These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Destroyers for orbital bombardment? Really??

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
#161 - 2013-01-11 04:46:28 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:


Still, I do understand how small guns could be used this way, but wouldn't it be more fun if you could hover in the skies in a squad of Rifters and pound the ground with arty and missiles while someone else's fighter squadron defended your ships from anti-aircraft defences and ground-launched fighters, or just assisted with the bombing? Or, if you had your frigs and fighters in the sky while the other side had their frigs and fighters in the sky simultaneously.... imagine what the light show would look like from the ground? Trails of missiles and high-velocity rounds streaking back and forth while fighters and bombers deployed by carriers in orbit swarmed the scene, as chunks of hull plating and other debris rained from the sky to fall on the battlefield below, adding an additional potential hazard to DUST troops?


You mean like BF3 with spaceships? And that is the problem. By the time Dust reaches its nadir it will be outstripped by other FPS that do everything better. I envision Dust will eventually be the playground of EvE players and their corps that see profit in participating in both at once.

And I am unsure of the composition of the atmospheres of the planets that are being contested. I am sure there are a wide variety, some of which would completely nullify the use of lasers (ironically the game is called Dust), and yet missles are the ones not represented?
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#162 - 2013-01-11 04:47:24 UTC
The same assholes that INSIST there is a crew on my ship because a dev said so are crying that its unrealistic for a destroyer to perform an orbital bombardment?

******* brilliant.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#163 - 2013-01-11 07:08:19 UTC
Keno Skir wrote:
Just read that orbital strikes will be fired from small guns.. Does this seem like a break from "eve reality" to anyone else?

Guesse since they used an Abaddon for the Fanfest demo i just assumed you would need large guns to fire them, if not some sort of special module that takes buku CPU or something. That said i actually still feel like a destroyer raining death from hundreds of kilometers up is a bit far fetched.

Not tryin to get it changed or anything, just noticed it today and didn't sit right. I'm imagining clouds of thrashers or even atrons, hell even industrials firing highly destructive weapons a really really long way... not how i'd have done it anyway o/


Destroyers are bigger than you think. Technically, all it takes is an orbital platform, (i.e: satellite with this intended purpose). Beware, they are floating up there, over your head, as we speak. Straight
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Duries Kain
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#164 - 2013-01-11 07:53:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Duries Kain
Bai'xao Meiyi wrote:
As black powder weapons are arguably the least advanced, I'll use the Thrasher to explain this.

A Thrasher can be fit with either 250mm or 280mm rounds, these rounds are far more advanced then anything you've experienced in your lives. At a range of approximately 40km and still be within optimal range. These bullets are at least a foot wide we don't know their length or contents but it's 18,000 years more advanced and full of technology developed for conflict in space. It's cheap to fit, efficient and fast but can die relatively quickly. Absolutely perfect for the role of bombarding a target with high explosives..


Wait, what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Bismarck

Hello, 300mm, 1900 pound rounds with 25+km optimal.

Hell, there is even a 800mm cannon which shoots like trucks at 47km range. The refire rate is crap tho. ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav

800mm shell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:80cm_Gustav_shell.jpg (7 tons)

Langer Gustav, the Artillery model, shot up to 190km range at 570mm rounds.
Beckie DeLey
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#165 - 2013-01-11 08:35:25 UTC
People certainly take their space physics very seriously...

My siren's name is Brick and she is the prettiest.
CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
#166 - 2013-01-11 10:59:17 UTC
Beckie DeLey wrote:
People certainly take their space physics very seriously...


I had, and then passed off because I am no rocket scientist, a defect from a player submitted bug report about how the energy we listed in the description didn't match how it would really work. Something about us rounding at the 10 decimal place instead of the 20th.

@CCP_FoxFour // Technical Designer // Team Tech Co

Third-party developer? Check out the official developers site for dev blogs, resources, and more.
Brooks Puuntai
Solar Nexus.
#167 - 2013-01-11 11:14:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Brooks Puuntai
Beckie DeLey wrote:
People certainly take their space physics very seriously...


Its mostly because CCP has seemed to stop caring about making things actually go together with the Eve universe. The idea for allowing Destroyers to be used for Orbital Bombardment seems to be a cop-out. They seem to want to have a low entry bar for it, either because they know they won't be able to get older players to do it(after the first 3 months) or because they want dust players to sub and be able to do it quickly. I mean how could you go from a Moros bombarding a planet to a Catalyst.

In the end, everything regarding the integration with Dust seems to be half assed and not thought through very well. Seemingly out of desperation. Guess that's what happens when you bomb a built up major release(Incarna) then have major uncertainty with your first non Eve release, which has been indev probably longer then it will be active.


Edit: Also yes I'm bitter, if you didn't get the memo.

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden
Irya Boone
The Scope
#168 - 2013-01-11 11:41:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Irya Boone
But the only question is Why do you want to start Small ...

You should have begin At least with BS for Orbital strike .. dread should be the standard..

You doing it Wrong CCP and you Know it stop telling B....

