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. |
|
Ren Coursa
Rapid Withdrawal
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 11:43:00 -
[31] - Quote
Bob Maths wrote:That's a pretty cool idea. What would the ships look like?
My take would be something like the Rorqual, it looks like a construction site. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
482
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 13:23:00 -
[32] - Quote
Ren Coursa wrote:[quote=Bob Maths]... it looks like a construction site.
You mean it should be a minmatar ship?
|
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4230
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 13:35:00 -
[33] - Quote
Liafcipe9000 wrote: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. Hilarity ensues.
Ok, I get that you did not understand the point, much less the mechanism. All you understood was that targeting would swap over to other ships, and assumed random chaos since the details were confusing.
NO.
The ship itself could ONLY be in this mode to transfer, if it was bastioned, meaning it could not simply leave when unexpected things happened.
The ONLY ships capable of being targeted by this effect would also need to be inside the targeting range of the attacking ship. For those not grasping the meaning, that means the ships defending it would need to be almost on top of this ship.
Frigates with well know short range, as well as ships with short ranges for other reasons, could bypass this if the defending ships were not close enough. That means simply being 20KM distant is going to be more than enough in many cases, to avoid the effect entirely. Players adapt, and this mechanic would require clever play on both sides.
And by clever play, that means someone planning on the possibility of needing to counter this type of defense, just like we already plan around countering and needing points, and ECM counters. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4230
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 13:42:00 -
[34] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote: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. It would actually be fairly predictable, as only the ships closest to it by intent would likely be affected.
(Ships with long range attacking would adapt by trying to remove 'obstacles', and groups wanting to focus on the engineer boat would send in short range blaster boats to minimize this defense ability)
Long story short, the engineer ship is only truly vulnerable when it's fleet buddies are gone from range. Your opponents can't cherry pick it from your group if you play smart. (as opposed to previous where off grid boosting and support was such a wonderful idea) Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
188
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 13:50:00 -
[35] - Quote
Still sounds like a way too powerful ability that is completely out of the ship's intended role... It would be effectively indistructable until the entire fleet is dead, require careful maneuvering of other pilots to prevent being insta-killed by a mechanism that they have no control over, and still be a nightmare for any FC. When trying to coordinate targets and maneuvers, the last thing the FC should have to worry about is if anyone gets too close to one of their own ships WHILE carrying out said maneuvers. Not bumping a bridge titan is one thing, but dancing around a loose cannon on their own team while in the middle of combat is quite another. Not to mention that accidentally transferring aggro to hapless team mates has nothing to do with an engineering role. 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
188
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 13:51:00 -
[36] - Quote
...Also, what would be the point of a stationary "Doom my allies for my survival" mode when it's intended job is moving around the field clearing/deploying structures? You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4230
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 14:00:00 -
[37] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote:Still sounds like a way too powerful ability that is completely out of the ship's intended role... It would be effectively indistructable until the entire fleet is dead, require careful maneuvering of other pilots to prevent being insta-killed by a mechanism that they have no control over, and still be a nightmare for any FC. When trying to coordinate targets and maneuvers, the last thing the FC should have to worry about is if anyone gets too close to one of their own ships WHILE carrying out said maneuvers. Not bumping a bridge titan is one thing, but dancing around a loose cannon on their own team while in the middle of combat is quite another. Not to mention that accidentally transferring aggro to hapless team mates has nothing to do with an engineering role. Again, the ship would be locked down, and unable to approach others in their own fleet.
Fleet members would need to deliberately place themselves in proximity for the effect to occur, so the random nature is really not genuine.
Fleet members who CHOOSE to defend this ship, need to position themselves nearly on top of it. It really is too easy to bypass otherwise, making it far less random for many concerns.
Heck, you could even require that the engineer boat designate a target, which needed to remain local to it, in order to use the flying shield effect.
The ultimate point is that your engineer boat should be able to avoid being popped as a priority target, or it's presence on grid is pointless.
Unboosted fleet wanted? Kill booster. Done. If the actions in the background being performed have meaning, it will be a priority target, as removing it would hurt every ship in range that it had been helping. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
188
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 14:51:00 -
[38] - Quote
Again though, I don't see the point of making a ship whose sole purpose is moving around the battlefield completely immobile. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1493
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 14:58:00 -
[39] - Quote
These demo charges. if their limiting factor is explosion velocity, can they be used to gank marauders in bastion mode? kind of like an anti-siege weapon. And triage carriers and sieged dreads for that matter. No way to have them affect structures only? If DD's can only target caps, then it must be code-able to allow a mod to only target structures. and give them the old torp explosion animation.
rapid POS setups and take downs with an indy, cool idea. rapid deployable set-up and take down with a frig, cool idea
hacking deployables (and other things), more a scout, covert role. Covert frigs and astero or stratios can do that. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
190
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 15:20:00 -
[40] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:These demo charges. if their limiting factor is explosion velocity, can they be used to gank marauders in bastion mode? kind of like an anti-siege weapon. And triage carriers and sieged dreads for that matter. No way to have them affect structures only? If DD's can only target caps, then it must be code-able to allow a mod to only target structures.
Didn't think about seige'd dreads and marauders. You're right, if there is a way to limit the demo charge's target to structures only, that would be ideal. While realistically a charge made to take down a structure should be just as effective against a parked ship, it would wreak havoc on game balance. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
|
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4230
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 16:35:00 -
[41] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote:Again though, I don't see the point of making a ship whose sole purpose is moving around the battlefield completely immobile. Why would this be moving around, considering it wants to deploy and activate non mobile assets?
Unless you choose to abandon these, it will be needed to recover them after the fact. Once it reaches the location to begin deploying items, there is no stated value to separating them. They only object to having duplicates in range of each other, often enough.
In fact, having a variety of them together allows benefits to be layered and work together.
For reference: Mobile Cynosural Inhibitor Two minute activation time, 100KM effective range
Mobile Depot, each version has 1 minute activation time
Mobile Micro jump unit 1 minute activation time
Mobile scan inhibitor, 30KM effective range 1 minute activation time (Having a few of these completely off grid might be advised, so the item itself is not self defeating)
Mobile Tractor unit, 125 to 175KM effective range 1 minute activation time
The rorqual teaches us that a loot pinata is avoided for exposure, so a vessel with the combined potential benefit to deploy all of these would definitely be a high priority target.
If it becomes impractical to expose, we know where that leads. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1149
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 17:29:00 -
[42] - Quote
As a base idea I like the ship (me I see a blockade runner hull for the idea industrial with purpose)
Issue would be what the alpha of a fleet of these would be for dropping pos's. Don't think individual but grouping, apply Malcanis's law.
m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9 |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
190
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 06:10:00 -
[43] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Why would this be moving around, considering it wants to deploy and activate non mobile assets?
Deploying and destroying non mobile assets. It's purpose would be to both anchor things quickly and to destroy anything anchored by the enemy. If the demo charge is a super long range weapon, it would be insanely OP, so it must instead be something that you have to get close to use.
Also, scooping objects usually doesn't happen until after the battle is over. First, many deployable objects that have been released recently are one-time-use. Cyno jammers, for example, can't be scooped and self destructs after an hour. Second, the objects that are reusable wouldn't benefit from a stationary ship. It's hard to put up disruption generators in strategic positions when you can only drop them in one place. Once they are up, by design they are going to be there a while. If you wanted to take them down quickly as well, you would just use interdictors. Finally, yurts only allow the ship that dropped them to refit. They are rarely used in combat, and when they are, everyone uses their own.
The siege-mode engineer would introduce a lot of problems and inconsistencies without providing any real benefit at all.
You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
609
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 06:48:00 -
[44] - Quote
I imahine any module used to take down enemy structures would not be in the form of damage necessarily, using the same on lining timer but in reverse. So if it takes 45 seconds to online a certain module (using my ships skills and bonuses) then it would take the same amount of time to take it down/destroy it. that way it doesnt matter how many people are working on it, the effect wont multiply.
It would be resaonable to assume that removing things would be harder so if the take-down time was doubled or tripled to put the engineer ship in a vulnerable position in a longer time. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
482
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 07:46:00 -
[45] - Quote
I was thing of the combat engineer ships being more like the Hobarts Funnies from WWII, very capable in specific situation but pretty useless otherwise. So pos/module laying fits well at reduced times to deploy, armoured demo charge laying ship could work too (with appropriate trade-offs). It could be designed as the first ORE Tech III ship, with susbystems bonusing the more engineering based tasks (demo charge would be a heavily bonused damage but heavily nerfed range smart-bomb role for instance) |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4230
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 13:42:00 -
[46] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Why would this be moving around, considering it wants to deploy and activate non mobile assets? Deploying and destroying non mobile assets. It's purpose would be to both anchor things quickly and to destroy anything anchored by the enemy. If the demo charge is a super long range weapon, it would be insanely OP, so it must instead be something that you have to get close to use. Also, scooping objects usually doesn't happen until after the battle is over. First, many deployable objects that have been released recently are one-time-use. Cyno jammers, for example, can't be scooped and self destructs after an hour. Second, the objects that are reusable wouldn't benefit from a stationary ship. It's hard to put up disruption generators in strategic positions when you can only drop them in one place. Once they are up, by design they are going to be there a while. If you wanted to take them down quickly as well, you would just use interdictors. Finally, yurts only allow the ship that dropped them to refit. They are rarely used in combat, and when they are, everyone uses their own. The siege-mode engineer would introduce a lot of problems and inconsistencies without providing any real benefit at all. The engineer has no value, if all it is doing is simply dumping easter eggs at random points on the grid. Any ship with a large enough hold can fit a deployable, and dividing them between multiple ships makes such a deployment both easier to spread out, and faster than a single ship could duplicate even with bonuses.
If this ship is only present to compensate for difficulty coordinating, then it's purpose is halfway defeated on the design board.
One real value the engineer could bring, for example, is allowing multiple player use of a Yurt for refitting. This would likely necessitate it being in proximity, so OP yurts are not left floating all over.
The use of the ship's role implied being either behind the lines, or behind hard cover. If it has any real value on grid, and is not intended as a direct combat ship, then it does so by benefiting and enhancing other ships on grid. By doing this, it elevates it's value to the opponent to remove first, as it's presence makes every ship you have more effective. If it is removed first, it has no effect, and only represents a loss of time and ISK to the pilot and fleet.
In other words, if it is meant to be exposed by expectation, it's design is meaningless without some form of defense mechanic.
THAT is why I reference the Rorqual as an example, they are kept out of harms way for this reason.
Demolitions after the fact, or as part of a combat strategy for an ongoing fight, also raises this ship to priority status, resulting in the same issue effectively in order to protect the opponents fleet from losing their benefits. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
191
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 14:14:00 -
[47] - Quote
One at a time.
Nikk Narrel wrote: The engineer has no value, if all it is doing is simply dumping easter eggs at random points on the grid. Any ship with a large enough hold can fit a deployable, and dividing them between multiple ships makes such a deployment both easier to spread out, and faster than a single ship could duplicate even with bonuses.
The suggested role and bonuses of this ship deal with just about everything you mentioned here. Yes, a whole fleet of ships coordinating drops could be more efficient, but that's not really what T2 ships are all about.
Nikk Narrel wrote: If this ship is only present to compensate for difficulty coordinating, then it's purpose is halfway defeated on the design board.
Again, this argument could be made for every T2 ship in existence. What's the point of a hulk when a bunch of ventures can mine just as much? What's the point of an Ishtar when a pair of Vexors can have the same effect? T2 ships aren't win buttons, they are specialized for a certain role. This ship is specialized for the building and clearing of structures. More ships could do the job, yes, but this can do it better.
Nikk Narrel wrote: One real value the engineer could bring, for example, is allowing multiple player use of a Yurt for refitting. This would likely necessitate it being in proximity, so OP yurts are not left floating all over.
This is very true. A subcap combat ship with a maintenance hangar would be an excellent addition. I'm pretty sure this has been suggested quite a few times though, so I imagine CCP has a reason for not introducing it. If this was a possibility though, I'd be all for it.
Nikk Narrel wrote: The use of the ship's role implied being either behind the lines, or behind hard cover. If it has any real value on grid, and is not intended as a direct combat ship, then it does so by benefiting and enhancing other ships on grid. By doing this, it elevates it's value to the opponent to remove first, as it's presence makes every ship you have more effective. If it is removed first, it has no effect, and only represents a loss of time and ISK to the pilot and fleet.
This applies to any ship in a fleet. Killing logistics first means the enemy ship can't rep. Killing tackle first means the enemy ship can't hold you down. Killing DPS first means they can't break your tank. Killing this first means your structures will be safer. I think you're overestimating the priority that an FC would put on killing this. Part of target calling is balancing the factors of what will and won't have detrimental effects on your fleet comp. Sometimes that may lead them to call this primary, sometimes it wont. Gimping its stats to prevent it being targeted in a fleet fight is a massive overreaction to a nonexistent problem.
Nikk Narrel wrote: In other words, if it is meant to be exposed by expectation, it's design is meaningless without some form of defense mechanic.
THAT is why I reference the Rorqual as an example, they are kept out of harms way for this reason.
It's not meant to be exposed by expectation. Not having powerful DPS in a fleet setting doesn't make you exposed. If that were the case, logi would be useless. A fleet is effective because of it's overall utility and leadership, not by the individual stats of any one ship in it. Logi and Ewar ships are both present in fleets with little to no armament or defensive mechanic. However, they're still extremely important to an effective fleet. This would be no different. It gives the fleet utility, and if the fleet is good, it will defend this ship just as it would any other asset.
This ship isn't meant to be a win button or a defensive juggernaut. It's meant to provide new roles in a variety of situations. Including a complicated defensive mechanic that grants little to no added utility isn't all that useful and would make the ship much more difficult to balance in gameplay. You have a very interesting idea, but I feel it would be ineffective to try to for it into this situation.
You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Estella Osoka
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Sicarius Draconis
360
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 15:13:00 -
[48] - Quote
I see a Combat Engineering ship as something that either excels in deploying defensive-style deployables or offensive-style deployables. I believe at one point in the game there was a mine that could be deployed in space. Maybe this type of ship could bring those back. |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4230
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 15:27:00 -
[49] - Quote
Ok, you are comparing the ship to a logi. That's not a good comparison.
The logi can only benefit a number of ships equal to how many reppers it's cap can sustain. Sure, it can swap which ships it helps, but it never can help more than a handful on it's watch list.
As to T2 ships being specialized, yes, and more often than not they are specialized in ways that cannot be duplicated effectively. This can be, regarding deployable items. That means it needs to be notably more efficient, or why bother?
As to a subcap with a maintenance hangar, that is not being suggested here either. Giving a Yurt the ability to support multiple boats makes the Yurt more effective. The engineer boat isn't refitting anything, but it can operate that Yurt better than others. The ability to take a separate deployed object, and make it more effective, THAT is a T2 kind of special.
Comparing the mass killing of logistics class vessels to this, again, seems off. This engineer boat implies more of a booster level role, in that it is placing deployed objects where they can be used. Having it's presence make these deployed objects more effective also makes sense. BUT, unlike a logi, it's role is PASSIVE, just like a fleet booster. A logi needs to be active, and directly target and maintain cap use so it can keep the reppers working.
The repeated use of logi comparisons seems a mis-match to me. Most of these deployables are exclusive to only permitting a single item in a range beyond what would make sense for many fleets. Like a booster, only the most effective engineer on the field would be of any value, the others being unable to deploy duplicate items by virtue of it's presence.
Maybe our definition of fleet is not matching here. I am thinking something more along the lines of 50 ships or less, and effectively mobile. Maybe you are considering something along more epic lines, where presence is such that all ships are not even on the same effective grid for everyone involved. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
RoAnnon
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
310
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 15:57:00 -
[50] - Quote
I like the idea +1
Never not add new ships
So, you're a bounty hunter. No, that ain't it at all. Then what are you? I'm a bounty hunter. |
|
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
20201
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 14:45:00 -
[51] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:As a base idea I like the ship (me I see a blockade runner hull for the idea industrial with purpose)
Issue would be what the alpha of a fleet of these would be for dropping pos's. Don't think individual but grouping, apply Malcanis's law.
m that actually made me understand that demo charges are better off staying as bombs launched from stealth bombers. Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
195
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 05:40:00 -
[52] - Quote
Liafcipe9000 wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:As a base idea I like the ship (me I see a blockade runner hull for the idea industrial with purpose)
Issue would be what the alpha of a fleet of these would be for dropping pos's. Don't think individual but grouping, apply Malcanis's law.
m that actually made me understand that demo charges are better off staying as bombs launched from stealth bombers.
I feel like the POS reinforcement mechanic would cancel this out. These ships would have very low EHP compared to the battleships/dreads that are usually used for dropping POS's. If a station is reinforced, it's owners will (or at least should) be ready to defend it when it comes out. A large fleet of these would be dangerous to undefended structures, but due to the short range of the charge and the low EHP of the ship, they would be far from ideal from taking down a POS by themselves. It could be argued that the enemy fleet brings ample support to compliment these ships, but then we again come up against a case of simply being outplayed rather than balance being off.
Someone suggested a few posts back though that the charge could be a timer based weapon instead of a missile of some sort. If each charge requires that you stay in range of your target for a length of time while the charge deploys, that would help to prevent a warp in/insta-blap of towers. I'm not opposed to the idea of a massive fleet hit-and-running a tower or it's modules, but there would have to be some way to defend against it lest the balance be completely skewed. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Alyssa Haginen
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 18:16:00 -
[53] - Quote
+1 I like any ideas making structure deployment more involved.
I am pushing for a version of this that is something like space engineers using ships to construct structures instead of people. A new line of medium-heavy tanker building ships that specialize in building with space arms and small drone bays. One person can build something small in a few minutes where as building a station would take one person much longer. Team construction and demolition firms would be born. |
Benar Ellecon
Card games on MOTORCYCLES
25
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 14:35:00 -
[54] - Quote
Estella Osoka wrote:I see a Combat Engineering ship as something that either excels in deploying defensive-style deployables or offensive-style deployables. I believe at one point in the game there was a mine that could be deployed in space. Maybe this type of ship could bring those back.
This ^^
Having combat engineering ships would be an excellent addition to expand the possibilities. As for the mines, I was not in before they were taken out but I would like to see them again because they sound like they would be a lot of fun to use.
Back to the top for some more consideration! Fly with your hair on FIRE! |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
197
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 13:55:00 -
[55] - Quote
Bringing mines back would certainly give combat engineering a new and impressive role. I don't know why exactly they were removed though, so I don't even know if that's a possibility. 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
202
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 08:10:00 -
[56] - Quote
Any feeback before this gets swept into the abyss? There seems to be enough support that I would love for a dev to at least take a look at it. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
CraftyCroc
Aperture Harmonics No Holes Barred
229
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 08:43:00 -
[57] - Quote
V cool - I'd vote for the name Samson in recognition of your fantastic idea. |
Solhild
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1471
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 08:58:00 -
[58] - Quote
I like the idea. Could make demo charges ineffective if detonated in the area or effect from a warp core. The same lore that gives the ship a drag in space could protect ships from these devices so they are only effective on anchored structures. |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
206
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 09:14:00 -
[59] - Quote
Solhild wrote:The same lore that gives the ship a drag in space could protect ships from these devices so they are only effective on anchored structures.
Little off topic, but could you link that? I honestly didn't know there was any lore that explained why my ships slow down :P
Back on topic though, yeah, if there was a way to make the demo charge only be able to target anchored structures, that would be ideal. As much as I love the idea of a fleet of combat engineers finally getting even with a dreadnought, I'm pretty sure that would break the game. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Mana Shian
Fault Line Industries Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 18:35:00 -
[60] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote:Bringing mines back would certainly give combat engineering a new and impressive role. I don't know why exactly they were removed though, so I don't even know if that's a possibility. I hear these were the reasons mines were removed back then:
- No minimum distance between each other
- No limit to how many a person could put down
- Hellcamps were even hellcampier
If mines were limited to only Combat Engineers, had a minimum distance between them, and then limited to only five per ship (one per level), I could see mines making a return to EVE while giving a new ship type (The Combat Engineer) a niche. |
|
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
191
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 19:24:00 -
[61] - 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 think the deconstruction idea with the missiles is a little far-fetched and awkward, but the general premise you made about the t2 logi frigs being these 'combat engineer' ships is absolutely brilliant. A ship bonus on timer reduction of deployables would be excellent in conjunction with special hold expansion.
Another critique I might have come to think of it would be just using a larger ship for this; you'd run into a lot of problems with having a cargo hold on a ship that's big enough to fit itself in it, so here's an idea I'll pitch you could use to integrate that particular feature:
-as part of the t3 rebalance, they would make a new class of t3 ships that would supplant things like logistics on the current t3 ships after the get their defensive subs somewhat nerfed (resists on everything but the adaptive sub get brought down to recon levels), and get their cloak sub rolled into an electronics sub, namely the locus analyzer dropping its tractor bonus in favor of the covops.
-the new t3 cruiser would perform a support and industrial role; it would appropriate some of the electronic warfare bonuses from the other ship, namely ecm from the tengu, but leave the others intact and support with the gallente having damps, amarr having tracking disruption, etc. While it would have more limited combat usability than its current t3 counterpart, it would have decent offensive abilities along the lines of combat recon boats. One of the main features for electronics would be this structure deployment bonus you're talking about, and it would have a special cargo bay of a base of around 5k m3, giving it slightly less space than the smaller courier industrials.
Now granted this bonus could EASILY be appropriated into another t2 ship, but the main factor you'd have to consider would be that if you wanted a ship that could anchor starbase structures quickly, it would have to be cruiser-sized or large due to logical cargo constraints. Would you be against them making new industrial ships for caldari and amarr, and make the ship in question you're talking about a t2 indy? |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
191
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 19:27:00 -
[62] - 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. This...I like this a lot this is brilliant. +1 to you good sir! |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
191
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 19:36:00 -
[63] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:These demo charges. if their limiting factor is explosion velocity, can they be used to gank marauders in bastion mode? kind of like an anti-siege weapon. And triage carriers and sieged dreads for that matter. No way to have them affect structures only? If DD's can only target caps, then it must be code-able to allow a mod to only target structures. Didn't think about seige'd dreads and marauders. You're right, if there is a way to limit the demo charge's target to structures only, that would be ideal. While realistically a charge made to take down a structure should be just as effective against a parked ship, it would wreak havoc on game balance. Maybe bring back the codes for Mines in the game, and have them only applicable against structures? That and giving them the ability to use hacking modules to recover structures, both for the frig and combat engineer would be excellent for POS reclaimation in w-space. |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
191
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 19:38:00 -
[64] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:As a base idea I like the ship (me I see a blockade runner hull for the idea industrial with purpose)
Issue would be what the alpha of a fleet of these would be for dropping pos's. Don't think individual but grouping, apply Malcanis's law.
m Proper coding for unique weapon types like mines or specialized salvager that ONLY works on structures you yourself in that ship have deployed would be ideal in this situation, although I'm not entirely sure of the feasibility of that. Perhaps hacking them with either the minigame for structure reclaimation or a new method would be ideal, and they could just scoop them at their leisure if they're offlined. For onlined structures, something like a mine would be ideal; a set charge with a timer that goes BOOM and does damage only to structures or capitals that happened to be parked nearby and aren't inside the shield bubble. The code would be set that you could ONLY set the charges up near structures, not capitals, to avoid things getting messy. |
Solhild
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1472
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 20:57:00 -
[65] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote:Solhild wrote:The same lore that gives the ship a drag in space could protect ships from these devices so they are only effective on anchored structures. Little off topic, but could you link that? I honestly didn't know there was any lore that explained why my ships slow down :P Back on topic though, yeah, if there was a way to make the demo charge only be able to target anchored structures, that would be ideal. As much as I love the idea of a fleet of combat engineers finally getting even with a dreadnought, I'm pretty sure that would break the game.
