These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Mobile / Anchor-able Force Field

Author
Neozblade
Henchmen Incorporated
#1 - 2016-02-23 11:19:03 UTC
I have an idea for a Ship and mobile anchor able devices.

A command Battleship that is capable of erecting a POS like force field. It will protect all friendly ships within the shield until the shield is taken down. I figure a T2 Version of the Tier 3 Battleships. The force field will have moderate range of ~10km radius and will be directly projected as an external shield. Thus after taking down the shield you would then have to take out the Battleships shields, armor and hull. (Possibly requiring fuel to run the force field as well).

All rules for a POS shields will apply to the Battleships projected shields, however the Battleships projected shield will be far easier to remove. (If enemy ships are within the shield when erected they will not be cast out; however you will not be able to target within the shield but, giving the enemy a chance to bump your friendlies out)

Once a Battleship erects the force field it will be unable to move or warp. However the Battleship will be targetable as a POS is to remove the force field and as soon as the force field is down, the Battleship will able to be warp disrupted/scrammed.

As for the Mobile Anchor able structures, they will act like Warp interdiction bubbles. (Possibly requiring fuel). Small Med Large T1 and T2 versions. Range from ~3km to ~15km radius.

The concept of these force fields is someone could not only create a safe spot in space but create a portable SAFE location.
As for the Battleships it could allow a force that encounters a larger force to potentially sacrifice a Battleship for the rest of the fleet or give a force time to collect themselves and engage the enemy.

Would love some feed back not just "This is stupid" or This is Great" kind of answers.

Thanks and Fly Dangerously.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#2 - 2016-02-23 11:30:35 UTC
It's not the first time someone had this idea.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

Neozblade
Henchmen Incorporated
#3 - 2016-02-23 11:32:02 UTC
Arya Regnar wrote:
It's not the first time someone had this idea.



I tried to locate if someone else had already come up with this with no success. Thank you. If someone else has already proposed the idea then I feel this will be short lived.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#4 - 2016-02-23 12:36:43 UTC
"**** it was bait we're gong to lose the titan"

"Just shield up and jump it"

"Oh yeah"
Neozblade
Henchmen Incorporated
#5 - 2016-02-23 16:34:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Neozblade
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
"**** it was bait we're gong to lose the titan"

"Just shield up and jump it"

"Oh yeah"



Disallow jumping but warping is fine, put up interdiction bubble to stop them

Also what if when the force field was erected, all ships inside can still target and shoot other ships inside as well. Just prevent targeting from inside to outside and vise versus.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6 - 2016-02-23 16:48:43 UTC
Neozblade wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
"**** it was bait we're gong to lose the titan"

"Just shield up and jump it"

"Oh yeah"



Disallow jumping but warping is fine, put up interdiction bubble to stop them

Also what if when the force field was erected, all ships inside can still target and shoot other ships inside as well. Just prevent targeting from inside to outside and vise versus.


You said the bubble cannot form if there are hostile in it's radius...
Neozblade
Henchmen Incorporated
#7 - 2016-02-23 16:57:57 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Neozblade wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
"**** it was bait we're gong to lose the titan"

"Just shield up and jump it"

"Oh yeah"



Disallow jumping but warping is fine, put up interdiction bubble to stop them

Also what if when the force field was erected, all ships inside can still target and shoot other ships inside as well. Just prevent targeting from inside to outside and vise versus.


You said the bubble cannot form if there are hostile in it's radius...



My original post was:
(If enemy ships are within the shield when erected they will not be cast out; however you will not be able to target within the shield but, giving the enemy a chance to bump your friendlies out)

However my new statement is, enemies inside CAN still attack. This is just an idea of course. I am not bias on whether you will be able to or not.

I do like disallowing the use of Jump drives however warping will be allowed, and to prevent warping out of the bubble interdiction bubbles will prevent that as they do on a normal POS.

