These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

New weapon ideas.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Asaryuu
Liquid Words
#21 - 2013-08-23 04:55:19 UTC
I'll take the magnetohydrodynamic style weapon from The Reapers in Mass Effect. A low Alpha but consistent stream of damage it could even use some form of nozzle to vary the distances.
Ken 1138
State War Academy
Caldari State
#22 - 2013-09-01 02:35:56 UTC
bump.
SGT FUNYOUN
Elysian Space Navy - 1st Fleet
#23 - 2013-09-01 03:41:07 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I hadn't thought of the possibility of new weapons before.

I agree with the previous post, you have just described hybrids (except for the different damage combo).

What eve does not have is an equivalent of 'poison' weapons in other role-playing/mmo games.

perhaps there could be a weapon that could be fitted to a specific kind of frigate that launches a [insert tech word here] 'harpoon' into another ship which weakens its armour, shield etc over time, or causes its weapons to overheat, and so on?

Just musing here...




So... A Nanotech weapon? That launches nanobots to destroy the ship?... sound like something the Caldari would do to be able to compete with the turrets instead of using missiles and rockets... so long as the nanobots got there instantly like hybrid/laser/projectiles shots did.
SGT FUNYOUN
Elysian Space Navy - 1st Fleet
#24 - 2013-09-01 03:43:41 UTC
Ken 1138 wrote:
Dr Gidazu wrote:
Isnt what you described called a blaster cannon?


Blaster turn solid ammunition into particles, then uses a rail like system to fire it. What I've described is completely different. Hence the running on gases for ammuniton.

It's essentially a very fancy and precise flame thrower. P


Except Flames don't burn in space and acids and fuels freeze in the absolute zero temperatures of deep space. That is why we have to rely on guns that use energy to fire instead of fuel propellants. Missiles use a type of energy drive, projectiles basically fire slugs with an energy burst, and the rest are basically firing energy itself.
SGT FUNYOUN
Elysian Space Navy - 1st Fleet
#25 - 2013-09-01 03:45:34 UTC  |  Edited by: SGT FUNYOUN
I say, meh to the new weapons thing but...

... the chaff/flare bottle idea gets my +1... we need more PHYSICAL countermeasures in this game.

Maybe use the Festival ammo as the chaff and flares... snowballs are chaff, and fireworks are the flares.

(I know that last one is funny but, seriously think about that for a sec.)
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#26 - 2013-09-01 04:26:29 UTC
SGT FUNYOUN wrote:
So... A Nanotech weapon?


Yes please.
Ken 1138
State War Academy
Caldari State
#27 - 2013-09-07 18:50:31 UTC
bump for interest
Ken 1138
State War Academy
Caldari State
#28 - 2013-09-11 23:35:11 UTC
Bump
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#29 - 2013-09-12 05:26:00 UTC
This is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist and that is the need for more turret systems.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#30 - 2013-09-12 07:40:01 UTC
Andracin wrote:
Dots! More Dots!


even whelps to the left !!
To mare
Advanced Technology
#31 - 2013-09-12 08:42:48 UTC
you're focused more on the look of the thing than the actual stats
Ken 1138
State War Academy
Caldari State
#32 - 2013-09-12 21:42:20 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
This is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist and that is the need for more turret systems.


What problem? I want to add a new weapon. I never said there was too little or too many weapons.
Ken 1138
State War Academy
Caldari State
#33 - 2013-09-12 21:45:19 UTC
To mare wrote:
you're focused more on the look of the thing than the actual stats



I don't know coding or how CCP judges weapons for balancing and even after 3 years of playing EVE I couldn't really name exact stats.

Honestly I rather have them work that out. I just compared it to the Projectile turrets.
Vassal Zeren
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2013-09-13 01:22:40 UTC
Ken 1138 wrote:
monkfish1234 wrote:
While the thought of adding more weapons into the game is nice what would it's purpose be? What would it add to the game that we don't already have?

Unless a new weapon system was introduced that came with it's own set of unique mechanics, you are just as well adding new ammo types to cover the dmg type combo.

personally when i think of all of the weapons currently in play, i think it is hard to find something else to fit in. The only real thing that comes to mind would be some description of stream weapon that offered very low alpha but high sustained dps. but then which race would use it? which ships would bonus it?






Combat converted strip miner laser turret. I like it!


Seems legit.

A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
Balthazar Lestrane
Dirt 'n' Glitter
Local Is Primary
#35 - 2013-09-13 01:47:46 UTC
Ken 1138 wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
This is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist and that is the need for more turret systems.


What problem? I want to add a new weapon. I never said there was too little or too many weapons.


Why do we need a new weapon? What does this weapon do that the current weapons don't? Why should dev time be spent on something that brings literally nothing new to the table in terms of the core gameplay, i.e. blowing stuff up.

As for everyone suddenly clamoring for a "poison" weapon type, why? I'm going to giggle when someone shoots me with one of these nanobot harpoons and then I blap them off the field with high alpha. Then I'll dock and the harpoon's effects will go bye bye. Terrible idea.
Ken 1138
State War Academy
Caldari State
#36 - 2013-09-14 17:56:04 UTC
Balthazar Lestrane wrote:
Ken 1138 wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
This is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist and that is the need for more turret systems.


What problem? I want to add a new weapon. I never said there was too little or too many weapons.


Why do we need a new weapon? What does this weapon do that the current weapons don't? Why should dev time be spent on something that brings literally nothing new to the table in terms of the core gameplay, i.e. blowing stuff up.


That would be like a shooter game going "Well we already have one assault rifle, we don't need another.". Roll
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#37 - 2013-09-14 18:19:46 UTC
Ken 1138 wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
This is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist and that is the need for more turret systems.


What problem? I want to add a new weapon. I never said there was too little or too many weapons.


You missed my point. When you suggest a new idea the first question that the development team is going to ask you is why this new addition is necessary or how it brings something new and interesting to the game.

You suggest adding another turret system in a game that:

1. Already has 3/4 of its offensive systems being turrets.

2. Already has a turret very much like the one you suggest they add to the game.

As a developer they are going to take these two factors into account, say thank you for your suggestion and toss it into the trash as a pointless waste of programming time and money.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Ken 1138
State War Academy
Caldari State
#38 - 2013-09-14 18:27:19 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Ken 1138 wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
This is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist and that is the need for more turret systems.


What problem? I want to add a new weapon. I never said there was too little or too many weapons.


You missed my point. When you suggest a new idea the first question that the development team is going to ask you is why this new addition is necessary or how it brings something new and interesting to the game.

You suggest adding another turret system in a game that:

1. Already has 3/4 of its offensive systems being turrets.

2. Already has a turret very much like the one you suggest they add to the game.

As a developer they are going to take these two factors into account, say thank you for your suggestion and toss it into the trash as a pointless waste of programming time and money.


So what you are saying is you do not like my idea. Ok got it.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#39 - 2013-09-14 21:46:12 UTC
Ken 1138 wrote:

So what you are saying is you do not like my idea. Ok got it.


No, you don't "got it'.

Your idea sucks donkey balls!!!

Did I use clear enough terminology that time?

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Ken 1138
State War Academy
Caldari State
#40 - 2013-09-22 00:02:45 UTC
bump