| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
343
   |
Posted - 2012.03.26 17:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
So Fanfest 2012 is over and we showed off a live demo of orbital bombardment followed by a roundtable discussion about some of the design challenges ahead to make this feature complete. I want to start an official thread where people can discuss their ideas for orbital warfare based on what we've already shown, for both ships shooting at the ground and the planet shooting back.
If you havn't already seen, you can watch the live demo here (just look at how excited Soundwave is!)
http://bit.ly/H7BO7g
Recapping some of the things discussed at the roundtable:
- The demo was actually live with real playstations sitting on stage and real EVE clients talking to a cluster in London. No smoke and mirrors.
- Talking specifically for the EVE side of things, we want to make Orbital Bombardment more involved in terms of skills required and weapon variations as well as spectacular in terms of visual effects. There will eventually be larger and smaller bombardments according to ship size (nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure) and these will have suitably scaled skill, isk and complexity investment to match their effect. If you have any specific opinions on how you see that working, reply here.
- One feature that didn't quite make it in time for fanfest is displaying the damage done on the battlefield to people, vehicles and structures. That feedback is especially important when you don't have an EVE and DUST client side by side. I'm interested in ideas here on how you would want that information visualized.
- There have already been a variety of suggestions on how to make sure it isn't one sided or overpowered. I'm sure people have a lot of interesting ideas on how to counter an orbital strike, so feel free to discuss those here too.
Cheers!
CCP Nullarbor | Exotic Dancer |
|
J3ssica Alba
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
225
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 17:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
First off I'd like to see an improvement on the visuals. Projectiles coming in at Mach 25 or higher or a laser strong enough to burn through a planet's entire atmosphere should leave some big, glowing white-hot crater at least.
To the whiners :-áCCP Soundwave "Incursions are not a big issue in terms of isk globally"
CCP Recurve "However, Incursions are not the biggest ISK faucet, bounties are"
|
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
125
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 17:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
J3ssica Alba wrote:First off I'd like to see an improvement on the visuals. Projectiles coming in at Mach 25 or higher or a laser strong enough to burn through a planet's entire atmosphere should leave some big, glowing white-hot crater at least.
Gotta leave some candy for a Dread shot. |
Yoma Karima
Kuloldas
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 17:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
YAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY Orbital Bombard ment. so cool.
Those who wish to end War wish to end what it means to be human.
Those who advocate War do not know its power.
Yet Those who learn from War will be remembered for all time.
|
bornaa
GRiD.
133
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 17:55:00 -
[5] - Quote
It was all very nice... i must say that, good job ppl. 
Just, i don't know how immersive is it that usual guns that are for space-space combat are used for space-ground shooting.
I would like to see new guns for that purpose so that all ships cant just come there and start shooting if they have only one extra module. (And you can give that weapons some more powerful graphic and long spool up time during witch we will see the power of that weapon)
And about ground-space weapons,
are you thinking only about huge weapons putted on planet that shoot ships in orbit or are you thinking about some defensive orbital structures too?
I know that the first is so much more "cool". 
But I really think that EVE have too little structures and its empty with no life in the space, and this could help.
(you can putt some other structures in orbit too  ) |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
631
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 17:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
just make sure that:
- rainbows work http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SlKedQg5O8
regarding skills / balancing
- accuracy variations would be kind of fun. e.g enemy desrupotrs and stuff. (chance for unintended friendly fire)
a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105
You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Jarnis McPieksu
377
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
- One feature that didn't quite make it in time for fanfest is displaying the damage done on the battlefield to people, vehicles and structures. That feedback is especially important when you don't have an EVE and DUST client side by side. I'm interested in ideas here on how you would want that information visualized.
Floating combat text popping up from the target on the ground with suitable "ding ding ding" chimes for each kill. Add "mmmmomnsterkill" sounds for added cool factor. Complete the bombardment with a detailed killmail popping up once the carnage is over.
 |
Arklan1
Dunedain Rangers
WUT ALLIANCE
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:02:00 -
[8] - Quote
cannot WAIT to see (and fly!) dreads doing this. |
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
61
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:05:00 -
[9] - Quote
could have some kind of decent size satellite dish on the planet that could project a shield to protect from the orbital bombardment. That way, the attackers will have to neutralize that first
On holiday. -áIn some other world.
Where the music of the radio was a labyrinth of sonorous colours.
To a bright centre of absolute convicton. -áWhere the dripping patchouli was more than scent. -á
It was a sun |
Aethlyn
104
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:10:00 -
[10] - Quote
I like the general concept so far, just make sure it doesn't look/play all the same from Dust's side (damage types, graphics and stuff).
I wonder whether it should be possible to drop bombs from stealth bombers instead of just shooting (might be tricky targeting wise in case current mechanics are used).
Also, will there be some limit on who's able to lock on the beacon/laser/whatever? Otherwise I could imagine defenders simply trying to shoot with low power weapons just to "waste" the target painted.
Looking for more thoughts? Read my blog or follow me on Twitter. |
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
61
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:12:00 -
[11] - Quote
Give the people on the planet Ion Cannons 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN8YIR60Ij0
On holiday. -áIn some other world.
Where the music of the radio was a labyrinth of sonorous colours.
To a bright centre of absolute convicton. -áWhere the dripping patchouli was more than scent. -á
It was a sun |
Grumpy Owly
414
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:15:00 -
[12] - Quote
Considered stealth bombers applying bombs?
Also perhaps consider some e-war effects that some of these bombs can generate?
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
126
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:15:00 -
[13] - Quote
How about different ammo's for the bombardment effects.
Inferno shells or pure thermal beams that can firestorm an area for a time limiting troop movement without tanks.
EM shells or beams for breaking shields around installations or artillery.
The classic standard beams or kinetics as seen in video.
Its your responsibility to be a Dust solders swiss army knife for hard situations. |
EI Digin
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
251
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:18:00 -
[14] - Quote
There must be an element of risk to doing an orbital bombardment, I think in the preview there was a "siege" module for the battleship doing the orbital bombardment. This can be good because it provides targets for eve players, and only a 5 minute-long siege cycle, like dreadnaughts would be fine. Of course, capital ships should not require this module, dreads already have one and carriers/supercarriers/titans are already vulnerable if they show up.
A smaller siege timer for smaller ships could be used. The siege module should take up some power grid/cpu to slightly nerf the combat ability your strike ship has, so that everyone in your fleet just doesn't fit the siege module. The siege module timer is required to allow mercs to notify eve players that there is a juicy target waiting to get destroyed at their planet if they are being bombarded, even if they don't win the battle, and it will help to prevent people from just shooting at every planet they see for kicks.
Bombardments also shouldn't be able to be completed as effectively in disposable ships like stealth bombers or t3 battlecruisers, who can use battleship weapons but with drastically less cost. Anything smaller than battleship weapons should be not very effective on a tide-turning scale, but might be good for taking out a tank or a group of clustered-up players.
Different gun types should have different bombardment effects, both visually and the types of damage dealt and the precision of the strike. ex: Autocannons can be more spread out and deal less damage, whereas a beam laser will be right on target and do a ton of damage, but only have a small area of effect.
Of course, the planets should be able to fire back and destroy at anything that can shoot at it, so if you allow titans and supers to bombard, the planets should be able to kill them too. The anti-bombardment guns shouldn't necessarily require the ownership of a specific, highly-important structure, but it could potentially be a deployable, or a minor objective on a map. It should be destroyable by eve players, but repairable by dust players if they receive the opportunity. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3541
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:33:00 -
[15] - Quote
My views on orbital strikes
FRIENDLY FIRE ENABLED! I cannot stress this enough this will leave room for backstabbing that eve is accustomed too and Dust 514 needs its fair share.
Orbitally striking a MCC should be hard but not impossible. This will mostly rely on the MCC pilot to be afk at the controls or poorly fitted.
