| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zaboth Garadath
Amarr
Aquila Victrix
THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY
   |
Posted - 2007.11.04 14:49:00 -
[1]
Eve has lots of types of weponry like:
guns.
missiles.
bombs.
eletronic warfare and stuff.
I thought maby they should also have mines.
Types:
explosion, kinetic, heat, and EM.
Launcher:
Mine launcher
How It would work:
Move your ship to where you want to deploy a mine. Activate the Mine launcher. Deploys One mine. When an enemy ship comes into close proximity to the mines, they will start to go towards the enemy ship until they hit. But if the ship then goes too far away from the mines origional location/blows up the mines would then go back to their original locations.
If after an hour the mines have not been destroyed they 'dissapear'
Mines can be destroyed if the enemy ship either shoots a smartbomb near the mines, or finds the mines and blows them up with his guns. ( you cant see any icon indicating there are mines, but if you spot them, then you can right-click on them. )
Uses
-defending something.
-blowing up advancing ships.
-What else!?
Pros
-Blows up enemy ships without being in firing range.
-Can help alot if you are playing 'cat and mouse' with another ship. e.g. He follows you, you lay a mine, a few secs later... BOOM!
-Or, lay a minefield, get the attention of some enemy ships just out of firing range, they approach you....BOOM!!
-Good short term defence. e.g. an imminent attack on a starbase
Cons
- A friendly getting too close......BOOM!
- Dissapears aftr an hour.
Thanks for reading this!
Suggestions are welcome.
Thanks!
Zabo
------------------------------------------------
Please send me some ISK. |
Sylvia Lafayette
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 14:54:00 -
[2]
they use to have mines. then they got rid of them. i guess people were abusing them or something but mines would be cool to have if balanced properly
|
Sirius Problem
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 17:07:00 -
[3]
Mines created too much lag, so were removed from the game.
----
Some people say I have a bad attitude. Those people are stupid.
|
sg3s
Caldari
O.W.N. Corp
FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 17:11:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Sirius Problem
Mines created too much lag, so were removed from the game.
Yeah in that case I see the removal of cans comming very soon too, I'm waiting for it.
|
Aurinkokuningas
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 19:40:00 -
[5]
Originally by: sg3s
Originally by: Sirius Problem
Mines created too much lag, so were removed from the game.
Yeah in that case I see the removal of cans comming very soon too, I'm waiting for it.
Mines had more active logics in it (constant checking whether something came to range etc), and a corporation could deploy a lot of them. More at the same place than cans usually.
|
Princess Jodi
Vendetta Underground
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 16:35:00 -
[6]
I joined Eve just a few months after they removed Mines. Too bad they caused Lag ... I thought that Mines were a great idea. I still got BPO's and a stockpile in the vain hope that we get them again someday. 
|
Demje
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 16:50:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Demje on 05/11/2007 16:53:07
We NEED mines. Mines would have been THE Anti Blob weapon of the game.
whos going to warp a fleet into a smaller enemy force if they have mines there? I'd willingly sacrifice a smaller force in a minefield explosion to get rid of a larger force.
/signed for mines.
mines should have the ability to anchor, but anchoring should be based on an actual buoy you have to set out first, then, the buoy would have a limited number of mines it could attend to (say, 10), and unanchored mines disappear like unanchored cans do. And the mine buoys should be very difficult to scan down and appear in scan reports, and their radius of control should be 50km, with that radius of control keeping any other buoy from existing in the same area (particularly the enemies) unless that buoy is first destroyed.
|
big5824
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 17:22:00 -
[8]
mines were abused too much, people covered every single gate and station in entire constalations with them until you went off grid...
|
Demje
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 17:32:00 -
[9]
Originally by: big5824
mines were abused too much, people covered every single gate and station in entire constalations with them until you went off grid...
hint, hint, post above u
|
Sylvia Lafayette
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 18:28:00 -
[10]
ya think ill sign this cause i want mines back if they are balanced.
/signed
|
Kirmok
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 19:24:00 -
[11]
Why not instead of individual mines..make the 'minefield' one item.
Can have different sizes of the single item 'minefields'
Could force a new role for some ships...minesweeper and or minelayer
The larger mindfields cover a large 3 dimentional area and the 'minefield' being 1 anchorable object can require vast amount of room to carry and longer to setup and become active.
Make the minefields a damage over time. With a certain max damage output. So a frigate or shuttle can't go and take out the entire field as its one object
So any ship traveling in said minefield will be taking DoT every 'cycle' up to max damage output of the field.
2 ships take same damage but take twice as much of the fields max damage.
So for example. If the field does 50000 max damage and 500 every 10 seconds to all ships (or enemy/neutral/non ally ships)
Each ship in the field takes 500 damage before resists and if there is 2 ships in the field the field looses 1000 per cycle etc... Just random numbers to help me explain.
If no enemy ships the field does no damage and stays anchored. Perhaps allow minelayer ships to 'recharge' fields that have been used. But if the field does all its max damage it goes poof.
Make them cloakable maybe?
What ya guys think?
|
Thunderbird Anthares
CHON
THE R0NIN
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 19:31:00 -
[12]
sounds good
/signed
------------------------------------------------
When you get to the end of your journey,everything that really matters is the journey itself. |
PieOmega
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 18:48:00 -
[13]
Edited by: PieOmega on 06/11/2007 18:49:15
How about returning the mines, but have them on a timer, say the same as cans like the other poster said, unless anchored when they become everlasting.
But to reduce the number deployed permanently, have the number that can be anchored by a player based on a skill. Minefields - 5 anchored mines at level 1, 10 at level 2, up to 25.
Also limit them to 0.0 like Bombs ...
|
ViolenTUK
Gallente
Vindicated Exiles
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 19:38:00 -
[14]
I like the idea of mines and beleive that they should be re-introduced even if it is in a limited way.
www.eve-players.com |
Ris Dnalor
Minmatar
Union Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 00:10:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Ris Dnalor on 07/11/2007 00:13:54
I want mines back too. I have 200k mines sitting and waiting for deployment. :) Just can't figure out how to shove them into a launcher. I think i'll try a scan probe launcher next 
If I recall correctly, the lag was mostly warp-in or jump-in lag. we didn't have an overview settings then. could that somehow be used to screen out some of the lag?
also there should be different types. we need contact mines, proximity mines, and magnetic mines :) If you made the detonation ranges larger so that you couldn't deploy two very close together ( ie like scan probes within rage of other scan probe but on a smaller scale ) that would limit the amount needed to canvas an area and ppl wouldn't have a 1000 of them by a gate to create lagdeaths.
--
Talking in Circles is more dizzying than walking in them...
Tralala |
ginsu gnife
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 05:09:00 -
[16]
i remember mining the **** out of the jump gates out in fountain... asp mines... yes yes... eve mail the next day would inform me of who got killed.
|
Zyrus Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 10:58:00 -
[17]
Well if you (re-)add something like this, then there must also be a way to counteract this. Every waepon in EVE has something that you can do against it (and if it is only brute force...).
So if you are thinking about this feature, also think about the counter part.
Zyrus
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |