These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

How I want my Black Ops Battleship to work.

Author
Quaaid
Phoenix Foundry
#1 - 2012-06-27 19:07:18 UTC
The Black Ops BS already has a role (however limited) in BO Fleets. I would like to expand upon to this to open up solo opportunities and make Fleet roles more dynamic.


Use Case:
Beyond the current scope of the Black Ops Battleship, I would also like the ability to cloaky scan down player ships and 'paint' their signature via a new module activation. Painting a player signature will force my ship to decloak and penalize my ability to recloak or warp for xx seconds (30 cloak, 60 warp is my suggestion).

Once painted, I can deploy my Fighter Bombers into a Bombing Run on the Painted Signature. The Fighter Bombers will warp (preferably cloaked) to the signature and:

a) If the player signature is still on grid, they will decloak, launch a bomb volley to the center of the ship signature, and warp out back to the Bay. I will receive log messages of the damage inflicted and to what targets. Bombs need to have a travel time and be targetable to allow the victim the ability to react.

b) If the player signature is not on grid, they will warp back to the Bay. This includes landing on vacant acceleration gates for missions. I will receive notification.

c) If the player signature is within xx KM of a Warp Gate or Station, the bombers will not engage and return to the Bay. I will receive notification.


Requirements:
- New Module Creation/Coding (Remote Painter)
- Remote Painting/Deployment Options in Scanning Interface and/or Module Activation.
- Ability to house/deploy (5) Fighter Bombers
- Fighter Bombers able to Bomb (aoe) in a simular fashion to Stealth Bombers when deployed from Black Ops.
- Bombers cannot deploy in high/low sec

Luxury:
- Scanning Bonus to Hull
- Fighter Bombers are able to warp cloaked when deployed from Black Ops.

Limitations and Balance:
- Warp / Cloaking penalties need to exist based off of Remote Painter usage.
- Gate/Station proximity limitations needed to avoid abuse.
- The bombs launched from Fighter Bombers damage would need to be much less than that of a Stealth Bomber. I would say in the neighborhood of 15-25% of the damage a Piloted Stealth bomber could do (per drone) so that net payload would be 75-125% of what a piloted Stealth Bomber could achieve. I needs to be worth doing, but not worth completely sidelining actual piloted stealth bombers.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2 - 2012-06-27 19:34:40 UTC
FireT
Venom Pointe Industries
#3 - 2012-06-27 19:36:13 UTC
Cloaked fighter bombers? And you don't think that is the slightest bit broken or will be abused heavily?
Quaaid
Phoenix Foundry
#4 - 2012-06-27 19:37:37 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Grabs popcorn...

Sits back and waits....



Yeah, it's ambitious I know. Just would be cool as hell, and is not entirely risk-free for the BLOPs pilot.
Quaaid
Phoenix Foundry
#5 - 2012-06-27 19:40:49 UTC
FireT wrote:
Cloaked fighter bombers? And you don't think that is the slightest bit broken or will be abused heavily?


Drone Stealth Bombers is more the aim, functioning like a much less effective Stealth Bomber. I used fighter bombers as they exist in game already and could be repurposed when deployed from Black Ops.

In no way should they retain their current "Fighter Bomber" functionality in this scenario.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#6 - 2012-06-27 19:41:00 UTC
Quaaid wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Grabs popcorn...

Sits back and waits....



Yeah, it's ambitious I know. Just would be cool as hell, and is not entirely risk-free for the BLOPs pilot.

Ambitious? The whole BLOPS category is currently no more than a tease to pilots interested in true cloaked PvP.

And yet, it is still on my To-Do list to train for these...

As I believe the saying goes, hope springs eternal.
FireT
Venom Pointe Industries
#7 - 2012-06-27 19:43:53 UTC
Quaaid wrote:
FireT wrote:
Cloaked fighter bombers? And you don't think that is the slightest bit broken or will be abused heavily?


Drone Stealth Bombers is more the aim, functioning like a much less effective Stealth Bomber. I used fighter bombers as they exist in game already and could be repurposed when deployed from Black Ops.

In no way should they retain their current "Fighter Bomber" functionality in this scenario.


So let me get this straight. You want a module that is similar to probing BUT that allows you to remotely directly cloaked fighter bombers to a target without any practical risk to you?

And your real name is Sir Trollington I presume.
Quaaid
Phoenix Foundry
#8 - 2012-06-27 19:50:43 UTC
FireT wrote:

So let me get this straight. You want a module that is similar to probing BUT that allows you to remotely directly cloaked fighter bombers to a target


No. Probing is a separate activity and requires a probe launcher already. Once probed, I would want to then want to Paint the signature and deploy the drones on it, that part would require a module.


FireT wrote:

without any practical risk to you?


