These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Proposal for a New Ship Class

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#41 - 2015-05-18 14:14:15 UTC
Malcolm Malicious wrote:
What about a holographic emitter that takes up a high slot and disguises with a random corresponding industrial ship size or up. For example a hurricane disguised as a mammoth or an armageddon masked as a providence. The holo emitter would deactivate upon engaging A target. It Could have Similar fitting and draw backs to cloaking devices.


Also proposed and shot down often enough to usually be instantly rule 17'd, for similar reasons that this whole thread is getting shot down by the regulars in F&ID.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#42 - 2015-05-18 14:22:19 UTC
Malcolm Malicious wrote:
What about a holographic emitter that takes up a high slot and disguises with a random corresponding industrial ship size or up. For example a hurricane disguised as a mammoth or an armageddon masked as a providence. The holo emitter would deactivate upon engaging A target. It Could have Similar fitting and draw backs to cloaking devices.


This, but it feigns the name of the "Galleon" or "Indiaman" to display Mammoth or Wreathe so that attackers cannot tell the difference, mistaking it for a helpless hauler.

Quote:
Skin, sure. Same name on overview? Never. False cargo scan? Never. I'm not against Q-ships entirely, just against a hilariously exploitable version which beats most cruisers in combat capability while looking like a defenseless t1 hauler.
A second line of DSTs with some teeth would be great fun, and amusing as all get out to watch people try to gank or catch in low/null.


Yes, same name on overview, definitely, but done via the holographic imager suggested. False cargo scan, no, of course not. It isen' hilariously exploitable, but rather, covert and sensible. No one said it should be able to beat a cruiser, but that is what beta-testing is for. I agree, it would be great fun along with being extremely useful.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#43 - 2015-05-18 15:01:57 UTC
Deep Nine wrote:

Yes, same name on overview, definitely, but done via the holographic imager suggested. False cargo scan, no, of course not. It isen' hilariously exploitable, but rather, covert and sensible. No one said it should be able to beat a cruiser, but that is what beta-testing is for. I agree, it would be great fun along with being extremely useful.


Okay, and now how do we balance the a module like this?

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#44 - 2015-05-18 15:41:51 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Deep Nine wrote:

Yes, same name on overview, definitely, but done via the holographic imager suggested. False cargo scan, no, of course not. It isen' hilariously exploitable, but rather, covert and sensible. No one said it should be able to beat a cruiser, but that is what beta-testing is for. I agree, it would be great fun along with being extremely useful.


Okay, and now how do we balance the a module like this?


Balance it in what manner?

Do you mean making sure it is not used on other ships? The CPU and Powergrid? The slot it would be placed in? Or otherwise?

Please specify and I will attempt to clarify.
Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
#45 - 2015-05-18 17:13:40 UTC
I'm really not seeing the huge potential for exploitation that you guys are either. False cargo scans might be pushing things too far, but really this entire concept would just revolve around giving gankers a surprise and a difficult fight more often, potentially stopping some suicide ganks outright or reducing trade losses in the majority of circumstances. The only people who should really be mad about this are those gankers who realize that they have it absurdly easy now and don't want the system to change.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#46 - 2015-05-18 17:30:15 UTC
Reaver Lupus wrote:
I'm really not seeing the huge potential for exploitation that you guys are either. False cargo scans might be pushing things too far, but really this entire concept would just revolve around giving gankers a surprise and a difficult fight more often, potentially stopping some suicide ganks outright or reducing trade losses in the majority of circumstances. The only people who should really be mad about this are those gankers who realize that they have it absurdly easy now and don't want the system to change.

Then trust us. What you have described is already a very powerful thing in the shape of a battlebadger and a battle badger is much toned down from what you are asking for.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
The Boogieman
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#47 - 2015-05-18 18:40:10 UTC

Quote:
Then trust us. What you have described is already a very powerful thing in the shape of a battlebadger and a battle badger is much toned down from what you are asking for.


>>Trust, eve, pick one.
>>Trust me, I don't have an agenda.
>>Trust me, don't argue.
>>Trust me, Your idea shouldn't be allowed.
>>Trust me, I argue because I care.
>>Trust me, I'm not a ganker this character proves it.

Stop being silly, just trust him, he's obviously helping you work this problem out.
The Boogieman
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#48 - 2015-05-18 18:44:53 UTC
Zura Namee wrote:
So what you're saying is that you want a bastion-mode Marauder with an industrial skin so you can die to slightly more ganking dessies once you realize you can't escape?


>>Completely suggest something no one was talking about.
>>Insinuate radical insane idea.
>>Inject fear.
>>Become incoherent to derail thread.
>>Argue with me dumby, I'm ridiculous.
The Boogieman
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#49 - 2015-05-18 18:55:48 UTC  |  Edited by: The Boogieman
ShahFluffers wrote:
Reaver Lupus wrote:
Tuttomenui II wrote:
Wrong forum.

