These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jiska Ensa
Estrale Frontiers
#181 - 2013-01-11 15:26:49 UTC
You know you can actually explain away the engine acceleration thing by saying they're reactionless engines, working on the same principal as the warp drive. The exhaust coming out the back would be just that - Exhaust from the reactor, pointed rearwards so it contributed rather than diminished "thrust".

That also conveniently explains how stasis webifiers work, by bending space around the ship such that the reactionless engines have to travel further on the same output power.

It ALSO conveniently explains why our ships don't have fuel, since the engines are reactionless and the only "fuel" is used to power the ship's reactor core.



As for orbital bombardment, I don't see a problem with destroyers being used for precision strikes - why on earth would you want a dreadnought blowing chunks out of your planet when all you really want to do is take down a single, small, enemy fortification so you can storm the gates of their magical space castle thingy?

That said, I do hope we can eventually destroy entire DUST battlefields with dreads :P 'Course by then they'll probably have planetary shields and surface-to-space cannons to shoot back with...
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#182 - 2013-01-11 15:31:01 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
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.

I navigate by landmarks and paper maps. I break out an old lensatic compass if I need orientation. Big smile
(Actual truth. I don't get lost.)

Actually: I just grabbed the first link that had images. Prisonplanet was the luck winner today.

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
#183 - 2013-01-11 15:41:04 UTC
silens vesica wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
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.

I navigate by landmarks and paper maps. I break out an old lensatic compass if I need orientation. Big smile
(Actual truth. I don't get lost.)

Actually: I just grabbed the first link that had images. Prisonplanet was the luck winner today.


The image is either broken there or there isn't one. Alternatively, this post on another forum entirely has a legitimate image of the Project Thor concept. The problem with implementing space militarisation, though, is that once you put a weapon like this up there, everyone else is going to want to even the playing field, which means more expenditures on defence systems to maintain the system as a legitimate platform.

“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

Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#184 - 2013-01-11 15:47:48 UTC
Nexus Day wrote:

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.


I don't comment much on DUST because i don't care about it one way or another (although I am intrigued by some of its potential aspects, like affecting sov or pos timers in null sec for example).

But I have to say, that's an excellent analysis of the future of DUST and EVE. After messing around with DUST a bit in beta, It seems that ccp is putting too many eggs in the "but it's connected to EVE online" basket and not enough into the "this game is good on it's own without EVE" basket. I don't think it's going to FAIL fail, just as it's coming along now it might not reach it's full potential.
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#185 - 2013-01-11 15:57:35 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:

The image is either broken there or there isn't one. Alternatively, this post on another forum entirely has a legitimate image of the Project Thor concept.

Same image source - Though the Prinsonplanet linked one is better resolution. Dunno why can't see it.

Quote:
The problem with implementing space militarisation, though, is that once you put a weapon like this up there, everyone else is going to want to even the playing field, which means more expenditures on defence systems to maintain the system as a legitimate platform.

Welcome to EVE. Twisted

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
#186 - 2013-01-11 16:01:25 UTC
silens vesica wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:

The image is either broken there or there isn't one. Alternatively, this post on another forum entirely has a legitimate image of the Project Thor concept.

Same image source - Though the Prinsonplanet linked one is better resolution. Dunno why can't see it.

Quote:
The problem with implementing space militarisation, though, is that once you put a weapon like this up there, everyone else is going to want to even the playing field, which means more expenditures on defence systems to maintain the system as a legitimate platform.

Welcome to EVE. Twisted


Oh I wasn't talking about EVE, I was talking about the real world. I welcome something like this in EVE. Weapons platforms like this deployed to protect their sov planets from DUST assault? Bring it on Twisted

“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

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#187 - 2013-01-11 16:24:59 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I welcome something like this in EVE. Weapons platforms like this deployed to protect their sov planets from DUST assault? Bring it on Twisted

VERY interesting direction for expansion, there... EVE corps researching and building obital weaopns platforms (OWP), to be deployed and anchored in space over a grid, not unlike a POCO or POS, to provide un-manned on-call aerospace bombardment strikes to their faction allies below..?

