These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Fixing Mines.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dagger Micstilson
State War Academy
Caldari State
#81 - 2015-05-23 11:04:02 UTC
+1

nice read but would not read again.
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#82 - 2015-05-23 15:09:12 UTC
The mines would be a useful edition, so long as they were handled correctly and their production wasent rushed. With the new specifications given, they would be practical and useful.

As with all good ideas, it takes time before you see results.
Specia1 K
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#83 - 2015-05-23 15:15:01 UTC
Deep Nine wrote:
The mines would be a useful edition, so long as they were handled correctly and their production wasent rushed. With the new specifications given, they would be practical and useful.

As with all good ideas, it takes time before you see results.


Still waiting for your answer as to WHY we need mines in the game.

fwiw, you should always address NEED as the primary point in your idea posts.

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#84 - 2015-05-23 15:17:17 UTC
That is up to Dev to decide.

I just passed on an Idea.

I never said I had a reason.
Specia1 K
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#85 - 2015-05-23 15:27:08 UTC
Deep Nine wrote:
That is up to Dev to decide.

I just passed on an Idea.

I never said I had a reason.


Roll

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#86 - 2015-05-23 16:17:29 UTC
Reasons could include strategic value and discretionary placement, providing the player with another way to use the battlefield to his advantage.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#87 - 2015-05-23 17:34:13 UTC
Deep Nine wrote:
Reasons could include strategic value and discretionary placement, providing the player with another way to use the battlefield to his advantage.

So, finally we come to the why, which is the most important part of this sort of thread. All else must flow from the reasoning for a change. If it is for strategic defensive purposes, then mines need to be fairly long term (24hr +) deployables. If it is for setting traps tactically, different parameters apply, like needing fairly good damage per mine and medium low cost. This is part of why people have been on you about this thread making no sense as it was.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#88 - 2015-05-23 18:56:08 UTC
I thought the use was implied.
Enya Sparhawk
Black Tea and Talons
#89 - 2015-05-23 20:00:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Enya Sparhawk
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
I was about to completely dismiss the whole concept of static mines, even though I love the idea it is too open to exploitation.

That said, imagine crossing an Interdictor and a Stealth Bomber...

Why not open up a new line of T2 destroyer, using those new models that people have been itching to see done as T2 varients, and create a minelayer ship class? The mines could work in a very similar way to Interdiction Probes, chuck one out, delayed online time, short 'armed' time (to prevent spamming), and they detonate by proximity with a smaller AoE than bombs.

They could be tailored to different tasks, like stasis feilds or other Ewar effects, they wouldn't necessarily have to cause actual damage.

I sort of like this idea of stealth bombers being able to anchor their own bombs to a spot (limit three or even one at a time), give them a time limit and a proximity distance ( bomb AoE), detonating for anything entering within... time limit to move to safe distance before it arms (bomb flight time?), can anchor while cloaked (stay cloaked; obviously the bomb isn't cloaked).

Ships have to be within a certain AU range of the bombs for them to be active... cap distances anchored away from structures and Pos (like anything else)

Just sit back cloaked and wait for either your bomb going off or its expiry (since you ain't picking it up again or coming within range). A ship might stop for it but a drone or missle probably wouldn't.

Bonus/hindrance: the ability to 'fire' another bomb immediately after the first one detonates.

The main idea being: nothing long term...

Bring the fight to them...

Fíorghrá: Grá na fírinne

Maireann croí éadrom i bhfad.

Bíonn súil le muir ach ní bhíonn súil le tír.

Is maith an scéalaí an aimsir.

When the lost ships of Greece finally return home...
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#90 - 2015-05-23 20:43:39 UTC
So, given the example of purpose pushing stats, I will present how you can get 2 very different sets of stats for the same sort of thing based on different reasonings.


Strategic defense mine

Exclusion zone: 5km
AOE: 10km
Activation zone: 4km
Damage: 450/450/450/450
HP: 2000/1000/1000
Anchoring time: 5 minutes
Requires 1 fuel block every 8 hours and consumes 1 block per activation
Minimum time between activations: 180 seconds
fuel bay: 40m3
Deployed and moved into place like a POS module currently is, allowing fairly precise placement.

Available as t1 and t2, t1 is dumb and activates regardless of owner standings, t2 is configurable. t1 should take ~10m isk worth of minerals, and t2 should take ~150m isk of moongoo as appropriate components. making them cost fuel blocks scales their life time with investment, and the low HP means they can be fairly rapidly cleared. Like most deployables, they should be easy to scan down, but show in the crowded structures category. The activation zone being smaller than the exlusion zone provides opportunities to manually pilot through the mine field if careful, making them fallible, but slowing down anyone unable to bull through them or willing to kill the mines to get through. The relatively high damage means they will severely hurt frigates, wound lightly tanked kiting cruisers, but heavily tanked fleet doctrine cruisers and larger ships will be able to largely shrug off the damage,

Tactical mine
Exclusion zone: 2500m
AOE 4km
Activation zone 4km
Anchoring time: 20s
Damage: 100/100/100/100
HP: 500/300/300
Lifetime: 2 hours, not scoopable, destroyed on activation. Activates on destruction

A tighter nit style of mine, with lower life span, lower damage and lower cost, suitable for seeding a trap cyno or otherwise creating a grid which is hostile to everything on it. By dint of being stupid and so on, it changes the enviornment without giving an explicit advantage to any particular user, making their deployment require good tactics to provide effective setups. The overlapping activation and AOE zones means a well placed grid can force pilots to fly through the mine field if they cannot MJD to the other side directly, and the activation on destruction means a coordinated firewall doctrine can clear a large swath quickly. the low damage means they are a softening up weapon, not a primary killer

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#91 - 2015-05-23 20:45:15 UTC
Deep Nine wrote:
I thought the use was implied.

Assumptions make an ass of umption. He has enough problems as it is with that name, so be nice and don't make assumptions. Especially in EVE, where the number of potential uses for something like this is extreme, and the number of ways to horrifically abuse many ideas is even more so.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2015-05-23 21:08:13 UTC
d0cTeR9 wrote:
*fleets of 500 show up and each dump 3 mines*
*EVE dies*

No thanks to mines, too much of a resource hog.

False. 1500 mines would barely do anything.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#93 - 2015-05-23 22:03:32 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
d0cTeR9 wrote:
*fleets of 500 show up and each dump 3 mines*
*EVE dies*

No thanks to mines, too much of a resource hog.

False. 1500 mines would barely do anything.

1500 new database entries, with full featured entries due to being targetable entities? that would make for a couple ticks of tidi each time a mine dump happened.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#94 - 2015-05-24 01:50:06 UTC
There's no proof it would create massive server lag.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#95 - 2015-05-24 03:05:18 UTC
Deep Nine wrote:
There's no proof it would create massive server lag.

Then prove it wouldn't. I could lag out a cluster by undocking in unison before the ISboxer nerf.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#96 - 2015-05-24 19:07:13 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Deep Nine wrote:
There's no proof it would create massive server lag.

Then prove it wouldn't. I could lag out a cluster by undocking in unison before the ISboxer nerf.


You made the claim, as your basis for not having mines, that they would lag out the server.

The burden of proof lies on those who make the claim.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#97 - 2015-05-24 19:45:20 UTC
Deep Nine wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Deep Nine wrote:
There's no proof it would create massive server lag.

Then prove it wouldn't. I could lag out a cluster by undocking in unison before the ISboxer nerf.


You made the claim, as your basis for not having mines, that they would lag out the server.

The burden of proof lies on those who make the claim.

Okay. I used to box 70 ships. Undocking a mere 70 ships created tidi. Being able to drop mines, when desired, as a legitimate tactic, on 255 or more ships, creates this much or more lag, meaning tidi happens again. It may not cause ongoing lag, but the moment they are dropped, tactical TIDI spike. boom. abused.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#98 - 2015-05-25 00:14:59 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Deep Nine wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Deep Nine wrote:
There's no proof it would create massive server lag.

Then prove it wouldn't. I could lag out a cluster by undocking in unison before the ISboxer nerf.


You made the claim, as your basis for not having mines, that they would lag out the server.

The burden of proof lies on those who make the claim.

Okay. I used to box 70 ships. Undocking a mere 70 ships created tidi. Being able to drop mines, when desired, as a legitimate tactic, on 255 or more ships, creates this much or more lag, meaning tidi happens again. It may not cause ongoing lag, but the moment they are dropped, tactical TIDI spike. boom. abused.


That's not even close to the same thing. And if this is your reason why not to have them, you're done.
Specia1 K
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#99 - 2015-05-25 00:43:17 UTC
Deep Nine wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Deep Nine wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Deep Nine wrote:
There's no proof it would create massive server lag.

Then prove it wouldn't. I could lag out a cluster by undocking in unison before the ISboxer nerf.


You made the claim, as your basis for not having mines, that they would lag out the server.

The burden of proof lies on those who make the claim.

Okay. I used to box 70 ships. Undocking a mere 70 ships created tidi. Being able to drop mines, when desired, as a legitimate tactic, on 255 or more ships, creates this much or more lag, meaning tidi happens again. It may not cause ongoing lag, but the moment they are dropped, tactical TIDI spike. boom. abused.


That's not even close to the same thing. And if this is your reason why not to have them, you're done.


You were done at post#84Roll

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome
Skorn Blacksword
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#100 - 2015-05-25 03:30:54 UTC
I think these could be worked back in. So long as the damage is small and the explosion radius is big (less damage to small ships), It would not be over powered. A possible solution is:

1. Deploy an object that includes a Detonator sensor at the center and then it deploys a spread of mines after its timer.

2.This limits the placement of mines within the sensors radius. Keeps people from putting a dozen on the same exact spot.

3. Then make restriction to how close the detonators can be from one another. like 10km. That would limit a bubble camp from deploying a dozen on the point where people are dragged into the bubble. But you could possible set another one on the direct path back to the gate.


By this you could control most of the variables that caused the original problems. I think there are other solutions that would be viable, and that implementing mines again is worth taking a look at.