These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Combat Engineering ships

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Komodo Askold
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#181 - 2014-11-20 12:09:32 UTC
Glad to see this topic is still around. I hope these ships become a reality.
Ceawlin Cobon-Han wrote:
The time required to online things is the inbuilt counter to their functionality; the defenders can spot then and call in the demolition squad before they can get working. Reducing the ability of the defence to do this is a powerful force multiplier for the attacker; too powerful.

-1
With the same ships, everyone can set up deployables much faster too, so I don't see the problem.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#182 - 2014-11-20 16:34:31 UTC
Ceawlin Cobon-Han wrote:
The time required to online things is the inbuilt counter to their functionality; the defenders can spot then and call in the demolition squad before they can get working. Reducing the ability of the defence to do this is a powerful force multiplier for the attacker; too powerful.

-1


Except the OP suggests demolition capabilities for the combat enginerring hulls too so bring your own to tear down deployables more rapidly. Simplest solution may be a damage bonus to lasers but with a ridiculous range nerf (yes you could park next to a titan and cause huge damage...good luck staying there long enough though!)
Arla Sarain
#183 - 2014-11-20 17:01:11 UTC
I think the general concept of an engineering ship is what's interesting. And not in the metaphorical context like logistic ships (because repairing is close to healing and logistics is just a label), but in a parallel to combat engineers in militaries. The ability to set up and demolish defenses with ease to establish a favourable combat field for your allies.

15s deployment on mobile micro jump drive unit.
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#184 - 2014-11-22 18:36:47 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Ceawlin Cobon-Han wrote:
The time required to online things is the inbuilt counter to their functionality; the defenders can spot then and call in the demolition squad before they can get working. Reducing the ability of the defence to do this is a powerful force multiplier for the attacker; too powerful.

-1


Except the OP suggests demolition capabilities for the combat enginerring hulls too so bring your own to tear down deployables more rapidly. Simplest solution may be a damage bonus to lasers but with a ridiculous range nerf (yes you could park next to a titan and cause huge damage...good luck staying there long enough though!)

This discussion is meant for deployable-focused ships. suggesting that they be able to damage ships more than combat-focused ships that already exist is not going to contribute.

Stay on topic guys Blink
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#185 - 2014-11-22 19:28:28 UTC
It says in the title *combat* engineering ships hence my thinking of hobarts funnies (folks should google it if they've never heard of them). The same hull was used for DD floating tanks, flamethrower tank, fortification demolitian tanks, bridgelayers, minesweepers etc...definitely combat capable but in very niche roles which is why i suggested t3 dessie for the role. In flight reconfigs brtween roles to excel in each niche but be pretty sub standard in any other role at that point..
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#186 - 2014-11-22 20:17:27 UTC
I support the suggestion of a BC for the POS/large deployables ship (I've forgotten what it was called, but am now going to suggest STRATEGIC ENGINEER - as it's function mainly lies in strategy - that is to say - long term, far-reaching goals)

ah, found the post - it was heavy engineer... don't like that name, tbh.....
it should not have an agility bonus or a warp strength bonus - these allow it too much escapability - I'd suggest a velocity bonus - as these will/should likely be travelling escorted mostly, but a velocity boost would help it spend less time on grid constructing/deconstructing POS's


I would suggest that the field engineer be either a T2 logi frig or the T2 desty that's not the intedictor hull (corax, dragoon, algos, talwar), I would suggest that its racial bonus be resistance and hold size (if its damage is anaemic - who's gonna fit it for damage except for lols)

Also - I will suggest it be renamed the TACTICAL ENGINEER - as its purpose is solely tactical (each battle seperately, no further)

oh - and on the version of demo charges - perhaps a powergrid drain - that can only be applied to structures, and only by one ship at a time, much the same as only 2 person can hack a data/relic can at a time?

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#187 - 2014-11-23 06:42:25 UTC
Strategic Engineer, Tactical Engineer. I like that Roll
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#188 - 2014-11-23 08:11:28 UTC
Tactical engineer would be better for a tech II ship as strategic implies tech III (which I still think would be best for a ship filling multiple niche roles)
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#189 - 2014-11-23 14:46:34 UTC
stratetgic cruiser is simply a cruiser that has war-ranging application, not just battle-ranging application, which is what T3's do;
they can cloak to observe
nullify to navigate null/J-space
command links for off-battlefield support
logi for reps and in-battlefield support
E-war for in-battlefield support
variety of different direct combat roles
bonus to scanning to scout J-space or look for data/relics and grav/ladar

anyway - strategic =/= t3 -

haulers are strategic logistics
R(A/H)R, cap/shield X-fer, anti-ewar are tactical logistics
gang links are probably tactical, but I'm not sure.....

anyway - go look up strategy and tactics in a dictionary (OED, or Collins, or something, not urban) and then tell me you're wrong, with a reference (Harvard style for preference - it's what my uni uses)

