These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Combat Engineering ships

First post
Author
Auduin Samson
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2014-05-11 16:08:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Auduin Samson
Eve has been getting a lot of fancy deployable structures lately, and I love it. In the last year's worth of expansions, we've gotten deployables that can do everything from refitting ships to shutting down cyno fields. These have all done wonderful things and enabled new forms of gameplay. Now, I present an idea to further the role of deployables: The combat engineer.

This would be a T2 frigate based on the current frigate logistic ships. It's role would be specialization in the construction AND destruction of deployable structures. It would be equipped with a very large but specialized hold that can only carry deployable structures (Yurts, MTUs, repackaged cans, etc) and would have a bonus (either fixed or per level) to deployment/on-lining speed allowing it to rapidly construct structures and carry many different options. For example, several of these in a fleet would be able to quickly construct a blockade of bubbles or micro jump units in a combat zone to assist their fleet in out-maneuvering an enemy, or assist in the speedy construction of a POS (possibly used to invade enemy territory) by deploying turrets and shield hardeners quickly.

It would be just as good at blowing up structures via a special weapon system that I will refer to as demo charges for the sake of this thread. Basically, a demo charge would be a missile with incredible amounts of damage, but a very low speed and incredibly and/or unrealistically slow explosion velocity. It would be excellent at applying massive damage to stationary targets while almost completely unable to significantly hit other ships. The low speed would also make it a short range weapon, meaning that it has to get in close to take down its target. The opposite of the above example, this could be used to break a blockade or quickly kill cyno jammers. It would also be decent at breaking down POS's and other sov structures, although its nearly non-existent damage against other pilots would make them virtually defenseless outside of a regular fleet dedicated to this purpose. Much like their T1 counterparts, these would support and enhance the role of any fleet without replacing anything already existing.

All in all, I think a ship with a role like this would fit in excellently with where the game is going. It would provide more gameplay options, serve a specific purpose, and not require substantial re-balancing to compensate for its introduction due to it's self balancing design, IE it counters itself. Being a frigate hull, they would be easily dispatched if focused, preventing them from becoming a tiny anti-structure juggernaut (unless the enemy fleet is completely incompetent, in which case they deserve what they get). Thoughts?


EDIT:
I'll add things that have been discussed here so that people don't have to read through six pages to figure it out.

1. Perhaps split combat engineers into two hulls: A small one (Frigate or destroyer) for destroying/deploying small structures and a larger one (crusier/battlecruiser) for quickly erecting large structures like POSs.

2. Make demo charge only damage structures to prevent seiged dreads from being blapped by a swarm of angry frigs.

I'll add more as I see them.
Auduin Samson
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2014-05-12 07:49:56 UTC
Sorry for the shameless bump, but it would be nice to get at least a little feedback on this before it zips off the page. There are way to many stickies in the features forum...
Ruaro
Space monitoring
#3 - 2014-05-12 09:57:34 UTC
I like the idea in general.

Only one thing I can think off to be checked forbalancing - High sec POS bashing. Just not to make it too easy. But that is somehow balanced by having reduced requirements for POS setting up.
Bob Maths
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2014-05-12 09:57:46 UTC
That's a pretty cool idea. What would the ships look like?
ZecsMarquis
The Northerners
Pandemic Horde
#5 - 2014-05-12 10:20:12 UTC
I like your line of thinking. I feel like a T3 frigate configuration should be something this specialized. One of the 5 or so configs a t3 frigate could be. Very specialized. Maybe just make the T2 logi frigs more comparable to their t2 cruiser counterparts but make the materials cheaper so it's similar to the price of an inty or AF. Nice idea! On that line of thought hopefully they can introduce t3 frigs in very specialized roles such as one you propose and make them have a lot lower building requirements so that they are not as expensive to make and buy as well since they are only frigate hulls after all.
Auduin Samson
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2014-05-12 11:04:13 UTC
Ruaro wrote:
Only one thing I can think off to be checked forbalancing - High sec POS bashing. Just not to make it too easy. But that is somehow balanced by having reduced requirements for POS setting up.


A simple solution would be to give the demo charges very long cycle time. They'd be strong enough to one-shot most deployable structures found in a battle, but against a POS they wouldn't be as efficient due to the defenses (that should be) in place. Again though, if the enemy isn't able to put up a reasonable counter measure, or at least muster the strength to take down a frigate, that's less an issue of balance and more of who is the better player.

ZecsMarquis wrote:
On that line of thought hopefully they can introduce t3 frigs in very specialized roles such as one you propose and make them have a lot lower building requirements so that they are not as expensive to make and buy as well since they are only frigate hulls after all.


A fun concept, but I think that a T3-style frigate would be way too overpowered. Perhaps the combat engineer ship could have the enormous Deployables cargo hold be a module rather than built in though. Or maybe it could start with X amount of space for deployables, but be increased with a specific module. Hell, the idea of a deployables hold highslot module sounds like it could be fun in itself. Something like this would mean that you could make a combat engineering ship be an effective frigate with the capability to build OR destroy, or you could make it do both by sacrificing armament. Food for thought.

If enough people think combat engineers sound cool, I'd love to see what the Dev's think about how this could play into the game and if it is even a possibility.
Komodo Askold
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#7 - 2014-05-12 11:16:33 UTC
I really like the idea! More than a special weapon system for destroying the deployables, I'd suggest something like being able to hack these deployables in order to "unanchor" them and take them... which is one of the ideas proposed for unanchoring abandoned POS at W-space.

In fact, I imagine a line of T2 ships whose role is the anchoring and unanchoring of structures: the frigate proposed by the OP would be about deployables and a larger ship with similiar bonuses would be about POS and similar sized structures.

I'm really liking this; I think it deserves a good review. +1
Tinukeda'ya Naskingar
Minmatar Expeditions ltd.
#8 - 2014-05-12 12:00:28 UTC
I kinda like this idea, with one small exception. I believe frigate hull is a little too small for this. I would made it either cruiser or even an hauler line ship.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -  Arthur C. Clarke

Auduin Samson
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2014-05-12 12:03:51 UTC
Komodo Askold wrote:
In fact, I imagine a line of T2 ships whose role is the anchoring and unanchoring of structures: the frigate proposed by the OP would be about deployables and a larger ship with similiar bonuses would be about POS and similar sized structures.


Perhaps a T2 industrial or cruiser focused on the anchoring, hacking, and unanchoring of POS modules. Leave the frigate for small deployables and have a large ship that can speedily anchor towers and hack large modules to take them over, as long as they're past their reinforce timers.

I think that frigates would be a great size for a combat engineer ship that has to zip around the field quickly to put modules up and take them down. Tinukeda'ya is probably right though, when it comes to POS modules at least the ship should be bigger. Perhaps the role could be split into something like Field Engineers and Heavy Engineers. The former stays on the battlefield to assist in laying and removing traps, while the latter focuses on larger scale construction.
Shivanthar
#10 - 2014-05-12 12:08:59 UTC
Players, make a warm welcome to our recent proposed role: Shamans in the space!

_Half _the lies they tell about me **aren't **true.

Komodo Askold
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#11 - 2014-05-12 12:09:30 UTC
Auduin Samson wrote:
Komodo Askold wrote:
In fact, I imagine a line of T2 ships whose role is the anchoring and unanchoring of structures: the frigate proposed by the OP would be about deployables and a larger ship with similiar bonuses would be about POS and similar sized structures.


Perhaps a T2 industrial or cruiser focused on the anchoring, hacking, and unanchoring of POS modules. Leave the frigate for small deployables and have a large ship that can speedily anchor towers and hack large modules to take them over, as long as they're past their reinforce timers.

I think that frigates would be a great size for a combat engineer ship that has to zip around the field quickly to put modules up and take them down. Tinukeda'ya is probably right though, when it comes to POS modules at least the ship should be bigger. Perhaps the role could be split into something like Field Engineers and Heavy Engineers. The former stays on the battlefield to assist in laying and removing traps, while the latter focuses on larger scale construction.
I agree with the POS ship being either a cruiser or a hauler. A hauler would make more sense due to the large size of the structures, but a cruiser would be in line with the deployables frigate... The Field/Heavy Engineers split is interesting too and makes sense.
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#12 - 2014-05-12 12:13:30 UTC
I think it's a role suitable for a larger ship... for what you described it's the industrials that come to mind.

