applied name to mobile depots. In fact, it became so common that there is a named 'Yurt' depot you can get with better stats. |
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1154
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 15:06:54 -
[163] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote:Yurts are the community-applied name to mobile depots. In fact, it became so common that there is a named 'Yurt' depot you can get with better stats.
A.K.A Hodor Von Grootenberg
|
Gaan Cathal
Angry Mustellid The Periphery
13
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 19:56:20 -
[164] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote:Any sort of AOE explosion in hisec is a massive liability though (Smartbombs are just allowed, they just almost always end with the summoning of your friendly neighborhood CONCORD enforcer). With a ship, you have the ability to position yourself so that your smartbomb will have the least chance of hitting something it shouldn't, but mines introduce a wild card. Losing mines would mean that there is something floating around out there that could detonate at any moment, boop a neutral, and suddenly CONCORD rains down on you in your shiny battleship that you hopped into after you forgot that there were still lose mines floating around.
This could be solved by making them drones if they deactivate when out of control range, but that's still a big liability. A simple solution to taking out a mine layer would be bringing a neutral friend and/or alt in a noobship with you into the minefield. They get hit in the blast and the minelayer gets concordokken'd. More mine-functioning mines (Deploy, arm, leave, profit) would be a fun toy but would need to be in nullsec to not have massive-if-not-funny consequences. If mines could be treated as a deployable, they would be a great counterpart to combat engineering vessels that could lay many of them rapidly as an area denial weapon.
That would be entirely the reason I removed the (inconsequentially small) AOE from my suggestion. They'd essentially be very low volume suicide-drones with missile damage application mechanics. They'd have to do rather a lot of damage to make them worthwhile of course, but there are a fair number of obvious countermeasures ranging from smartbombs to just plain avoiding them.
And again, mines in Highsec would only be armable to attack legitimate targets. |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
293
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 03:31:03 -
[165] - Quote
Ah, okay, I misread then. Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, that would be a pretty fun way to breathe new life into mines. They'd be a pain to balance (It'd be all to easy to either make them too powerful or not worth the cost), but it's a fun idea. Sort of like the magnetic minefield in Galaxy Quest.
You could go a step further and have the same behavior in a small deployable structure. That way, it could be paired very well with a combat engineering ship, giving it an excellent niche offensive capability. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
1745
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 04:34:34 -
[166] - Quote
I'm not sure what hull size is appropriate for this, but generally speaking this seems like a pretty good idea. |
Luwc
Confederation of Independent Contractors Swamphole
265
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 07:44:41 -
[167] - Quote
I like it.
makes killing mission runner TCUs even more fun.
http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
730
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 09:42:33 -
[168] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I'm not sure what hull size is appropriate for this, but generally speaking this seems like a pretty good idea.
This was why I suggested it be one of the new range of T3 destroyers. A low combat capable ship but able to switch role from POS bashing (lazer bonus but with huge tracking and range drop), to structure deployment, to any other engineering application people can think of. Maybe an ORE ship since they are an industrial corp, a support destroyer to complement the noctis. It could even have a comet mining configuration to rival the venture/prospector. The POS bashing lasers could be the mining lasers reconfigured into low range plasma cutters. |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
296
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 12:43:35 -
[169] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:I'm not sure what hull size is appropriate for this, but generally speaking this seems like a pretty good idea. This was why I suggested it be one of the new range of T3 destroyers. A low combat capable ship but able to switch role from POS bashing (lazer bonus but with huge tracking and range drop), to structure deployment, to any other engineering application people can think of. Maybe an ORE ship since they are an industrial corp, a support destroyer to complement the noctis. It could even have a comet mining configuration to rival the venture/prospector. The POS bashing lasers could be the mining lasers reconfigured into low range plasma cutters.
This is a whole bunch of different ship ideas though. The engineering ships outlined here would serve a very specific purpose. Throwing a wildcard like T3 ships into the mix not only reduces the focus on their primary purpose (building and breaking deployables) but would also be a pain to implement without throwing off balance. Once CCP can manage to finally fix the balance issues that plague current T3 ships it might be worth looking into adding more, but for the time being, lets keep from adding any more win buttons. |
Gaan Cathal
Angry Mustellid The Periphery
15
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 14:21:35 -
[170] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote: This is a whole bunch of different ship ideas though. The engineering ships outlined here would serve a very specific purpose. Throwing a wildcard like T3 ships into the mix not only reduces the focus on their primary purpose (building and breaking deployables) but would also be a pain to implement without throwing off balance. Once CCP can manage to finally fix the balance issues that plague current T3 ships it might be worth looking into adding more, but for the time being, lets keep from adding any more win buttons.
This, T3 is an experiment in finding a way to make generalist ships that "change" specialisations without being Really Bad (experiment one, the T3 cruiser, was a failure in that regard). The ship we're talking about is a specialist ship with a single role, ergo it belongs in the T2 lineup. |
|
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1658
|
Posted - 2014.11.02 09:48:29 -
[171] - Quote
I still think it should be a T2 industrial with a structure hold bay.
A.K.A Hodor Von Grootenberg
|
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2258
|
Posted - 2014.11.06 10:32:49 -
[172] - Quote
boomp!
A.K.A Hodor Von Grootenberg
|
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
297
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 07:20:05 -
[173] - Quote
Would still like to hear dev feedback. The general consensus is pretty good, and the only disagreements have been around proper implementation. |
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
3027
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 06:42:40 -
[174] - Quote
agreed.
A.K.A Hodor Von Grootenberg
Join Critically Preposterous today!
|
Aran Hotchkiss
Phoibe Enterprises
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 12:07:26 -
[175] - Quote
I thoroughly like most of what I've seen so far
-Intrigued about the mention of demolition charges being attached to deployables (the one mentioned a while back)
-Bringing hacking into a PvP element gives me a raging boner I'm certainly keen on
-Support the idea of it being t2 destroyer and battle cruiser hulls... Any mention of t3 just makes me go 'ew'
I would've envisioned the HCES to be similar to a HIC in the sense it does very little offense but high tanking bonuses....
Certainly support this idea anyway.
And that comet mining one... |
Rendiff
Funk Soul Brothers
94
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 12:14:22 -
[176] - Quote
I'm glad this thread is still being discussed. I really like the idea of these ships. |
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
3307
|
Posted - 2014.11.15 07:15:04 -
[177] - Quote
so when are the CCPs going to post a reply? we've waited quite a long time!
A.K.A Hodor Von Grootenberg
I'm a Snaper - imgur.com/8EHPPWU
-
mad? ( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
3472
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 10:58:34 -
[178] - Quote
CCP pls
A.K.A Hodor Von Grootenberg
I'm a Snaper - imgur.com/8EHPPWU
-
mad? ( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
4292
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 07:36:52 -
[179] - Quote
bump
I'm a Snaper - imgur.com/8EHPPWU
mad? ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Hengle Teron > v(t) = dp / dt
|
Ceawlin Cobon-Han
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
31
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 17:05:27 -
[180] - Quote
The time required to online things is the inbuilt counter to their functionality; the defenders can spot then and call in the demolition squad before they can get working. Reducing the ability of the defence to do this is a powerful force multiplier for the attacker; too powerful.
-1 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |