These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Ideas for new modules

First post
Author
Nyssa Litari
Doomheim
#301 - 2012-01-18 02:00:52 UTC
Sturgeon's Law in full effect here.

There's a module idea... The Sturgeonator: Turns 90% of the enemy fleet into crap, instantly.
Muad 'dib
The Nine Nine
#302 - 2012-01-18 02:18:49 UTC
Signature reducing rigs

capital rigs!

Mid slot alternative to a dcu (does the exact same thing, cant fit both)

cloaking AOE (would make a great capital suport mod)

same thing as above only removes you from being scanned, so not cloaked and can be seen on grid

more BS sized X-L modules

SIZED tackle modules, small, med, large, capital, varying range and effect, perhaps even combo mods (30% web, 1 piont 10km)

scripted tackle, more/less effect/range

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.

kalbrak Jr
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#303 - 2012-01-18 03:05:37 UTC
Warp scramble script for the Warp Disruption Field Generator. This would have a shorter range than the Focused Warp Disruption script but would shut down micro warp drives.

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#304 - 2012-01-18 03:35:09 UTC
Mars Theran wrote:
Please. Someone stop suggesting we develop modules that take multiple slots; beterr: Everyone stop suggesting it.

Hardpoints are exactly that; a limited amount of space and structural support for mounting something. You want the benefit of 5000mm plate using a 2 slot requirement; then get two 2500mm plates for cripes sake.


The idea is to add the cost of the slot as a fitting requirement especially for ships that are very fat on thier fitting abilities (that you can almost shove anything you want on it as well as allow for slighlty bit more outragous models that behave as two or more modules at once while helping prevent wreckless loading on such modules without thought.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

Nyssa Litari
Doomheim
#305 - 2012-01-18 03:40:30 UTC
Nova Fox wrote:
Mars Theran wrote:
Please. Someone stop suggesting we develop modules that take multiple slots; beterr: Everyone stop suggesting it.

Hardpoints are exactly that; a limited amount of space and structural support for mounting something. You want the benefit of 5000mm plate using a 2 slot requirement; then get two 2500mm plates for cripes sake.


The idea is to add the cost of the slot as a fitting requirement especially for ships that are very fat on thier fitting abilities (that you can almost shove anything you want on it as well as allow for slighlty bit more outragous models that behave as two or more modules at once while helping prevent wreckless loading on such modules without thought.

So what you're saying is that these modules are for Minmatar only.
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#306 - 2012-01-18 03:55:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Nova Fox
Meh I am sure ccp is going to come up wtih something different than what I suggested if they go this route.

Though few of the modules would suggest that it would fit minmatar thoery a bit better, destroy self to do more damage.

and no I havent had an energy drink today.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#307 - 2012-01-18 05:04:57 UTC
Damage to modules.

Have something simular to nanite repair paste, Nanite Acid, it can by added to conventional ammo, ofcourse there will be a reduction in volley damage, but it will provide a damage over time effect to modules. For game fluff, Missiles/projectiles have it added to there payload, Lasers have a plasma burst effect at the end of the shot that causes secondary fires and explosions on the victim, hybrids have Nanite injected to the charge and imbedded into the hull.

There are many tactical uses I could see for this, Smaller ships using Acidic ammo to disable larger ships modules. It would provide massive tactical changes and the need for a new module.

Internal Dampener: Simular to a Damage Control in fitting and power usage, it allows the use of Nanite Repair Paste while the module is active. It also adds a 50%(60% T2) resistance to acidic ammo, but when modules are overheated they take damage faster than normal. The module also updates the modules hp repair status at the end of everycycle, so you don't have to wait for the whole cycle to finish to recieve the repair effect.

MMOs come and go, but Eve remains.  -Garresh-

Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#308 - 2012-01-18 05:40:08 UTC
Nyssa Litari wrote:
Nova Fox wrote:
Mars Theran wrote:
Please. Someone stop suggesting we develop modules that take multiple slots; beterr: Everyone stop suggesting it.

Hardpoints are exactly that; a limited amount of space and structural support for mounting something. You want the benefit of 5000mm plate using a 2 slot requirement; then get two 2500mm plates for cripes sake.