+1 for this idea tho.
TheMercenaryKing
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#13 - 2014-05-12 13:50:42 UTC
Think of how fast you could setup a POS!
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2014-05-12 15:03:57 UTC
+1, nice idea!

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#15 - 2014-05-12 18:28:25 UTC
Commenting to bump. I actually think ships based around tactical use of deployables is a really awesome idea and could add a whole new dimension to things.
Auduin Samson
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2014-05-13 04:08:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Auduin Samson
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
I think it's a role suitable for a larger ship... for what you described it's the industrials that come to mind.


I really like the idea of a small fast ship dedicated for deployment and destruction of battlefield deployable equipment. Since they would have little armament in order to stay balanced, they would need to rely on speed and maneuverability to stay alive for any length of time. For POS modules though, you're absolutely right, something this small would be an odd choice. This is why I also suggested the field engineer/heavy engineer split. This is kind of what I have in mind for each, although any decisions like this would be up to the devs and need to be run through several rounds of balancing first.

First, being a T2 ship, they would require new skills (Lets call them Combat Engineering and Starbase Engineering for the sake of comparison), each of which would be dependent on the Anchoring skill in some way (Perhaps Combat Engineering could require Anchoring V, and Starbase Engineering could require Starbase Defense Management IV). Combat engineering would apply to the field engineering ships, while Starbase engineering would apply to the heavy engineer ships capable of quickly deploying POS towers and structures.

Onto specs, I would think something like this.



Field Engineer ship bonuses:

Racial frigate:
5% bonus per level to racial weapon system (Some kind of defense, but would still be anemic compared to most ships)
5% bonus per level to Deployable hold size

Combat Engineering:
10% bonus per level to anchoring speed
4% bonus to Demolition Charge Damage

Role Bonus:
50% reduction in MWD sig radius penalty
Ability to fit Demolition Charge launcher



Heavy Engineer ship bonuses:

Racial Industrial:
5% bonus per level to agility
4% bonus per level to Shield/Armor resistances (depending on race)

Starbase Engineering:
7.5% bonus per level to deployable onlining time (Including POS modules)
10% bonus per level to Deployable hold size

Role Bonus:
Ability to fit Demolition Charge launcher
+1 Warp Core Strength



With these bonuses, the frigate would be a fast and agile ship at home on the battlefield, able to set up fortifications quickly and take down enemy systems equally effectively. Meanwhile, the Heavy engineer would be much more geared toward starbase construction. This would make them an excellent way to quickly establish a forward command point if you are attempting to invade an area or get operations up and running in risky territory. Each would have a relatively small normal cargo hold so that they can carry basic supplies but won't become resupply tenders for fleets.
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#17 - 2014-05-13 08:55:06 UTC
I'm really loving these ideas... But they probably need more opinions being heard.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2014-05-13 09:02:05 UTC
I like these ideas also, perhaps a role bonus on the heavy engineer ship to reduce anchoring time for POS components?
Auduin Samson
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2014-05-13 09:12:52 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
I like these ideas also, perhaps a role bonus on the heavy engineer ship to reduce anchoring time for POS components?


Also a very good idea. I threw in the warp strength role bonus on my suggestion because, as a (probably) industrial ship that is designed to be part of an invading force, it would need to at least be able to evade people. If it would be possible to give a bonus to the on-lining time of a module deployed by this ship, I think that would be much more useful for a ship dedicated to putting up starbases (And pocos, if it was used that way). It's been a while since I've done much with a POS, but if I remember correctly, it's the on-lining time that usually takes longer. Being able to reduce that time by a third would really be helpful if you're trying to deploy in a hurry.
Auduin Samson
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2014-05-14 03:44:47 UTC
I'm curious, does anyone see anything about this that wouldn't work? Lots of people have pitched in saying that it looks cool with a couple tweaks, but is there anyone that thinks this would be flat out bad? And if so why? Always good to hear both sides when brainstorming... prevents later surprises.
123Next pageLast page