I see a whole new arena of co-operative EVE/Dust interaction, complete with fleets sieging other fleets' OWPs in coordinatino with surface assaults...

Oh, what a brave new world of conflict that yawns open before us with flaming maw...
Twisted

Devs! Make this happen!

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

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#188 - 2013-01-11 16:30:47 UTC
The more I think about OWPs, the more I'm geeking on the concept...

Sov and planetary control rules to enable the emplacement of different size OWPs...
OWP fuel and ammo re-load runs past hostile fleets....
Sieging each other's OWPs, maybe even a mechanism for capturing them?

Oh, I've only just touched on the possibilities, but I SO want to SEE this HAPPEN!

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
#189 - 2013-01-11 17:14:54 UTC
silens vesica wrote:
The more I think about OWPs, the more I'm geeking on the concept...

Sov and planetary control rules to enable the emplacement of different size OWPs...
OWP fuel and ammo re-load runs past hostile fleets....
Sieging each other's OWPs, maybe even a mechanism for capturing them?

Oh, I've only just touched on the possibilities, but I SO want to SEE this HAPPEN!


There is a lot of potential to expand on the DUST/EVE integration - what about planetside deployments of fighter squadrons from carriers? Small-scale frigate air support, where EVE pilots can break atmo and attack with precision at close range - and then the enemy deploys their own frigates and fighters, and suddenly there's a massive sky battle. As hull plating and fighter wreckage screams toward the ground, adding an additional layer of hazard to dust troops, a planetary cannon suddenly opens up on one of the frigates, blowing it to pieces.

The other frigates on the same team turn to withdraw, and the fighters attempt to provide cover, but not before a planetary webber system catches them, and the cannon starts to glow once more....

To be continued... hopefully, in a future DUST/EVE expansion Twisted

There's also the potential for the integration of a third game here - screw Star Citizen, I wanna see some aerial and aerospace combat simulation, with EVE fighters and fighter bombers. Imagine flying off the deck of that carrier, joystick in hand, safeties off, making your approach to the planet and having to get your entry angle right (there would be flight assists, of course - even modern fighters have ILS). You're at the controls of one of the most advanced starfighters in New Eden, flying into that very battle. It's a furball over the skies of the DUST bunnies, a target rich environment and you don't know what to shoot next. But you shoot and shoot and the enemy gets thinner and thinner as your squadron (all other players) thin their ranks. The frigates arrive and break atmo - the squadron leader calls them as primaries, but another fighter screen is blocking your path. SL calls it - form right echelon, blue flight takes point and hits the fighters head on, red flight breaks on engagement and goes straight in for the frigates. Suddenly, SL realises the unit is low on missiles, and calls for fighter bomber support - but up in space, the carrier pilot calls back, sorry, fighter bombers are unavailable at this time... but wait!! There is a cannon on the ground, we can deploy DUST mercs to activate it!!

So much possibility.

“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

NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#190 - 2013-01-11 17:42:10 UTC
Acac Sunflyier wrote:
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?

Perhaps these will be the fabled t3 destroyers.

I can see a better plan is to have one standard ob strike with the future plan being to alter strength and AOE once they know the system works.
This just seems like good rational thinking, which is why GD recoils from it worse than a vampire that just found out some one gifted it a sun made of garlic that happened to have been sneezed on by the Pope while on an ocean cruise.
Nukleanis
Falcon Advanced Industries
#191 - 2013-01-11 17:56:30 UTC
Wouldn't ground-based defences (big-ass weapons seen in trailers) just eliminate orbital platforms?

I like the carrier-based air support idea, though. A carrier can launch support craft such as bombers (which can be destroyed by AA equipped tanks), or can deliver additional clones via orbital dropship. Both ideas would be subject to a delay while ships deploy to the surface, but air strikes would have to be able to do something that bombardment cannot - such as dusties being able to control the craft we launch (drone uplink?) or being able to specify a strafing run after being called down from orbit.
mkint
#192 - 2013-01-11 17:58:57 UTC
The real question is why there is no way to grief. Dust does not deserve to be a part of eve if there is no griefing.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#193 - 2013-01-11 18:03:02 UTC
mkint wrote:
The real question is why there is no way to grief. Dust does not deserve to be a part of eve if there is no griefing.

Grief now and you drive people away.
Bide your time and they come in droves ripe for the slaughter.
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#194 - 2013-01-11 18:22:34 UTC
Nukleanis wrote:
Wouldn't ground-based defences (big-ass weapons seen in trailers) just eliminate orbital platforms?
Quite possibly - EVERYTHING in EVE has a counter, after all. Note, however, that an OWP is much smaller than a ship, and thus a hard target.
OTOH, vulnerability to plantary defenses means that shipboard bombardment (where available) will always have primacy.

Further, IIRC, plantary defense installations are intended to be capturable sites - If the defenses are potting your OWPs, well, your Dust Bunnies have another primary target, don't they? Twisted

Never intended that OWPs would be a replacement for shipboard weapons - but rather an unmanned and less-capable stand-in for, or supplement to, ships in space.

Other advantages that ships have over OWPs would include the ability to reload, and the ability to alter ammo loads to best suit the target-of-the-moment.

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

destiny2
Decaying Rocky Odious Non Evil Stupid Inane Nobody
Rogue Drone Recovery Syndicate
#195 - 2013-01-11 22:06:09 UTC
how do you know if you kill anyone with a orbital strike you get some kills on your combat log or what ?
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#196 - 2013-01-12 02:26:12 UTC
Nukleanis wrote:
Wouldn't ground-based defences (big-ass weapons seen in trailers) just eliminate orbital platforms?

I like the carrier-based air support idea, though. A carrier can launch support craft such as bombers (which can be destroyed by AA equipped tanks), or can deliver additional clones via orbital dropship. Both ideas would be subject to a delay while ships deploy to the surface, but air strikes would have to be able to do something that bombardment cannot - such as dusties being able to control the craft we launch (drone uplink?) or being able to specify a strafing run after being called down from orbit.


You obviously don't deploy orbitals over a planet that isn't in your control, you deploy them over a planet that is in your control. Your own cannons won't be shooting your own orbitals.

“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

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#197 - 2013-01-12 02:37:48 UTC
1) There will probably eventually be variable sized bombardments from each size ship.

2) Making it accessible in small ships means Dust players who jump into Eve can almost immediately turn around and engage in orbital strikes, connecting the two worlds for them.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#198 - 2013-01-12 02:41:40 UTC
mkint wrote:
The real question is why there is no way to grief. Dust does not deserve to be a part of eve if there is no griefing.

Because the console FPS players are a fickle lot and Dust will die a quick death if griefing is a major part of the game.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#199 - 2013-01-12 03:24:15 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
mkint wrote:
The real question is why there is no way to grief. Dust does not deserve to be a part of eve if there is no griefing.

Because the console FPS players are a fickle lot and Dust will die a quick death if griefing is a major part of the game.


I'm playing it now, saw a comment in local about how "without some more 'funfactor' this game is going to die"

I lolled

“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

Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
#200 - 2013-01-12 03:48:04 UTC
Came to this thread to devour the whiners and nitpickers with logic and science, but ten pages later,I see that everyone else already did a fabulous job. So now I have nothing to do.

Well, maybe point out my own (very narrow) disappointment regarding orbital bombardment with Dessies. In the novel Templar One (yeah, I read it) the story foreshadowed two forms of orbital bombardment - dreads and dessies. I'm sure the dreads will come later, but in the books, dessie bombardment came from what amounted to strafing runs. I think it's perfectly in keeping with lore and logic for dessies to bomb from orbit, but strafing runs would have just been soooooooooo much coooooooooler.

I am not an alt of Chribba.