Maybe allowing the use of Micro Jump Drives

I hope this clears the idea up.
Crazy Kitten
The Fourth Great and Bountiful Human Empire
#8 - 2016-02-23 17:00:01 UTC
possible (ab)use scenarios: in highsec missions, bubble the accel gate to prevent ninja looting and mission gankers. in lowsec/null mission running, you'd no longer have to check dscan & local, you'd get a kill notification if anyone was coming for you
Neozblade
Henchmen Incorporated
#9 - 2016-02-23 17:04:15 UTC
Crazy Kitten wrote:
possible (ab)use scenarios: in highsec missions, bubble the accel gate to prevent ninja looting and mission gankers. in lowsec/null mission running, you'd no longer have to check dscan & local, you'd get a kill notification if anyone was coming for you



Would be expensive Kill notice and how about making it inoperable withing a set distance to objects such as stations, star-gates and acceleration gates. Maybe ban use in high sec all together. Figure a ship of this type would run about the same as a Murader or Black Ops.
Crazy Kitten
The Fourth Great and Bountiful Human Empire
#10 - 2016-02-23 17:41:09 UTC
Neozblade wrote:
Would be expensive Kill notice and how about making it inoperable withing a set distance to objects such as stations, star-gates and acceleration gates. Maybe ban use in high sec all together. Figure a ship of this type would run about the same as a Murader or Black Ops.


Neozblade wrote:
I have an idea for a Ship and mobile anchor able devices.


as always, depends on the price, and also you might not lose it.

minimum distance would also have to include other anchorable devices and wormholes, and would need to be larger than twice the radius of the largest sphere, or you could still create a complete no-fly zone. coverable with citadels. that'd make one heck of a gatecamp...

restricting it to the same usage as warp bubbles sounds reasonable to me
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#11 - 2016-02-23 20:25:34 UTC
Crazy Kitten wrote:
...
restricting it to the same usage as warp bubbles sounds reasonable to me


Sorry I have to say this but putting a restriction on something that hasn't even been considered to be released doesn't need to be released at all.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Crazy Kitten
The Fourth Great and Bountiful Human Empire
#12 - 2016-02-23 21:12:10 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Crazy Kitten wrote:
...
restricting it to the same usage as warp bubbles sounds reasonable to me


Sorry I have to say this but putting a restriction on something that hasn't even been considered to be released doesn't need to be released at all.


*blinks* ok, let me rephrase: should this be something that is desireable in game, then applying an established type of restriction sounds reasonable to me, so it doesn't negatively affect the parts of the game that i consider myself qualified to talk about. as there are other parts of the game which are mostly outside of my experience, and the intended usage scenario for this item seems to be in that part of the game, i do not consider myself qualified to judge it's overall desirability, hence i should not dismiss this idea in it's whole.

or are you saying that the whole of eve should be either highsec, lowsec, npc nullsec, sov nullsec or wh space, so that you only have to learn one set of "rules"? in my opinion it is a good thing that this game supports different playstyles and has different areas in the game where one can enjoy those playstyles. these parts have different needs, and thus some items that are only beneficial to some playstyles should be restricted to the areas of the game where that playstyle is intended. sov-holding for example is a valid playstyle choice, but should neither be allowed unrestricted (jita being owned by some alliance isn't a good idea), nor should it be removed. and ideas that only benefit the sov playstyle (not saying that this applies here) are valid suggestions, but if they negativly influence other areas of the game, then they should be restricted in their usage. especially if there's already an established mechanic for that.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#13 - 2016-02-23 21:19:08 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Crazy Kitten wrote:
...
restricting it to the same usage as warp bubbles sounds reasonable to me


Sorry I have to say this but putting a restriction on something that hasn't even been considered to be released doesn't need to be released at all.


While I don't like this idea the notion of "nope if you didn't get it right in your op so stop trying" is contrary to the point of f&I

Now in cases where people stay having to put a bunch of ridiculous or arbitrary limitations on their idea then it's generally a sign it's just plane bad. But a common restriction found on many items already in game is not unreasonable.




Now back to the idea I could see this brewing abused to keep dreads from being able to shoot I would only need to taos the bubble long enough to cause lock to break then it had to waist another 20-130 second relocking and one it has I just put it up again.

And while making out so you can't jump off inside one would solve the issue of using it so save caps you now have a new issue of it being used to tap them
Iria Ahrens
Space Perverts and Forum Pirates
#14 - 2016-02-23 22:27:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Iria Ahrens
Every advantage should have a disadvantage.

Say you have a BS that can drop a shield.

Limit the advantages.
1. Temporary shield uses up a lot of fuel so it can only be maintained for a short period of time.
2. Battleship has to enter "Shield mode" or whatever. Offlining all offensive systems. BS can erect a shield, an that's pretty much it.
3. After turning off "Shield made" or whatever, BS cap is completely expended and ship cannot warp or perform any action until cap charges naturally back to full. BS either takes it for the team, or BS is remote reped, but otherwise BS cannot use this mini-shield in any kind of solo activity.
4. Warp bubble or POS effect, not both. Warp Bubble is taken by hic and interdictors, so I don't see a need for a BS HIC. The mini Pos Shield effect is interesting.

Not really supporting it. Just saying, that if we want to play with it, we should pile on the consequences too. Because a mini pos shield should definitely have some consequences.

My choice of pronouns is based on your avatar. Even if I know what is behind the avatar.

Corvald Tyrska
Valknetra
#15 - 2016-02-23 23:26:19 UTC
Might be interesting if the shield was not a full bubble but an arc that could be manoeuvred around. Also could be interesting if it didn't block movement through it, just dispersed weapon fire so it wouldn't be as abusable.

I'd definitely see it as a mode for the ship like the siege mode on dreadnoughts or bastion mode on marauders. That way the ship is locked in for a time and potentially cannot move or manoeuvre but can be manoeuvred around.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#16 - 2016-02-23 23:38:19 UTC
Crazy Kitten wrote:
let me rephrase: should this be something that is desireable in game

It rely is not.
Iria Ahrens
Space Perverts and Forum Pirates
#17 - 2016-02-23 23:42:16 UTC
Corvald Tyrska wrote:
Might be interesting if the shield was not a full bubble but an arc that could be manoeuvred around. Also could be interesting if it didn't block movement through it, just dispersed weapon fire so it wouldn't be as abusable.

I'd definitely see it as a mode for the ship like the siege mode on dreadnoughts or bastion mode on marauders. That way the ship is locked in for a time and potentially cannot move or manoeuvre but can be manoeuvred around.



I like the arc idea, and the interdiction of weapon fire only. Sort of a "Protection from Normal Missiles" field.

My choice of pronouns is based on your avatar. Even if I know what is behind the avatar.

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#18 - 2016-02-24 02:23:17 UTC
Crazy Kitten wrote:
...or are you saying that the whole of eve should be either highsec, lowsec, npc nullsec, sov nullsec or wh space, so that you only have to learn one set of "rules"? in my opinion it is a good thing that this game supports different playstyles and has different areas in the game where one can enjoy those playstyles. these parts have different needs, and thus some items that are only beneficial to some playstyles should be restricted to the areas of the game where that playstyle is intended. sov-holding for example is a valid playstyle choice, but should neither be allowed unrestricted (jita being owned by some alliance isn't a good idea), nor should it be removed. and ideas that only benefit the sov playstyle (not saying that this applies here) are valid suggestions, but if they negativly influence other areas of the game, then they should be restricted in their usage. especially if there's already an established mechanic for that.


I don't know what you are getting at?

Anyhow, a similar mechanic is on the radar for the Rorqual, so let's wait how this pans out and see if there is a need for being invincible just because.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Lugh Crow-Slave
#19 - 2016-02-24 04:51:30 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Crazy Kitten wrote:
...
restricting it to the same usage as warp bubbles sounds reasonable to me


Sorry I have to say this but putting a restriction on something that hasn't even been considered to be released doesn't need to be released at all.


While I don't like this idea the notion of "nope if you didn't get it right in your op so stop trying" is contrary to the point of f&I

Now in cases where people stay having to put a bunch of ridiculous or arbitrary limitations on their idea then it's generally a sign it's just plane bad. But a common restriction found on many items already in game is not unreasonable.




Now back to the idea I could see this brewing abused to keep dreads from being able to shoot I would only need to taos the bubble long enough to cause lock to break then it had to waist another 20-130 second relocking and one it has I just put it up again.

And while making out so you can't jump off inside one would solve the issue of using it so save caps you now have a new issue of it being used to tap them
Lugh Crow-Slave
#20 - 2016-02-24 04:55:25 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Crazy Kitten wrote:
...or are you saying that the whole of eve should be either highsec, lowsec, npc nullsec, sov nullsec or wh space, so that you only have to learn one set of "rules"? in my opinion it is a good thing that this game supports different playstyles and has different areas in the game where one can enjoy those playstyles. these parts have different needs, and thus some items that are only beneficial to some playstyles should be restricted to the areas of the game where that playstyle is intended. sov-holding for example is a valid playstyle choice, but should neither be allowed unrestricted (jita being owned by some alliance isn't a good idea), nor should it be removed. and ideas that only benefit the sov playstyle (not saying that this applies here) are valid suggestions, but if they negativly influence other areas of the game, then they should be restricted in their usage. especially if there's already an established mechanic for that.


I don't know what you are getting at?

Anyhow, a similar mechanic is on the radar for the Rorqual, so let's wait how this pans out and see if there is a need for being invincible just because.


Really 0.o
12Next page