The idea is to add the cost of the slot as a fitting requirement especially for ships that are very fat on thier fitting abilities (that you can almost shove anything you want on it as well as allow for slighlty bit more outragous models that behave as two or more modules at once while helping prevent wreckless loading on such modules without thought.

So what you're saying is that these modules are for Minmatar only.



I think the point is, these modules are going to be extremely heavy and affect inertia and velocity; which is hindrance in itself, and reason not to use them. If that isn't enough, the drain on powergrid would be horrendous.

There is no need to make a module to take up 2 slots, and I think the idea would probably be very hard to implement; such, that it could quite possibly require a complete rewrite of much of the code used for fitting. Some of it may need rewriting anyway; but that's not exactly the point.

Also, huge guns that take the place of 5-8 smaller guns.. that idea is so unworkable, it takes not just this; but add's redesigning every model in the game into it.

Weapon Hardpoints have placements on ships that are determined in a 3D environment; when something is added, the game engine moves it to the appropriate location on the ship. Effectively, you're asking for them to add, (at the very least), one location on the ship where you can mount this monstrosity; which is not really to hard in and of itself.

What is hard, is coding the game to recognize the difference between this monstrosity and a regular gun, make it take up 5 slots instead of just one, and fit in that exact spot which is not really all that clearly defined yet. Changes to the model will most likely also be required, so this big gun doesn't look entirely stupid. (i.e. Stabber/Vagabond with turrets).

It is much easier to just design a new gun and model, make it something not faction specific, and make a ship to carry it and use it. At least, that's what I think.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Xandralkus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#309 - 2012-01-18 07:06:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Xandralkus
LSE's and 1600 mm plates are good for battlecruisers, but it seems that in order to fit an even moderately decent tank on a battleship, you have to plate or shield-extend the hell out of it - AND use rigs too.

Give us an X-Large Shield Extender - and have it require enough powergrid to where mounting ONE is not incosequential to a battleship (and virtually impossible to fit on a battlecruiser at all). Also, give us a 3200 mm plate, with similarly huge fitting requirements for the armor tankers (at least as much as a large repper, maybe more).

Frigates can fit cruiser-grade tank equipment for large boosts to EHP from a single module.

Cruisers and battlecruisers can fit battleship-grade tank equipment for similarly massive EHP boosts from just one or two modules. A cruiser with a single LSE effectively doubles its base shield HP.

Battleships lack any such module. There's no reason that there should be such a large EHP gap between battleships and capitals. Start with more potential for battleship EHP.

Another idea, already proposed - semi-siege module for vastly boosting active tanking capabilities. Have this require fuel in the cargo bay, just like a cyno or a siege module.

And of course, anti-blob tanking modules. "Absorbative Shielding" for shield tankers, and "Powered Armor" for armor tankers. When activated, these modules would consume fuel for each cycle, and apply diminishing returns for incoming DPS, according to the number of people firing at the user. Getting primaried by a fleet of 50 people would not be much different in terms of incoming damage as compared to a fleet of 5. And capital EHP could be brought in line with other ships, starting at only modestly better than battleship EHP.

Obviously, don't implement ALL of these. Otherwise ships would be unkillable. Anti-blob tanking modules would probably be the most useful.

Eve UI wouldn't suck if CCP allowed UI addons.

Saelyth
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
#310 - 2012-01-18 08:03:03 UTC
Coolant Tank [T2 in brackets]

Mid-slot item
Activation time / duration: 15 [10] seconds
CPU Usage: 25 [35] tf
Powergrid: 1
Capacity: 10 [15] m3
Charges Per Cycle: 1
Primary Skill required: Thermodynamics 2 [5]
Used with: Coolant

Each use of the module would reduce heat in all racks by X amount

Another option would be to have various sizes of this item (Small, Medium, Large) with increasing CPU/PG usage on par with items of those ship sizes. Item could be ship size specific, could require more charges per use, or other similar options.
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#311 - 2012-01-18 10:16:25 UTC
I previously mentioned heat, and others have like Saelyth have mentioned a coolant tank for overheating.

May I suggest that heat is the new e-warfare type, and there should be new ships and modules for it, and against it. I would prefer if you are going to do Damage over Time, that instead, it is Heat over Time. Damage over Time will just end up as more broadcasts to logistics, which is already a very busy role. Heat on the other hand, could be an entirely separate mechanic, that does not affect logistics ships broadcasting bandwidth.

