| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 02:23:47 -
[1] - Quote
Inspired by ancient myths of those days when the Navies of governments sailed the high seas rather than the desolate stretches of space, an idea which was long lost is being evaluated for Space Faring usage by the various factions of Eve.
Increasingly irritated by the grievous losses and damages inflicted upon their supply chains by roving gangs of pirates and marauders, ship builders are beginning to construct what would have been known as Q-ships in the distant past. These vessels bear outward resemblance to various industrial ships, most commonly freighters. However, this is merely a clever facade constructed around the design of a purely combat oriented ship. Highly advanced IFF's mimic those of their industrial cousins to avoid tipping off eager pirates who rely solely on their overviews, and cargo holds can be configured to appear to be holding valuable goods. These vessels are at home as advanced parties who travel ahead of convoys in order to preemptively spring any traps which may be set around gates, or mixed in with the convoy itself as wolves in sheep's clothing.
Their bulkheads conceal armaments rivaling those of battlecruisers and even battleships, and what they lose in maneuverability, they make up for in their ability to withstand blistering incoming fire, with the false exteriors and cargo bays of the ship providing buffer zones to critical systems. This comes at the cost of being unable to easily flee an engagement which proves to be too much of a challenge for their abilities, and the crews on board know it. Their sole purpose and duty is to either defeat those who would harm them or their merchant brethren, or at least to fight to the bitter end and perhaps allow their convoy to escape.
It is predicted that these ships, if adopted, will quickly become a mainstay for any merchants or governments wishing to move high value cargo through dangerous reaches of the void. |

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
11024
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 02:26:58 -
[2] - Quote
This is such a new and never before seen Idea, I endorse it completely! And these ships totally wouldn't be OP and used in ways the creators didn't anticipate.
Happy Sarcasm day yall!  |

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2176
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 02:30:56 -
[3] - Quote
Or.... We could take a page from the days of the spanish main. And stop insisting industrials must be flimsy targets fit only for ganking and cowering in fear. Instead we decide what size vessel they are equivalent to and give them base EHP and fittings to match up to and including unbonused turrets/launchers in the same number as standard for vessels of that size, and then sit back and watch all the emergent game play surrounding them emerge. Caveat on this to make it practical is Cargo extenders would need to get stacking penalties added so that 50% of the cargo isn't in the 6th extender you fit. |

Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 02:31:59 -
[4] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:This is such a new and never before seen Idea, I endorse it completely! And these ships totally wouldn't be OP and used in ways the creators didn't anticipate. Happy Sarcasm day yall!  It's possible that they would be used in new and inventive ways, but it should be noted that these actually did exist as traps for submarines who preyed on the supply chains for armies. They did this by appearing as harmless vessels and luring the enemy into tipping their hand before raising the colors and revealing weapons. They were often also loaded with cargos that made them even more difficult to sink such as cork or balsa wood.
it would be interesting to see what people would do with space faring equivalents. |

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2176
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 02:41:48 -
[5] - Quote
Reaver Lupus wrote: It's possible that they would be used in new and inventive ways, but it should be noted that these actually did exist as traps for submarines who preyed on the supply chains for armies. They did this by appearing as harmless vessels and luring the enemy into tipping their hand before raising the colors and revealing weapons. They were often also loaded with cargos that made them even more difficult to sink such as cork or balsa wood.
it would be interesting to see what people would do with space faring equivalents.
Except EVE mechanics would make such a nightmare since each ship class needs unique hull ID's and the like. Fixing the base Industrial ships to not be such stupid hulls would be a better fit. People should consider taking them along in larger fleets for resupply for example, they should be able to fit prop mods, tank, and even some guns/launchers appropriate to their size. Personally I'd take them as BC sized vessels, but cruiser would also be fine, or make the tanky hull one size and the squishy hull the other (Tanky cruiser, squishy BC but with same base EHP as the cruiser for the extra space). Suddenly they no longer are stupid, you can choose to fit them decently rather than not even having the fitting room for a sensible prop mod, you can even fit them as a bait Q ship if you want then.
So it becomes all about the way you fit them rather than hard baked uselessness. And then we can all laugh at the pure cargo fits trying to take Niarja on as foolish, since there will actually be viable options. And convoys of pure haulers all being productive will be able to fight back, without needing to have escorts 'just in case' since they are their own escorts (Think WWII bomber convoys when the fighters didn't have the range to stay with them to escort). |

Tuttomenui II
Aliastra Gallente Federation
369
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 02:49:07 -
[6] - Quote
Wrong forum.
Just battle fit your hulk or venture like everyone else. |

Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 02:55:09 -
[7] - Quote
Tuttomenui II wrote:Wrong forum.
Just battle fit your hulk or venture like everyone else. I actually don't even fly industrial most of the time. And you have to admit that those fits arent nearly as effective as dedicated battleships or battlecruisers. The entire point of this is one that can hold its own in a fight and even come out on top if the odds aren't too stacked against it, while appearing to present a tempting target for gate camps. It's basically a way to hunt the hunters. |

