Player Features and Ideas Discussion

oh one more thing..


..there goes CCP again, removing all hope for ::SOLO:: pvp..



..scrubs

Heres another idea... instead of going for some off the wall skill to use the "Bastion" module, just make it require Tactical Weapon Reconfiguration IV if you really want to build a stepping stone for the capital ships (Just like how the Widow requires Jump Drive Calibration IV).

EDIT: Black Ops in General, gah the curse of flying Caldari.

Learn trigonometry. Two MJD jumps lets you lend anywhere within 200km of your start point. If the gate is 60km away, jump out at an angle to the line between your position and then back onto the gate. It'll take a bit of practice to get the angles right, but this is EVE and it's supposed to require player skill, right?

id want to see that

You can start with those PL reports.

For those who don't know how to read them: click Battle Overview

CCP are brute force changing the meta for fleet fights away from big logi gangs over to cap unstable locally repped ships. In a certain way of speaking this will heal many wounds that have been opened over the years but it will promote alpha fleets more than ever OTOH.

Expect to see fleets of armageddons and maelstroms supplemented by damping recons. Combination of factors when inckuding the changes to defensive strategies I can only envisage this benefitting big alliances the most. At least now smaller entities will have an slightly easier time thanks to increasing vulnerability to cap warfare and generally lower ehp values

So... why not just require Tactical Weapon Configuration? Marauders already require AWU 5 which is TWC's prereq. TWC is the siege module skill. TWC is a needed stepping stone for all dreads. Etc..

/full_circle

Granted, High Energy Physics requires Science V which many people will have for +5 implants, but if you're increasing the powergrid on Marauders, Engineering V isn't needed except for Capital Shield/Energy systems. So you're basically screwing over armor dreads and people who use HEP research agents? Disclaimer: this was after a quick scan of Evemon, I may have missed critical items that make Science V and Engineering V "mandatory."

Having never flown any Marauders before but being very interested in them and having a hard time justifying getting into one given all the training time needed vs. their utility, I welcome the changes (especially for the Vargur). That being said, I've read a bunch in the past about how the are used and quite a few posts in this thread, and I figured I give my two cents.

#1: Stuff that I liked:
- fitting changes (esp. power grid)
- the concept of mode, though it'll have to be tweaked
- MJD changes, given the hit and run idea that comes mind with "marauder"
- I don't really like the decrease in defense stats, but I suppose it's fair to keep them from being OP

#2: They are T2 battleships, designed for marauding (to roam and raid in search of plunder)
- give them T2 resists, scan strength/resolution, etc.
- increased agility and speed for the 'raiding'
- basically make them what HACs are to T1 cruisers in terms of base stats

#3: They are (or were) targeted towards PvE, and I believe lots of people used them for solo mission running (I'll cover incursions in my bastion mode section)
- tractor beam bonus to be ~130%, keeps them fairly capable of working solo without a noctis, but still leaves the noctis very useful if you have one close by
- web bonuses continue to apply to ships that had them
- at a minimum, revert drone changes back to current stats. Drones are very useful to those who work alone, esp. those hulls that don't have web bonuses

#4: Bastion mode tweaks, taking into account all of the above:
- drop Bastion resist bonus to ~20% to accommodate for higher (T2) resists from above
- local rep bonus: make it 25-35% instead of 100%, and allow remote repping. People flying solo can usually tank L4 missions pretty reasonably and if the have trouble they can MJD out, deploy, rep and build cap while picking off rats from a far (same goes for solo/small gang PvP unless they are prevented from jumping). Allowing remote reps keeps these ships viable in incursions and fleet activity. 100% bonus to local reps and disallowing remote reps makes these ships OP (tank wise) for solo PvE (and PvP perhaps) while making them not all that useful in group situations (esp. small gang and incursions, and remember, these are primarily PvE ships)
- give a damage bonus to Bastion mode, say 20-30%. That way these ships behave more like mini-dreads (which many believed they are being designed like) while still leaving the pirate BS's as the premier damage platform. As it stands in incursions, there's basically 0 benefit to Bastion mode because there aren't tanking or damage application problems for the most part (which are the problems Bastion mode solves) while not solving the problem of increasing damage output. Similar situation applies to PvP and solo PvE: Bastion mode basically provides breathing room which doesn't make a huge difference in either (solo PvE because you can already tank everything, solo PvP because once you can't warp or jump there's a decent chance you're screwed anyways once your opponent is under your guns)
- please don't make the Bastion skill requirements horrendously long, as this ship already takes tons of training. OR:
- make the tactical weapon reconfiguration skill the prerequisite for the bastion module and have the modules bonuses depend on the level of this skill. I'd make my proposed numbers the equivalent approximate of TWR IV (TWR IV provides slightly less than those numbers would probably be better) and it can act as a stepping stone to dreads.

#5: Slot layout:
- give each ship a mid slot instead of high (except maybe Golem... an extra low might be more useful there). I realise you're trying to preserve the high utilities since the Bastion module will take a high, but this game is all about trade-offs. Maybe even leave the slots as they are and make it so that fitting the Bastion modules opens up the extra mid or low (although that sounds kinda stupid even to me, but whatever... food for thought).

So those are my thoughts for now. Feel free to rip them to shreds, because I'm sure I'm not right about everything and missing some stuff.

R-click, open in a new tab, just like every kb link on these forums.

Battleship sized HACs is a horrible idea. You would basically end up with 1 Battleship to rule them all because Battleships are, at their core, DPS and tank machines. If you let one Battleship class do it all there's not much room left for any sort of specialization. You are basically saying "give me a god battleship" that's got about as much chance of happening as I have of getting elected to the CSM (and if I were I'd make sure it didn't happen).



The tractor beam bonus being adjusted upward slightly has been suggested several times.

The web-bonuses are over-powered, as evidenced by the popularity of the ships that had them in roles where they were otherwise hampered by their poor sensor suite and lower DPS than comparable ships. The web bonus is essentially a license to be immune to short-range anything because you can hold someone down and hit them until they explode.

Yes, drones are very powerful, the bay should probably be larger because it's helpful for missions but they don't need more drones on field, that would risk making them too strong against smaller more maneuverable ships which are the natural counter to a big ball of hitpoints that can't move.



Again, you're asking for a god-battleship. This is power-creep of the worst sort and a bad idea.

Specifically, the Pirate Battleships are supposed to do mor DPS and the skill train is, at present, 5 days on an off-map plan ~4 on map assuming you have the pre-reqs for Marauders and Science 5.



Yes, this is a game about trade-offs. 4 Utility Highs is a very unique option for any ship, let alone a Battleship. Extra mid-slots on the other hand would be nothing new and add a ton more utility to ships that already get to replace ~2 tanking modules each with a high slot.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip

Seriously though, I appreciate creative ideas and some of these are certainly creative, I just don't think most of them would be good for Eve as a whole.