Currently on holiday in Paris so Internet and link time is not a strength here. I got it from an EVE novel or short story but I'm sure a quick search will turn something up. Warp core inertial drag is the CCP excuse for the lack of Newtonian Physics bit the game and is a well known explanation for our submarine in space effect. |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
21450
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 09:19:00 -
[66] - Quote
bumping this. Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Amarisen Gream
Galactic Republic of Entrepreneurs and Militiamen
29
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 09:37:00 -
[67] - Quote
I saw this the other day. Didn't have any post. Not going to read them all. But +1
The thing on this I think would be best, is that it be a pirate faction (ORE) that develops these ships. CCP keeps feeding us combat ships, but we need utility ships. Ships for deployables. Smaller salvage ship. POS assistant ship. We need options when it comes to our industrial side of the game. I would still love to see a mid range hauler for intra-system hauling. Sub freighter hold, but can't use jump gates when it has cargo. Plus the current industrial support ships need a major over haul. xoxo Amarisen Gream
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2243
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 10:19:00 -
[68] - Quote
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what a post in F&I is supposed to look like. Bravo OP, well done and may your ships take unusually long to die.
More to the topic though, I admittedly didn't read all four pages (I read the first and skimmed the second) but while I absolutely support this idea, has anyone raised the topic of demo charges being a bit OP even against structures? A large fleet of these could make POS bashing a very different situation than it is now - especially with how amazing POS guns are at locking frigate-sized signatures. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
576
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 11:04:00 -
[69] - Quote
Perhaps rather than demo charges they can have a 'mortar' weapon system much like the spigot mortars that actual combat engineer vehicles use for structure demolition. Short range heavy charge doing heavy damage but with slow explosion velocity so not much use against moving ships. More of a massive plasma charge than and explosive charge. The CEV would need a pretty good brick tank though for POS bashing... |
Arla Sarain
14
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 12:04:00 -
[70] - Quote
TheMercenaryKing wrote:Think of how fast you could setup a POS! I think the purpose of locking this role to a frigate hull is to prevent POS blitz set-ups.
It being a frigate, and a fleet of them would mean that these groups would specialise in putting up/taking down defensive and debiliating structures, rather than homes/hangars/POSs.
I think I've said it once and I'll say it again - this is a very interesting role and I would look forward to being able to play it. |
|
Valkin Mordirc
Abysmal Gentlemen
26
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 12:30:00 -
[71] - Quote
I think this would be a great add-on to the game, it would make small time logistics far easier, also since CCP wants to add more mobile structures. I would love to be able zip around setting up systems for my own personal use, and maybe benefiting the corp in some way. ++++++1 Psychotic Monk for CSM9 |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
245
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 12:57:00 -
[72] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Perhaps rather than demo charges they can have a 'mortar' weapon system much like the spigot mortars that actual combat engineer vehicles use for structure demolition. Short range heavy charge doing heavy damage but with slow explosion velocity so not much use against moving ships. More of a massive plasma charge than and explosive charge. The CEV would need a pretty good brick tank though for POS bashing...
The only problem is that in space, mortars don't arc because of the lack of gravity. For the sake of coding, it would be easier just to model it on missiles and give it very specific stats.
What it can target is the most iffy thing I can think of. While I like the idea of it just being a missile with such an incredibly slow explosion velocity that hitting moving targets would do virtually nothing (BUT STILL SOMETHING!), there is no way in this system to make it extra effective against anchored structures without making it insanely overpowered against seiged dreads and bastioned marauders. Only allowing it to be fired at structures would alleviate this, but also remove some versatility.
Perhaps add a spec to structures that makes them take extra damage from demo charges? That way it could be applied against dreads and marauders with about the effectiveness of a torpedo from a stealth bomber while still being able to quickly pop structures. I dunno, I'm just brainstorming. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
580
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 13:38:00 -
[73] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote:
The only problem is that in space, mortars don't arc because of the lack of gravity. For the sake of coding, it would be easier just to model it on missiles and give it very specific stats.
What it can target is the most iffy thing I can think of. While I like the idea of it just being a missile with such an incredibly slow explosion velocity that hitting moving targets would do virtually nothing (BUT STILL SOMETHING!), there is no way in this system to make it extra effective against anchored structures without making it insanely overpowered against seiged dreads and bastioned marauders. Only allowing it to be fired at structures would alleviate this, but also remove some versatility.
Perhaps add a spec to structures that makes them take extra damage from demo charges? That way it could be applied against dreads and marauders with about the effectiveness of a torpedo from a stealth bomber while still being able to quickly pop structures. I dunno, I'm just brainstorming.
Agreed that's what I meant, a very slow fusion torpedo, small slow blast radius but hideously destructive. Like a Thermite torpedo or something, splats against the hull and just burns... |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4281
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 14:06:00 -
[74] - Quote
Declare that mining lasers work against structures, in a manner more efficient that conventional weaponry.
Logic for backstory: Structures, like asteroids, can be destabilized by the mining lasers. Regular ships are effectively immune to this effect because they are able to get out of the way before enough of the energy accumulates to reach damaging amounts.
(ANALOGY: The structure, like a bank vault, can be drilled into by industrial equipment far better than military hardware. On the other hand, most people can easily step away from a heavy duty drill before it can affect them the way a gun can)
Then, point at the Barges / exhumers. Structures require a specialized and more expensive crystal to chew through their armor and shields, but nothing is more efficient than a mining laser.....
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
49
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 15:39:00 -
[75] - Quote
i don't like the idea. it would be abused soo much .....
let's wait for sov revmap ... |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
21739
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 16:01:00 -
[76] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:This, ladies and gentlemen, is what a post in F&I is supposed to look like. Bravo OP, well done and may your ships take unusually long to die.
More to the topic though, I admittedly didn't read all four pages (I read the first and skimmed the second) but while I absolutely support this idea, has anyone raised the topic of demo charges being a bit OP even against structures? A large fleet of these could make POS bashing a very different situation than it is now - especially with how amazing POS guns are at locking frigate-sized signatures. I think we've already established earlier on that demo charges are pretty much bombs with more power and therefore are a bad idea. Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Ari Kelor
Promethean Society
14
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 20:45:00 -
[77] - Quote
This ship screams a redesign of the Eschelon just as the Noctis was a redesign of the Primae.
I had an Idea concerning the Demolition Charges. Make them more like real charges, not launched but 'put' onto the target. The Engineer ship must come withing 2500m of the target and anchor the charge to the structure, should take some time (10-30 sec), ship bonuses could bring it down. After that the charge has a timer (15-30 sec) where it show's a global countdown similar to anchoring timers. When the charge detonates, it only does structure damage to the Structure, and pushes out a smartbomb-like effect that deals enough damage to kill all but the most heavily tanked frigates at a range of 5000m. The charge would also clear out any other active/inactive charges on the Structure, hopefully minimizing abuse.
Mechanics similar to bombs should be employed so that 4-5 ships must work in concert to get maximum effectiveness. Also any AoE effects that would hit the structure would also destroy the charges making defensive smartbombing or bombing a viable tactic to counter. They should be limited to Low-sec and below because of the AoE effect.
When interacting with POS structures because it is 'anchored' to the tower the online tower can and will mount an active defense preventing democharges from being used. Deployables don't have that luxury and may be attacked at any stage of there lifetime save for the depot's reinforcement stage.
I believe that this will be a viable alternative to taking down dead towers in small groups as you'd have to be close to the structure to plant the charges, and the small mass footprint of frigates are ideal for moving around WH Space.
Ari |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2259
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 01:24:00 -
[78] - Quote
Ari Kelor's post above mine (I'm not inclined to quote it) details what I feel is an excellent way to implement structure demolition charges that will neither be hilariously OP nor useable in any way against ships. |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
251
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 03:34:00 -
[79] - Quote
I really like the sticky-bomb type of thing that Ari mentioned, along with the POS protection system. I don't like the multi-kilometer damage radius though. With that, they WOULD feel too much like bombs 2.0. Everything else you mentioned sounds awesome though. Making them effective while preventing trololo-speed pos breaking would make this much more balanced. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
David 10th Tennant
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 05:24:00 -
[80] - Quote
Mines would be fantastic if properly balanced.
-I'm not sure why, but I feel like this should be a null-only option, similar to bombs. That being said, maybe mines could work in low. Who knows? -Distance between mines should be 8km minimum, with a detonation radius of 2.5km. This makes manual flying even more emphasized. -Mines should have superb explosion velocity, but not a large explosion radius. Not sure how that would mechanically work. I feel like any sort of mine should be a legitimate threat to frigates, but larger ships who have trouble avoiding them due to their inherent size, they should actually have less damage done to them. I'm not 100% sure I'm sold about ships in warp activating them or not, but hey, discussion, yeah? -5 mine limit per ship, 40-mine limit on grid or something like that. I think grid-limitations would keep this from being abused horribly. -Mines become "inert" after 10 minutes or so, and then have to be replaced.
I love love love this idea. CSM, bug CCP to make this a thing, please. |
|
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
256
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 08:57:00 -
[81] - Quote
IIRC, Mines used to be a thing and were removed because ReasonsGäó. I wasn't around then, so I'm not sure of details. If they could be balanced to work and brought back though, this ship would make for a mean mine layer. Perhaps make mines role specific so that, like the demo charges, they could only be deployed from combat engineers.
Also, rather than grid limitations, perhaps distance limitations. For example, areas of effect couldn't overlap. That way you can't stack a ton of them in one spot to insta-splode everything that comes in. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
22525
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 06:51:00 -
[82] - Quote
I'd rathr this thread didn't sink into oblivion. Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Lugia3
Intentionally Dense Easily Excited
1000
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 07:56:00 -
[83] - Quote
+1
Frigate and Cruiser variants, no indy ships. Mobile depots launched from this ship should grant the whole fleet refitting services (if in range, of course). Also should be able to deploy "mini pos's". Or maybe whole pos's post pos balance. Imagine a pos held together by beams, walls, and sections, rather than a giant force field.
Drop a small defensive instalation that provides some additional DPS and field-refitting before a battle starts. Or during, because balls. "CCP Dolan is full of ****." - CCP Bettik |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
260
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 23:01:00 -
[84] - Quote
Shameless bump. Most people that have posted seem to like this, so I would love to hear of the Devs are taking any interest in this. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Arla Sarain
33
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 23:49:00 -
[85] - Quote
Will say it once again - this is a genuinely interesting role.
I am however afraid it may delegated to alts, same as covops scanning ships are - used in conjunction with other chars by the same person to circumvent various issues (trust, security, EVE 1st world problems).
I'd still be extremely excited for these.
Whether it'd be assigned to empire ships or pirate is another story. Considering how specialized the role is, perhaps it suits a more exciting label, hence I'd vouch for ORE to receive ships of this role, in large to due the sweet industrial/maintenance-esque textures and a matching design philosophy. Say what you will but Noctis/Primae have very nice models/textures. |
Grenn Putubi
Swag Co. SWAG Co
56
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 00:00:00 -
[86] - Quote
I haven't read the entire thread, but I think the idea has merit and is worth considering.
Personally I think having a light and heavy version of this type of ship would be a good idea. I think the new Destroyer hulls would probably work well in this role for the light version and maybe we could get the BS hulls that haven't been reused already (Rohk, Mael, Hyp, and Abb) for use in the Heavy role.
I don't really think the idea of a frigate carrying around thousands of m3 worth of deployables is really a good one, especially when you're talking about hulls like the Burst. I think using the new Destroyer hulls (Dragoon, Corax, Algos, and Talwar) make a lot more sense visually. Also, given the notion that these ships will be fast and heavy hitting against immobile targets using an attack ship as a base is a better starting point than using the T1 logi frigs.
As for the Heavy version I'd envision it as being something that's really meant for clearing the field of deployables in an instant and then having to weather the storm of the counter attack afterwards. Instead of the extremely mobile puncher that the light version is the Heavy version would be the bulldozer, slow but unstoppable with the ability to wipe its target off the map. As such using a much larger and slower hull, such as a BS would be a good starting place. Just take away some weapons, increase the tank, and give it access to the specialized 'anti structure' weapons.
For flavor adjust how they deploy their special weapons to fit their style. The light engineer ships would be able to apply their demolition charges from range, say 15-35k having range increase with skill, but with a long reload timer like a bomb launcher. The Heavy engineer ships would be able to fit 2 or 3 of the charge launchers so they can hit multiple targets quickly or a single target with devastating effect but not have the increased range of the lighter ships, so instead of trying to maintain a large combat field 1 target at a time the Heavy engineer stakes a claim to an area and can quickly destroy anything that's deployed in range.
I don't know if anyone would agree with this, but I think this may be a good time to consider an alternative to treating the demolition weapon as a missile or projectile too. I think it may be interesting to instead make it a specialized type of Smart Bomb. The Demolition Bomb could function similarly to the HAC's Warp Disruption Field Generator. In normal mode it could function like a normal smart bomb and deal damage to an area around the Engineer ship and allow it to be fit with a script that turns it into a single target device with a much longer range. |
Rendiff
Funk Soul Brothers Northern Associates.
79
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 00:48:00 -
[87] - Quote
I like it! |
masternerdguy
The Great Harmon Institute Of Technology Enemy Spotted.
1764
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 00:51:00 -
[88] - Quote
My only issue with this idea is that if it becomes too quick or convenient to deploy mobile structures they will be spammed out of control and a new "Erecting a Dispenser!" mentality will emerge. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Arla Sarain
33
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 00:52:00 -
[89] - Quote
I'd like to add that perhaps the possibility of using tractor beams to drag deployables in space (incurring suspect status if on unowned stuff) to pile them up in order to destroy several in one go with the repeatedly mentioned demolition charge (which is proposed to have a long cooldown and operate similarly to a bomb) as an available strategy. |
Phaade
Perimeter Defense Systems Templis CALSF
205
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 01:30:00 -
[90] - Quote
Great idea. Multiple objectives during a POS fight. No reason CCP shouldn't do this. Of course they won't though, they are not bold enough. |
|
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
262
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 19:04:00 -
[91] - Quote
I would be fun if you could move anchored objects with a tractor, but I think that would introduce a whole host of new balance issues. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
22541
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 11:18:00 -
[92] - Quote
thread bumpo desu Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
258
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 12:24:00 -
[93] - Quote
Interesting, but in my opinion a frigate would be far too small and agile for that kind of stuff. I would also split the deployment and destruction in two.
Dreads already can handle the destruction part. No point of making a frigate size dread for ninja nuking towers without needing to siege.
For deployment I would prefer it to be slower and bulkier. Say, a BC size hull, perhaps requiring Anchoring 5 as one of it's skill requirements. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... *THWONK!* GOT the bastard. |
Bohneik Itohn
Universal Freelance CONSORTIUM UNIVERSALIS
551
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 20:05:00 -
[94] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote:I would be fun if you could move anchored objects with a tractor, but I think that would introduce a whole host of new balance issues.
Anchored objects and deployables?
I would spend days doing nothing but scanning down mobile depots and dragging them off grid, after dropping a can with a male dancer in it.
I wouldn't even want to shoot them. I couldn't even be bothered to scan them to see what's inside to see if I should shoot them. I'd just change the name of the can to a bunch of penises and butts and drag the depot out of sight of the bookmark. Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!-á - Freyya
Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
168
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 20:27:00 -
[95] - Quote
I'm concerned about the alpha vs mining vessels which are almost always stationary (yes they could move, blah, blah, blah but in highsec their game play is as it should be and im concerned that no matter their defense set up this would 1 shot them). Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
264
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 03:46:00 -
[96] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:I'm concerned about the alpha vs mining vessels which are almost always stationary (yes they could move, blah, blah, blah but in highsec their game play is as it should be and im concerned that no matter their defense set up this would 1 shot them).
Yeah, this was discussed a page or so back. If the demo charge could only target certain entities (IE Deployables), there wouldn't be the issue of miner and dread blapping.
You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Arla Sarain
56
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 20:59:00 -
[97] - Quote
I haven't described how much I like this idea yet.
I like it very very much. |
DrysonBennington
Aliastra Gallente Federation
153
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 22:23:00 -
[98] - Quote
Good idea +1
More ships.
More better. |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
22609
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 11:30:00 -
[99] - Quote
this thread is definitely the droid you're looking for. Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks The Volition Cult
818
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 12:41:00 -
[100] - Quote
+1 although I do think it should be able to hit capital ships. Anti-cap frig fleet FTW! |
|
Netan MalDoran
xXTheWarhammerXx
50
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 18:46:00 -
[101] - Quote
I like it, but it shouldn't be allowed in high-sec, or else we'll have a new branch of CODE out there ganking high-sec POS's "Your security status has been lowered." - Hell yeah it was! |
Saleika Issikainen
Sassikainen
4
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 19:03:00 -
[102] - Quote
Perhaps a destroyer would be best for this role. There's too few T2 destroyer hulls anyway. |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
22868
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 08:12:00 -
[103] - Quote
desis do have a big cargo for their size Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
frasdasd Aakiwa
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 10:31:00 -
[104] - Quote
make them new t2 destoyers whith a decent agility but crapy tank (obout the way dictors are) make the demolition charge have a huge alpfha but have very slow rof and being able to shoot only structures and make range smaller then a smal pos shield (that way it would not be able to bash online pos)
and maybe give it some bonus to non cov ops cloack
|
Talman Drak
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 11:46:00 -
[105] - Quote
Posting to +1 the idea in general.
Additionally, I agree on having two different sizes, but I personally think the smaller should be a T2 Destroyer, and the larger a T2 Battlecruiser.
My reasoning is simple. For the Smaller of the role: - I view the smaller of these as a role that should be quick, but not among the fastest of ships. - The cargo hold size of a destroyer is more fitting for the intended use. - Currently 28 T2 Frigates vs 4 T2 Destroyers >_> ahem...
For the larger of the role, - if it is to be used to carry large structure components and online them faster it should be fairly large as well. - If it is to be used in taking down an active POS then it needs to be able to stand up to a little punishment. - There is only one role for T2 BCs and only a total of 8 T2 BCs - If the small type is going to be a standard ship type (i.e. not an industrial ship of any kind) then the larger needs to be the same, since it doesn't make sense to have one be an industrial and the other not since you wouldnt have a good progression chain within the ship role. |
Jacid
Anomalous Existence Low-Class
56
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 21:12:00 -
[106] - Quote
Some of these Ideas have already been suggest but as i see it the CVE supports 3 roles:
Structure/capital - Think 8k DPS to structures/capitals Defensive Structure deployement - Mines layer, Portable shield generator deploy-er, etc Support Structure- Yurts, Mobile MJD, etc
As such it should come standard with a large cargo, say 1200m3 hull bonus to anchoring speed hull bonus to structure damage
The ship should be small i'm thinking destroy/cruiser class with weak tank and a fair price tag thinking 70 - 120million.
The simplest solution to applying DPS to me seems to be a slow flying targetable torpedo with high sig radius and low explosive velocity. I know some might argue against this because of the change of a blob of CVE's taking on capitals they would be at a distinct advantage. However the design of the ship should be such that a fleet of CVEs would be unable to defend itself against anything but capitals without support. In other words if you intend to bash poses/ capitals bring a support fleet. In fact it might solve one of our problems of too many slowcat fleets out in null sec
Skill training for the ship I believe should be fairly intensive, I'm thinking Destroyer 5 anchoring 5 combat engineer skill a science skill or two. It essence it shouldn't be something someone can just jump in without intending to
Why we should get the CVE as suggested:
Offers an option to the counter to capitals is more capitals Adds a dynamic to PVP engagements Makes wormholes and high sec less stagnate and entrenched |
LT Alter
Ouroboros Research and Development
125
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 21:36:00 -
[107] - Quote
Great idea, why not have it be a T2 version of the tier 2 destroyers? |
Dally Lama
Republic University Minmatar Republic
118
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 21:55:00 -
[108] - Quote
I am unsure how the Demo charges would work. Strip out that whole idea entirely and just make it good at deploying them, and +1.
EDIT: For offensive capabilities, perhaps the ability to unanchor and scoop up other people's structures would be neat. With a timer and such of course to give them time to kill you first New Fitting Window | Distances above 10km | Maximums for buy orders |
bugsmagooma
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 01:12:00 -
[109] - Quote
Really Liking these ideas so far. But no one has mentioned the Mobile Micro Jump Drive yet. Dropping its activation time from 60sec to 10 or 12 would make aiming this aggressively a possibility. Also as an emergency jump out while the engineer drops mines and bubbles along the escape path. Could help this module to get some more use.
Liking the destroyer sizing a lot. They would also be very useful in setting up a known fight grid on your favour, placing jump units, cyno jammers, bubbles and mines. Also scan inhibitor to stop the Dscanning from ruining your plans (until a scout comes in and blows it all anyway).
I could see these working well with interdictiors during combat, dictors making close runs while the engineers make lines of retreat unattractive.
Looking forward to seeing where this discussion leads. Well done OP and posters for a decent and civil thread for once
|
Jessica Danikov
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
374
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 04:15:00 -
[110] - Quote
Whole bunch of actually viable and interesting ideas in F&I these days. How lovely. |
|
Pidgeon Saissore
DNS Requiem Brothers of Tangra
39
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 04:14:00 -
[111] - Quote
There's two different things under discussion here so I think I will officially separate them.
T2 "Wrecker" destroyer Similar to regular destroyers in mid and low slots and stats but has the demolition charge for high slots as discussed by the op. This will be similar to citadel torpedoes with the following differences:
missile velocity: 80 m/s flight time: 20 s explosion velocity: 2 m/s
This means maximum range of about 3.5 km after skill bonuses and only useful on immobile targets. It also takes a significant time to hit the target even at that close range. Total dps of the ship is approximately 2500. It should be considerably stronger than sub caps for killing structures but may not approach the strength of a dread.
This might even use citadel torpedoes with the appropriate bonuses to make these numbers for simplicity.
T2 "Constructor" battlecruiser This ship will have a number of unique properties:
Extremely short range on all effects. Module that quadruples the anchoring/unanchoring speed of the target. Module that assumes control of heavily damaged or offline structures. Offline high sec posses hit by this will have a one day timer after completion of the cycle before they switch. Near zero range but significantly more powerful remote repair. Special bay for deployables.
The next idea is not yet approved by the general consensus that seems to be reached by this thread and may be part of the constructor or a different ship.
Turret deployment: These turrets are not controlled and will simply act based on the owner's fleet settings. That means not purple shoot it or purple rep it. 1 minute anchoring after constructor module is considered. Active for 15 minutes. May be recharged by constructor module (takes 1 minute). 10km min distance to other turrets. Turrets only function if the owner is within 50km. Different types of turrets for damage, mining, ewar, and logi.
This means that a constructor continuously cycling their turrets can have 14 active at any given time. The exact stats of the turrets is up for debate but as of right now I think roughly: 100 dps damage or rep amount (note that repping is not controlled) range and tracking to be determined 25k hp no resists I have no idea what amount is appropriate for mining or ewar turrets
Those stats mean that when fully prepared it is considerably more powerful then most sub caps however it takes the full 15 minutes to prepare it and must be continuously cycling them. If attacked before then it is useless. |
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
762
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 14:17:00 -
[112] - Quote
Auduin Samson wrote: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 could still be used as an anti-capital weapon even with these restrictions. A dedicated "damage vs deployable structures" role bonus would be better suited to the task. Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
903
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 14:59:00 -
[113] - Quote
Pidgeon Saissore wrote:There's two different things under discussion here so I think I will officially separate them.
T2 "Wrecker" destroyer Similar to regular destroyers in mid and low slots and stats but has the demolition charge for high slots as discussed by the op. This will be similar to citadel torpedoes with the following differences:
missile velocity: 80 m/s flight time: 20 s explosion velocity: 2 m/s
This means maximum range of about 3.5 km after skill bonuses and only useful on immobile targets. It also takes a significant time to hit the target even at that close range. Total dps of the ship is approximately 2500. It should be considerably stronger than sub caps for killing structures but may not approach the strength of a dread.
This might even use citadel torpedoes with the appropriate bonuses to make these numbers for simplicity.
T2 "Constructor" battlecruiser This ship will have a number of unique properties:
Extremely short range on all effects. Module that quadruples the anchoring/unanchoring speed of the target. Module that assumes control of heavily damaged or offline structures. Offline high sec posses hit by this will have a one day timer after completion of the cycle before they switch. Near zero range but significantly more powerful remote repair. Special bay for deployables.
The next idea is not yet approved by the general consensus that seems to be reached by this thread and may be part of the constructor or a different ship.
Turret deployment: These turrets are not controlled and will simply act based on the owner's fleet settings. That means not purple shoot it or purple rep it. 1 minute anchoring after constructor module is considered. Active for 15 minutes. May be recharged by constructor module (takes 1 minute). 10km min distance to other turrets. Turrets only function if the owner is within 50km. Different types of turrets for damage, mining, ewar, and logi.
This means that a constructor continuously cycling their turrets can have 14 active at any given time. The exact stats of the turrets is up for debate but as of right now I think roughly: 100 dps damage or rep amount (note that repping is not controlled) range and tracking to be determined 25k hp no resists I have no idea what amount is appropriate for mining or ewar turrets
Those stats mean that when fully prepared it is considerably more powerful then most sub caps however it takes the full 15 minutes to prepare it and must be continuously cycling them. If attacked before then it is useless. For the turrets, you could make them sort of a super sentry drone or so sort of thing that would likely simplify the coding |
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
598
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 17:11:00 -
[114] - Quote
great idea, +1 |
Humang
Sefem Velox Swift Angels Alliance
75
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 17:27:00 -
[115] - Quote
Can't add anything but a +1 from me. AFK Cloaking Thread summary - Provided by Paikis
-á-á-á-á-á - Witty Comment Here - |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
270
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 04:57:00 -
[116] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:Auduin Samson wrote: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 could still be used as an anti-capital weapon even with these restrictions. A dedicated "damage vs deployable structures" role bonus would be better suited to the task.
Yeah, this was brought up a few pages back. As fun as it would be to have a tiny fleet alpha down a dread, having the demo charge only damage structures would definitely be the way to go.
Having one of these support a fleet by dropping jump relays in a hurry would also be pretty impressive. I imagine that there will be more deployables in the future as well, and I can't really see any way that a ship like this wouldn't be useful to a fleet when properly balanced. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5968
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 05:05:00 -
[117] - Quote
ZecsMarquis wrote:T3 frigate
No. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee & Grammar Gestapo. |
Christopher Mabata
Dominion Tenebrarum Reverberation Project
154
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 05:17:00 -
[118] - Quote
I do like the idea of a T2 logi frig with structure bonuses, not so much the demo charges since you could be doing massive damage to sieged caps too and that could get wonky.
In my opinion give them rep range and amount bonuses, cap regen, and structure anchoring time reductions per level and shine them up a bit and your good to go. Is it bad if your friend says "that was a Metaphor" and you say "Meta 4? Get Tech II or faction" ?I love the sound of silent explosions in Space.-á |
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
270
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 05:54:00 -
[119] - Quote
I've updated the OP with a few changes that seem to have been informally agreed upon. As I see/notice others I'll add them so that people don't have to read through six pages to be up to speed. You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again
-Bane Nucleus-á |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
23096
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 10:31:00 -
[120] - Quote
is this in the game yet? Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
4478
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 07:51:32 -
[181] - Quote
Ceawlin Cobon-Han wrote: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 on the other hand, shorter anchoring and onlining time.
I'm a Snaper - imgur.com/8EHPPWU
mad? ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Hengle Teron > v(t) = dp / dt
|
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
210
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 12:09:32 -
[182] - Quote
Glad to see this topic is still around. I hope these ships become a reality.
Ceawlin Cobon-Han wrote: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 With the same ships, everyone can set up deployables much faster too, so I don't see the problem.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
780
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 16:34:31 -
[183] - Quote
Ceawlin Cobon-Han wrote: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
Except the OP suggests demolition capabilities for the combat enginerring hulls too so bring your own to tear down deployables more rapidly. Simplest solution may be a damage bonus to lasers but with a ridiculous range nerf (yes you could park next to a titan and cause huge damage...good luck staying there long enough though!) |
Arla Sarain
124
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 17:01:11 -
[184] - Quote
I think the general concept of an engineering ship is what's interesting. And not in the metaphorical context like logistic ships (because repairing is close to healing and logistics is just a label), but in a parallel to combat engineers in militaries. The ability to set up and demolish defenses with ease to establish a favourable combat field for your allies.
15s deployment on mobile micro jump drive unit. |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
24606
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 18:36:47 -
[185] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Ceawlin Cobon-Han wrote: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 Except the OP suggests demolition capabilities for the combat enginerring hulls too so bring your own to tear down deployables more rapidly. Simplest solution may be a damage bonus to lasers but with a ridiculous range nerf (yes you could park next to a titan and cause huge damage...good luck staying there long enough though!) This discussion is meant for deployable-focused ships. suggesting that they be able to damage ships more than combat-focused ships that already exist is not going to contribute.
Stay on topic guys
Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
780
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 19:28:28 -
[186] - Quote
It says in the title *combat* engineering ships hence my thinking of hobarts funnies (folks should google it if they've never heard of them). The same hull was used for DD floating tanks, flamethrower tank, fortification demolitian tanks, bridgelayers, minesweepers etc...definitely combat capable but in very niche roles which is why i suggested t3 dessie for the role. In flight reconfigs brtween roles to excel in each niche but be pretty sub standard in any other role at that point.. |
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
218
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 20:17:27 -
[187] - Quote
I support the suggestion of a BC for the POS/large deployables ship (I've forgotten what it was called, but am now going to suggest STRATEGIC ENGINEER - as it's function mainly lies in strategy - that is to say - long term, far-reaching goals)
ah, found the post - it was heavy engineer... don't like that name, tbh..... it should not have an agility bonus or a warp strength bonus - these allow it too much escapability - I'd suggest a velocity bonus - as these will/should likely be travelling escorted mostly, but a velocity boost would help it spend less time on grid constructing/deconstructing POS's
I would suggest that the field engineer be either a T2 logi frig or the T2 desty that's not the intedictor hull (corax, dragoon, algos, talwar), I would suggest that its racial bonus be resistance and hold size (if its damage is anaemic - who's gonna fit it for damage except for lols)
Also - I will suggest it be renamed the TACTICAL ENGINEER - as its purpose is solely tactical (each battle seperately, no further)
oh - and on the version of demo charges - perhaps a powergrid drain - that can only be applied to structures, and only by one ship at a time, much the same as only 2 person can hack a data/relic can at a time?