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
5493
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 03:06:41 -
[8] - Quote
Thread has been moved to Features & Ideas Discussion.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|

Zura Namee
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
32
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 03:31:53 -
[9] - Quote
So what you're saying is that you want a bastion-mode Marauder with an industrial skin so you can die to slightly more ganking dessies once you realize you can't escape? |

Tiddle Jr
Galvanized Inc.
195
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 04:08:58 -
[10] - Quote
Reaver Lupus wrote:Inspired by ancient myths of those days when the Navies of governments sailed the high seas rather than the desolate stretches of space, an idea which was long lost is being evaluated for Space Faring usage by the various factions of Eve.
Increasingly irritated by the grievous losses and damages inflicted upon their supply chains by roving gangs of pirates and marauders, ship builders are beginning to design what would have been known as Q-ships in the distant past. These vessels bear outward resemblance to various industrial ships, most commonly freighters. However, this is merely a clever facade constructed around the design of a purely combat oriented ship. Highly advanced IFF's mimic those of their industrial cousins to avoid tipping off eager pirates who rely solely on their overviews, and cargo holds can be configured to appear to be holding valuable goods. These vessels are at home as advanced parties who travel ahead of convoys in order to preemptively spring any traps which may be set around gates, or mixed in with the convoy itself as wolves in sheep's clothing.
Their bulkheads conceal armaments rivaling those of battlecruisers and even battleships, and what they lose in maneuverability, they make up for in their ability to withstand blistering incoming fire, with the false exteriors and cargo bays of the ship providing buffer zones to critical systems. This comes at the cost of being unable to easily flee an engagement which proves to be too much of a challenge for their abilities, and the crews on board know it. Their sole purpose and duty is to either defeat those who would harm them or their merchant brethren, or at least to fight to the bitter end and perhaps allow their convoy to escape.
It is predicted that these ships, if adopted, will quickly become a mainstay for any merchants or governments wishing to move high value cargo through dangerous reaches of the void.
Nice wording and shite, looking for detailed stats of suggested shite...ship. |

Daerrol
Quantum Singularities Half Massed
160
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 05:33:33 -
[11] - Quote
TL:DR give DST 4 turret slots and 5% bonus to racial weapons |

GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
393
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 06:27:50 -
[12] - Quote
Daerrol wrote:TL:DR give DST 4 turret slots and 5% bonus to racial weapons
All I ever wanted is just one turret slot and enough PG to fit a 1400mm Howitzer II. 
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK. Gÿ+
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|

FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
964
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 07:34:09 -
[13] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Or.... We could take a page from the days of the spanish main. And stop insisting industrials must be flimsy targets fit only for ganking and cowering in fear. Instead we decide what size vessel they are equivalent to and give them base EHP and fittings to match up to and including unbonused turrets/launchers in the same number as standard for vessels of that size, and then sit back and watch all the emergent game play surrounding them emerge. Caveat on this to make it practical is Cargo extenders would need to get stacking penalties added so that 50% of the cargo isn't in the 6th extender you fit.
Industrial ships that were designed more along the lines of a Spanish Galleon or Dutch East Indiamen would be a lot more interesting than the loot pinata designs we currently have in Eve.
As I see it, the Galleon type ships would hold more but be less combat capable than a T1 cruiser. The East Indiamen types would hold less, but be as combat capable as a T1 cruiser.
With that said, it is still of limited utility, since the best tank/gank combination would always be a scout. Most of the time if I am actually hauling something, I don't want to get caught. I want to evade as much as possible. If I do get caught in an industrial, it's because I royally screwed up, or I am bait.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|

GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
393
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 07:36:02 -
[14] - Quote
The Gnosis has base 900 m3 cargobay. 
Just staying.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK. Gÿ+
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|

FireFrenzy
Satan's Unicorns
387
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 08:48:05 -
[15] - Quote
Q ships would be hillarious i'd be SO GAME for freighters with scary broadside weapons bays... |

Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
287
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 09:23:49 -
[16] - Quote
Could anyone explain his idea to me without all the lore talk? |

Tiddle Jr
Galvanized Inc.
197
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 09:47:59 -
[17] - Quote
Sounds like another combat Orca. |

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1153
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 09:48:31 -
[18] - Quote
Reaver Lupus wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:This is such a new and never before seen Idea, I endorse it completely! And these ships totally wouldn't be OP and used in ways the creators didn't anticipate. Happy Sarcasm day yall!  It's possible that they would be used in new and inventive ways, but it should be noted that these actually did exist as traps for submarines who preyed on the supply chains for armies. They did this by appearing as harmless vessels and luring the enemy into tipping their hand before raising the colors and revealing weapons. They were often also loaded with cargos that made them even more difficult to sink such as cork or balsa wood. it would be interesting to see what people would do with space faring equivalents.
Battle Nereus already exists and is comparably way more effective than Q ships ever were.
Q ships as you say were to kill subs which were relatively fragile and poor surface combat vssels. Some Q ships were also used as merchant raiders against unarmoured and poorly defended cargo ships. They were never really considered ships of the line. |

