These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

T3 battleships idea
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Captain Robby
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2015-01-28 21:34:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Robby
I have always wondered because ships are based on versatility for Tech 3 ships how about for Battleship t3 there versatility comes from being piloted by 2 players this could give the following things. To have more then 8 guns up to double that amount for instance most ships come with for each gun slot 2 sets of guns for each side of the ship how about each player would control each side where to fire those guns giving you the option of 2 targets also providing co-operation also for mid and low slots is freely controlled by both players whether to turn them on or off this would give 2 heads for the price of 1 when it comes to reaction time for shield booster or armour repair. As for drones have 10 as you now have 2 people so 5 per person.

The concept idea comes from the film pacific rim if you are wondering where I got the inspiration for the idea.
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#2 - 2015-01-28 21:39:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Captain Robby wrote:
I have always wondered because ships are based on versatility for Tech 3 ships how about for Battleship t3 there versatility comes from being piloted by 2 players this could give the following things. To have more then 8 guns up to double that amount for instance most ships come with for each gun slot 2 sets of guns for each side of the ship how about each player would control each side where to fire those guns giving you the option of 2 targets also providing co-operation also for mid and low slots is freely controlled by both players whether to turn them on or off this would give 2 heads for the price of 1 when it comes to reaction time for shield booster or armour repair. As for drones have 10 as you now have 2 people so 5 per person.


Are you going for a Troll Thread Bingo?

TLDR: Having multiple people control one hull is a nightmare for many reasons, starting with the inability to code it (It was looked at long ago as a possibility for caps to carry others along) what happens when one logs off or one logs on without the other, etc. Docking players inside other players makes the legacy code cringe at just the thought.

Whose skills does it use?

Then you get into the bit where the ship is absolutely horribly 100% overpowered. A small issue.

Oh and the issue where we now have cones of fire for each side of the ship, and monitoring to make sure that guns can no longer fire if the target is out of their cone of fire. This means every time the ship turns, moves, or the target moves, it needs another position and direction check.

And a 16 gun, 10 drone BS is just plain broken.


TLDR:TLDR: No.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3 - 2015-01-28 22:56:53 UTC
You do realise that this would just be used by one player and their alt, right?
Captain Robby
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2015-01-28 22:57:43 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Captain Robby wrote:
I have always wondered because ships are based on versatility for Tech 3 ships how about for Battleship t3 there versatility comes from being piloted by 2 players this could give the following things. To have more then 8 guns up to double that amount for instance most ships come with for each gun slot 2 sets of guns for each side of the ship how about each player would control each side where to fire those guns giving you the option of 2 targets also providing co-operation also for mid and low slots is freely controlled by both players whether to turn them on or off this would give 2 heads for the price of 1 when it comes to reaction time for shield booster or armour repair. As for drones have 10 as you now have 2 people so 5 per person.


Are you going for a Troll Thread Bingo?

TLDR: Having multiple people control one hull is a nightmare for many reasons, starting with the inability to code it (It was looked at long ago as a possibility for caps to carry others along) what happens when one logs off or one logs on without the other, etc. Docking players inside other players makes the legacy code cringe at just the thought.

Whose skills does it use?

Then you get into the bit where the ship is absolutely horribly 100% overpowered. A small issue.

Oh and the issue where we now have cones of fire for each side of the ship, and monitoring to make sure that guns can no longer fire if the target is out of their cone of fire. This means every time the ship turns, moves, or the target moves, it needs another position and direction check.

And a 16 gun, 10 drone BS is just plain broken.


TLDR:TLDR: No.


Ok first of all are you a developer for CCP dev team? if not step down off your high horse and stop dictating what the dev team can and can not do or will or will not do its called a concept of a idea from a film that might prove good and a interesting way to implement something new that could if worked be pushed on to the capital ships you my good friend do not speak for everyone in the community I feel for your comment but it just feels like your not commenting any positive input other then outlandish views on something that is not implemented.

I take it you never saw pacific rim it would use both pilot skills but to balance this the ships base attributes would be lowered to the point that having say two people with rail gun level 5 would be 50% but if say one person would had level 5 and the other had say level 2 that would only be 35% hindering its performance based on the pilots skills in general.

About the ships there are some ships in game that currently do have blind spots where the guns will not fire because the ship is not visible to them until they move back into visibility also its called using your damn co-ordination with the other person your flying with to teach broadside tactics making it a skilful ship to fly.

Why would 16 guns be broken your using 2 people in 1 ship that's no different then having 2 ships with 8 guns each... same applies to drones.

There you go try to put some positive input next time k
Captain Robby
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2015-01-28 22:59:41 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
You do realise that this would just be used by one player and their alt, right?