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#190 - 2014-11-23 15:38:47 UTC
Irrespective of actual definitions (I'd use OED btw as I'm British ans speak English rather than American :D) Eve already defines tech III cruisers as strategic therefore implying anything labeled strategic is tech III (for now at least). I was simply suggesting a nomenclature less likely to cause confusion.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#191 - 2014-11-23 19:34:34 UTC
fair enough on the reasoning, but I'll maintain my disagreement with it (politely)

on the basis that the label 'strategic' only applies to 1 hull/race - much like - ooooh - logistics, or interdictor, or heavy interdiction cruiser (yeah, I know the last two are tenuous),

basically I feel that EVE-players are (by and large, at least), capable of handling the confusing nomenclature

I mean - HIC, HAC, AF, 'dic', CHA, SMA, PHA, EANM, DC, RCU, PDS, MAPC, CPR (no I don't mean cardio-pulmonary rescus), DDA, DLA, TP, TD, TiDi, TLA, I'm sure there are more I've not thought of..... yup - SAAR, MAAR, LAAR, SRAR, MRAR, LRAR, SAR, MAR, LAR, etc.....

these are not a newbies ships - given that A - it's T2, B - you've got to know what you're doing when flying it

if that comes across as a rant, it's not supposed to be; I apologise - it's actually supposed to be a cool composed answer containing appropriate respect for a fellow Brit.

Shutting up now

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#192 - 2014-11-23 19:53:40 UTC
Reading through the list a bunch of them aren't TLA's and should hang their hulls in shame...
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#193 - 2014-11-24 08:18:18 UTC
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
incomprehensible post

Shutting up now

what exactly are you trying to say? I don't even.
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#194 - 2014-11-30 08:29:54 UTC
*hums* don't mind me,just bumping a thread... *hums on*
Arla Sarain
#195 - 2014-11-30 13:30:47 UTC
Neither strategic or tactical should imply any sort of Tech level. It's just a label...

I think the key aspects is to isolate it to frigates so that you couldn't deploy POS structures. I think the bonus should be towards the recent addition of mobile units of various types, and perhaps their demolishment, which would leak on POS damage as well. I wouldn't be afraid of this if they were inline with bombers.

The issue is, IMO, how do you make the role active/important enough so that it is not delegated to Alts as are cov op frigates.
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#196 - 2014-12-04 09:07:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Liafcipe9000
Arla Sarain wrote:
Neither strategic or tactical should imply any sort of Tech level. It's just a label...

I think the key aspects is to isolate it to frigates so that you couldn't deploy POS structures. I think the bonus should be towards the recent addition of mobile units of various types, and perhaps their demolishment, which would leak on POS damage as well. I wouldn't be afraid of this if they were inline with bombers.

The issue is, IMO, how do you make the role active/important enough so that it is not delegated to Alts as are cov op frigates.

I don't think combat engineers should be covops ships at all.

If we take examples from games that have this role, like Team Fortress, we see that the combat engineer does not have stealth abilities at all as its role is built around deploying automated, stationary objects around the battlefield.

light combat engineering ships in EVE should follow this concept and be centered around deployment and destruction of structureson the battlefield while the heavy version should be focused on larger structures such as tower based starbases.
Auduin Samson
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#197 - 2014-12-07 04:58:46 UTC
I agree. Cloaky is fun, but it's way to easy to push balance into the stupid zone if we apply it all willy-nilly.
Aran Hotchkiss
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#198 - 2014-12-07 05:29:48 UTC
Hmmm with regards to strategic engineers, I'd be interested in not allowing them to hold large towers, (maybe if they had the t2 spaceship skill at 5, but that's a maybe) - only small to medium, with the theme of you can deploy small/medium towers as a rapid insertion or response, but not larges - you'd still need a proper transport to do that.

As for which size hulls to use, currently I feel battle cruiser hulls for strategic engineers, whilst I'm open on either frigates or destroyers for tactical engineers. Whilst there is the destroyer//battle cruiser paring idea, I don't think it has to necessarily follow that line of thought. I mean look at interdiction vessels, ones a destroyer, the other is a cruiser.

You should have enough control over your herd of cats to make them understand. If they constantly make misstakes, get better cats.
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
#199 - 2014-12-09 10:52:38 UTC
I think this thread has slowed down enough for that to be a sign that it should be mentioned on the Assembly Hall board.

Take it away, Audi! and be sure to consider all the posts in this thread when you sum it all up.

I support destroyers and battlecruisers to be used for combat engineering.

Everything's a game if you make it one - Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci

CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase - Frostys Virpio
Auduin Samson
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#200 - 2014-12-10 12:43:31 UTC
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame wrote:
I think this thread has slowed down enough for that to be a sign that it should be mentioned on the Assembly Hall board.

Take it away, Audi! and be sure to consider all the posts in this thread when you sum it all up.

I support destroyers and battlecruisers to be used for combat engineering.


Good thinking! I've summarized this discussion and posted it here. If you think Combat Engineers should be part of the game, be sure to make your opinion known!

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5290870