Beyond the risks I have offered (cloaking and warping penalties while the painter is active and for a duration after usage), what would you suggest? BLOPs at it's core suggests minimal risk already, and this would not be super effective unless used in mass. Think of how much damage a solo Stealth Bomber pilot can currently do, this would be less than or equal to that. It's only amazing when combined with other like minded pilots.


FireT wrote:

And your real name is Sir Trollington I presume.


No, I'm just Quaaid.
FireT
Venom Pointe Industries
#9 - 2012-06-27 19:54:33 UTC
I will have to quote Zoidberg: Your idea is bad and you should feel bad.
Quaaid
Phoenix Foundry
#10 - 2012-06-27 19:56:56 UTC
FireT wrote:
I will have to quote Zoidberg: Your idea is bad and you should feel bad.



I will quote Jeff 'The Dude' Lebowski: That's just like... your opinion, man.
FireT
Venom Pointe Industries
#11 - 2012-06-27 20:09:46 UTC
Quaaid wrote:
FireT wrote:
I will have to quote Zoidberg: Your idea is bad and you should feel bad.



I will quote Jeff 'The Dude' Lebowski: That's just like... your opinion, man.


So is yours. Except your opinion would break the game. A remote fighter bomber that is not only cloaked but also can bomb a target that might be AUs away means there is no practical risk to you since your opponent would have to scan you down before even contemplating the possibility of fighting you.

So yes, troll idea is troll. Sorry, but too obvious. The day CCP implements such an idea is the day CCP is done working on Eve and wants an inglorious death to the game.
Qolde
Scrambled Eggs Inc.
#12 - 2012-06-27 20:21:06 UTC
Yeah this is a pretty bad idea. If anything, they should just go ahead and give BO's another slot or turret. That's all they need.

If someone craps in your sandbox: 1. Light it on fire 2. Grab your shovel 3. Throw it back at them.

FireT
Venom Pointe Industries
#13 - 2012-06-27 20:24:46 UTC
Qolde wrote:
Yeah this is a pretty bad idea. If anything, they should just go ahead and give BO's another slot or turret. That's all they need.


I always fancied the idea of Black Ops just being some of the best EWAR ships around since their purpose is to be sneaky I always thought they should have some of the best racial EWAR abilities.
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#14 - 2012-06-27 20:33:04 UTC
Random "What I want ships to do" posts and "Things that are good for the game" rarely actually line up. This is one of those cases where the OP's "What I want" would be horrendously broken and bad for the game.
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2012-06-27 22:59:52 UTC
Quote:
b) If the player signature is not on grid, they will warp back to the Bay. This includes landing on vacant acceleration gates for missions. I will receive notification.


Is this really what you meant? "Not on grid" or did you mean not in system space.. they are not the same thing.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]

Quaaid
Phoenix Foundry
#16 - 2012-06-27 23:07:17 UTC
Barbara Nichole wrote:
Quote:
b) If the player signature is not on grid, they will warp back to the Bay. This includes landing on vacant acceleration gates for missions. I will receive notification.


Is this really what you meant? "Not on grid" or did you mean not in system space.. they are not the same thing.


I meant not on grid. So either the pilot warped out while the drones were in warp (likely as the BLOP showed up on D-Scan), or there is something blocking the drones from proceeding all the way to target, like an acceleration gate.

If the ship that was the source of the the signature I painted is not available to target, then they warp back.

If the painter followed the target around space without re-scanning and re-painting it would be pretty broken. If it is not already broken, as some suggest.
Colonel Xaven
Perkone
Caldari State
#17 - 2012-06-28 10:12:51 UTC
The only change Black Ops need is the ability to warp cloaked.

www.facebook.com/RazorAlliance

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#18 - 2012-06-28 14:34:34 UTC
Colonel Xaven wrote:
The only change Black Ops need is the ability to warp cloaked.

Initially I am on board with this part. I wanted to see that happen too.

Then I recall the logic that was used in the past.

I am sure many recall how stealth bombers had a very similar setup. Bonuses to cloaked speed, but could not warp cloaked.

It's like the shallow end of the cloaking pool.

Here's my point: If it goes full covops, it will probably never be given more than it has now regarding offensive abilities.
The bomber was given bombs and torpedoes because it was too niche. It fired cruise missiles, and was more of an annoyance to bigger ships than a threat.

The BLOPS is such a one trick pony, it is obviously due for some form of change.

Not saying this idea will be it, no judgement from me on that, but it will be something.
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#19 - 2012-06-28 14:55:04 UTC
Colonel Xaven wrote:
The only change Black Ops need is the ability to warp cloaked.


Honestly, I don't even think it needs that really. I think the best buff to them would be a decrease in fuel usage, increase in jump range, and possibly an increase in fuel bay capacity. Warping cloaked would be a fairly crappy buff compared to more actual usability in their primary role (CovOps gang bridging ships).
Jayrendo Karr
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#20 - 2012-06-28 20:07:25 UTC
Reduce the material cost, atm Black ops is incredibly expensive and has very limited use.