These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Portable Launch Bay
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1 - 2013-09-20 17:44:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikk Narrel
Can hold up to 5 fighters.

Must be anchored before use. Can be in any location, EXCEPT behind POS shields.

Size is 30,000 m3 ready to deploy, 10,000 m3 packaged (must be unpackaged in Outpost or POS SMA first)

Scan resolution is cruiser sized, if being hunted.

Same skills as required for a carrier, as this is effectively a piece of one.

Structure defense only, no armor or shields.
(3,000 HP, then it pops and the fighters are adrift)
Must be loaded with fighters in Outpost or SMA prior to deploy.

Based on Velicitia's idea about range limitations, I would suggest .5 AU range per level of the fighter skill itself.
This means you could anchor it off grid from your location, up to that distance. The fighters would return to the PLB in the event you left this range.

This could be the last defense of the device, in the event it's user is unable to intercept and block a hostile.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#2 - 2013-09-20 17:48:15 UTC
Why?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3 - 2013-09-20 18:03:25 UTC
Kahega Amielden wrote:
Why?

For pilots who want to use fighter type craft in addition to their regular ship.

The PLB represents a highly portable solution.

This object, once anchored, allows the owner to field 5 fighters, assuming they could do so while piloting the carrier of the same racial origin.

It offers this advantage, but with risk. The PLB is easily destroyed, and not particularly hard to locate either.

For PvE this could be beneficial, possibly not permitted in high security.
For PvP, the moment they knew you had it they would begin scanning for the source, and this must be proactively defended if it is to survive.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Velicitia
XS Tech
#4 - 2013-09-20 18:24:39 UTC
... it could be workable.

Minimum fix is that it would need someone at the POS controlling the "fighter landing array", and there are other restrictions in the control range (e.g. 1 AU -- if their "anchor" pilot gets too far away, the drones come back).

Also, probably limit the fighters to the player's "Fighters" skill (i.e. 1 fighter per level).

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#5 - 2013-09-20 18:34:19 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
... it could be workable.

Minimum fix is that it would need someone at the POS controlling the "fighter landing array", and there are other restrictions in the control range (e.g. 1 AU -- if their "anchor" pilot gets too far away, the drones come back).

Also, probably limit the fighters to the player's "Fighters" skill (i.e. 1 fighter per level).

That is a version I had not considered, as a POS module.

It would probably be similar to a POS gunner role, in that case.

I like the range limit idea too, it makes the user place the device closer to it's intended location.

For basic use, you could have it positioned off grid to a mining belt, so NPC's would not pop it casually, and use the fighters as guards for a mining ship, anything from a Rorqual to a Mackinaw.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Velicitia
XS Tech
#6 - 2013-09-20 18:43:58 UTC
ah, I read it as a POS module to begin with Smile

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Jane Schereau
#7 - 2013-09-20 20:21:37 UTC
This has been proposed for EVE:Valkyrie. It is a cool concept. More than that I could not say until I saw all the details.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#8 - 2013-09-20 20:40:37 UTC
Jane Schereau wrote:
This has been proposed for EVE:Valkyrie. It is a cool concept. More than that I could not say until I saw all the details.

If that is the first person fighter flying game I drooled over, very cool.

One of the key notes of this idea, however, relates to the current game.

This item is something a PvE or PvP player can make use of.

Here is a detail that may not have been obvious:
It can't run away, at least not in any manner that would avoid a threat able to find you within the time frame of unanchoring and stowing in the ship that brought it in.
And no fighting ship has the cargo room for this either.
Not even a blockade runner can deploy it or recover it, though they can transport it in packaged form.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#9 - 2013-09-20 23:24:56 UTC
Seems like a way for carrier pilots to have fighter support while flying a totally different ship and not risking their expensive capital ship. If you want the reward, you should have to take the risk.

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#10 - 2013-09-21 01:27:53 UTC
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
Seems like a way for carrier pilots to have fighter support while flying a totally different ship and not risking their expensive capital ship. If you want the reward, you should have to take the risk.

It lacks the defense and support a carrier brings too.

In fact, short of a capital kill squad, this idea is far more likely to promote PvP, as the owner will be unable to wisk it away to avoid danger.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#11 - 2013-09-21 02:15:21 UTC
I like it. Mainly because of how little firepower it takes to destroy it.

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
Velicitia
XS Tech
#12 - 2013-09-21 11:03:08 UTC
3k HP seems a bit on the low side -- I mean, that low, even frigates have a good chance of taking it out. I wouldn't go too much higher, though something that gives the owner a chance at keeping it alive -- say cruiser or BC EHP (shields/armor follow racial POS?) but with a sig rad of a BS (or slightly larger).

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#13 - 2013-09-21 12:33:01 UTC
Interesting idea

Tell me this... i might have missed this one. What happens to the fighters if the structure is destroyed? Do they keep working or?

I mean the stucture is kinda easy to blow up and if that would get rid of the fighter threat then it seems abit too easy. Just saying.

But I do like the idea. Could be nice extension for tower defence also.

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#14 - 2013-09-21 13:30:51 UTC
Azrael Dinn wrote:
Interesting idea

Tell me this... i might have missed this one. What happens to the fighters if the structure is destroyed? Do they keep working or?

I mean the stucture is kinda easy to blow up and if that would get rid of the fighter threat then it seems abit too easy. Just saying.

But I do like the idea. Could be nice extension for tower defence also.


Nikk Narrel wrote:
Structure defense only, no armor or shields.
(3,000 HP, then it pops and the fighters are adrift)
Must be loaded with fighters in Outpost or SMA prior to deploy.



The fighters go uncontrolled.

I really liked Velicitia's mention of range limitations, so while it's primary defense could be hiding it, it would not be too far from where it needed to operate.
Always withing easy scan range.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#15 - 2013-09-21 16:12:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
It's cute. I like it for giving us something worth defending.

A similar line of anchor able expendables would be cool too-- deployable off grid boosters that apply to offensive abilities. deployable stationary guns to help defend the stuff.

No deployable forcefield, but perhaps a deployable module that would add an additional 3k shields to the rest of the deployable set, with the possibility of additional deployable to improve resist profile.

Basically allow easily destructible, deployable POS to be set up as a base of operations for a combat fleet. It must be defended, and others in the area will want to attack it to remove the advantage it would give to the owners in the system.

Rather than not make it usable in High Sec, give it a feature that if you start using the advantages against rats, rat fleets begin attacking the deployables-- thus creating semi-proactive missions where no loyalty points are awarded, though if kept running long enough the potential for officer spawns and drops occur. Make it so that deployables can be attacked without CONCORD intervention, though the attackers get suspect flags.

Don't make them terribly expensive. Use this to spur PVP activity by giving us something worth defending that actually needs defending, without ruinous consequences for failure.


EDIT: These should not be recoverable. Once placed, they die where they are one way or another. They should also have a limited lifespan, perhaps increased through a skill.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#16 - 2013-09-21 20:34:42 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
It's cute. I like it for giving us something worth defending.

A similar line of anchor able expendables would be cool too-- deployable off grid boosters that apply to offensive abilities. deployable stationary guns to help defend the stuff.

No deployable forcefield, but perhaps a deployable module that would add an additional 3k shields to the rest of the deployable set, with the possibility of additional deployable to improve resist profile.

Basically allow easily destructible, deployable POS to be set up as a base of operations for a combat fleet. It must be defended, and others in the area will want to attack it to remove the advantage it would give to the owners in the system.

Rather than not make it usable in High Sec, give it a feature that if you start using the advantages against rats, rat fleets begin attacking the deployables-- thus creating semi-proactive missions where no loyalty points are awarded, though if kept running long enough the potential for officer spawns and drops occur. Make it so that deployables can be attacked without CONCORD intervention, though the attackers get suspect flags.

Don't make them terribly expensive. Use this to spur PVP activity by giving us something worth defending that actually needs defending, without ruinous consequences for failure.


EDIT: These should not be recoverable. Once placed, they die where they are one way or another. They should also have a limited lifespan, perhaps increased through a skill.

Nice ideas you have here... flesh them out a little and propose them, I would love to contribute towards the idea.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2013-09-23 11:15:46 UTC
I think it needs to be able to survive more than 1 volley from a tornado....

Some amount of HP that would at least allow you to warp to it (assuming you get a notification that its under attack), and arrive before you see it explode due to 1 subcapital ship.

I would give it about as much EHP as a procuror.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#18 - 2013-09-23 12:15:37 UTC
Verity Sovereign wrote:
I think it needs to be able to survive more than 1 volley from a tornado....

Some amount of HP that would at least allow you to warp to it (assuming you get a notification that its under attack), and arrive before you see it explode due to 1 subcapital ship.

I would give it about as much EHP as a procuror.


seconded, with the caveat that we're talking about an un-tanked procurer (possibly even pilot-less ... don't have the base stats in front of me right now).

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#19 - 2013-09-23 13:41:11 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Verity Sovereign wrote:
I think it needs to be able to survive more than 1 volley from a tornado....

Some amount of HP that would at least allow you to warp to it (assuming you get a notification that its under attack), and arrive before you see it explode due to 1 subcapital ship.

I would give it about as much EHP as a procuror.


seconded, with the caveat that we're talking about an un-tanked procurer (possibly even pilot-less ... don't have the base stats in front of me right now).


This is a valid point, it should be able to survive long enough for an encounter to happen.

That is the big reason why I made it possible to anchor at a safe spot, notably one within operating range. Being within that range always means being able to scan for it too.

It is both a great boost to DPS, as well as a weak spot to be attacked.

If the devs feel it needs more defense, I would not disagree, but I want them to decide that.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Alundil
Rolled Out
#20 - 2013-09-23 19:35:39 UTC
Interesting proposal. Couple points/critiques/questions.

1. What area of the game do you see this used in? All? 0.0? Anywhere other than High Sec (since there are no carriers, thus no fighters, allowed there)?

2. With such low HP, pretty much any cloaking and scanning ship, aside from CovOps class, will have enough DPS on board to kill this in less than 5 minutes. How will this spur combat if the defenders are unable to get on grid with the PLB in time to even see the attacker, much less aggress?

3. Controllable range of the fighters gives me some concerns as well, but from a logistics of deployment angle instead of a combat angle. If the controllable range is .5 AU (and I applaud the presumed goal of differentiating from the ratting carrier system-wide fighters) and the volume of the PLB is 30km3 this will require the following:
-a. A rigged industrial or an Orca to carry the module
-b. An interceptor or other fast frigate to create an off grid safe of whatever site/anom/celestial you plan to be within .5 AU of
-c. The bookmark from b
-d. The industrial to warp to the location provided by bookmark from b
-e. This requires either swapping ships at a POS, another player driving, or alt+tab to second acct for this to work.
None of this is written as a "knock against" the idea, but to illustrate a question. With all of that effort, why would an EVE player do all of that instead of simply running whatever site/anom with a second person and/or alt in the first place? I'm not sure that this would deliver the perceived benefit based on the effort to make it worthwhile and without it the increase in PVP from it isn't realized either.

As I opened with, I like the idea. I'm just not sure it'll work as you've outlined so far.

I'm right behind you
12Next page