Nicolai Serkanner
Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. Brave Collective
369
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 10:15:09 -
[19] - Quote
Reaver Lupus wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:This is such a new and never before seen Idea, I endorse it completely! And these ships totally wouldn't be OP and used in ways the creators didn't anticipate. Happy Sarcasm day yall!  It's possible that they would be used in new and inventive ways, but it should be noted that these actually did exist as traps for submarines who preyed on the supply chains for armies. They did this by appearing as harmless vessels and luring the enemy into tipping their hand before raising the colors and revealing weapons. They were often also loaded with cargos that made them even more difficult to sink such as cork or balsa wood. it would be interesting to see what people would do with space faring equivalents.
You should also mention the use of Q ships wasn't very successful historically.
|

Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
637
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 11:17:23 -
[20] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:Could anyone explain his idea to me without all the lore talk?
they want a better battle badger.
A battle badger with apparently a BS level tank.
|

GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
395
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 11:23:06 -
[21] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:Celthric Kanerian wrote:Could anyone explain his idea to me without all the lore talk? they want a better battle badger. A battle badger with apparently a BS level tank.
PLS a++ püñ Gùò_Gùò a++püñ Battle Badger a++ püñ Gùò_Gùò a++püñ
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK. Gÿ+
Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
|

Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2497
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 12:01:48 -
[22] - Quote
Avoiding fights is More practical than winning a fight when it comes to survival in eve. Which is why they gave you a quick and tanky hauler for each race.
If you REALLY want a Q-ship, then put cargo expanders on your rokh.
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"
|

The Boogieman
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 12:06:40 -
[23] - Quote
My feelings are its not a good idea, but I have no explanation why. The mega-alliances wont like it so we shouldn't. It hurts my heard to think about it, so it should be to hard to figure out. This idea may be realistic and useful but its still not a good one and thread should be locked because of reasons. I have feelings I wont like it, stop posting.
This qualifies as an afk and would be abused by bots. |

Ansharah Opium
The Opium Sisters
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 12:25:07 -
[24] - Quote
Tasty idea is tasty.
 |

Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
353
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 13:42:03 -
[25] - Quote
I am not buying this "indies don't have tank" line. My t2 indies can tank 2000DPS for a time. Or alternatively have large EHP buffers.
Add more tank and it changes only one thing. How many more ships do I need to use to gank it. Shooting back won't help either. Its a gank. They gank (we have) battleships.....
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|

Farlas Ibana
University of Caille Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 14:30:05 -
[26] - Quote
If we are going to go down this route - and i actually think it would both be an interesting game mechanic / play style AND a likely development by empire ship building corporations - it should be expanded to Exhumers as well as industrials.
It would make gameplay at the major 'pipes' of Uedama/Sivala and Niarja/Kaaputenan much more interesting for both haulers and gankers.
Not to mention finaly giving an option to combat the so far unhindered gank squads of CODE and the New Order.
A skiff with turret points, An Itty V / deep space transport with extra turret slots.
It would need to be an improvement of existing designs, so the exhumer would still be seen to be mining, and scanning the cargo bay would still show the industrial to be carrying cargo worth losing a gank ship for.
Perhaps time to share the tears back to those that currently gank miners and industrialsts with relative impunity.
As has been mentioned above, this would be a natural development in the ongoing battle of defence vs attack that has been driving ship design since the first ocean going armadas and applies as much in new eden as it did on ocean going vessels during the two world wars and as early as the 16th Century.
CCP, we hear you want the game to expand driven by player input - and ganking is a game-style. Anti-ganking development could also become a natural response to this and create an excellent new addition to game-style. Give us the tools we need to fight the like of CODE and new-order, and force them to adopt new tactics to counter a threat to their style. Currently, Ithink they are getting rather fat and lazy on the easy meat of Industrial and miners tears - they would enjoy the challenge.

