These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Q Ships? Other trader ships?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Carnadyne
Ghost Core
#1 - 2011-09-13 17:15:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Carnadyne
With all the discussion about new ship types mostly being more of the same, I'd like to toss in my suggestion - Q Ships.

For those not familiar with the term, these were heavily armed merchant ships used as decoys in both world wars- basically wolf in sheep's clothing that caught unsuspecting warships by surprise.

Quote:
Following the First Battle of the Atlantic, by 1915 Britain was in desperate need of a countermeasure against the U-boats that were strangling her sea-lanes. Convoys, which had proved effective in earlier times (and would again prove effective during the Second World War), were rejected by the resource-strapped Admiralty and the independent captains. Depth charges of the time were relatively primitive, and almost the only chance of sinking a submarine was by gunfire or by ramming while on the surface. The problem was luring the U-boat to the surface.

A solution to this was the creation of the Q-ship, one of the most closely-guarded secrets of the war. Their codename referred to the vessels' home port, Queenstown, in Ireland.[1] These became known by the Germans as a U-Boot-Falle ("U-boat trap"). A Q-ship would appear to be an easy target, but in fact carried hidden armaments. A typical Q-ship might resemble a tramp steamer sailing alone in an area where a U-boat was reported to be operating. By seeming to be a suitable target for the U-boat's deck gun, a Q-ship might encourage the U-boat captain to make a surface attack rather than use one of his limited number of torpedoes. The Q-ships' cargoes were light wood (balsa or cork) or wooden caskets, and even if torpedoed they would remain afloat, encouraging the U-boat to surface and sink them with a deck gun. The crew might even pretend to "abandon ship". Once the U-boat was vulnerable, the Q-ship's panels would drop to reveal the deck guns, which would immediately open fire. At the same time, the White Ensign (Royal Navy flag) would be raised. With the element of surprise, a U-boat could be quickly overwhelmed.
Q-ships at Wikipedia


Example of role would be to see a nice fat freighter (or even industrial) plowing along, but when the small pirate fleet tries to take it, surprise! it has enough firepower to fight them off, instead of now where they are basically toast, even in hi-sec. What looked like an Obelisk was actually a Q ship laying in wait. Something nasty enough that 2-3 rifters (or other cheap frigs!) would get a rude awakening.

I personally believe the whole hauling/trading aspect of the game could be much greater if there was more incentive and ability to do it. Romanticizing the whole "rogue trader" role would be a nice change, something more interesting than mining! This would also hopefully shake up the market status quo if more people were able to participate in this- I don't know of anyone that even bothers except with blockade runners or jump freighters.

I remember reading the lead dev blog a month or so ago, and what sounded like his desire to get people off their asses and out of hi-sec, perhaps a new class of ships like this might help.

For actual implementation, I really like the whole modular subsystem approach of the T3 cruisers- perhaps a similar approach for trading ship: base hull and limited subsystems- choose offense vs defense vs propulsion. This would mean the pirate wouldn't know if it was an armed freighter or not (have to mask scanners). I'd suggest a series of new hulls and sizes- if there is sufficient positive comments I'll post more on this.

I know this kind of suggestion may not appeal to the "give us more warships for 0.0 big fleet fights" crowd, but it fits the sandbox play it your way model.
GizzyBoy
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#2 - 2011-09-14 05:57:29 UTC
if you could make this rouge trader ship dockable at any outpost, you sir have a winner
some problems with possible local spy implications how ever.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#3 - 2011-09-14 10:53:23 UTC
Pick between:

Offence/defence/propulsion/cargo space/cloakyness


Speedy blockade runner, with low space
tough and slow deep space transported
Massive slow super tanker

and so on Big smile

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Artizak
The Burning Tacitus
#4 - 2011-09-14 13:44:15 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Pick between:

Offence/defence/propulsion/cargo space/cloakyness


Speedy blockade runner, with low space
tough and slow deep space transported
Massive slow super tanker

and so on Big smile


I smell a t3 hauler
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2011-09-14 14:38:24 UTC
it would only work as a t3..

the issue is if it was, say a t2 industrial ship with lots of guns, everyone would know its a tarp, thus making it obvious bait.

to an extent, battle badgers do this already with lots of ECM or EW they can take on targets that are in reality much stronger then they are.
Carnadyne
Ghost Core
#6 - 2011-09-15 01:00:32 UTC
Re-reading, I think I really proposed two distinct ideas with one solution: Q-ships specifically, and expanding the "trader ships" line.

I know some of the industrial haulers have some of these attributes now- but the name gives away what it is. Having some general industrial hulls that COULD be armed but might not be- that wouldn't be obvious bait.

ATM, there are very very few non-military hulls: 8 racial industrials, 8 racial freighters, and I think 8-10 ORE specialized ships. Why not some more non-racial almost generic hulls? Where is the millenium falcon? :)

Thats why I suggested the subsystem approach- doesn't have to be T3 quality, just the same modular technique- and the programming for it is already in the game.

I'd like to see a set of generic hulls of different sizes and qualities, with some standard subsystems. Tradeoffs of speed, cargo capacity, defense, offense, and stealth. Certain hulls might only have one tradeable subsystem slot, or might not be able to fit certain ones, while others might have several.

I'd never want these trader ships to be direct competitors with warships of their same tonnage, after all, they are NOT meant to be warships- but the idea that they could be specially fitted to be really nasty offense ala Q-ship would be interesting.
tankus2
HeartVenom Inc.
#7 - 2011-09-15 03:06:41 UTC
perhaps what one COULD do for industrials is give them an ECM boat. Basically, an EAF in transport clothing.

For example (on the caldari side of things), you'd have a ship that looks like a bustard, and kinda moves like one. But when you attack it you'll instead be treated to a ship with the ECM capabilities of a Kistune.

This concept may fail when it comes to minmatar or maybe ammar, but you get the idea.

Where the science gets done
Anshu Zephyran
Knavery Inc.
#8 - 2011-09-15 04:04:05 UTC
Carnadyne wrote:
I'd suggest a series of new hulls and sizes


I love the general idea, but I have to object to this point - making the Q-ships into all-new hulls would defeat the purpose of having Q-ships in the first place.

IMO, Q-ships should be T2 vessels based on the T1 racial industrials. They shouldn't be any faster than their T1 counterparts, but give them 4-5 highslots and weapon mounts, and the grid and CPU for cruiser-sized weapons. In terms of buffer or active tanks they should be no more durable than an equally well-fit T1 cruiser... and their cargo space should probably be less than the T1 hauler they're based on.
Burseg Sardaukar
Free State Project
#9 - 2011-09-15 06:53:42 UTC
What about boosting the fittings on the current T2 variants to allow ewar plus turret/launcher slots. They still wouldn't have the ability to be particularly viable as a "pvp" ship, but having 3 turrets on an occator/viator would be interesting.

Perhaps replace veloctiy bonus on the occator for small hybrid turret damage per level, and a sensor damp bonus in place of armor repper bonus for the Viator? With similar counterparts in the other races, of course.

Just theory-crafting here, and avoiding introduction of possibly unnecessary ships. As it stands, there exists a trade-off with speed/cargo/tank with the ships simply with slot layout, with the disadvantage for armor tanks, of course.

Can't wait to dual box my Dust toon and EVE toon on the same machine!
Carnadyne
Ghost Core
#10 - 2011-09-16 01:19:11 UTC
Like I said above, I think I'm really talking about 2 distinct ideas that happen to have some convergence.

First, I really like the idea of more "trader ships" beyond the current industrials and freighters. Thats where the "new hulls" suggestion comes from. The majority of ships out there are military hulls, and why not add some variety to hulls that really never would be part of fleets? I know thats not appealing to the 0/0/super crowd, but thats not how everyone plays :)

I think filling the spaceways with more interesting and viable ships to do hauling and trading can only be a good thing- it sells more hulls, it gets more people involved in the whole trading/moving arena, and allows for more individuality for those. The current industrials are pretty limited, why not expand them? Its not like it would break fleet battles.

Second, was the concept of Q-ships. This was a continuation on the theme of hauling/trading, but was meant to counter cheap ganks of haulers by frigates. Allow a heavily armed ship to appear like a nice juicy target, and surprise some pirates- if they showed up in bigger ships it wouldn't work- they shouldn't be stronger than equal tonnage ships ever.

Implementing both using subsystems was just a suggestion to allow for major reconfigurability of a series of common (non-racial) hulls. Its something that would make the whole series of trader ships more attractive to adjust and play with, and would extend the most recent CCP ship design theories (subsystems).

Would everyone even care about this? From reading these forums, I'd guess many of the active posters wouldn't. But again, not everyone reads/posts on the forums- I've heard enough ppl complain in game about losing haulers, or afraid to use anything but blockade runners to think there is a need.