These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

The Battle Rorq Lament
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ix Method
Doomheim
#41 - 2014-12-11 12:41:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ix Method
There's a lot of missing the point going on here, isn't there? Battle Rorqs were cool because they're were ridiculous, out of place and therefore glorious. Giving them combat bonuses wouldn't save the Battle Rorq, rather make it a **** pew ship.

They should be stupid and utterly ****, and those who fly them feted as heroes.

Travelling at the speed of love.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#42 - 2014-12-11 13:39:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Ix Method wrote:
There's a lot of missing the point going on here, isn't there? Battle Rorqs were cool because they're were ridiculous, out of place and therefore glorious. Giving them combat bonuses wouldn't save the Battle Rorq, rather make it a **** pew ship.

They should be stupid and utterly ****, and those who fly them feted as heroes.


Right there in the OP. CCP want ships to be used in the field and ultimately blown up. That is not happening, they can't protect the miners, they are useless in a belt unless the gates are secure.

So, they are not used. Ergo something needs to change.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2014-12-11 15:16:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
ShahFluffers wrote:
Which is why I say that the Industrial Core should give triage-like bonuses.

It's a potentially good idea, but I don't see any indication that your solution is necessarily superior to those presented so far. It would certainly have a larger impact on the Rorqual's tank, which in fact is what most of this proposal's detractors want to avoid.



ShahFluffers wrote:
As for spider-tanking... the Rorqual would need 4 capital cap power transfers and 2 cap relays to pull it off.
For comparison...

- the Archon would need at least 3 capital cap power transfers and 2 cap relays
- the Chimera needs 3 capital cap power transfers and 3 cap relays.

And remember the original part about how we realized the Rorqual can't fit those.





Ix Method wrote:
Giving them combat bonuses wouldn't save the Battle Rorq, rather make it a **** pew ship.

They should be stupid and utterly ****, and those who fly them feted as heroes.

So any bonus at all is going to set it up there with normal carriers? Are you saying that bonuses aren't scalable?

And furthermore, do you want the ship to be largely useless, only taken out once in a great while to make use of a small portion of the thing or just to show off with it? That's a waste of a ship.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Foxicity
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2014-12-11 22:11:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Foxicity
OP, I feel you are ignoring a central idea that the Rorqual is not a combat ship. It cannot receive direct bonuses to its offensive or defensive abilities or it would become a combat ship. It is not a mama bear. It is a mama duck.

A Rorqual should not make its fleet more survivable in combat. It should help its fleet GTFO from combat. I feel a true on-grid Rorqual should be able to do something like one of the following: jump bridge its fleet out of danger (indy ships only of course), accel gate or MJD its fleet out of danger (200-1000km or so?), remote-WCS to get ships off the field (or hey, stupid fun idea, tractor its fleet members out of harm's way), or make its fleet untargetable or difficult to target. Nothing that could save a whole fleet and take the risk out of mining, and nothing that could help you evade a persistent, powerful group, but enough to save a good portion of the fleet from a single surprise attack. That is the payout for fielding a very expensive ship.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#45 - 2014-12-11 23:43:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Foxicity wrote:
OP, I feel you are ignoring a central idea that the Rorqual is not a combat ship. It cannot receive direct bonuses to its offensive or defensive abilities or it would become a combat ship. It is not a mama bear. It is a mama duck.

A Rorqual should not make its fleet more survivable in combat. It should help its fleet GTFO from combat. I feel a true on-grid Rorqual should be able to do something like one of the following: jump bridge its fleet out of danger (indy ships only of course), accel gate or MJD its fleet out of danger (200-1000km or so?), remote-WCS to get ships off the field (or hey, stupid fun idea, tractor its fleet members out of harm's way), or make its fleet untargetable or difficult to target. Nothing that could save a whole fleet and take the risk out of mining, and nothing that could help you evade a persistent, powerful group, but enough to save a good portion of the fleet from a single surprise attack. That is the payout for fielding a very expensive ship.


I see what you are saying with this but being a miner is aggravating. One little hot dropper comes into your system and you get to hide or die.
Hide = no fun for anyone
Die = easy cheap kill, bit of a thrill for the weak minded.

However, something like the mini bubble, means there are ships at stake and an actual fight and battle can take place. Fun for all. If you have to use the bubble, at least you were bait and you can see when you might be able to sneak out and apply your drones.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Foxicity
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2014-12-11 23:55:43 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
One little hot dropper comes into your system and you get to hide or die.


What about the ability to jam cynos from being deployed on grid? Force enemies to make the conventional approach which gives you local spike and dscan warnings.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#47 - 2014-12-11 23:59:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Foxicity wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
One little hot dropper comes into your system and you get to hide or die.


What about the ability to jam cynos from being deployed on grid? Force enemies to make the conventional approach which gives you local spike and dscan warnings.


Covert isn't blocked by cyno jammers. This is also just an example, for a lot of miners the first warning is when someone is approaching on D-scan or lands in the belt.

I have slow boated across an anomolies in worm holes before to make sure I can go to one of two warp off points at a moment's notice.
Hitting that bloody D-scan button over and over again.

This is not fun.

Edit: With multi-boxing bans coming in, some fix needs to be done for miners fast. Otherwise, there is going to be a gread deal of whining about mineral and ship prices soon.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2014-12-12 07:09:23 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Edit: With multi-boxing bans coming in, some fix needs to be done for miners fast. Otherwise, there is going to be a gread deal of whining about mineral and ship prices soon.

