These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

[NEW UTILITLY MODULE] Thermic Lance
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ankor Grammaten
Dragonhold Enterprises
#21 - 2016-06-06 03:32:40 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
If it overheats at a higher rate, then it should get more heat bonus for that short period of time. That way Frosty could overheat her own fleets guns and deliver true wrecking shots with civilian weapons. 'Civilian Blaster hits for 7,548' Sure sure, the civilian blaster is ruined, but it gets that one really good shot.

-1


This reminds me of something from the EE Smith "Lensman" series of books. A ship was surrounded by enemies and about to be destroyed. In desperation, the crew overpowered a blaster (or whatever it was called, long time since I read it) and it gave one incredibly powerful blast that destroyed one of the enemy ships, and in the process ruined the blaster. The ship was then destroyed by the other enemies. They worked out what had happened, and developed it as a repeatable weapon by carrying many replacement blasters that could be refitted quickly.

Anyway, I'm thinking this could be a possible new feature, with appropriate safeguards, like limited range, more damage to the ship using it (effectively suicide taking one enemy with you), and some limit on the damage dealt.

Just a thought.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#22 - 2016-06-06 04:11:03 UTC
Ankor Grammaten wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
If it overheats at a higher rate, then it should get more heat bonus for that short period of time. That way Frosty could overheat her own fleets guns and deliver true wrecking shots with civilian weapons. 'Civilian Blaster hits for 7,548' Sure sure, the civilian blaster is ruined, but it gets that one really good shot.

-1


This reminds me of something from the EE Smith "Lensman" series of books. A ship was surrounded by enemies and about to be destroyed. In desperation, the crew overpowered a blaster (or whatever it was called, long time since I read it) and it gave one incredibly powerful blast that destroyed one of the enemy ships, and in the process ruined the blaster. The ship was then destroyed by the other enemies. They worked out what had happened, and developed it as a repeatable weapon by carrying many replacement blasters that could be refitted quickly.

Anyway, I'm thinking this could be a possible new feature, with appropriate safeguards, like limited range, more damage to the ship using it (effectively suicide taking one enemy with you), and some limit on the damage dealt.

Just a thought.

Polarized blasters.

How did you Veterans start?
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
EDENCOM DEFENSIVE INITIATIVE
#23 - 2016-06-06 06:57:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Nana Skalski
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
what area of the game currently has no counter?

I am guessing he means overheating modules. Which is kind of wrong.... and this would not be a counter either. Some kind of remote cooling would be the counter, so long as it stopped the bonus.

So far as I am aware the only thing truly without counter is an active cloak.

Overheating is a counter in itself. You need more micromanagement skils, fight can go wrong, you can burn modules.
If you want to balance it, only modules that are already put in overheat mode, should get additional heat damage from this lance.

ᴇᴠᴇʀʏ ᴘᴀʀᴛ ᴏғ ᴀ ɢᴀᴍᴇ ʜᴇʟᴘs ᴛᴏ ᴛᴇʟʟ ᴀ sᴛᴏʀʏ 📕

ᴡʜᴇʀᴇ ɪs ᴀɴɢʀʏ ᴄᴏɴᴄᴏʀᴅ ɢᴜʏ ᴡʜᴇɴ ʏᴏᴜ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ʜɪᴍ

ᴏsᴘʀᴇʏ 🚀

≡⋁≡ ♥
Ankor Grammaten
Dragonhold Enterprises
#24 - 2016-06-06 17:36:16 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:

Polarized blasters.


Similar, but not the same.

As I understand them (after a quick google) polarized weapons give a lot of dps at the cost of removing all tank. They are capable of multiple shots.

My suggested weapon is a variant on an existing (say) blaster. It can be used as a normal blaster, but has the option of dealing one very powerful shot at the cost of destroying itself.

My reading about polarized weapons suggests that it could be the weapon of choice for suicide gankers, so it would need to be expensive enough to discourage that use.

Another thought. It could work by directing the entire content of the capacitor into that single shot. To make it interesting, the power of the shot could be linked to the charge in the capacitor. The capacitor would then be empty, and possibly even damaged to some extent. The idea is to leave the ship effectively helpless for a while. I don't want it to be possible to continue to fight with other weapons, at least for a while. The result of using it should be a high probability of death.

Hmmm, as an alternative to a special weapon, it could be a piece of equipment that directed the power pulse through any selected weapon, melting itself in the process, as well as destroying the weapon.
Darkwing Fiftytwo
Hookers N' Blow
#25 - 2016-06-06 19:28:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Darkwing Fiftytwo
Frostys Virpio wrote:


Did you think of what would happen if an entire doctrine was built around that with over a hundred ship pulsing this on target after target burning out every module on the enemy fleet? What if I have 80 cruisers using this on a single target? How much heat is added to each rack?


At first this seems like an intelligent question but its not really. If you have 80 hurricanes shooting a ship it pops. If you have 80 webs on a target it stops dead in its tracks. If you have 80 of these on a target guess what happens? Its modules all overheat and melt. No offense intended I am not trying to get into a trolling competition, but come on you knew the answer when you asked.

You could make the module have no effect on non-heated modules, only affect guys who have heat turned on, or the flip side just increase heat of the entire ship, so for a capital it would take a **** ton of these to burn out his modules. The hull mass would have to be incorporated into the equation.
Saelyth
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
#26 - 2016-06-07 18:53:47 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:

Conceptually kind of cool to think about...


I think you have it backwards on principle. :P
Previous page12