Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I'm bumping this a bit; I think it deserves more discussion and a look by the devs.

Right now I can't come up with a disadvantage... It would be a brand new role. Having ships that can easily set up and destroy/remove deployables and POS would probably increase the usage of the former (which would fit very well with even more deployable types) and vastly make the removal of the latter easier, in terms of abandoned POS (which are a problem in W-space, but no so much in K-space).

About the proposed ideas, I find the deploy/anchor time quite fitting and desirable.

About what ships should they be, I'm thinking ORE could say something about this. Even though I like racial ships, ORE is an expert in all things industrial, and they're still making new ships (read this devblog, especially the part it talks about the Prospect is the first of a new line of ships, "Expedition Frigates"). Those ships being ORE would easy things up for balancing, and as posted before, it could be a nice role for the Primae (or yet another Noctis variant!). The thing is the combat role part, since ORE is more about defending itself when necessary... Perhaps drones?

Can I restructure this a bit with some suggestions?


First I think it'd be a good idea to make these ships Battlecruisers. I will admit that this opinion is partially based upon the fact that BC's are the most thinly populated subcap hull type, but it also fits rather well, and I'll try to explain why.

The combat engineer as described is someone who is on the field for extended periods of time supporting fleets. They are also playing a primarily support role, and there is already a mechanic in game that complements extended activity in a single system and support role ships: Warfare links. Giving Combat Engineer ships a single Warfare Link slot with a bonus equal to a command ship would make them very handy to have in between the periods when they are doing their structure oriented tasks, meaning that this ship won't be something that you pull out to accomplish a certain task and then immediately put back in the hangar. It will have a purpose in the fleet, and not just as a swiss army knife to be pulled out of the pocket when the opportunity arises.

Making it a BC also solves a lot of other sticky questions at the same time. A support role frigate could easily be caught and melted in seconds by any interceptor while it is doing tasks where it wouldn't be desirable to keep backup on the grid because that would put your reinforcements at unnecessary risk. A BC hull would have plenty of time to call in backup or assess the situation and determine that he shouldn't call anyone, because it could likely lead to more losses with little strategic gain. You can give it enough DPS to make bashing enemy structures feasible, and you reduce the likelihood that these vessels just become a cheap tool for harassment, where combat engineer ships warp into one of your structures and start tearing it apart at a very accelerated rate and then immediately leave when you show up to defend because lol frigates warp fast and "they're not fit for PvP".

You also don't have to use the bag of infinite holding trick to give them a large, specialized cargo hold. The Gnosis has 900m3 of standard cargo space, it's not unreasonable to ask for 1500m3 of specialized cargo space or maybe a bit more with that precedent being set.

I just think a BC hull would fit the role more properly and would circumvent having to introduce a lot of possibly janky mechanics to allow the ship to serve it's purpose.

There has also been a lot of people asking for the ability to pull down abandoned POS's, and I think you could roll that ability into a combat engineer ship nicely.

Neat idea.

Specifically because it's not a combat role labeled as Combat Engineer with the typical MMO/FPS traits of a regular front-line brute.

Pretty interesting ship role.

I don't know, the idea of transferring locks to other ships in the fleet sounds like a recipe for disaster. If everyone is focusing that ship, reps would be on it. If all of those locks got set to other ships which may or may not be able to handle the aggro would make the logi's job a nightmare. Not to mention nobody would want to fly in a fleet when the obvious loot pinata will end up costing their ship because of it's derpy aggro management.

Only if we can introduce the Spy ship as well.

You mean it should be a minmatar ship?

It would actually be fairly predictable, as only the ships closest to it by intent would likely be affected.

(Ships with long range attacking would adapt by trying to remove 'obstacles', and groups wanting to focus on the engineer boat would send in short range blaster boats to minimize this defense ability)

Long story short, the engineer ship is only truly vulnerable when it's fleet buddies are gone from range.
Your opponents can't cherry pick it from your group if you play smart.
(as opposed to previous where off grid boosting and support was such a wonderful idea)

...Also, what would be the point of a stationary "Doom my allies for my survival" mode when it's intended job is moving around the field clearing/deploying structures?

Again though, I don't see the point of making a ship whose sole purpose is moving around the battlefield completely immobile.

Didn't think about seige'd dreads and marauders. You're right, if there is a way to limit the demo charge's target to structures only, that would be ideal. While realistically a charge made to take down a structure should be just as effective against a parked ship, it would wreak havoc on game balance.