Just battle fit your hulk or venture like everyone else.

I actually don't even fly industrial most of the time.

Sooooo... why are we taking you seriously then?
Reaver Lupus wrote:
And you have to admit that those fits arent nearly as effective as dedicated battleships or battlecruisers.
...The entire point of this is one that can hold its own in a fight and even come out on top if the odds aren't too stacked against it

Q-Ships historically were NEVER as effective as dedicated combat ships. In fact... the only reason they scored the limited victories they did was due almost entirely due to surprise... NOT combat ability.
And unlike real life, in EVE it is most cost effective to just blow up a ship rather than trying to capture it. Because players are spiteful like that (both ways).
Ignoring all this though...

if industrial ships had the same combat ability as normal, dedicated combat ships... why would you fly anything but an industrial ship?

I personally would LOVE the extra cargo room for storing and using extra cap boosters and loot.


>>Lie.
>>Feed misinformation.
>>Contradict yourself.
>>Lie again.
>>Project Hypocrisy.
>>Attempt to derail by changing the subject.
>>Totally defeat the purpose of my post.
>>Agree that its a good idea.
>>Suggest nothing of value.

This guy gets it, you should listen to him.
Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
#50 - 2015-05-18 21:17:27 UTC
The battle badger really isn't nearly capable enough to serve in this role. A nicely fitted destroyer could take one down. Anything larger just puts their pilots out a bit more isk when they go "pop".
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2015-05-18 22:20:08 UTC  |  Edited by: BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Hint: DST with Cyno field. Its more effective anyways. You're welcome.

Also, we already have procurer and nereus fleets. Do we really need more?

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2015-05-18 23:28:58 UTC
As you've already heard from others by now, Q-ships are a common suggestion that is generally not met with much approval. Most supporters are pretty new to the game. There are a lot of flaws in the concept that become more apparent as you learn to understand the intricate social mechanics of combat in EVE Online. In short, it's too easy a cover and unfairly changes other players' overview to suit the needs of a specific group. It's an overpowered ship design.


I am in favor of combat industrials--they could sacrifice some carrying capacity in order to have combat capabilities not too far short of cruisers. I see two good reasons to fly a ship like that:
1.) when flying through dangerous space and you want to defend yourself
2.) have a few of these in a larger fleet to carry supplies such as ammo--they can engage in combat also

If these have cruiser tank but less than cruiser offense, it'll lessen the chances opposing fleet members will try to shoot these, which will assist in their ability to protect the cargo that is useful to sustained fleet operation.

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."
Christopher Mabata
Northern Accounts and Systems
#53 - 2015-05-18 23:53:20 UTC
Why bother putting weapons on a freighter when you can just use a scout instead?
Because people want easy mode, right

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet
The Boogieman
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#54 - 2015-05-19 02:11:27 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
As you've already heard from others by now, Q-ships are a common suggestion that is generally not met with much approval. Most supporters are pretty new to the game. There are a lot of flaws in the concept that become more apparent as you learn to understand the intricate social mechanics of combat in EVE Online. In short, it's too easy a cover and unfairly changes other players' overview to suit the needs of a specific group. It's an overpowered ship design.


I am in favor of combat industrials--they could sacrifice some carrying capacity in order to have combat capabilities not too far short of cruisers. I see two good reasons to fly a ship like that:
1.) when flying through dangerous space and you want to defend yourself
2.) have a few of these in a larger fleet to carry supplies such as ammo--they can engage in combat also

If these have cruiser tank but less than cruiser offense, it'll lessen the chances opposing fleet members will try to shoot these, which will assist in their ability to protect the cargo that is useful to sustained fleet operation.


>>Insult the forum
>>Say its flawed, don't explain why.
>>Keep it vague.
>>Use terms I don't understand.
>>Intricate social mechanics of combat.
>>EVES unfair, dries tears, ganks someone.
>>Overpowered industrial transport.
>>Totally in favor or combat industrials.
>>Steal someone elses idea.
>>Repeat someone elses uses.
>>Fleet members wont shoot industrials.

How did you figure out how to undock?
Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
#55 - 2015-05-19 06:04:04 UTC
Christopher Mabata wrote:
Why bother putting weapons on a freighter when you can just use a scout instead?
Because people want easy mode, right

Because this isn't a freighter. It's a specialized combat ship that pretends to be a freighter. I'd say it's the gankers who want easy mode.
Iain Cariaba
#56 - 2015-05-19 12:25:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Iain Cariaba
Suggested ship is completely unnecessary, because the only change this ship will bring about is how many catas the gankers bring to kill you.

They will figure out how many it will take to kill it, and then that will be the new number to bring to a gank.

The end result is still the loss of your ship/cargo, and the gankers still end up getting concorded if in highsec.

Reaver Lupus wrote:
Christopher Mabata wrote:
Why bother putting weapons on a freighter when you can just use a scout instead?
Because people want easy mode, right

Because this isn't a freighter. It's a specialized combat ship that pretends to be a freighter. I'd say it's the gankers who want easy mode.

Your ship will make the gankers bring a couple more catas to each gank, then it will die like every other gank target.
Christopher Mabata
Northern Accounts and Systems
#57 - 2015-05-19 16:35:24 UTC
Reaver Lupus wrote:
Christopher Mabata wrote:
Why bother putting weapons on a freighter when you can just use a scout instead?
Because people want easy mode, right

Because this isn't a freighter. It's a specialized combat ship that pretends to be a freighter. I'd say it's the gankers who want easy mode.


Heres the fundamental flaw that your not seeing and that i forgot to mention the first time around, this ship.....
It will have a unique name

boom no more element of suprise or "SUPRISE IM NOT REALLY A FREIGHTER"
people will just see the name and go, oh look the combat one, lets kill it to make a point
And i doubt CCP will make it have the same name, and even if they did, show info would be a fantastic tool, oh it has highslots on a obby? must be the combat one!

plus the other fundamental flaw is if your ganked in highsec in one of these weapons wont make a difference unless you can eliminate several catalysts in a span of seconds, not to mention lock times and server tick delays, since most gankers overkill the targets anyhow.

In low sec theyll probably bring a logi that will overcome its DPS or just self tank the thing, and in null your twice as doomed with the addition of bubbles, bombs, and more.


see what im getting at?
And besides i beleive it was CCP Falcon who explicitly said to use the tools provided by CCP rather than making it their job to protect your assets with new ships and nerf/buffs

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#58 - 2015-05-19 17:04:39 UTC
I do think that combat industrial ships should be more of a thing. They got more viable in the industrial tiericide, but they aren't quite there yet.

Absolutely does not require new ships though, just tweaks to existing ones.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#59 - 2015-05-19 18:25:14 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I do think that combat industrial ships should be more of a thing. They got more viable in the industrial tiericide, but they aren't quite there yet.

Absolutely does not require new ships though, just tweaks to existing ones.

Though a second set of DST's or other transport ships designed as something more akin to fleet colliers ( hardpoints and so on for 3-4 small or med guns, medium tank compared to a cruiser and 2/3 the capacity of the t1 haulers for a starting point) which can pick off mediocre quality tackle but are obviously designed for hostile space and can be used more easily as on grid ammo ships, etc. would be really cool.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2015-05-19 23:16:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
The Boogieman wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
As you've already heard from others by now, Q-ships are a common suggestion that is generally not met with much approval. Most supporters are pretty new to the game. There are a lot of flaws in the concept that become more apparent as you learn to understand the intricate social mechanics of combat in EVE Online. In short, it's too easy a cover and unfairly changes other players' overview to suit the needs of a specific group. It's an overpowered ship design.


I am in favor of combat industrials--they could sacrifice some carrying capacity in order to have combat capabilities not too far short of cruisers. I see two good reasons to fly a ship like that:
1.) when flying through dangerous space and you want to defend yourself
2.) have a few of these in a larger fleet to carry supplies such as ammo--they can engage in combat also

If these have cruiser tank but less than cruiser offense, it'll lessen the chances opposing fleet members will try to shoot these, which will assist in their ability to protect the cargo that is useful to sustained fleet operation.


>>Insult the forum
>>Say its flawed, don't explain why.
>>Keep it vague.
>>Use terms I don't understand.
>>Intricate social mechanics of combat.
>>EVES unfair, dries tears, ganks someone.
>>Overpowered industrial transport.
>>Totally in favor or combat industrials.
>>Steal someone elses idea.
>>Repeat someone elses uses.
>>Fleet members wont shoot industrials.

How did you figure out how to undock?

>>I didn't insult the forum, I stated an observation of mine. Please don't suggest that being new is a bad thing.
>>I did explain why, in summary. It offers too strong a cover. Need me to elaborate? Then ask.
>>I kept it short.
>>I'm sorry you didn't understand the terms, really I am. Tell me what went over your head and I'll try to explain it in a less technical fashion.
>>Couldn't think of a better way to explain it in as few words.
>>I feel like I suggested EVE is actually fair, by saying the Q-ships idea is relatively unfair in comparison.
>>??
>>I am in favor of combat industrials, should they be introduced in a way that doesn't imbalance other parts of the game.
>>I didn't steal anyone else's idea. Lots of people have presented ideas for combat industrials, and I am one of the top providers here.
>>Industrials providing the combat supply role is my original idea going back years, well before industrial tiericide and possibly all the way to the old forums.
>>I don't understand the relevance of that last comment.

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."