Heat would be interesting, as it has the ability to destroy modules, or cause them to need nanite repair, and a counter coolant. Increasing overheating in the game would not be a bad thing and add more tactical flexibility to fights, and give DPS pilots something to do, other than spamming the repair button Big smile

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 

Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#312 - 2012-01-18 10:18:01 UTC
Saelyth wrote:
Coolant Tank [T2 in brackets]

Mid-slot item
Activation time / duration: 15 [10] seconds
CPU Usage: 25 [35] tf
Powergrid: 1
Capacity: 10 [15] m3
Charges Per Cycle: 1
Primary Skill required: Thermodynamics 2 [5]
Used with: Coolant

Each use of the module would reduce heat in all racks by X amount

Another option would be to have various sizes of this item (Small, Medium, Large) with increasing CPU/PG usage on par with items of those ship sizes. Item could be ship size specific, could require more charges per use, or other similar options.


Like it, just don't like it being only midslot. Should be either mid and low slot variations, aka like ECCM, so not as to punish shield based ships. Otherwise, good stuff if tied to a heat over time new e-war type.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 

Morgan North
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#313 - 2012-01-18 10:43:22 UTC
Actually, it shouldn't be high/medium/low. There should be one of each. I propose "Rack - Coolant Injector" Where Rack is Low/Medium/High. It is applicable to a given rack that is overheated, and consumes coolant. This would do wonders for active tanking!
Endeavour Starfleet
#314 - 2012-01-18 10:53:10 UTC
CCP I present again my idea for a new module and probe system to deal with the issue of AFK cloaking in a fair way that does not seriously impact the activities of those that are actually at their keyboard.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=667646

The only change I need to note is I now support a time limit before the probes even reveal there is a cloaked craft in the area scanned. 15-30 mins should be fair so that W-space pilots have a bit of time to go to the bathroom if needed.

It has images showing the basic idea for implementation.

I hope you will consider this.
Morgan North
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#315 - 2012-01-18 10:55:01 UTC
With that in mind:

1. Magnetic Accelerator

Works with Blasters only

Fitting: 1 Low Slot, further requirements matching Magnetic Field Stabilizers.

Effect: 50% to 100% Optimal range increase in Blasters with Falloff bonus to match.

Penalty: Always active, possible damage reduction (Passive).

2. Inertial Compensator:

[i]Works for Railguns only[/i

Fitting: 1 Low Slot, further requirements matching Magnetic Field Stabilizers.

Effect: Reduction in Optimal range, higher Tracking.

Penalty: Always Active (Passive).

These two modules would essentially provide for Blasters and Railguns to become permanent medium-ranged weapons at the cost of 1 low slot. The lack of further modules to amplify damage and tracking aswell as fall off is intended to complement the way these things would work.

3. Improved Nanotubed Internal Structure.

Fitting: 1 Low Slot

Effect: Armor repair amount +% (To be defined).

Penalty: Active Module

Description: By improving the ship's internal structure with passageways for nanites, the possibiites for faster access to damaged sections of the ship by repair teams and nanite paste allow for a better rate of structural damage repair, at the cost of further capacitor by the Nnites to transverse the passageways.


Morgan North
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#316 - 2012-01-18 10:55:25 UTC
Morgan North wrote:
With that in mind:

1. Magnetic Accelerator

Works with Blasters only

Fitting: 1 Low Slot, further requirements matching Magnetic Field Stabilizers.

Effect: 50% to 100% Optimal range increase in Blasters with Falloff bonus to match.

Penalty: Always active, possible damage reduction (Passive).

2. Inertial Compensator:

Works for Railguns only

Fitting: 1 Low Slot, further requirements matching Magnetic Field Stabilizers.

Effect: Reduction in Optimal range, higher Tracking.

Penalty: Always Active (Passive).

These two modules would essentially provide for Blasters and Railguns to become permanent medium-ranged weapons at the cost of 1 low slot. The lack of further modules to amplify damage and tracking aswell as fall off is intended to complement the way these things would work.

3. Improved Nanotubed Internal Structure.

Fitting: 1 Low Slot

Effect: Armor repair amount +% (To be defined).