|

Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
638
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 15:15:11 -
[27] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:I am not buying this "indies don't have tank" line. My t2 indies can tank 2000DPS for a time. Or alternatively have large EHP buffers.
Add more tank and it changes only one thing. How many more ships do I need to use to gank it. Shooting back won't help either. Its a gank. They gank (we have) battleships.....
I am actually thinking some ulterior motives here tbh. I'd see gankers liking this ship more tbh. I see say 10 of the common suicide rides in undock/gate....I think that can't be good. 10 of these....its just a hauler, right? While not an offensive beast I have seen the work a good battle badger can do if a bad ganker meets a skilled pilot in battle badger. Give it some more ehp....guessing more guns with this...possibilities start to expand.
That and just not buying your average empire hauler just up and getting that bloodlust. Implies some pvp skill there. Which oddly enough if they had this...gettting ganked wouldn't be a problem as much. I fly empire with the same diligence I flew in 0.0. How did I kill that hauler in 0.0 becomes the basis for what I don't do when in a hauler to avoid making that mistake.
It won't be 0.0 using this in empire or out of it. In empire alt hauling is a means to an end. Get stuff to hub, sell it...back on main to have fun with the isk that makes. Don't need to burn a night baiting in a Q ship. NBSI gives ample stuff to shoot all night...no baiting for kill rights. Out of empire...camps that kill BS' not exactly rare. Why I have my crane fit that is fast as hell of gates...its how I moved crap in 0.0. Cleared camps in 0.0....does the same in empire.
5 on 1 wants a bs, its dead. Even t3 pilots know this. Why they buy bubble nullify subs lol. Sometimes the best way to not die...is to avoid the fight as best you can in the first place.
Low sec same thing....pirate/fw got better things to do than bait in q-ships.
WH's....same thing again. |

Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 02:57:58 -
[28] - Quote
These definitely would still be vulnerable to hard hitting gate camps, but their key advantage would be in the surprise of facing unexpectedly heavy resistance from what appeared to be an unarmed and undefended convoy. They would either be able to make ganking more costly in lost ships, require larger ambush parties, or could just serve as sacrificial lambs that stay behind to slug it out until hull failure while the rest of the convoy makes their escape with the valuable goods, as often happened in real life.
These definitely would be a realistic development for the various ship builders, as there currently does exist a significant need for additional trade protections with Eve basically living in the Golden Age of Piracy. Eventually these developments would be countered by more heavily armed pirates or different tactics, but the need is there regardless. |

Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
147
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 04:28:46 -
[29] - Quote
TL;DR Bait Ship? |

James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
690
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 04:43:01 -
[30] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:TL;DR Bait Ship? Bait ship. Which show in overview as something they aren't, and the ability to bait without risking the modules used for bait. Oh, and BS level DPS and tank.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|

Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
2
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 04:56:59 -
[31] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:TL;DR Bait Ship? Bait ship. Which show in overview as something they aren't, and the ability to bait without risking the modules used for bait. Oh, and BS level DPS and tank.
Having Battlecruiser DPS and battleship level or higher tank seems more realistic to how these were designed. Medium turret slots would allow them to fight back fairly effectively against anything below a battleship, while the tank might allow them to survive battles for long enough to receive reinforcements or escape. |

Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
323
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 04:57:09 -
[32] - Quote
I could see this ship class having the same skin as the current industrial ships but having 5 high slots, 4 medium slots, and 3 low slots, coupled with the CPU and Powergrid to accommodate a full arsenal of weaponry and defenses, but with reasonable cargo hold that isen't too extensive as to obsolete the original industrials purpose. Designed for providing its own escort for transporting cargo, this would be nice for low and null sec. It would even be useful for traps against everything from ganking to piracy. 
Interesting concept. But they will never sign off on it because of all the butthurt alts of every goon and ganker troll that this forum is overflowing with pushing their mediocre agenda with sub-intellectual banter meant to confuse, dismay, and anger.
Keep pushing. You might get lucky. |

James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
690
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 05:08:15 -
[33] - Quote
Deep Nine wrote:I could see this ship class having the same skin as the current industrial ships but having 5 high slots, 4 medium slots, and 3 low slots, coupled with the CPU and Powergrid to accommodate a full arsenal of weaponry and defenses, but with reasonable cargo hold that isen't too extensive as to obsolete the original industrials purpose. Designed for providing its own escort for transporting cargo, this would be nice for low and null sec. It would even be useful for traps against everything from ganking to piracy.  Interesting concept. But they will never sign off on it because of all the butthurt alts of every goon and ganker troll that this forum is overflowing with pushing their mediocre agenda with sub-intellectual banter meant to confuse, dismay, and anger. Keep pushing. You might get lucky.
Skin, sure. Same name on overview? Never. False cargo scan? Never. I'm not against Q-ships entirely, just against a hilariously exploitable version which beats most cruisers in combat capability while looking like a defenseless t1 hauler. A second line of DSTs with some teeth would be great fun, and amusing as all get out to watch people try to gank or catch in low/null.
Quote: Having Battlecruiser DPS and battleship level or higher tank seems more realistic to how these were designed. Medium turret slots would allow them to fight back fairly effectively against anything below a battleship, while the tank might allow them to survive battles for long enough to receive reinforcements or escape.
So, no to having both while carrying cargo. If you want BS level tank, you already can do so with a DST, some of which can briefly exceed supercapital EHP. The big issues are having significant DPS, and any sort of "IFF" or other auto-magic trickery which lets you bait perfectly without effort.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|

Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
2
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 05:16:39 -
[34] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:[quote=Deep Nine] So, no to having both while carrying cargo. If you want BS level tank, you already can do so with a DST, some of which can briefly exceed supercapital EHP. The big issues are having significant DPS, and any sort of "IFF" or other auto-magic trickery which lets you bait perfectly without effort. Its not exactly magic. There was a war game not too long ago where a british ship gained the upper hand against the American forces by pretending to be a Pakistani cruise liner and responding to hails in Urdu before opening fire with a surprise attack when they were in missile range. Do you really think that people wouldnt come up with ways to fool the enemy's friend or foe classification or ship identification systems just because this is in space? |

James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
690
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 05:24:17 -
[35] - Quote
Reaver Lupus wrote:James Baboli wrote:[quote=Deep Nine] So, no to having both while carrying cargo. If you want BS level tank, you already can do so with a DST, some of which can briefly exceed supercapital EHP. The big issues are having significant DPS, and any sort of "IFF" or other auto-magic trickery which lets you bait perfectly without effort. Its not exactly magic. There was a war game not too long ago where a british ship gained the upper hand against the American forces by pretending to be a Pakistani cruise liner and responding to hails in Urdu before opening fire with a surprise attack when they were in missile range. Do you really think that people wouldnt come up with ways to fool the enemy's friend or foe classification or ship identification systems just because this is in space? I think that any such ability is gamebreaking and thus should not be added to a GAME. Considering that there are also 4 different entire classes of sensors in use, it might be just a tad harder in eve than in real life. Very hard to hide something like the magnetic containment system for blasters from magnometric scanners, the lasing arrays for lasers from gravitics and the thinner plating from ladar and radar if they aren't absolute crap.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
8033
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 05:33:09 -
[36] - Quote
Reaver Lupus wrote:Tuttomenui II wrote:Wrong forum.
Just battle fit your hulk or venture like everyone else. I actually don't even fly industrial most of the time. Sooooo... why are we taking you seriously then?
Reaver Lupus wrote:And you have to admit that those fits arent nearly as effective as dedicated battleships or battlecruisers.
...
The entire point of this is one that can hold its own in a fight and even come out on top if the odds aren't too stacked against it
Q-Ships historically were NEVER as effective as dedicated combat ships. In fact... the only reason they scored the limited victories they did was due almost entirely due to surprise... NOT combat ability.
And unlike real life, in EVE it is most cost effective to just blow up a ship rather than trying to capture it. Because players are spiteful like that (both ways).
Ignoring all this though...
if industrial ships had the same combat ability as normal, dedicated combat ships... why would you fly anything but an industrial ship?
I personally would LOVE the extra cargo room for storing and using extra cap boosters and loot.
How did you Veterans start?
The Skillpoint System and You
|

Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
2
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 05:39:11 -
[37] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:
Ignoring all this though...
if industrial ships had the same combat ability as normal, dedicated combat ships... why would you fly anything but an industrial ship?
I personally would LOVE the extra cargo room for storing and using extra cap boosters and loot.
They wouldn't have the same combat ability. Difficulty with maneuvering would limit them to the role of responding to attack rather than initiating engagement, and cargo room would be sacrificed for combat ability and the ability to pretend to be a harmless freighter when its actually anything but. This ship might find other uses when inventive players started experimenting with it, but it would be designed for a niche role of inviting attack by gankers in order to turn the tables when they find that they may have bitten off more than they can chew. |

James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
690
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 06:37:31 -
[38] - Quote
Reaver Lupus wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:
Ignoring all this though...
if industrial ships had the same combat ability as normal, dedicated combat ships... why would you fly anything but an industrial ship?
I personally would LOVE the extra cargo room for storing and using extra cap boosters and loot.
They wouldn't have the same combat ability. Difficulty with maneuvering would limit them to the role of responding to attack rather than initiating engagement, and cargo room would be sacrificed for combat ability and the ability to pretend to be a harmless freighter when its actually anything but. This ship might find other uses when inventive players started experimenting with it, but it would be designed for a niche role of inviting attack by gankers in order to turn the tables when they find that they may have bitten off more than they can chew. So perfect bait ship, ability to fit a cyno and plenty of space for cap boosters to absolutely bait tank the heck out of it with hull and ASBs, plus guns to get on the KM with. This idea doesn't just invite abuse, it strolls up to abuse, fondles the genitalia and lick's abuse's ear before slipping abuse a business card.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|

Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
355
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 10:20:04 -
[39] - Quote
So basically a battle badger.
Shows up on dscan and overview as a badger. check Can fit some tank and have lots of cap charges. check. Can fit a gun and get on a killmail. Check!
So no need for a new ship class. Unless what you really want is a IWINSHIP which is what it sounds like.
This idea gets -1, no points awarded, may god have mercy on your soul.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|

Malcolm Malicious
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 10:58:45 -
[40] - Quote
What about a holographic emitter that takes up a high slot and disguises with a random corresponding industrial ship size or up. For example a hurricane disguised as a mammoth or an armageddon masked as a providence. The holo emitter would deactivate upon engaging A target. It Could have Similar fitting and draw backs to cloaking devices. |