And if it physics you want to explain the fact : Shoot Small ammo in universe with heat and force in the atmosphere planet you bullet disapear ... becaus it was too small.

An XL bullet .. could at least with a little imagination become a Small bullet when hitting the ground .....

Don't get it?

CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!

you shall all bow and pray BoB
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#169 - 2013-01-11 12:07:09 UTC
Irya Boone wrote:
But the only question is Why do you want to start Small ...

You should have begin At least with BS for Orbital strike .. dread should be the standard..

You doing it Wrong CCP and you Know it stop telling B....

And if it physics you want to explain the fact : Shoot Small ammo in universe with heat and force in the atmosphere planet you bullet disapear ... becaus it was too small.

An XL bullet .. could at least with a little imagination become a Small bullet when hitting the ground .....

Don't get it?


I can think of one underlying reason that probably tops all others to start small instead of starting big.

Starting big excludes a lot of players who have yet to skill for big. Starting small allows all players, including trial accounts, to participate. Excluding players from game features is a good way to lose players and subscribers. Including everyone is a good way of encouraging more subscribers, and maintaining current ones. Let's not forget that, at the end of the day, CCP are a business - as well as doing this for ALL their fans and customers, they still have a bottom line to consider. No bottom line = no CCP = no EVE = everybody loses.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Brooks Puuntai
Solar Nexus.
#170 - 2013-01-11 12:12:01 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:


I can think of one underlying reason that probably tops all others to start small instead of starting big.

Starting big excludes a lot of players who have yet to skill for big. Starting small allows all players, including trial accounts, to participate. Excluding players from game features is a good way to lose players and subscribers. Including everyone is a good way of encouraging more subscribers, and maintaining current ones. Let's not forget that, at the end of the day, CCP are a business - as well as doing this for ALL their fans and customers, they still have a bottom line to consider. No bottom line = no CCP = no EVE = everybody loses.


So with that mentality trial players should be able to fly titans. What you are asking for is instant gratification. You believe that everyone at anytime should be able to do everything. That isn't Eve.

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#171 - 2013-01-11 12:14:07 UTC
Brooks Puuntai wrote:
Beckie DeLey wrote:
People certainly take their space physics very seriously...


Its mostly because CCP has seemed to stop caring about making things actually go together with the Eve universe. The idea for allowing Destroyers to be used for Orbital Bombardment seems to be a cop-out. They seem to want to have a low entry bar for it, either because they know they won't be able to get older players to do it(after the first 3 months) or because they want dust players to sub and be able to do it quickly. I mean how could you go from a Moros bombarding a planet to a Catalyst.

In the end, everything regarding the integration with Dust seems to be half assed and not thought through very well. Seemingly out of desperation. Guess that's what happens when you bomb a built up major release(Incarna) then have major uncertainty with your first non Eve release, which has been indev probably longer then it will be active.


Edit: Also yes I'm bitter, if you didn't get the memo.


The destroyer, as per standardised NATO ship roles, is the go-to shore bombardment vessel. While a battleship may also be suitable for this role, it is overkill. As has been stated numerous times, the destroyer-type hull is designed for this role - specifically, it's designed for precision in this role. Some destroyers, like the AEGIS class, have powerful anti-aircraft defences, and people mistake that to mean they are the navy's anti-aircraft platforms - they are not. These defences enable AEGIS ships to operate with little to no frigate or carrier escort in hostile waters, where they can launch their cruise missiles against land targets. Whilst the modern destroyer relies more on cruise missiles than guns for striking land targets, and I'm sure there will be a role for missiles in OB eventually applied in EVE as well, EVE destroyers (in fact, EVE ships in general) are not all that different from their IRL counterparts where roles, and even size and loadouts, are concerned. Especially when you compare them to WWII warships.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Brooks Puuntai
Solar Nexus.
#172 - 2013-01-11 12:17:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Brooks Puuntai
Eve ship classes aren't modeled after RL ship classes. You are trying to compare navel vessels to internet spaceships, the idea isn't the same.

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#173 - 2013-01-11 12:18:55 UTC
Brooks Puuntai wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:


I can think of one underlying reason that probably tops all others to start small instead of starting big.

Starting big excludes a lot of players who have yet to skill for big. Starting small allows all players, including trial accounts, to participate. Excluding players from game features is a good way to lose players and subscribers. Including everyone is a good way of encouraging more subscribers, and maintaining current ones. Let's not forget that, at the end of the day, CCP are a business - as well as doing this for ALL their fans and customers, they still have a bottom line to consider. No bottom line = no CCP = no EVE = everybody loses.


So with that mentality trial players should be able to fly titans. What you are asking for is instant gratification. You believe that everyone at anytime should be able to do everything. That isn't Eve.


You can address my mentality all you want, I wasn't stating what I believe, I was stating a reason, a simple fact. The FACT that destroyers can be used for OB means that the mechanic can be offered to all players, even new ones. The FACT that DUST is still in beta means that OB will probably expand to include supercaps at some point anyway. And then that FACT means that OB with supercaps will probably be much more devastating than OB with dessies.

At some point, you're going to have to admit that that is EVE. Your grinding hasn't gone to waste, because you are still able to apply your time and effort to your higher capabilities. So no, it's nothing like saying "trials should be able to fly titans" at all. You're still going to have to skill up and sub if you wanna fly the bigger boats. Additionally, a new player isn't going to have the same destroyer skills that a vet will, so vets should already have more ability in that department.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#174 - 2013-01-11 12:23:21 UTC
Brooks Puuntai wrote:
Eve ship classes aren't modeled after RL ship classes. You are trying to compare navel vessels to internet spaceships, the idea isn't the same.


Actually, they are very similar in regards to role more than anything, but also occasionally size, and loadout styles - a NATO standard frigate is a little bit smaller in length than an airliner, and usually has two gunmounts, sometimes three, and occasionally with a helipad. Sometimes, they're armed with more missiles than guns. Some frigates will have no missiles. The biggest difference here is point defence - you don't get MG mounts on EVE frigates.

Just because they perform in different mediums doesn't mean they can't be analogously similar.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Acac Sunflyier
The Ascended Academy
#175 - 2013-01-11 13:38:42 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Yes, destroyers for orbital bombardment. Why do you ask? Because we want to be able to build up to bigger and better. If we started with Titans doing orbital bombardment and then added the others going down each time we added something it would be smaller.

This way we start with destroyers with small guns and next time we add bigger guns we can make it bigger and better.

Keep in mind our goal is to start with a small connection between the two games and build it up from that so we don't break anything, or break as little as possible.

Hope that helps answer why we went with destroyers first. :)


Didn't you say, not that long ago, that there'd be new ships with bonuses to the orbital bombardment?
ISD TYPE40
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#176 - 2013-01-11 14:23:07 UTC
As this thread appears to be heading towards personal attacks and other unwanted behaviour, I want to make it clear that such things are not welcome on the EVE forums. Now with that out of the way there seem to be a number of things people are missing the point on.

First of all, this current connection is a test, only the first iteration of however many it takes to ensure things run smoothly. This has has been stated numerous times by numerous Devs. Start small and see how things pan out and then work up to bigger and better things once everything is stable and understood.

Secondly, the ammunition used for Orbital Bombardments is not the same as standard ammo. How it differs exactly has not been detailed, but there is a nice description on the FAQ:

EVE-DUST514 FAQ wrote:


This iteration of Orbital Bombardment is focused on the Tactical Strike variant which is performed with specialized ammo for small turret based weapons. Each turret category has a specialized ammo type: - Hybrids: Tactical Hybrid S - Lasers: Tactical Laser S - Projectiles: Tactical EMP S

The hybrid strike delivers a nice spread of high-damage rounds that are effective against infantry and vehicles. Laser strikes have a more focused area and are good for taking out installations or heavy vehicles. The EMP strike does a massive amount of damage to shields in a large area, but it will not damage armor, so it's good against heavily shield tanked targets.



The FAQ can be found here, for those of you who have not seen it already.


tl;dr The EVE-DUST connection is still only in its testing phases. Passing final judgement on something that is not yet complete would be foolhardy.

So lets just go out, have fun, and nuke them all from orbit.

Just to be safe. Cool

[b]ISD Type40 Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#177 - 2013-01-11 14:39:34 UTC  |  Edited by: silens vesica
Eh. Never mind - already been thoroughly handled.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
Keen Fallsword
Skyway Patrol
#178 - 2013-01-11 14:46:45 UTC
Keno Skir wrote:
Just read that orbital strikes will be fired from small guns.. Does this seem like a break from "eve reality" to anyone else?

Guesse since they used an Abaddon for the Fanfest demo i just assumed you would need large guns to fire them, if not some sort of special module that takes buku CPU or something. That said i actually still feel like a destroyer raining death from hundreds of kilometers up is a bit far fetched.

Not tryin to get it changed or anything, just noticed it today and didn't sit right. I'm imagining clouds of thrashers or even atrons, hell even industrials firing highly destructive weapons a really really long way... not how i'd have done it anyway o/


Oh you didn't notice that last two Expansions are only for DUST ? FW, Ship Rebalancing its all for DUST bro. That's why new destroyers appeared ! "Fun" with factional warfare is because CCP needs a "background" for PS3 player you are background :)
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#179 - 2013-01-11 15:03:42 UTC
Mars Theran wrote:

Technically, all it takes is an orbital platform, (i.e: satellite with this intended purpose). Beware, they are floating up there, over your head, as we speak. Straight

Project Thor

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#180 - 2013-01-11 15:21:02 UTC
silens vesica wrote:
Mars Theran wrote:

Technically, all it takes is an orbital platform, (i.e: satellite with this intended purpose). Beware, they are floating up there, over your head, as we speak. Straight

Project Thor


Referencing Prisonplanet or Infowars for anything is like using a placemat map from McDonalds for directions instead of a GPS or a refadex.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104