For posting an idea into F&I:
come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it.....
If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
|
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
24655
|
Posted - 2014.11.23 06:42:25 -
[188] - Quote
Strategic Engineer, Tactical Engineer. I like that
Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
782
|
Posted - 2014.11.23 08:11:28 -
[189] - Quote
Tactical engineer would be better for a tech II ship as strategic implies tech III (which I still think would be best for a ship filling multiple niche roles) |
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
219
|
Posted - 2014.11.23 14:46:34 -
[190] - Quote
stratetgic cruiser is simply a cruiser that has war-ranging application, not just battle-ranging application, which is what T3's do; they can cloak to observe nullify to navigate null/J-space command links for off-battlefield support logi for reps and in-battlefield support E-war for in-battlefield support variety of different direct combat roles bonus to scanning to scout J-space or look for data/relics and grav/ladar
anyway - strategic =/= t3 -
haulers are strategic logistics R(A/H)R, cap/shield X-fer, anti-ewar are tactical logistics gang links are probably tactical, but I'm not sure.....
anyway - go look up strategy and tactics in a dictionary (OED, or Collins, or something, not urban) and then tell me you're wrong, with a reference (Harvard style for preference - it's what my uni uses)
For posting an idea into F&I:
come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it.....
If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
|
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
784
|
Posted - 2014.11.23 15:38:47 -
[191] - Quote
Irrespective of actual definitions (I'd use OED btw as I'm British ans speak English rather than American :D) Eve already defines tech III cruisers as strategic therefore implying anything labeled strategic is tech III (for now at least). I was simply suggesting a nomenclature less likely to cause confusion. |
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
219
|
Posted - 2014.11.23 19:34:34 -
[192] - Quote
fair enough on the reasoning, but I'll maintain my disagreement with it (politely)
on the basis that the label 'strategic' only applies to 1 hull/race - much like - ooooh - logistics, or interdictor, or heavy interdiction cruiser (yeah, I know the last two are tenuous),
basically I feel that EVE-players are (by and large, at least), capable of handling the confusing nomenclature
I mean - HIC, HAC, AF, 'dic', CHA, SMA, PHA, EANM, DC, RCU, PDS, MAPC, CPR (no I don't mean cardio-pulmonary rescus), DDA, DLA, TP, TD, TiDi, TLA, I'm sure there are more I've not thought of..... yup - SAAR, MAAR, LAAR, SRAR, MRAR, LRAR, SAR, MAR, LAR, etc.....
these are not a newbies ships - given that A - it's T2, B - you've got to know what you're doing when flying it
if that comes across as a rant, it's not supposed to be; I apologise - it's actually supposed to be a cool composed answer containing appropriate respect for a fellow Brit.
Shutting up now
For posting an idea into F&I:
come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it.....
If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
784
|
Posted - 2014.11.23 19:53:40 -
[193] - Quote
Reading through the list a bunch of them aren't TLA's and should hang their hulls in shame... |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
24754
|
Posted - 2014.11.24 08:18:18 -
[194] - Quote
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:incomprehensible post
Shutting up now what exactly are you trying to say? I don't even.
Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
25317
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 08:29:54 -
[195] - Quote
*hums* don't mind me,just bumping a thread... *hums on*
Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Arla Sarain
151
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 13:30:47 -
[196] - Quote
Neither strategic or tactical should imply any sort of Tech level. It's just a label...
I think the key aspects is to isolate it to frigates so that you couldn't deploy POS structures. I think the bonus should be towards the recent addition of mobile units of various types, and perhaps their demolishment, which would leak on POS damage as well. I wouldn't be afraid of this if they were inline with bombers.
The issue is, IMO, how do you make the role active/important enough so that it is not delegated to Alts as are cov op frigates. |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous Safety's Set To Red
27259
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 09:07:50 -
[197] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:Neither strategic or tactical should imply any sort of Tech level. It's just a label...
I think the key aspects is to isolate it to frigates so that you couldn't deploy POS structures. I think the bonus should be towards the recent addition of mobile units of various types, and perhaps their demolishment, which would leak on POS damage as well. I wouldn't be afraid of this if they were inline with bombers.
The issue is, IMO, how do you make the role active/important enough so that it is not delegated to Alts as are cov op frigates. I don't think combat engineers should be covops ships at all.
If we take examples from games that have this role, like Team Fortress, we see that the combat engineer does not have stealth abilities at all as its role is built around deploying automated, stationary objects around the battlefield.
light combat engineering ships in EVE should follow this concept and be centered around deployment and destruction of structureson the battlefield while the heavy version should be focused on larger structures such as tower based starbases.
Founder of the Graycember movement and LAGL's pet cat.
Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
304
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 04:58:46 -
[198] - Quote
I agree. Cloaky is fun, but it's way to easy to push balance into the stupid zone if we apply it all willy-nilly. |
Aran Hotchkiss
Phoibe Enterprises
19
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 05:29:48 -
[199] - Quote
Hmmm with regards to strategic engineers, I'd be interested in not allowing them to hold large towers, (maybe if they had the t2 spaceship skill at 5, but that's a maybe) - only small to medium, with the theme of you can deploy small/medium towers as a rapid insertion or response, but not larges - you'd still need a proper transport to do that.
As for which size hulls to use, currently I feel battle cruiser hulls for strategic engineers, whilst I'm open on either frigates or destroyers for tactical engineers. Whilst there is the destroyer//battle cruiser paring idea, I don't think it has to necessarily follow that line of thought. I mean look at interdiction vessels, ones a destroyer, the other is a cruiser. |
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
5423
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 10:52:38 -
[200] - Quote
I think this thread has slowed down enough for that to be a sign that it should be mentioned on the Assembly Hall board.
Take it away, Audi! and be sure to consider all the posts in this thread when you sum it all up.
I support destroyers and battlecruisers to be used for combat engineering.
mad? ( -í° -£-û -í°)
I'm a Snaper
Critically Preposterous is recruiting!
Hengle Teron > v(t) = dp / dt
|
|
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
305
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 12:43:31 -
[201] - Quote
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame wrote:I think this thread has slowed down enough for that to be a sign that it should be mentioned on the Assembly Hall board. Take it away, Audi! and be sure to consider all the posts in this thread when you sum it all up. I support destroyers and battlecruisers to be used for combat engineering.
Good thinking! I've summarized this discussion and posted it here. If you think Combat Engineers should be part of the game, be sure to make your opinion known!
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5290870 |
Arla Sarain
229
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 14:01:50 -
[202] - Quote
Liafcipe9000 wrote:Arla Sarain wrote: The issue is, IMO, how do you make the role active/important enough so that it is not delegated to Alts as are cov op frigates.
I don't think combat engineers should be covops ships at all. If we take examples from games that have this role, like Team Fortress, we see that the combat engineer does not have stealth abilities at all Missed the point, which wasn't about cloaking. |
Liafcipe9000
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
29901
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 17:58:12 -
[203] - Quote
how is this progressing?
Founder of the Graycember movement and LAGL's pet cat.
|
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
311
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 09:18:05 -
[204] - Quote
For the most part, discussion has moved here. Voice your opinions on this thread where CCP is more likely to see. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5361894 |
Varyah
I am Forever of the Stars
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 14:11:22 -
[205] - Quote
Didn't read every reply so someone has possibly already suggested it.
I would imagine this more as a T2 industrial ship, bridging the gap between industrial and combat ships because it is able to fit more offensive power and making industrial ship skill viable for pvp engagements. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |