These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Combat Engineering ships

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Auduin Samson
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#161 - 2014-10-28 14:56:33 UTC
Yurts are the community-applied name to mobile depots. In fact, it became so common that there is a named 'Yurt' depot you can get with better stats.
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
#162 - 2014-10-28 15:06:54 UTC
Auduin Samson wrote:
Yurts are the community-applied name to mobile depots. In fact, it became so common that there is a named 'Yurt' depot you can get with better stats.

Roll

Everything's a game if you make it one - Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci

CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase - Frostys Virpio
Gaan Cathal
Angry Mustellid
#163 - 2014-10-28 19:56:20 UTC
Auduin Samson wrote:
Any sort of AOE explosion in hisec is a massive liability though (Smartbombs are just allowed, they just almost always end with the summoning of your friendly neighborhood CONCORD enforcer). With a ship, you have the ability to position yourself so that your smartbomb will have the least chance of hitting something it shouldn't, but mines introduce a wild card. Losing mines would mean that there is something floating around out there that could detonate at any moment, boop a neutral, and suddenly CONCORD rains down on you in your shiny battleship that you hopped into after you forgot that there were still lose mines floating around.

This could be solved by making them drones if they deactivate when out of control range, but that's still a big liability. A simple solution to taking out a mine layer would be bringing a neutral friend and/or alt in a noobship with you into the minefield. They get hit in the blast and the minelayer gets concordokken'd. More mine-functioning mines (Deploy, arm, leave, profit) would be a fun toy but would need to be in nullsec to not have massive-if-not-funny consequences. If mines could be treated as a deployable, they would be a great counterpart to combat engineering vessels that could lay many of them rapidly as an area denial weapon.


That would be entirely the reason I removed the (inconsequentially small) AOE from my suggestion. They'd essentially be very low volume suicide-drones with missile damage application mechanics. They'd have to do rather a lot of damage to make them worthwhile of course, but there are a fair number of obvious countermeasures ranging from smartbombs to just plain avoiding them.

And again, mines in Highsec would only be armable to attack legitimate targets.
Auduin Samson
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#164 - 2014-10-29 03:31:03 UTC
Ah, okay, I misread then. Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, that would be a pretty fun way to breathe new life into mines. They'd be a pain to balance (It'd be all to easy to either make them too powerful or not worth the cost), but it's a fun idea. Sort of like the magnetic minefield in Galaxy Quest.

You could go a step further and have the same behavior in a small deployable structure. That way, it could be paired very well with a combat engineering ship, giving it an excellent niche offensive capability.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#165 - 2014-10-29 04:34:34 UTC
I'm not sure what hull size is appropriate for this, but generally speaking this seems like a pretty good idea.
Luwc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#166 - 2014-10-29 07:44:41 UTC
I like it.

makes killing mission runner TCUs even more fun.

http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#167 - 2014-10-29 09:42:33 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I'm not sure what hull size is appropriate for this, but generally speaking this seems like a pretty good idea.


This was why I suggested it be one of the new range of T3 destroyers. A low combat capable ship but able to switch role from POS bashing (lazer bonus but with huge tracking and range drop), to structure deployment, to any other engineering application people can think of. Maybe an ORE ship since they are an industrial corp, a support destroyer to complement the noctis. It could even have a comet mining configuration to rival the venture/prospector. The POS bashing lasers could be the mining lasers reconfigured into low range plasma cutters.
Auduin Samson
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#168 - 2014-10-29 12:43:35 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I'm not sure what hull size is appropriate for this, but generally speaking this seems like a pretty good idea.


This was why I suggested it be one of the new range of T3 destroyers. A low combat capable ship but able to switch role from POS bashing (lazer bonus but with huge tracking and range drop), to structure deployment, to any other engineering application people can think of. Maybe an ORE ship since they are an industrial corp, a support destroyer to complement the noctis. It could even have a comet mining configuration to rival the venture/prospector. The POS bashing lasers could be the mining lasers reconfigured into low range plasma cutters.


This is a whole bunch of different ship ideas though. The engineering ships outlined here would serve a very specific purpose. Throwing a wildcard like T3 ships into the mix not only reduces the focus on their primary purpose (building and breaking deployables) but would also be a pain to implement without throwing off balance. Once CCP can manage to finally fix the balance issues that plague current T3 ships it might be worth looking into adding more, but for the time being, lets keep from adding any more win buttons.
Gaan Cathal
Angry Mustellid
#169 - 2014-10-30 14:21:35 UTC
Auduin Samson wrote:

This is a whole bunch of different ship ideas though. The engineering ships outlined here would serve a very specific purpose. Throwing a wildcard like T3 ships into the mix not only reduces the focus on their primary purpose (building and breaking deployables) but would also be a pain to implement without throwing off balance. Once CCP can manage to finally fix the balance issues that plague current T3 ships it might be worth looking into adding more, but for the time being, lets keep from adding any more win buttons.



This, T3 is an experiment in finding a way to make generalist ships that "change" specialisations without being Really Bad (experiment one, the T3 cruiser, was a failure in that regard). The ship we're talking about is a specialist ship with a single role, ergo it belongs in the T2 lineup.
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
#170 - 2014-11-02 09:48:29 UTC
I still think it should be a T2 industrial with a structure hold bay.

Everything's a game if you make it one - Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci

CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase - Frostys Virpio
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
#171 - 2014-11-06 10:32:49 UTC
boomp!

Everything's a game if you make it one - Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci

CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase - Frostys Virpio
Auduin Samson
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#172 - 2014-11-12 07:20:05 UTC
Would still like to hear dev feedback. The general consensus is pretty good, and the only disagreements have been around proper implementation.
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
#173 - 2014-11-13 06:42:40 UTC
agreed.

Everything's a game if you make it one - Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci

CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase - Frostys Virpio
Aran Hotchkiss
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#174 - 2014-11-13 12:07:26 UTC
I thoroughly like most of what I've seen so far

-Intrigued about the mention of demolition charges being attached to deployables (the one mentioned a while back)

-Bringing hacking into a PvP element gives me a raging boner I'm certainly keen on

-Support the idea of it being t2 destroyer and battle cruiser hulls... Any mention of t3 just makes me go 'ew'

I would've envisioned the HCES to be similar to a HIC in the sense it does very little offense but high tanking bonuses....



Certainly support this idea anyway.

And that comet mining one...

You should have enough control over your herd of cats to make them understand. If they constantly make misstakes, get better cats.
Rendiff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#175 - 2014-11-13 12:14:22 UTC
I'm glad this thread is still being discussed. I really like the idea of these ships.
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
#176 - 2014-11-15 07:15:04 UTC
so when are the CCPs going to post a reply? we've waited quite a long time!

Everything's a game if you make it one - Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci

CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase - Frostys Virpio
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
#177 - 2014-11-16 10:58:34 UTC
CCP pls

Everything's a game if you make it one - Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci

CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase - Frostys Virpio
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
#178 - 2014-11-19 07:36:52 UTC
bump

Everything's a game if you make it one - Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci

CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase - Frostys Virpio
Ceawlin Cobon-Han
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#179 - 2014-11-19 17:05:27 UTC
The time required to online things is the inbuilt counter to their functionality; the defenders can spot then and call in the demolition squad before they can get working. Reducing the ability of the defence to do this is a powerful force multiplier for the attacker; too powerful.

-1
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
#180 - 2014-11-20 07:51:32 UTC
Ceawlin Cobon-Han wrote:
The time required to online things is the inbuilt counter to their functionality; the defenders can spot then and call in the demolition squad before they can get working. Reducing the ability of the defence to do this is a powerful force multiplier for the attacker; too powerful.

-1

on the other hand, shorter anchoring and onlining time.

Everything's a game if you make it one - Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci

CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase - Frostys Virpio