Multiboxing bans have been coming in for years. Operation Unholy Rage back in 2009 really made a significant difference; anything you see from here on out probably will be a lot less significant of a change.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Jenshae Chiroptera
#49 - 2014-12-14 18:24:14 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Multiboxing bans have been coming in for years. Operation Unholy Rage back in 2009 really made a significant difference; anything you see from here on out probably will be a lot less significant of a change.


http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/unholy-rage/

There is a bit of a difference. That is dealing with $ and ISK. I am talking about the people that had 40+ accounts running and creating ore. The many, many setups that are or were doing that from just 4 to 40+

I mine.
When it is quiet like this, I get on the forums. For people with one screen and one computer, I have no idea how they can sanely sit there and do it actively.

Long periods of nothing.
Run and hide.
Wait.
Come out. (Of the closet. Yuck Yuck Roll )

I can't see how the stress without any release or satisfaction could be good for them.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Esmanpir
Raccoon's with LightSabers
#50 - 2015-02-12 19:37:43 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I would like to see certain capital ships able to anchor and act like a POS. Not with a protective bubble, but with at least the ability to go into reinforced mode if its shields and armor are broken. Would also be neat if they had a reactive defense setup that would begin consuming capacitor booster charges and/or liquid ozone from storage to provide capacitor to run necessary defensive modules like shield boosters or armor repairers, which would automatically cycle when there is enough damage dealt to warrant it. That way you can leave it there and go dock somewhere or cloak before you go offline. It would go into reinforced mode once the armor had been depleted and the first shot hits structure.


edit:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
One or other of our solutions or the POS like bubble idea. +1

why not all three?


Stop teasing me...
Velarra
#51 - 2015-02-12 22:29:32 UTC
No one ought to expect the Combat Rorqual when it undocks. Especially when only imagining presumed Rorqual roles.

Much like the Battle badger.

Buffing the rorq for combat situations and associated intent, would -totally ruin- the horror and shock value of the current options for Combat Rorq's.
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2015-02-12 23:36:45 UTC
Hidden combat abilities within Rorq and core thing is a dual mode of Core. Well well. Why don' t we start with smaller syster of it An Orca?
Boost hull stats etc. add some combat abilities etc. And later on turn the whole Ore line into semi-combat side. Cooking on a gas.

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Vector Symian
0 Fear
#53 - 2015-02-13 01:50:50 UTC
Mabe simply letting the rorquel into high sec might be a simpler strategy
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#54 - 2015-02-13 02:05:25 UTC
Vector Symian wrote:
Mabe simply letting the rorquel into high sec might be a simpler strategy


What for?

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Jenshae Chiroptera
#55 - 2015-02-13 03:07:56 UTC
Vector Symian wrote:
Mabe simply letting the rorquel into high sec might be a simpler strategy
Huh? Straight
Velarra wrote:
No one ought to expect the Combat Rorqual when it undocks. Especially when only imagining presumed Rorqual roles.
Much like the Battle badger.
Buffing the rorq for combat situations and associated intent, would -totally ruin- the horror and shock value of the current options for Combat Rorq's.
Battle badgers are cheaper.
Any half competent alliance that tackles a Rorqual will either kill it or log in hot droppers really fast.

There are obvious reasons why Rorquals spend their time in station, warp or a POS.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#56 - 2015-02-14 02:03:59 UTC
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Why don' t we start with smaller syster of it An Orca? Boost hull stats etc..
Have you tried hull tanking an Orca and seen what it can manage now? Shocked

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#57 - 2015-02-14 02:38:17 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Why don' t we start with smaller syster of it An Orca? Boost hull stats etc..
Have you tried hull tanking an Orca and seen what it can manage now? Shocked


According to this thtead we are talking about combat abilities. Not the passive hull tanking.
I have a few orca ste ups including hull tanked.

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Velarra
#58 - 2015-02-14 16:57:36 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Vector Symian wrote:
Mabe simply letting the rorquel into high sec might be a simpler strategy
Huh? Straight
Velarra wrote:
No one ought to expect the Combat Rorqual when it undocks. Especially when only imagining presumed Rorqual roles.
Much like the Battle badger.
Buffing the rorq for combat situations and associated intent, would -totally ruin- the horror and shock value of the current options for Combat Rorq's.
Battle badgers are cheaper.
Any half competent alliance that tackles a Rorqual will either kill it or log in hot droppers really fast.

There are obvious reasons why Rorquals spend their time in station, warp or a POS.


It's not about price or how much time they spend secured in station or elsewhere. It'd be as equally terrible to remove the turret slot from a badger as it'd be to actively, go out of one's way to make the rorq have ~expected~ combat abilities.

These here, are awesome:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=battle+rorqual

And wouldn't be nearly as great if the rorq was genuinely combat buffed.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#59 - 2015-02-15 05:43:28 UTC
When you see a warthog with her piglets, you back off.
When you see a Rorqual with their exhumers, you attack the Rorqual.
So you don't see the Rorqual.

i.e. Rorqual not working as intended from what I gather.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#60 - 2015-03-29 05:38:10 UTC
Without POS shields, this mini-POS bubble or having two of them or one and a carrier in belt might become a thing.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Previous page123