That already happens with alts using separate ships... why would that make a difference?
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#6 - 2015-01-28 23:02:52 UTC
Captain Robby wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
You do realise that this would just be used by one player and their alt, right?


That already happens with alts using separate ships... why would that make a difference?



It completely removes whatever drawback you're trying to impose with the 'two pods required!' thing?
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2015-01-28 23:06:11 UTC
For **** sake... Why is it so hard for people to use the search tool? This topic got to be one of the top 5 of the week.
Captain Robby
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2015-01-28 23:06:31 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Captain Robby wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
You do realise that this would just be used by one player and their alt, right?


That already happens with alts using separate ships... why would that make a difference?



It completely removes whatever drawback you're trying to impose with the 'two pods required!' thing?


why on earth do people use forums nowadays... when people are so negative with idea's...
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2015-01-28 23:09:18 UTC
Captain Robby wrote:


why on earth do people use forums nowadays... when people are so negative with idea's...



I dunno, why do people move on to responses like this whenever anyone questions their OMG ORIGINAL IDEA DONUT STEEL?
Captain Robby
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2015-01-28 23:11:53 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Captain Robby wrote:


why on earth do people use forums nowadays... when people are so negative with idea's...



I dunno, why do people move on to responses like this whenever anyone questions their OMG ORIGINAL IDEA DONUT STEEL?


Original idea... I just said the idea was from pacific rim since when did I mention anything about original... secondly how can things change if people cant do a pro/cons of such a thing it just feels like people will shoot down a idea because it does not apply to them as a benefit rather then something that could be added to improve a existing system.
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#11 - 2015-01-28 23:16:01 UTC
Captain Robby wrote:
~snip~


Ships don't have blind spots. They might appear to at first glance, but it does not in any way shape or form effect the game. In the few angles where the guns cannot point at the target, they fire right through the hull model with no effect.

From a server standpoint, there is no "direction" to your ship in a conventional sense. Your ship is a sphere with a velocity vector. The part where a ship appears to be actually pointing a certain direction is an aproximation locally rendered by your client based on vector information from the server. This is why you get weird visual effects on things like webbing freighters into warp, visually displaying them as warping backwards initially.

Next, the part about having multiple people in one ship being a nightmare is basically straight from CCP, it pops up every time discussions about Superchargers or Titans happen when people propose "Oh hey, wouldn't it be cool to dock ships inside other ship so that super-carriers can jump and spew out a swarm of players?" CCP's response was "Oh god no, there are so many problems with trying to code that it's not funny"

EVE is an 11 year old game, and most of our basic function like docking or jumping gates is based on ancient legacy code that is so entwined with other functions, attempting to rewrite it would require a more or less complete game rewrite. POS's aggression mechanics for example largely run on mission trigger codes implemented way back when the game was brand new, contributing to the current necessity to rewrite POS's from the ground up to do anything significant with them.


If you want constructive, I'll lay it out in the most simple, unassuming way I can:

Barring a complete rewrite of the game from the ground up, your idea is mechanically impossible to implement.
Captain Robby
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2015-01-28 23:18:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Robby
Anhenka wrote:
Captain Robby wrote:
~snip~


Ships don't have blind spots. They might appear to at first glance, but it does not in any way shape or form effect the game. In the few angles where the guns cannot point at the target, they fire right through the hull model with no effect.

From a server standpoint, there is no "direction" to your ship in a conventional sense. Your ship is a sphere with a velocity vector. The part where a ship appears to be actually pointing a certain direction is an aproximation locally rendered by your client based on vector information from the server. This is why you get weird visual effects on things like webbing freighters into warp, visually displaying them as warping backwards initially.

Next, the part about having multiple people in one ship being a nightmare is basically straight from CCP, it pops up every time discussions about Superchargers or Titans happen when people propose "Oh hey, wouldn't it be cool to dock ships inside other ship so that super-carriers can jump and spew out a swarm of players?" CCP's response was "Oh god no, there are so many problems with trying to code that it's not funny"

EVE is an 11 year old game, and most of our basic function like docking or jumping gates is based on ancient legacy code that is so entwined with other functions, attempting to rewrite it would require a more or less complete game rewrite. POS's aggression mechanics for example largely run on mission trigger codes implemented way back when the game was brand new, contributing to the current necessity to rewrite POS's from the ground up to do anything significant with them.


If you want constructive, I'll lay it out in the most simple, unassuming way I can:

Barring a complete rewrite of the game from the ground up, your idea is mechanically impossible to implement.


About time you gave me a comment that does not feel like a negative stab but rather a check on past tense from the guys themselves and the factor you put in that the system is in a state where the engine would not allow it I thank you but I feel the same really about the state of the community when it comes to forums that people act very pessimistic to statements or ideas on a forum...