I strongly belive that the orbital strike equires a 'heavy weapon' painting equipment thus this make orbital strikes unable to be fired in fog of war and allows defenders to catch the guy (since its a heavy weapon should be quite apperant hes lugging one around) before he attains lock on the area and launch code request is sent up the chain of command.
Chain of command can set parameters on thier orbital strike requests. Have a fail to safe default however where the eve player requires at least a launch code that is generated by MCC pilot/commander.
On less secure settings individuals on the ground can generate thier own launch codes and send it up.
Launch codes should be generated on demand not preset POS starbase passwords. 3 letter/number code is reasonable enough.
Special Visors and Sensor modules can inform players where orbital strikes are targeted at in a chance to evade the posisble doom.
Eve based and possibly dust based skills dictate accurady of the strike on the painted spot. After all accidents DO happen. Also grouping of the shot for eve based skills only. Highty trained orbtial bombardiers will be able to do more damage in a concentrated area instead of lesser damage over a wider uneffective area.
Districts should be able to get shield generators up to severly reduce the damage an orbital strike could make. Dust 514 marines will have to take it down to be able to use orbital strike to cause wide spread damage.
Battleships should be imo the smallest ship to launch said strike. The damage they bring down should not be pernament or long lasting effects (precision strikes).
Orbital Strike module should be a seige mode. Immobilzation of ship (or ship positioning) during spool up which anchors the ship into sync with the district and cool down only activated once the strike is made. During cool down the ship is mobile again. Transition to cooldown is a albit delayed if module canceled.
I do like the idea of using anchorable platforms as well but they should be considerably weak on Eve side however I belive its much better for them to be in control (and possibly launched from) the MCCs, if MCC launched the platform would then be self anchored and eventually self expire as well.
For example MCC launches orbital platforms and can direct strikes where needed by his troops upon his approval. However the opposing side could have orbital assests as small as a frig to tear these platforms apart before they get utilized.
Dreadnaughts/Titans : I belive you are going have to get concord involved and have them not allow the titan super weapon to be used at all.
However XL guns should be used for the orbital bombardment if titans get involved.
XL Guns bombardments should cause widespread damage over a very large area and do serious damage to the infastructure there. Requiring the owner after the battle to repair it before they can make use of it again.
On that note scraping a district zone should take more time, cost more money, and even more for a reutilization of the district to avoid the similar eve side problem of scrapping guns selling minerals and installing replacment modules from overheat and salvage.
If titan super weapons are used, make it a nuke it all option. Everything on that map is destroyed and removed and battle is over. The defending side retains ownership regardless who fired. Additional funds must be spent into repairing the land before the district can have a facility installed again. Maps could get an api peramenter to adjust landscape to show scarring from that level of bombardment.
Counter bombardment.
Disctricts should be able to have thier own 'module' slots so to say.
When installing a district you can have these modules installed and they cna help defend the area against either ground forces or orbital assests.
Balance must be struk between the two.
Make various counter orbital weapons in different sizes. Smallest of them will be able to self target battleships and larger. These batteries attempt to 'sink' them. Any battleship that stays in the 'gauntlet' of thier seiged obrital strike module will get sunk by either damage (which could be remote repaired.) All counter orbital weapons should pull the ship closer into the planet as well (which cannot be tanked or remote repaired)
This makes staying in the zone extremly risky and is a commitment based risk.
The new tactical overlay (one shown at fan fest) should show the orbital strike pocket, the hot zone and the point of no return.
Planets (as well as suns) should cause increasing amounts thermal damage if too close to the stellar object in question.
Ships that enter the point of no return (the point where ship cannot escape the gravity well based on ship's speed) will auto inject the pod out of the ship at more than sufficent velocity+ out of the hot zone. Pilots will get to see a neat little animation of thier ship breaking up in orbit.
Larger batteries which can sink dreadnaughts and titans quickly require orbtial assests to lock and direct these systems weapon fire.
