These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123Next page
 

The Invulnerability Sphere:Make mining/industrial vessels defendable, better fights for everyone!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nendail Smith
Lockheed Nighthawk
#21 - 2012-05-31 17:11:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Nendail Smith
S'totan wrote:
For this to be a viable thing. i would say it would have to be restricted to fitting to an Orca(maybe...) but more as part of the siege mode of the Rorqual. The bubble would protect the miners however it would only have the total shields of the Ship, like a pos shield.

While inside the shield offensive modules cannot be used, would need to be a high slot, and take alot of cap to activate, so the rorqual cant just jump out right after.

The rorqual or orca(maybe... not a real capital) would not be able to receive remote reps or remote cap.

Ships on the inside would be able to target things but not engage offensive modules. This will allow miners to continue mining if the Rorqual is able to tank the incoming damage.



Ohh I like this idea. Parts of both. Use a seige module which requires fuel, can be fit on a rorqual or Orca, let it be used in high sec. The Shield produced is, like he said, equal to that of the ship the module is use don. IN addition, the ship can not be remote repped, but can be self repped.

I agree with no aggression inside the bubble, second I think the bubble should be a specified size protecting all ships inside, and it should fire at the end of a cycle like an armor rep. So you'd have to get out there, and be vulnerable for specific amount of minutes before it kicked in (you'd have to work out logistics on the last cycle so it didn't continue to be active while it turned off. Perhaps it only activates on the end of the cycle if it has not already been turned off. So you have to be committed to the next cycle to get the benefit at the end of the current cycle.)

Be able to haul in and out of it. for hauling ore/ice out.

Like anything else, this would be able to be killed with enough DPS to overcome the repping ability of the ship the module is fit on.

In addition this should not EXTEND the shields of the ship it is equipped on.. What I mean by that is when the shields are gone, the bubble would drop, and the rorqual or orca would be in armor. This prevents having to go through the shields to drop the bubble, and then through shields again to kill the ship.
Nendail Smith
Lockheed Nighthawk
#22 - 2012-05-31 17:30:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Nendail Smith
Lucian Gaterau wrote:
I like the concept, I think invulnerable is a bit OP. I think what is needed is a way to force / encourage an attacker to kill the escort ship before the juicy target.

Ideas:

a) Remote shield generator -- allows escort to increase shield HP of target ship, speed penalty to escort

b) Shield Expander Sphere -- escort becomes immobile, but escort shields expand to 2000m radius. Attack on anything within the shield hits the escort and triggers aggro on escort instead of shielded vessel. Once shield is below threshold (25%? 50%?) it collapses back to original size and module deactivates.

First just makes ganks against weak targets take more ISK. Second requires you to gank the escort before you can gank the miner. In both cases a sufficiently powerful fleet can still kill the miner without waiting for timers to expire.



I hate to say it, but I personally could not care any less about the gankers being upset. They have had long enough to use tactics that make no sense. I like any idea that makes it harder to do those deeds.

IF we're going to worry about unbalancing this crap from a ganker perspective, lets really take a look at it. The people being ganked can do absolutely nothing to protect themselves. Sure hulk ganks can be semi avoided, but freighter ganks can't be. I realize this does nothing to fix that, but I'm tired of the silly argument that it imbalances the game because you can't gank. The game is already unbalanced in favor of the ganker.

Gankers could still gank freighers and other ships at jump gates, just because they have a target that is off limits or more difficult to gank doesn't mean it is an imbalance. Almost everything in this game has a balancing component. The exception is ganking. You go into it with a calculated loss, pick your target and kill it. The victim can do nothing to prevent it, if done correctly a ship can be sacrificed to point the ship while the real gank squad warps in. You can't lock down a high sec system, you can't engage gankers to prevent ganks from happening, it's really one sided.

I like this idea, though it has flaws to work out I think it's sweet. I like the idea of a bubble that is explained above and only usable on capital ships. basically ganking becomes pointless on a mining fleet, It would take 5-7 battleships to kill a simple Orca in a gank situation. Yet if you mine during a wardec, it could very easily mean you either have to be able to combat the enemy, or lose a capital ship (orca) in order to mine.

If you mine in low sec, you either have to be able to fight off a fleet, or sacrifice an orca or rorqual. I like the alternative idea better than the original idea because it does more to fight ganking, and increases risk by offering a cap ship to legitimate wardec agressors and small low sec gangs.

With the economic issues going on, it might even help those. Since destroying ships is not an isk sink, it's simply causing a transfer of funds within the game, the increased difficulty of ganking may lead to more wardec's on industrial corps and THAT is an isk sink and could prove to help current economic problems within Eve.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#23 - 2012-05-31 18:47:31 UTC
Hey, cool! Invulnerable cyno retrievers! Just what EVE needs!

Roll
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#24 - 2012-05-31 19:42:05 UTC
S'totan wrote:
My comment was a suggestion to promote a fleet of people, and 1 person being sieged that would protect all the surrounding miners from incoming damage, HOWEVER they will still be affected by warp bubbles, they will be protected by the shield which will give them the HP they need to survive. They will live as long as the shield is up on the rorqual, but the shield shares the same HP as the Rorqual. when the rorqual dies the ships inside become attackable.


You say you prefer your proposal because mine (complete but temporary invulnerability) is too overpowered, but consider this: A Rorqual can easily have 1.8 million EHP and 2.700 defense. That is equivalent to the tank of more than 90 tanked Hulks! All but the largest of fleets would need far longer to take down the Rorqual than they would need with my proposal where they just wait until the invulnerability spheres expire. Your proposal is actually the overpowered one in favor of the industrials ;)

Also, limiting it to Rorquals would render the module meaningless for 95% or more of all players. How many people go mining with Rorqual support?

Mind you that my goal is not to save miners from dying. I haven't mined in years, I'm actually killing miners (in w-space) when I get the chance. But I'm certain that my proposal would also benefit my griefing playstyle by drawing more people out of their POSes to save their trapped mining buddy (or alt) who sits trembling in his sphere, with me circling him and waiting for him to become vulnerable Twisted

.
S'totan
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2012-05-31 19:58:24 UTC
At the same time my idea presents another issue, it would be a way of avoiding Super losses in Low sec....... :( At least thats what it would be used for..

Cyno up, drop the rorq, shield up and titan warps to a safe cause no one can point it anymore
Nendail Smith
Lockheed Nighthawk
#26 - 2012-05-31 20:54:29 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Hey, cool! Invulnerable cyno retrievers! Just what EVE needs!

Roll


Interesting exploit. Might need to cause a disturbance in the ability to fire a cyno on grid with one of these things.
Nendail Smith
Lockheed Nighthawk
#27 - 2012-05-31 21:13:33 UTC
I would really enjoy some of these ideas coming to life with the right balance, but in all honestly I think we are wasting our time. This idea would sever to keep people from moving to null because they'd be able to gank proof their setups closer to highsec. :(

I think the fix really is more wormspace. We need more room to roam in unknown area so smaller corps or smaller groups of people can find room in the game. Highsec does ok for the solo player, even a little low sec isn't bad but is almost pointless as a miner, and null sec with all it's local and inability to keep a system secure with only a few people offers very little in the ways of balanced game play for the small groups.

Really if used correctly, wormholes are the bubble that people are looking for. :)
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#28 - 2012-05-31 21:29:43 UTC
I unironically like your idea as originally proposed, because it would ultimately do literally nothing to stop highsec miners from being ganked and they'd cry that much more.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
Sentinel zx
#29 - 2012-06-01 20:54:23 UTC
+1 like your idea
how about putting this module on Interdictors and Heavy Interdictors
and the attacker can only targeting the HI or the Sphere generator and shoot him down

drawback if the Sphere is active it will be not possible to rep the HI
and the other drawbacks in your OP

this will be a second roll for him and you can decide if you put the I-Sphere or the warp bubble

Big smile
Anikeran
#30 - 2012-06-04 00:12:33 UTC
Honestly this is quite a good idea, If I understand it correctly it makes you invulnerably but you are completely useless.. can't move, mine, warp, launch drones or anything.

Callic Veratar
#31 - 2012-06-04 03:12:58 UTC
I had an idea similar to this a while ago. There were a few things that it did to counter it's effects for the duration of the invulnerability and more after the cycle ends:


  • Abandons all launched drones and probes on activation
  • Offlines all modules on activation
  • Jams your ship for the full duration
  • Immobilizes your ship for the full duration
  • Warp scrambles your ship for the full duration
  • Disables use of SMAs for the full duration
  • Drains cap to 0 on cycle complete
  • Drains shields to 0 on cycle complete
  • Burns itself out on cycle complete (needing replacement or repair at a station)


The idea is not that you can keep going after the gank attempt, more that every system on the ship is compromised to prevent its loss. In addition, adding something like strontium fuel might be reasonable if you're completely invulnerable or increasing resists to 99/99/99/99 so something with enough damage could still take you down, but you'd need a lot more effort than a standard exhumer tank.

As an important note, this module should be limited to use with Exhumers and Transport Ships only (possibly barges and industrials).
Drakarin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2012-06-04 06:18:29 UTC
People who only play for easy Killmails will hate this.

People who want a fair balanced game that encourages exciting fights where either side could win will love it.

So naturally, 99% of EvE will hate it.
Tappits
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#33 - 2012-06-04 11:31:22 UTC
You Could just use a Hic bubble or something that uses the shields of the ship the mod is on when the shields of the ship goes down so does the bubble..... and just like a HIC bubble it does not work in High sec..... makeing the hole thing totaly pointless.... carry on.
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#34 - 2012-06-14 15:54:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Terrorfrodo
Lol, this post should have gone elsewhere. Oh well, it's a bump then :)

.
Cyn Osuralt
Pangalactic Investment Group
#35 - 2012-06-14 18:35:58 UTC
Everyone is making this more complicated than it has to be. Seriously. All CCP has to do is to set 0.6 or higher sec space to PVE only.

This means players that like PVE only have areas they can go and learn/play Eve. They can mine and build like they do now, but are limited to what they can build, just like they are now. In order to build higher levels, they will have to venture to low/null sec in one way or another. The lower level items built in PVE areas could then be sold to those in low/null sec to be used to build higher lvl items. These higher level items could only be used then in low/null sec, pulling adventurous people there, keeping balance in the game areas.

This simple change would solve all of the aggravating rules that try to solve other problems created by other rules. Other MMO's are this way in which they provide a 100% safe sand box to start in.
Liliana Rahl
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#36 - 2012-06-14 19:20:38 UTC
Cyn Osuralt wrote:
Everyone is making this more complicated than it has to be. Seriously. All CCP has to do is to set 0.6 or higher sec space to PVE only.

This means players that like PVE only have areas they can go and learn/play Eve. They can mine and build like they do now, but are limited to what they can build, just like they are now. In order to build higher levels, they will have to venture to low/null sec in one way or another. The lower level items built in PVE areas could then be sold to those in low/null sec to be used to build higher lvl items. These higher level items could only be used then in low/null sec, pulling adventurous people there, keeping balance in the game areas.

This simple change would solve all of the aggravating rules that try to solve other problems created by other rules. Other MMO's are this way in which they provide a 100% safe sand box to start in.



Is this a serious post?
Serina Tsukaya
Dropbears Anonymous
Brave Collective
#37 - 2012-06-14 19:58:08 UTC
I have an even better idea! First, they're already making most of the miners more beefy with the balance changes, but that's beside the point:

Increase the Ehp of the mining barges, but also increase the delay for Concord to appear on grid. That solves two problems 1 gankers can do what they do, and as well as spread tears, also help keep bot mining down to a minimum. 2 Defense fleets will be capable of defending their miners with reps and or be able to blow up the attacker before the mining barge is destroyed. It rewards teamwork whilst punishing inattentiveness of afk miners who mine alone. The only negative side to this will be that overall concord times will go up, so it gives gankers more opportunities towards say industrial ships, but then again, from how little I've seen people complain about these things, it shouldn't affect it too much.

The module op is describing will not occur unfortunately, as there's too many complicated factors to be involved, not to mention as I've said, they're making changes to mining vessels, (all t1 mining barges at mining barge level 1). All the ships with lower yields will have more tank, the skiff and procurer being able to fit battleship tanks etc.


This does present a problem however, if the botters decide to forgo efficiency for survivability, then the botting issue will once again resurface. In addition to this, if fewer mining vessels are destroyed, and more minerals are sent to the market, then the prices on minerals will go down, and will over the course of an extended period of time, making high-sec mining extremely unprofitable, and the market will be at the whims of people who use programs to play the game for them.
Nendail Smith
Lockheed Nighthawk
#38 - 2012-06-15 07:59:31 UTC
Cyn Osuralt wrote:
Everyone is making this more complicated than it has to be. Seriously. All CCP has to do is to set 0.6 or higher sec space to PVE only.

This means players that like PVE only have areas they can go and learn/play Eve. They can mine and build like they do now, but are limited to what they can build, just like they are now. In order to build higher levels, they will have to venture to low/null sec in one way or another. The lower level items built in PVE areas could then be sold to those in low/null sec to be used to build higher lvl items. These higher level items could only be used then in low/null sec, pulling adventurous people there, keeping balance in the game areas.

This simple change would solve all of the aggravating rules that try to solve other problems created by other rules. Other MMO's are this way in which they provide a 100% safe sand box to start in.



The idea is to minimize ganking while allowing legit wardecs. it's a hard mix.
Luka Datitties
Star-Gate Command
#39 - 2012-07-21 01:45:25 UTC
Make the module use 10,000 CPU, but allow mining barges to reduce that by 99.999%, just like strip miners. Sacrifice yield for survivability. Solo miners and botters wouldn't even bother to fit it because help is not coming. I see no downside here.

Victims of ganks whine about being ganked, then the gankers tell them "you should have a defense fleet to protect you". This module would make that plausible while not providing miners a get out of trouble free card. If one of the miners are AFK, they are dead anyway so pilot error will still result in countless ganks.

I applaud your line of thinking sir.
Marcus Ichiro
IchiCorp
#40 - 2012-07-21 02:00:12 UTC
Nendail Smith wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Hey, cool! Invulnerable cyno retrievers! Just what EVE needs!

Roll


Interesting exploit. Might need to cause a disturbance in the ability to fire a cyno on grid with one of these things.


And then combat fleets would take a mining barge with them to stop anyone from being able to drop ships on them.
Previous page123Next page