James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
693
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 14:14:15 -
[41] - Quote
Malcolm Malicious wrote:What about a holographic emitter that takes up a high slot and disguises with a random corresponding industrial ship size or up. For example a hurricane disguised as a mammoth or an armageddon masked as a providence. The holo emitter would deactivate upon engaging A target. It Could have Similar fitting and draw backs to cloaking devices.
Also proposed and shot down often enough to usually be instantly rule 17'd, for similar reasons that this whole thread is getting shot down by the regulars in F&ID.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|

Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
323
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 14:22:19 -
[42] - Quote
Malcolm Malicious wrote:What about a holographic emitter that takes up a high slot and disguises with a random corresponding industrial ship size or up. For example a hurricane disguised as a mammoth or an armageddon masked as a providence. The holo emitter would deactivate upon engaging A target. It Could have Similar fitting and draw backs to cloaking devices.
This, but it feigns the name of the "Galleon" or "Indiaman" to display Mammoth or Wreathe so that attackers cannot tell the difference, mistaking it for a helpless hauler.
Quote:Skin, sure. Same name on overview? Never. False cargo scan? Never. I'm not against Q-ships entirely, just against a hilariously exploitable version which beats most cruisers in combat capability while looking like a defenseless t1 hauler. A second line of DSTs with some teeth would be great fun, and amusing as all get out to watch people try to gank or catch in low/null.
Yes, same name on overview, definitely, but done via the holographic imager suggested. False cargo scan, no, of course not. It isen' hilariously exploitable, but rather, covert and sensible. No one said it should be able to beat a cruiser, but that is what beta-testing is for. I agree, it would be great fun along with being extremely useful. |

James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
693
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 15:01:57 -
[43] - Quote
Deep Nine wrote: Yes, same name on overview, definitely, but done via the holographic imager suggested. False cargo scan, no, of course not. It isen' hilariously exploitable, but rather, covert and sensible. No one said it should be able to beat a cruiser, but that is what beta-testing is for. I agree, it would be great fun along with being extremely useful.
Okay, and now how do we balance the a module like this?
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|

Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
323
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 15:41:51 -
[44] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Deep Nine wrote: Yes, same name on overview, definitely, but done via the holographic imager suggested. False cargo scan, no, of course not. It isen' hilariously exploitable, but rather, covert and sensible. No one said it should be able to beat a cruiser, but that is what beta-testing is for. I agree, it would be great fun along with being extremely useful.
Okay, and now how do we balance the a module like this?
Balance it in what manner?
Do you mean making sure it is not used on other ships? The CPU and Powergrid? The slot it would be placed in? Or otherwise?
Please specify and I will attempt to clarify. |

Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
4
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 17:13:40 -
[45] - Quote
I'm really not seeing the huge potential for exploitation that you guys are either. False cargo scans might be pushing things too far, but really this entire concept would just revolve around giving gankers a surprise and a difficult fight more often, potentially stopping some suicide ganks outright or reducing trade losses in the majority of circumstances. The only people who should really be mad about this are those gankers who realize that they have it absurdly easy now and don't want the system to change. |

James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
694
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 17:30:15 -
[46] - Quote
Reaver Lupus wrote:I'm really not seeing the huge potential for exploitation that you guys are either. False cargo scans might be pushing things too far, but really this entire concept would just revolve around giving gankers a surprise and a difficult fight more often, potentially stopping some suicide ganks outright or reducing trade losses in the majority of circumstances. The only people who should really be mad about this are those gankers who realize that they have it absurdly easy now and don't want the system to change. Then trust us. What you have described is already a very powerful thing in the shape of a battlebadger and a battle badger is much toned down from what you are asking for.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|

The Boogieman
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 18:40:10 -
[47] - Quote
Quote:Then trust us. What you have described is already a very powerful thing in the shape of a battlebadger and a battle badger is much toned down from what you are asking for.
>>Trust, eve, pick one. >>Trust me, I don't have an agenda. >>Trust me, don't argue. >>Trust me, Your idea shouldn't be allowed. >>Trust me, I argue because I care. >>Trust me, I'm not a ganker this character proves it.
Stop being silly, just trust him, he's obviously helping you work this problem out. |

The Boogieman
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 18:44:53 -
[48] - Quote
Zura Namee wrote:So what you're saying is that you want a bastion-mode Marauder with an industrial skin so you can die to slightly more ganking dessies once you realize you can't escape?
>>Completely suggest something no one was talking about. >>Insinuate radical insane idea. >>Inject fear. >>Become incoherent to derail thread. >>Argue with me dumby, I'm ridiculous. |