Larger the battery the less frequent they can send vollies up so the damage must be high and posisbly aera of effect as well to prevent 'crowding' the bombardment zone which will hopefully force more players to escort the bombarder instead of trying to participate.
|
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
127
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:34:00 -
[16] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:
Bombardments also shouldn't be able to be completed as effectively in disposable ships like stealth bombers or t3 battlecruisers, who can use battleship weapons but with drastically less cost. Anything smaller than battleship weapons should be not very effective on a tide-turning scale, but might be good for taking out a tank or a group of clustered-up players.
I think bombers both cov-ops and supers should have similar rolls, a large area strafe with gaps between hits. Since a super can field more bombers, it will be a more compact stream of death like a napalm run in a half mile stretch.
O hit | == gap
Cov-ops run:
O====O=========O======O
A Supers bomber wave
O==OoO=O=OoO=O=OoOoO==O
Yet a Cov-op has a much faster reload time compared to the drone fleet. |
Ntrails
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
57
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:35:00 -
[17] - Quote
Yes, console gamers will really enjoy maps where the results are impacted by faggots on a PC fapping untouchably from space |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
127
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:36:00 -
[18] - Quote
Ntrails wrote:Yes, console gamers will really enjoy maps where the results are impacted by faggots on a PC fapping untouchably from space
Herp a derp:
- There have already been a variety of suggestions on how to make sure it isn't one sided or overpowered. |
My Neutral Toon
Knights Who Til Recently Said Ni
29
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:41:00 -
[19] - Quote
Im curious to see how the orbital mechanics work
As it stands, all planets have the same warp in spot. I heard you would be able to orbit the planet to get into position to do the orbit strike.
Problem is, BS+ size ships move very slow.
For example sake, lets say 100 m/s (some are much slower, especially caps).
100 m/s = 10 sec to go 1Km so 6km in 1 minute.
For a comparison of size, the earth has a circumference of 40,075.16 km. At ground level. Once you get 1000 miles or more in the sky, this number is going to duplicate many fold.
How would be be able to efficiently warp to the planet, then orbit to get into position on the OPPOSITE side of the planet?
Maybe add a feature of "Warp to Bombardment Location"...
...Can't. Tell. If ...Troll? Or Serious.... |
My Neutral Toon
Knights Who Til Recently Said Ni
29
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:42:00 -
[20] - Quote
Ntrails wrote:Yes, console gamers will really enjoy maps where the results are impacted by faggots on a PC fapping untouchably from space
Because I go on the forums posting all willy nilly like without ever watching the video where the guy shoots down a Moros in 1 hit from the ground...
...Can't. Tell. If ...Troll? Or Serious.... |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
128
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:42:00 -
[21] - Quote
[quote=My Neutral Toon]Im curious to see how the orbital mechanics wor
As it stands, all planets have the same warp in spot. I heard you would be able to orbit the planet to get into position to do the orbit strike
[/quote
The positioning is still WIP as they haven't decided how to handle it yet from the DUST seeding panel
That panel is here BTW. http://youtu.be/e5vVppQm68
Its a good watch other than merely going off the Dust keynote as there is Q&A. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:47:00 -
[22] - Quote
Defiantly need some feed back, eye candy of course. A simple number of dead and vehicles destroyed would be nice. I suppose the simplest thing to do is put it up where we see dmg notifications now, but that is not terribly exciting, although will allow players to post it in their Bios easily enough for epeening. How much damage you did to this dust player or that I don't think matters so much.
Since over powering the weapons is a bad idea, overpowering the effects would be bad too. Don't want to have a nuke go off and it kill three guys out of 100. Then it looks like the game is trying too hard and drifts into cheesy.
As for more feed back ... I'm not sure how far you want to go with that, I can come up with a number of ideas that will consume all your bandwidth if you'd like, I am sure many can and will.
