EVE Search - BlackOps modes (jump, combat, covert)

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

BlackOps modes (jump, combat, covert)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ligraph Metallurgy Incorporated 6	Posted - 2016.03.30 00:33:57 - [1] - Quote Black Ops get three modes: jumping, combat, and covert. Jumping: Can't move. Reduced fatigue from jumping. Increased range. I want to say that non-covert ships should be able to use the bridge in this mode, but I think that would be way to OP. Combat: Bonuses to weapons, tank, and maybe speed. Just like it sounds. Covert: Can't move. Or Cloak. Penalty to sensor strength and tank. AOE Cloak in a rather small area, although large enough for a medium fleet. Balancing factor here is that the BlackOps is easily scanable, and can't cloak itself. An alternative would be to give a large bonus to sensor strength. But it should be reasonably hard to probe down, to the point of requiring a covops ship or similar. There would be a timer between switching modes, maybe 10-15m. Another way this could be implemented is as siege-like modules. Or as a t3 BC or BS. But I think it fits BSs well enough. Bigest possible problem is the AOE cloaking. But I think as long as the BlackOps ship can't cloak itself, it would be OK. We'll see what people think... Fuzzy cloaking Wormhole Stabilizer citadels Cloaky Fleet Transport
Zimmer Jones Lightspeed Enterprises Fidelas Constans 458	Posted - 2016.03.30 00:46:11 - [2] - Quote Thanks for giving ccp the idea. Thanks alot. Ccp has a history of hitting things with a nerf bat so hard it rebounds, hitting players in both directions of travel. They most do not improve ships, they give the ships options that were worse than the original state of affairs. I'm sure others will point this out with examples, I'm just trying to be the first one to say unsupported without just saying" no -3" Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
Anhenka Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1601	Posted - 2016.03.30 03:05:47 - [3] - Quote People would use the travel mode to get where they wanted, then use combat mode to drop on a target, or jump on a target with travel mode then immediately switch to combat mode for the combat bonuses. So all you are really asking for is a straight up buff. The AOE cloak proposal is useless. Everything that jumps with a Blops has a cloak on it already, so they have no need for a Blops to cloak them. Why do you believe the Blops deserves both massively reduced travel times and a large increase in combat capabilities over current? Don't just tell us your proposal, tell us WHY it's needed, and WHY it is a good idea.
Ligraph Metallurgy Incorporated 6	Posted - 2016.03.30 04:00:09 - [4] - Quote Anhenka wrote: People would use the travel mode to get where they wanted, then use combat mode to drop on a target, or jump on a target with travel mode then immediately switch to combat mode for the combat bonuses. That's why I had the timers in there. Anhenka wrote: So all you are really asking for is a straight up buff. The AOE cloak proposal is useless. Everything that jumps with a Blops has a cloak on it already, so they have no need for a Blops to cloak them. Why do you believe the Blops deserves both massively reduced travel times and a large increase in combat capabilities over current? Don't just tell us your proposal, tell us WHY it's needed, and WHY it is a good idea. Combat: Unless I'm mistaken (which I very well could be), black ops aren't that good at combat. If they don't need a combat buff, just tkae combat out. Travel: This would replace the buff to jumping that is coming with Citadel. Or add on. But the purpose kind of lies in something else I'm going to write up soon. It also allows for a larger fleet support role. What if black ops could open jump bridges to normal cynos like Titans, but only in jump mode, and even then it had a limited capacity? Stealth: Because you can use it to hide stationary fleets even if they don't jump in. It will also be used in the other thing. And it expands Black Ops role for covert fleet support a bit. Very useful in conjunction with wormholes... Fuzzy cloaking Wormhole Stabilizer citadels Cloaky Fleet Transport
Anhenka Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1601	Posted - 2016.03.30 04:17:29 - [5] - Quote Ligraph wrote: ~stuff~ Please stop trying to take blops and turn them into something totally different, especially if you have no idea how good they are or how they work as it is. Blops jump in, murder the target, and get out. Or they bridge other covert ops ships in. They already have a perfectly good role in EVE. If you want to try and propose a fleet support ship, propose it, but don't try and gut an existing very useful ship class to make it happen. Also force projection was nerfed for a reason. There will be no travel modes that allow ships to travel across the map with little fatigue in a hurry. Period. End of statement. Know what you are trying to change before you propose changing it.
Ligraph Metallurgy Incorporated 6	Posted - 2016.03.30 04:52:49 - [6] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Ligraph wrote: ~stuff~ Please stop trying to take blops and turn them into something totally different, especially if you have no idea how good they are or how they work as it is. Blops jump in, murder the target, and get out. Or they bridge other covert ops ships in. They already have a perfectly good role in EVE. If you want to try and propose a fleet support ship, propose it, but don't try and gut an existing very useful ship class to make it happen. Also force projection was nerfed for a reason. There will be no travel modes that allow ships to travel across the map with little fatigue in a hurry. Period. End of statement. Know what you are trying to change before you propose changing it. That's the reason I proposed modes. Combat would kind of be what exists now. I wouldn't to take away the roles that a;ready exist. Fuzzy cloaking Wormhole Stabilizer citadels Cloaky Fleet Transport
Ligraph Metallurgy Incorporated 6	Posted - 2016.03.30 05:20:48 - [7] - Quote After thinking a bit more, I think the only mode that is really needed is the Stealth one. I would still like to see a module which locks the BlackOps in place and cloaks nearby ships though. Fuzzy cloaking Wormhole Stabilizer citadels Cloaky Fleet Transport
Rivr Luzade Kenshin. DARKNESS. 2387	Posted - 2016.03.30 06:10:29 - [8] - Quote Ligraph wrote: That's the reason I proposed modes. Combat would kind of be what exists now. I wouldn't to take away the roles that a;ready exist. Your stealth "idea" does, however. A BLOPS that cannot cloak and is easily scanable is a completely useless ship for its intended role. BLOPS do not need to hide a fleet because the fleet hides itself because they are all covert ops ships. BLOPS also operate mostly on their own so being able to hide a fleet (which hides itself as per above) but not itself is a completely useless feature. A BLOPS does not need to be able to bridge other ships than covert ops ships. A BLOPS needs to be able to cloak in order to stay in a hostile area without being detected in order to be able to do what it can do best. BLOPS already can open bridges to normal cynos and their bridge capability is already limited due to their small fuel bay. This makes your travel idea just as worthless. All in all, your ideas are not improving BLOPS, they make it worse all around. I have to agree with Anhenka: Thank you very much for providing CCP with this kind of rubbish that they will surely find very interesting to implement and hear what the players think about. Thank you very much indeed. UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1748	Posted - 2016.03.30 06:13:03 - [9] - Quote Currently black ops battleships are one of of not the most balanced ships not only within their own class but against other ships They do what they are meant to do without being overpowers and each one has a particular role they do better than the other three giving each one a reason to be used I never understood why so many people want to change them and usually into something drastically differant Citadel worm hole tax
Iain Cariaba 2865	Posted - 2016.03.30 07:11:30 - [10] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: I never understood why so many people want to change them and usually into something drastically differant Because they're the most balanced ships in the game. Most people who post ideas here don't want balance, they want their chosen playstyle to be buffed into overpoweredness while everyone else suffers a nerf to their play style. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3123	Posted - 2016.03.30 07:40:10 - [11] - Quote We could just stop being terrified of Battleships with Covert Cloaks when Covert T3's are normally better anyway, and give them a Covert Cloak. The rest of their use is pretty good other than the normal malaise that BS in general suffer from currently (And no, the current use doesn't make them 'better'. It just means that because they are a niche tool they actually see some use for hotdrops, but they still have the normal BS issues)
Atomeon The Scope Gallente Federation 68	Posted - 2016.03.30 08:48:35 - [12] - Quote Zimmer Jones wrote: Thanks for giving ccp the idea. Thanks alot. Ccp has a history of hitting things with a nerf bat so hard it rebounds, hitting players in both directions of travel. They most do not improve ships, they give the ships options that were worse than the original state of affairs. I'm sure others will point this out with examples, I'm just trying to be the first one to say unsupported without just saying" no -3" Some ideas are dangerous even for posting them at forums
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 959	Posted - 2016.03.30 11:09:32 - [13] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: We could just stop being terrified of Battleships with Covert Cloaks when Covert T3's are normally better anyway, and give them a Covert Cloak. The rest of their use is pretty good other than the normal malaise that BS in general suffer from currently (And no, the current use doesn't make them 'better'. It just means that because they are a niche tool they actually see some use for hotdrops, but they still have the normal BS issues) Did you ever see Covert t3 dps? It's horrendously bad. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Iain Cariaba 2866	Posted - 2016.03.30 12:22:05 - [14] - Quote Arya Regnar wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: We could just stop being terrified of Battleships with Covert Cloaks when Covert T3's are normally better anyway, and give them a Covert Cloak. The rest of their use is pretty good other than the normal malaise that BS in general suffer from currently (And no, the current use doesn't make them 'better'. It just means that because they are a niche tool they actually see some use for hotdrops, but they still have the normal BS issues) Did you ever see Covert t3 dps? It's horrendously bad. I can get ~450 dps out of a tengu, ~400 out of a loki, and ~550 out of a proteus. Those aren't bad numbers for being cruisers. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Lugh Crow-Slave 1749	Posted - 2016.03.30 13:23:51 - [15] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: Arya Regnar wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: We could just stop being terrified of Battleships with Covert Cloaks when Covert T3's are normally better anyway, and give them a Covert Cloak. The rest of their use is pretty good other than the normal malaise that BS in general suffer from currently (And no, the current use doesn't make them 'better'. It just means that because they are a niche tool they actually see some use for hotdrops, but they still have the normal BS issues) Did you ever see Covert t3 dps? It's horrendously bad. I can get ~450 dps out of a tengu, ~400 out of a loki, and ~550 out of a proteus. Those aren't bad numbers for being cruisers. When I look at the public fittings for t3s, I notice everyone thinks they need to fit interdiction nullifiers to cloaky t3s. If you're using them in conjunction with a blops, then you really don't need to be nullified, which makes it a whole lot easier to get good dps out of them. but overall using a T3 as a balance guide isn't the best idea Citadel worm hole tax
Iain Cariaba 2868	Posted - 2016.03.30 13:44:47 - [16] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Iain Cariaba wrote: Arya Regnar wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: We could just stop being terrified of Battleships with Covert Cloaks when Covert T3's are normally better anyway, and give them a Covert Cloak. The rest of their use is pretty good other than the normal malaise that BS in general suffer from currently (And no, the current use doesn't make them 'better'. It just means that because they are a niche tool they actually see some use for hotdrops, but they still have the normal BS issues) Did you ever see Covert t3 dps? It's horrendously bad. I can get ~450 dps out of a tengu, ~400 out of a loki, and ~550 out of a proteus. Those aren't bad numbers for being cruisers. When I look at the public fittings for t3s, I notice everyone thinks they need to fit interdiction nullifiers to cloaky t3s. If you're using them in conjunction with a blops, then you really don't need to be nullified, which makes it a whole lot easier to get good dps out of them. but overall using a T3 as a balance guide isn't the best idea In this instance, when you look at the other options for bridging with a blops, it doesn't fall out of line. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Ligraph Metallurgy Incorporated 7	Posted - 2016.03.30 20:13:15 - [17] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Ligraph wrote: That's the reason I proposed modes. Combat would kind of be what exists now. I wouldn't to take away the roles that a;ready exist. Your stealth "idea" does, however. A BLOPS that cannot cloak and is easily scanable is a completely useless ship for its intended role. BLOPS do not need to hide a fleet because the fleet hides itself because they are all covert ops ships. BLOPS also operate mostly on their own so being able to hide a fleet (which hides itself as per above) but not itself is a completely useless feature. A BLOPS does not need to be able to bridge other ships than covert ops ships. A BLOPS needs to be able to cloak in order to stay in a hostile area without being detected in order to be able to do what it can do best. A BLOPS can cloak if it wants to. OR it can cloak a fleet. If this was implemented, I think black ops would be used in more areas than what you described. Talking about how it is used now is kind of pointless. The reason a BLOPS is mostly only used with covert ships is because there is no reason to use it with others (that I know of). This fleet cloaking creates a reason. The reason an easily scannable but fleet cloaking BLOPS is not useless is intel. I would prefer it if the BLOPS could somehow cloak as well but that would be OP. Maybe it could have a high enough sensor strength that it wouldn't be scanable to 100%, but would show up (might be OP). Or at least a high enough sensor strength that you need a very good scanner. Rivr Luzade wrote: BLOPS already can open bridges to normal cynos and their bridge capability is already limited due to their small fuel bay. This makes your travel idea just as worthless. Pretty much agreed. Except having a much reduced fuel cost could be nice. Rivr Luzade wrote: All in all, your ideas are not improving BLOPS, they make it worse all around. I have to agree with Anhenka: Thank you very much for providing CCP with this kind of rubbish that they will surely find very interesting to implement and hear what the players think about. Thank you very much indeed. [/quote] There is nothing here that is mandatory. Please explain how adding options is a nerf? Fuzzy cloaking Wormhole Stabilizer citadels Cloaky Fleet Transport
Iain Cariaba 2870	Posted - 2016.03.30 20:25:26 - [18] - Quote Ligraph wrote: The reason a BLOPS is mostly only used with covert ships is because there is no reason to use it with others (that I know of). Blops aren't mostly used with covert ships. They are only used with covert ships, because the only ships they can bridge are those able to fit covert ops cloaks. Why should it be able to cloak the fleet it's with when that fleet should all have cloaks fit anyway? EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Ligraph Metallurgy Incorporated 7	Posted - 2016.03.30 20:29:29 - [19] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: Ligraph wrote: The reason a BLOPS is mostly only used with covert ships is because there is no reason to use it with others (that I know of). Blops aren't mostly used with covert ships. They are only used with covert ships, because the only ships they can bridge are those able to fit covert ops cloaks. Why should it be able to cloak the fleet it's with when that fleet should all have cloaks fit anyway? Because if they can cloak a fleet I think they will have more uses than bridging covert ships. Fuzzy cloaking Wormhole Stabilizer citadels Cloaky Fleet Transport
Zimmer Jones Lightspeed Enterprises Fidelas Constans 459	Posted - 2016.03.31 04:14:56 - [20] - Quote How i see CCP using your idea: Any mode but combat: no racial bonuses, status quo for damage output. Jumping: possibly reduced jump fatigue but only to units using bridge. Cooldown timer, not combat bonuses, no cloak speed bonus, status quo or lowered jumping range. minus abilities of other two modes eg. no damage bonuses Covert: status quo, minus any abilities of the other two mods without a switching timer of sorts. Combat: riteration: you just get the bonuses, and no other abilities. no speed, no briging, and all mode changes must take place uncloaked. CCP takes things away because of "reasons," and because they work for people willing to use them. The BLOPS ships are t2, leave them alone and do not draw attention to the fact they do their job of moving stuff while being decent combat machines. As for fuel usage, among the bridge capable ships there is a very handy blockade runner that can refuel and re-arm the ships. only thing I could see for QOL/gaeplay is a stealth mobile depot. First think of the idea. Then think very hard about ways players can abuse it. Then think of how many ways CCP can run with it and ruin it in the name of "emergent gameplay." Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,03s, ref 20250921/0511
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.