The Boogieman
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
18
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 18:55:48 -
[49] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Reaver Lupus wrote:Tuttomenui II wrote:Wrong forum.
Just battle fit your hulk or venture like everyone else. I actually don't even fly industrial most of the time. Sooooo... why are we taking you seriously then? Reaver Lupus wrote:And you have to admit that those fits arent nearly as effective as dedicated battleships or battlecruisers. ...The entire point of this is one that can hold its own in a fight and even come out on top if the odds aren't too stacked against it
Q-Ships historically were NEVER as effective as dedicated combat ships. In fact... the only reason they scored the limited victories they did was due almost entirely due to surprise... NOT combat ability. And unlike real life, in EVE it is most cost effective to just blow up a ship rather than trying to capture it. Because players are spiteful like that (both ways). Ignoring all this though... if industrial ships had the same combat ability as normal, dedicated combat ships... why would you fly anything but an industrial ship? I personally would LOVE the extra cargo room for storing and using extra cap boosters and loot.
>>Lie. >>Feed misinformation. >>Contradict yourself. >>Lie again. >>Project Hypocrisy. >>Attempt to derail by changing the subject. >>Totally defeat the purpose of my post. >>Agree that its a good idea. >>Suggest nothing of value.
This guy gets it, you should listen to him. |

Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
14
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 21:17:27 -
[50] - Quote
The battle badger really isn't nearly capable enough to serve in this role. A nicely fitted destroyer could take one down. Anything larger just puts their pilots out a bit more isk when they go "pop". |

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1713
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 22:20:08 -
[51] - Quote
Hint: DST with Cyno field. Its more effective anyways. You're welcome.
Also, we already have procurer and nereus fleets. Do we really need more?
Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!
|

Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2453
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 23:28:58 -
[52] - Quote
As you've already heard from others by now, Q-ships are a common suggestion that is generally not met with much approval. Most supporters are pretty new to the game. There are a lot of flaws in the concept that become more apparent as you learn to understand the intricate social mechanics of combat in EVE Online. In short, it's too easy a cover and unfairly changes other players' overview to suit the needs of a specific group. It's an overpowered ship design.
I am in favor of combat industrials--they could sacrifice some carrying capacity in order to have combat capabilities not too far short of cruisers. I see two good reasons to fly a ship like that: 1.) when flying through dangerous space and you want to defend yourself 2.) have a few of these in a larger fleet to carry supplies such as ammo--they can engage in combat also
If these have cruiser tank but less than cruiser offense, it'll lessen the chances opposing fleet members will try to shoot these, which will assist in their ability to protect the cargo that is useful to sustained fleet operation.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|

Christopher Mabata
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
321
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 23:53:20 -
[53] - Quote
Why bother putting weapons on a freighter when you can just use a scout instead? Because people want easy mode, right
#USA #PODSQUAD #Waitthisisn'ttwitterthenewlookconfusedme
|

The Boogieman
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
30
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 02:11:27 -
[54] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:As you've already heard from others by now, Q-ships are a common suggestion that is generally not met with much approval. Most supporters are pretty new to the game. There are a lot of flaws in the concept that become more apparent as you learn to understand the intricate social mechanics of combat in EVE Online. In short, it's too easy a cover and unfairly changes other players' overview to suit the needs of a specific group. It's an overpowered ship design.
I am in favor of combat industrials--they could sacrifice some carrying capacity in order to have combat capabilities not too far short of cruisers. I see two good reasons to fly a ship like that: 1.) when flying through dangerous space and you want to defend yourself 2.) have a few of these in a larger fleet to carry supplies such as ammo--they can engage in combat also
If these have cruiser tank but less than cruiser offense, it'll lessen the chances opposing fleet members will try to shoot these, which will assist in their ability to protect the cargo that is useful to sustained fleet operation.
>>Insult the forum >>Say its flawed, don't explain why. >>Keep it vague. >>Use terms I don't understand. >>Intricate social mechanics of combat. >>EVES unfair, dries tears, ganks someone. >>Overpowered industrial transport. >>Totally in favor or combat industrials. >>Steal someone elses idea. >>Repeat someone elses uses. >>Fleet members wont shoot industrials.
How did you figure out how to undock? |

Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
14
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 06:04:04 -
[55] - Quote
Christopher Mabata wrote:Why bother putting weapons on a freighter when you can just use a scout instead? Because people want easy mode, right Because this isn't a freighter. It's a specialized combat ship that pretends to be a freighter. I'd say it's the gankers who want easy mode. |

Iain Cariaba
1367
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 12:25:07 -
[56] - Quote
Suggested ship is completely unnecessary, because the only change this ship will bring about is how many catas the gankers bring to kill you.
They will figure out how many it will take to kill it, and then that will be the new number to bring to a gank.
The end result is still the loss of your ship/cargo, and the gankers still end up getting concorded if in highsec.
Reaver Lupus wrote:Christopher Mabata wrote:Why bother putting weapons on a freighter when you can just use a scout instead? Because people want easy mode, right Because this isn't a freighter. It's a specialized combat ship that pretends to be a freighter. I'd say it's the gankers who want easy mode. Your ship will make the gankers bring a couple more catas to each gank, then it will die like every other gank target.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
|

Christopher Mabata
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
321
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 16:35:24 -
[57] - Quote
Reaver Lupus wrote:Christopher Mabata wrote:Why bother putting weapons on a freighter when you can just use a scout instead? Because people want easy mode, right Because this isn't a freighter. It's a specialized combat ship that pretends to be a freighter. I'd say it's the gankers who want easy mode.
Heres the fundamental flaw that your not seeing and that i forgot to mention the first time around, this ship..... It will have a unique name
boom no more element of suprise or "SUPRISE IM NOT REALLY A FREIGHTER" people will just see the name and go, oh look the combat one, lets kill it to make a point And i doubt CCP will make it have the same name, and even if they did, show info would be a fantastic tool, oh it has highslots on a obby? must be the combat one!
plus the other fundamental flaw is if your ganked in highsec in one of these weapons wont make a difference unless you can eliminate several catalysts in a span of seconds, not to mention lock times and server tick delays, since most gankers overkill the targets anyhow.
In low sec theyll probably bring a logi that will overcome its DPS or just self tank the thing, and in null your twice as doomed with the addition of bubbles, bombs, and more.
see what im getting at? And besides i beleive it was CCP Falcon who explicitly said to use the tools provided by CCP rather than making it their job to protect your assets with new ships and nerf/buffs
#USA #PODSQUAD #Waitthisisn'ttwitterthenewlookconfusedme
|

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2397
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 17:04:39 -
[58] - Quote
I do think that combat industrial ships should be more of a thing. They got more viable in the industrial tiericide, but they aren't quite there yet.
Absolutely does not require new ships though, just tweaks to existing ones. |

James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
697
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 18:25:14 -
[59] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I do think that combat industrial ships should be more of a thing. They got more viable in the industrial tiericide, but they aren't quite there yet.
Absolutely does not require new ships though, just tweaks to existing ones. Though a second set of DST's or other transport ships designed as something more akin to fleet colliers ( hardpoints and so on for 3-4 small or med guns, medium tank compared to a cruiser and 2/3 the capacity of the t1 haulers for a starting point) which can pick off mediocre quality tackle but are obviously designed for hostile space and can be used more easily as on grid ammo ships, etc. would be really cool.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|

Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2456
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 23:16:24 -
[60] - Quote
The Boogieman wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:As you've already heard from others by now, Q-ships are a common suggestion that is generally not met with much approval. Most supporters are pretty new to the game. There are a lot of flaws in the concept that become more apparent as you learn to understand the intricate social mechanics of combat in EVE Online. In short, it's too easy a cover and unfairly changes other players' overview to suit the needs of a specific group. It's an overpowered ship design.
I am in favor of combat industrials--they could sacrifice some carrying capacity in order to have combat capabilities not too far short of cruisers. I see two good reasons to fly a ship like that: 1.) when flying through dangerous space and you want to defend yourself 2.) have a few of these in a larger fleet to carry supplies such as ammo--they can engage in combat also
If these have cruiser tank but less than cruiser offense, it'll lessen the chances opposing fleet members will try to shoot these, which will assist in their ability to protect the cargo that is useful to sustained fleet operation. >>Insult the forum >>Say its flawed, don't explain why. >>Keep it vague. >>Use terms I don't understand. >>Intricate social mechanics of combat. >>EVES unfair, dries tears, ganks someone. >>Overpowered industrial transport. >>Totally in favor or combat industrials. >>Steal someone elses idea. >>Repeat someone elses uses. >>Fleet members wont shoot industrials. How did you figure out how to undock? >>I didn't insult the forum, I stated an observation of mine. Please don't suggest that being new is a bad thing. >>I did explain why, in summary. It offers too strong a cover. Need me to elaborate? Then ask. >>I kept it short. >>I'm sorry you didn't understand the terms, really I am. Tell me what went over your head and I'll try to explain it in a less technical fashion. >>Couldn't think of a better way to explain it in as few words. >>I feel like I suggested EVE is actually fair, by saying the Q-ships idea is relatively unfair in comparison. >>?? >>I am in favor of combat industrials, should they be introduced in a way that doesn't imbalance other parts of the game. >>I didn't steal anyone else's idea. Lots of people have presented ideas for combat industrials, and I am one of the top providers here. >>Industrials providing the combat supply role is my original idea going back years, well before industrial tiericide and possibly all the way to the old forums. >>I don't understand the relevance of that last comment.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|

beakerax
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
99
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 23:40:54 -
[61] - Quote
After [the First World War], it was concluded that Q-ships were greatly overrated, diverting skilled seamen from other duties without sinking enough U-boats to justify the strategy.
GÇô
Nine Q-ships were commissioned by the Royal Navy in September and October 1939 for work in the North AtlanticGǪ Prunella and Edgehill were torpedoed and sunk on 21 and 29 June 1940 without even sighting a U-Boat. The rest of the vessels were paid off in March 1941 without successfully accomplishing any mission. |

Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
276
|
Posted - 2015.05.21 19:31:36 -
[62] - Quote
reported for redundancy
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.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |