|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |

Nestara Aldent
EVE University Ivy League
29
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 18:02:00 -
[1] - Quote
Ideas above I don't like. Nobody would hull tank anyway so module would be for lulz only and too from fiction POV Empire navies wouldn't develop useless things. And the game isn't WWII as well, leave it alone!
There are broken modules in the game, T2 800/1600mm plates worse than meta 4 plates for example, useless 50mm/100mm and 200mm plates and Micro and Small shield extenders etc. They need to be fixed somehow.
What would be nice are faction and officer and deadspace Covops cloaks maybe, which would need less CPU and maybe have less targeting delay after deactivation.
Faction deadspace and officer moded rigs!
For T3 there was talk about pirate sybsystems which would require two subsystem specializations and offer appropriate bonus (for example Guristas Tengu subsystem would offer significant drone capability).
I'll add more and edit the post later. |

Nestara Aldent
EVE University Ivy League
29
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 18:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
Iris Bravemount wrote: A highslot module which adds bandwidh.
A lowslot module which converts cargo space into drone bay space (not 1 to 1 of course, as drone bays come with maintenance infrastructure)
Reduce the fitting requirements of Drone Control Units to the likes of weapons. But keep the skill requirements as they are.
That got to be dumbest idea ever... it will make Myrmidon as good as Ishtar, for only fraction of the price. Like BCs aren't as good as HACs anyway for fraction of the price (except Ishtar, but Cerberus, who uses it instead of Drake)? It will make only HAC that's somehow not useless, Ishtar, completely useless. |

Nestara Aldent
EVE University Ivy League
29
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 18:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
Iris Bravemount wrote:Nestara Aldent wrote:Iris Bravemount wrote: A highslot module which adds bandwidh.
A lowslot module which converts cargo space into drone bay space (not 1 to 1 of course, as drone bays come with maintenance infrastructure)
Reduce the fitting requirements of Drone Control Units to the likes of weapons. But keep the skill requirements as they are.
That got to be dumbest idea ever... it will make Myrmidon as good as Ishtar, for only fraction of the price. Like BCs aren't as good as HACs anyway for fraction of the price (except Ishtar, but Cerberus, who uses it instead of Drake)? It will make only HAC that's somehow not useless, Ishtar, completely useless. I was thinking about the Myrmidon indeed. But the Ishtar could also benefit from such modules, just like any other ship willing to sacrifice slots for improving their drone capabilities. An Ishkur with a full flight of Medium drones at the cost of no guns for instance. So please, think a bit before dismissing this. Maybe fusing the Drone Control Unit and the extra bandwidth modules would make sense if you get small, medium, large and capital versions with appropriate fitting requirements and/or bandwidth enhancement.
How can ishtar benefit from it, when it cant control more than five heavy drones needing 125 Mb bandwidth? How it will benefit from added bandwidth, unless you want to remove the cap of five drones that can be controlled simultaneously and bring again lag that drone boats caused in the past just because of that? |

Nestara Aldent
EVE University Ivy League
37
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 16:03:00 -
[4] - Quote
DoTs and HoTs are a bad idea, because they can't be explained from fiction point of view. BTW even if you can explain these effects in a particular setting, they're just a gimmick. |

Nestara Aldent
EVE University Ivy League
39
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 22:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
Drone boats aren't really viable for sniping, consider either:
1. Better deadspace/officer omnidirectional tracking links, though that's PVE-only solution. 2. New sentry type with higher optimal and maybe adjusted DPS to offset for it 3. Allow omnidirectional tracking links to be scriptable for tracking or optimal or 4. Increasing optimal on Wardens II and Bouncers II.
So that optimal of more than 150km can be achieved. |

Nestara Aldent
EVE University Ivy League
39
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 11:50:00 -
[6] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Regarding stuff for decloaking cloaky stuff, may I suggest it is a module type and skill tied to destroyers, and perhaps a new T2 Destroyer variant. This is the historical comparison of what destroyers did in a naval fleet role, with anti-air secondary.
I am against anything that is basically a click this to win button. It should be cat and mouse, just like the submarine warfare, cloaky ships already resemble.
But there is a big difference, a stealth bomber, can't kill a real ship solo, either with bombs or torpedos, where as historically, a single submarine could sink multiple ships, where as it takes several stealth bombers to take down a battleship.
If there is a anti-cloaky mechanic, I would like to see it tied to the tactical overlay, and act as a sort of 'ping' mechanic which only works on grid, with only a rough idea where a cloaky ship is located increasing as the destroyer closes in, but pings can only be done every couple of minutes or so. In addition, the de-cloaking mechanic should remain (have to get in range), small smart bombs should get a range bonus on new/existing destroyers, which makes them more useful and gives them a sort of depth charge ability to hurt cloaky ships while not revealing them.
I think it would be fun for all involved.
Eve isn't the game about WWII so leave it out of it! Really it makes no sense to make ships in a science fiction game based on what naval ships historically did. |

Nestara Aldent
EVE University Ivy League
39
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 18:25:00 -
[7] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Nestara Aldent wrote:
Eve isn't the game about WWII so leave it out of it! Really it makes no sense to make ships in a science fiction game based on what naval ships historically did.
Hmmm think you're being a little mean spirited here and taking it off topic, but to confirm, the ship classes are almost identical to the roles used in naval warfare, and even in game factions are called things like the Amarr Navy. So, it is not to much of a stretch to suggest that destroyers, who hunt 'stealthy hidden' submarines in naval warfare, hunt 'stealthy hidden' stealth bombers in the science fiction world of EvE. I can't see what is wrong with that suggestion.
Well its just in the English language to call space military the same as seafaring navy, I suppose. In other languages, such as mine, such correlation dont exist, and I would never call any space military navy in my language. To assign from that roles to ships in a sci-fi game just because the ships are named the same as historical seafaring ships but dont have any similarities, will naturally irk me much more than native English speaker, because even the naming of spaceships like frigates and cruisers is odd for me.
But anyway idea that destroyers should be made to uncover cloaked ships is completely different from naming the ships able to detect cloaked ships destroyers. Its just unnatural to do that. Naming a ship based on similar ships from the past is one thing and making it from the ground up to fill the historical role another. |

Nestara Aldent
EVE University Ivy League
44
|
Posted - 2012.01.21 13:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
Modify faction/deadspace/officer modules to use T2 charges/ammo, or add T2 versions of faction/deadspace/officer modules which would use T2 charges/ammo.
Faction T2 ammo. |

Nestara Aldent
Citimatics
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 01:40:00 -
[9] - Quote
Capital rigs. |
|
|
|