Penalty: Active Module

Description: By improving the ship's internal structure with passageways for nanites, the possibiites for faster access to damaged sections of the ship by repair teams and nanite paste allow for a better rate of structural damage repair, at the cost of further capacitor by the Nnites to transverse the passageways.



Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#317 - 2012-01-18 11:16:59 UTC
Regarding stuff for decloaking cloaky stuff, may I suggest it is a module type and skill tied to destroyers, and perhaps a new T2 Destroyer variant. This is the historical comparison of what destroyers did in a naval fleet role, with anti-air secondary.

I am against anything that is basically a click this to win button. It should be cat and mouse, just like the submarine warfare, cloaky ships already resemble.

But there is a big difference, a stealth bomber, can't kill a real ship solo, either with bombs or torpedos, where as historically, a single submarine could sink multiple ships, where as it takes several stealth bombers to take down a battleship.

If there is a anti-cloaky mechanic, I would like to see it tied to the tactical overlay, and act as a sort of 'ping' mechanic which only works on grid, with only a rough idea where a cloaky ship is located increasing as the destroyer closes in, but pings can only be done every couple of minutes or so. In addition, the de-cloaking mechanic should remain (have to get in range), small smart bombs should get a range bonus on new/existing destroyers, which makes them more useful and gives them a sort of depth charge ability to hurt cloaky ships while not revealing them.

I think it would be fun for all involved.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 

Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#318 - 2012-01-18 11:30:04 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
CCP I present again my idea for a new module and probe system to deal with the issue of AFK cloaking in a fair way that does not seriously impact the activities of those that are actually at their keyboard.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=667646

The only change I need to note is I now support a time limit before the probes even reveal there is a cloaked craft in the area scanned. 15-30 mins should be fair so that W-space pilots have a bit of time to go to the bathroom if needed.

It has images showing the basic idea for implementation.

I hope you will consider this.


CCP in the December CSM summit Minutes mentioned both the issue of Local being used as intel and the use of a new cloaking probing technique. CSM agrees that these issues go hand in hand.

They are reviewing the material and the arguments on both sides to find the most balanced way to approach this hotly debated topic.

Truthfully most people who afk cloak right now won't mind a cloaking prober if local is properly removed as a flawless intel tool, because it removes the reason they afk cloak. Even I support anti-cloaking methods if you remove the role of local as an intel tool. W-Spacers on the other hand will have to adapt, this is where the most opposition will come from.

Good luck

MMOs come and go, but Eve remains.  -Garresh-

Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#319 - 2012-01-18 11:36:44 UTC
Moonaura wrote:
But there is a big difference, a stealth bomber, can't kill a real ship solo, either with bombs or torpedos, where as historically, a single submarine could sink multiple ships, where as it takes several stealth bombers to take down a battleship.


There are thousands of killmails on battleclinic that directly opposes that satement. Bombers can kill a BS 1v1 easily.

I like the idea of anchorable beacons that ping the system for cloaked ships.


MMOs come and go, but Eve remains.  -Garresh-

Nestara Aldent
Citimatics
#320 - 2012-01-18 11:50:15 UTC
Moonaura wrote:
Regarding stuff for decloaking cloaky stuff, may I suggest it is a module type and skill tied to destroyers, and perhaps a new T2 Destroyer variant. This is the historical comparison of what destroyers did in a naval fleet role, with anti-air secondary.

I am against anything that is basically a click this to win button. It should be cat and mouse, just like the submarine warfare, cloaky ships already resemble.

But there is a big difference, a stealth bomber, can't kill a real ship solo, either with bombs or torpedos, where as historically, a single submarine could sink multiple ships, where as it takes several stealth bombers to take down a battleship.

If there is a anti-cloaky mechanic, I would like to see it tied to the tactical overlay, and act as a sort of 'ping' mechanic which only works on grid, with only a rough idea where a cloaky ship is located increasing as the destroyer closes in, but pings can only be done every couple of minutes or so. In addition, the de-cloaking mechanic should remain (have to get in range), small smart bombs should get a range bonus on new/existing destroyers, which makes them more useful and gives them a sort of depth charge ability to hurt cloaky ships while not revealing them.

I think it would be fun for all involved.


Eve isn't the game about WWII so leave it out of it! Really it makes no sense to make ships in a science fiction game based on what naval ships historically did.