I gather that the idea long term is multiple orbital structures of some kind, one for each possible district on the ground, and space fights will not be taking place necessarily at the planet warp in position. It would be nice from a defensive point of view, and more strategic depth, if districts adjacent to the contested orbital area, could fire into that area of space, so that whatever ground defesnes there are, are not the only ones that can be brought to bear. This could be said for the fire comming from space as well.
This will allow a battle to consist of more than one part of a planet at a time, it will allow for larger Dust Corps to participate since the battle instances will likely not be supprting 500 v 500 battles any time soon. This way more of the dust players and all the eve players from any one alliance/corp can take part in one larger battle at the same time, raging across multiple districts and multiple grids.
|
Ntrails
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:48:00 -
[23] - Quote
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:Ntrails wrote:Yes, console gamers will really enjoy maps where the results are impacted by faggots on a PC fapping untouchably from space Herp a derp: - There have already been a variety of suggestions on how to make sure it isn't one sided or overpowered.
Has anyone asked how to make it fun though? CCP are pretty awful at asking that question of themselves. 'Cool', they tend to remember, but fun?
Not to mention CCP have a historic inability to balance effectively, and a console shooter will not retain players in the way eve does when things go a bit pear shaped. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
344
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:50:00 -
[24] - Quote
My Neutral Toon wrote:Maybe add a feature of "Warp to Bombardment Location"...
If you look carefully at the video you'll see we are not actually at the planet warp in, but at a location closer to the target.
We are iterating on a number of solutions to achieve this.
CCP Nullarbor | Exotic Dancer |
|
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
61
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:50:00 -
[25] - Quote
I think the orbital bombardment weapons should be on caps only. At least no lower than battleships
On holiday. -áIn some other world.
Where the music of the radio was a labyrinth of sonorous colours.
To a bright centre of absolute convicton. -áWhere the dripping patchouli was more than scent. -á
It was a sun |
EI Digin
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
251
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:51:00 -
[26] - Quote
An easy way to get around orbiting a planet to be on top of a district would to have districts line up with existing celestial objects around the planet (asteroid belts, customs offices, planet warpin, etc) so that if you wanted to bombard a specific district you would warp to a specific celestial. Of course, the districts should say which object they are closest to to make it easy.
If you don't want to do this, you could group together a bunch of districts in a specific area on the planet and have them become new warpable objects. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3542
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:57:00 -
[27] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:My Neutral Toon wrote:Maybe add a feature of "Warp to Bombardment Location"... If you look carefully at the video you'll see we are not actually at the planet warp in, but at a location closer to the target. We are iterating on a number of solutions to achieve this.
Have you considered using relative positioning in eve?
Ie Star is the reference point for all planets.
Tie in a clock/calander to thier degrees on thier obrital planes in relation to the sun.
Then have moons use planets as thier reference. Stations thier orbiting bodies.
Make the grids and all contents within move with thier relative point until no longer needed.
I dunno I mean I know its complicated and there are the crap tonns of 'what ifs' but planets that dont revolve around thier star is something missing from eve in forever and even sadder if and when implimented would have minor visual effects cept for people living from a station where one day its dark side next day on the bright side of the planet.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3542
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:58:00 -
[28] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:An easy way to get around orbiting a planet to be on top of a district would to have districts line up with existing celestial objects around the planet (asteroid belts, customs offices, planet warpin, etc) so that if you wanted to bombard a specific district you would warp to a specific celestial. Of course, the districts should say which object they are closest to to make it easy.
If you don't want to do this, you could group together a bunch of districts in a specific area on the planet and have them become new warpable objects.
Planets spin in Eve. The grids do not spin with them.
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger
Ev0ke
168
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:59:00 -
[29] - Quote
what about shooting back ? |
Baneken
Hyvat Pahat ja Eric
The Polaris Syndicate
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 18:59:00 -
[30] - Quote
I would really like to have a possibility of being able to assign fighters to help dusties as an air force and drones while were at it.
They could obviously be destroyed by ground forces once deployed of c. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |