These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aethlyn
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1361 - 2012-09-25 09:08:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Aethlyn
Just had an interesting idea pirates and gankers might not approve, but how about this (assuming it hasn't been suggested already):

Cargohold Rigging I
After repeated losses of industrial ships hauling valueable assets to the Minmatar militia forces, Amarrian tacticians called for a scorched earth approach for potentially endangered shipments, denying the enemy further material gains. Based on common cargohold expanders, these rigged storage structures are armed with significant amounts of high-explosives, increasing the chance of the carried cargo to get destroyed together with the ship.

Module Stats
Cargohold Capacity: -10%
Destruction Chance: +10%
Slot Type: Low (or Rig?)

Looking for more thoughts? Follow me on Twitter.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#1362 - 2012-09-25 13:46:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
A DNA Transponder Signature Doppleganger Doo-Hicky


This module allows you to impersonate another character in space. In order for this to work, you have to have the corpse of the person you want to impersonate.

This could allow you to get past gate camps, or fool a person into thinking they should trust you in a exploration site, etc.

The corpse is consumed by this module.

The effect should only last up to 5 minutes or so.

Lets CCP let corpses get consumed, and gives them an actual value besides trophy status.

Do it! ;)

Where I am.
Atata Kaiko
Perkone
Caldari State
#1363 - 2012-09-25 16:42:58 UTC
Here's a meta idea, instead of having this, the general chaos of the Features & Ideas forum and the clearly ignored list of frequently proposed ideas, how about making this easier for everyone and build a web page that users can submit an idea and then with drop downs actually show how it would be IMPLEMENTED. This could be done via code, or for those who are bad at coding, have a sort of drag-and-drop where you can combine elements from existing modules, etc.

The OP need not necessarily do the "code" if someone else is eager to do it for them if they think it's a great idea. So Player Xyz proposes a great idea, Player Abc reads it, thinks it's cool and updates the "how it works" part of the idea to actually show it in code. A CCP Dev might say "hey, nifty idea, but you can't do ____ in SQL" and updates the code.

THEN, have the ability to vote up or down an idea (like a stack exchange), and the ideas that get "enough" up votes should get implemented as a matter of course on the test server(s). Those that do not immediately break game balance and get positive feedback on the test server are automatically put into a queue to be reviewed by CCP and possibly added during the next "big release".

It would make the test servers more of a sandbox game than EVE has ever been before, and could change the evolution of EVE in very long term and profound ways...
Yun Kuai
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1364 - 2012-09-25 17:38:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Yun Kuai
The principle idea here is that currently there is a module shared by both cruisers and battlecruisers, that being the 800mm reinforced steel plate. However, most BCs fit the battleship sized module, the 1600mm reinforced steel plate, due to the fact that they can “easily” be fit on most Armor BCs due their significantly larger PG over cruisers. The problem that arises from this decision to fit the 1600mm plate, means that armor cruisers also feel the need to fit the same BS sized 1600mm plate just to be remotely similar in EHP to go up against a BC.

So my proposal is to create a specific armor plate designed for BC hulls that still allow them to be viable when fighting against BS hulls, but not so overwhelming when fighting against cruiser hulls. In the end, it would allow cruisers to feel comfortable fitting the 800mm plate, BC fitting their new module, and BS still owning the 1600mm plate. For this to work accordingly, the 1600mm plate would need its PG requirements raised up to 700 MW or more (balancing would be required here), as the new BC plate would borrow the 1600mm plate’s PG requirements of 500 MW.

This is done so that cruisers can use the new armor BC's plate, but at a gimped fit like it is currently when using the 1600mm plate. On top of that, cruisers will lose their ability to fit the BS sized 1600mm plate. On the other hand, BC hulls still maintain the relative ease of fitting their new dedicated armor plate and also have the ability to fit the 1600mm plate like before, but again at a similar gimped fit.

The idea is to shoot for a 75% balancing on bonuses and penalties between the current 800mm and 1600mm plates when I created this new module. This 75% balancing on stats would continue through the 7 meta levels. Without further ado, I give you the 1200mm reinforced steel plate I...

Module name: 1200mm reinforced steel plate (meta 0)
Volume: 75 m3
Mass: 0 kg
Capacity: 0 m3
Radius: 0 m

Increases the maximum strength of armor
Penalty: Adds to your ship’s mass, making it less agile and maneuverable in addition to decreasing the factor of thrust gained from speed modules like Afterburners and MicroWarpdrives.

Fitting Requirements
Powergrid usage: 500 MW
CPU usage: 27 tf

Armor bonus: 2250 HP
Mass Addition: 2,812,500 kg

Variants:
1200mm reinforced nanofiber plate (meta 1)
1200mm reinforced titanium plate (meta 2)
1200mm reinforced crystalline carbonide plate (meta 3)
1200mm reinforced rolled tungsten plate (meta 4)
1200mm reinforced steel plate II (meta 5)
Storyline 1200mm reinforced steel plate (meta 6)
Faction Navy 1200mm reinforced steel plate (meta 7)

--------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#1365 - 2012-09-25 18:22:49 UTC
MD. same as TD just for missiles. *hinthint*

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Amaroq Dricaldari
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1366 - 2012-09-26 15:18:45 UTC
I want the old module and missile names back, and the old Carthum Conglomerate ships (the ones that were Red and Gold, not Tech I Frigate-colored

This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1367 - 2012-09-26 15:33:22 UTC
Yun Kuai wrote:
The principle idea here is that currently there is a module shared by both cruisers and battlecruisers, that being the 800mm reinforced steel plate. However, most BCs fit the battleship sized module, the 1600mm reinforced steel plate, due to the fact that they can “easily” be fit on most Armor BCs due their significantly larger PG over cruisers. The problem that arises from this decision to fit the 1600mm plate, means that armor cruisers also feel the need to fit the same BS sized 1600mm plate just to be remotely similar in EHP to go up against a BC.

So my proposal is to create a specific armor plate designed for BC hulls that still allow them to be viable when fighting against BS hulls, but not so overwhelming when fighting against cruiser hulls. In the end, it would allow cruisers to feel comfortable fitting the 800mm plate, BC fitting their new module, and BS still owning the 1600mm plate. For this to work accordingly, the 1600mm plate would need its PG requirements raised up to 700 MW or more (balancing would be required here), as the new BC plate would borrow the 1600mm plate’s PG requirements of 500 MW.

This is done so that cruisers can use the new armor BC's plate, but at a gimped fit like it is currently when using the 1600mm plate. On top of that, cruisers will lose their ability to fit the BS sized 1600mm plate. On the other hand, BC hulls still maintain the relative ease of fitting their new dedicated armor plate and also have the ability to fit the 1600mm plate like before, but again at a similar gimped fit.

The idea is to shoot for a 75% balancing on bonuses and penalties between the current 800mm and 1600mm plates when I created this new module. This 75% balancing on stats would continue through the 7 meta levels. Without further ado, I give you the 1200mm reinforced steel plate I...

Module name: 1200mm reinforced steel plate (meta 0)
Volume: 75 m3
Mass: 0 kg
Capacity: 0 m3
Radius: 0 m

Increases the maximum strength of armor
Penalty: Adds to your ship’s mass, making it less agile and maneuverable in addition to decreasing the factor of thrust gained from speed modules like Afterburners and MicroWarpdrives.

Fitting Requirements
Powergrid usage: 500 MW
CPU usage: 27 tf

Armor bonus: 2250 HP
Mass Addition: 2,812,500 kg

Variants:
1200mm reinforced nanofiber plate (meta 1)
1200mm reinforced titanium plate (meta 2)
1200mm reinforced crystalline carbonide plate (meta 3)
1200mm reinforced rolled tungsten plate (meta 4)
1200mm reinforced steel plate II (meta 5)
Storyline 1200mm reinforced steel plate (meta 6)
Faction Navy 1200mm reinforced steel plate (meta 7)


I completely agree with this. +1
Amaroq Dricaldari
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1368 - 2012-09-26 15:36:40 UTC
But then Battleships would need another Powergrid increase.

This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#1369 - 2012-09-26 22:17:56 UTC
Remote overloading assisting module or a fitted module that would cool the highs, mediums and lows on the ship

In theory the module would allow you to overload for twice as long as normal. (roughly)
as a remote module, it should have a limited range of 5-10km and should have fitting requirements that made it impractical to fit on frigs, but not impossible

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
Skydell
Bad Girl Posse
#1370 - 2012-09-26 22:36:47 UTC
Rigs to improve stasis webifier range and strength.
Trillian Zaphod
Xodus.
#1371 - 2012-09-27 04:48:18 UTC
* Player modified modules *

Here is an idea i have. Think of faction or officer mods, but created by players.
It would work like this:
- Start with a standard blueprint for a T1 module
- Perform a new "R&D" operation that would allow the player to generate a limited run BPC with slightly better attributes.
- The R&D operation takes a lot of time and consume a lot of resources and incrementally improves a given attribute.

For instance if you perform this R&D operation on a standard warp scrambler BPC, you would be able to improve its optimal range by 2% each time. For each attribute type it would consume a different set of resources. The cost and the time needed for the R&D would reflect the power being added to the BPC.

This would even work on ship modules and allow additional slots (for example), better resists, better heat dissipation, better
velocity , cargohold etc.

This would add a whole new dimension to the game and make it lot more fun for both experienced and new players.

Balancing Concerns:

If we set the time and ISK cost for these R&D jobs, it would be possible to balance the power very similar to faction mods.
For instance if I create a cruiser with one extra slot or better resists, it should take me a few weeks and cost 40-50 million -
comparable to a faction cruiser. But in this case I get to make my own according to my needs.

Naming Concerns:

Each variant of a BPC should have an unique ID (like Vexor #1007). It would also be reflected in the module. A player who is the first to create a variant should be able to name the variant (Trillian's modified Vexor). Show info on a module (either ship in space, or module in a contract) should highlight the variant attributes.

I would really love to know what others think of this idea.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1372 - 2012-09-27 04:52:33 UTC
Trillian Zaphod wrote:
* Player modified modules *

Here is an idea i have. Think of faction or officer mods, but created by players.
It would work like this:
- Start with a standard blueprint for a T1 module
- Perform a new "R&D" operation that would allow the player to generate a limited run BPC with slightly better attributes.
- The R&D operation takes a lot of time and consume a lot of resources and incrementally improves a given attribute.

For instance if you perform this R&D operation on a standard warp scrambler BPC, you would be able to improve its optimal range by 2% each time. For each attribute type it would consume a different set of resources. The cost and the time needed for the R&D would reflect the power being added to the BPC.

This would even work on ship modules and allow additional slots (for example), better resists, better heat dissipation, better
velocity , cargohold etc.

This would add a whole new dimension to the game and make it lot more fun for both experienced and new players.

Balancing Concerns:

If we set the time and ISK cost for these R&D jobs, it would be possible to balance the power very similar to faction mods.
For instance if I create a cruiser with one extra slot or better resists, it should take me a few weeks and cost 40-50 million -
comparable to a faction cruiser. But in this case I get to make my own according to my needs.

Naming Concerns:

Each variant of a BPC should have an unique ID (like Vexor #1007). It would also be reflected in the module. A player who is the first to create a variant should be able to name the variant (Trillian's modified Vexor). Show info on a module (either ship in space, or module in a contract) should highlight the variant attributes.

I would really love to know what others think of this idea.

That would be cool on two conditions
first the items/ships sould have to be untradeable
second they could not be any better than meta 14 quality. Each upgrade adds like +3 to the meta level limiting the number of upgrades.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Trillian Zaphod
Xodus.
#1373 - 2012-09-27 07:43:58 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:

That would be cool on two conditions
first the items/ships sould have to be untradeable
second they could not be any better than meta 14 quality. Each upgrade adds like +3 to the meta level limiting the number of upgrades.


I agree about not being better than meta 14 quality. Infact each attribute can have a ceiling of how high it could go.

But why untradeable ? By making the BPCs limited run we are limiting the availability. I would anticipate the prices of these
modified ships/modules to be comparable to faction, so trading should be okay.
Axe Samsanese
Caldari Guns and Buns
#1374 - 2012-09-27 08:14:24 UTC
Trillian Zaphod wrote:
* Player modified modules *

Here is an idea i have. Think of faction or officer mods, but created by players.
It would work like this:
- Start with a standard blueprint for a T1 module
- Perform a new "R&D" operation that would allow the player to generate a limited run BPC with slightly better attributes.
- The R&D operation takes a lot of time and consume a lot of resources and incrementally improves a given attribute.

For instance if you perform this R&D operation on a standard warp scrambler BPC, you would be able to improve its optimal range by 2% each time. For each attribute type it would consume a different set of resources. The cost and the time needed for the R&D would reflect the power being added to the BPC.

This would even work on ship modules and allow additional slots (for example), better resists, better heat dissipation, better
velocity , cargohold etc.

This would add a whole new dimension to the game and make it lot more fun for both experienced and new players.

Balancing Concerns:

If we set the time and ISK cost for these R&D jobs, it would be possible to balance the power very similar to faction mods.
For instance if I create a cruiser with one extra slot or better resists, it should take me a few weeks and cost 40-50 million -
comparable to a faction cruiser. But in this case I get to make my own according to my needs.

Naming Concerns:

Each variant of a BPC should have an unique ID (like Vexor #1007). It would also be reflected in the module. A player who is the first to create a variant should be able to name the variant (Trillian's modified Vexor). Show info on a module (either ship in space, or module in a contract) should highlight the variant attributes.

I would really love to know what others think of this idea.


Very interesting idea. Trying to think if we are missing some obvious flaw here.
As long as this whole process is "expensive" I am all for it.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1375 - 2012-09-27 11:47:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
*** Counter to Cyno Generator ***
Cyno Jammer - fits to a high slot of any ship and jams both regular and covert cyno generators in the current system. CPU and PG, cycle time and cost is similar to a cyno generator. No fuel requirements because as a counter, it needs to be balanced. If a cyno generator only needs one cycle of fuel to be effective then the cyno jammer should need at most one cycle of fuel to be effective, but would have to run potentially up to 138 cycles each day to be effective. The cyno jammer creates a system-wide warpable target on every player's overview. The player operating the cyno jammer can NOT leave the ship, dock, warp away, move, cloak, etc. the same as for a cyno generator. Players would have to defend the player jamming the system with remote repair, etc. Combat recon would get bonuses to using the cyno jammer: half the cycle time, can move, and if it needs fuel, then -80% fuel costs (still can neither warp, nor cloak, nor dock).

It should not require sovereignty to be able to counter a cyno generator, which does not require sovereignty. While players can cyno jam a system, they first have to have sovereignty and second have to control a pos. So currently, the counter to a cheap T1 frig with a cheap and easily trained T1 cloak and cyno generator is a massive investment in control of sovereignty, and in a pos. This is very unbalanced. If a frigate can fit a cyno jammer with the same training as a cyno generator, then balance can be restored. Now the cyno generator has a direct counter and afk cloakies are not OP because alliances can manage the unprobable threat. Invading forces also have a pvp target.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1376 - 2012-09-27 12:40:44 UTC
Trillian Zaphod wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:

That would be cool on two conditions
first the items/ships sould have to be untradeable
second they could not be any better than meta 14 quality. Each upgrade adds like +3 to the meta level limiting the number of upgrades.


I agree about not being better than meta 14 quality. Infact each attribute can have a ceiling of how high it could go.

But why untradeable ? By making the BPCs limited run we are limiting the availability. I would anticipate the prices of these
modified ships/modules to be comparable to faction, so trading should be okay.

If you could buy one of these then why would you want faction gear any more?

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Smelly PirateSaint
Perkone
Caldari State
#1377 - 2012-09-27 14:22:37 UTC
I haven't fully read through the blog yet so I apologize if this has already been suggested somewhere before:

How about a Smartbomb i.e. AoE weapon that, rather than inflicting any damage, simply decloaks any cloaked ship within an extended radius, say for example 15km?
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1378 - 2012-09-27 16:17:13 UTC
Smelly PirateSaint wrote:
I haven't fully read through the blog yet so I apologize if this has already been suggested somewhere before:

How about a Smartbomb i.e. AoE weapon that, rather than inflicting any damage, simply decloaks any cloaked ship within an extended radius, say for example 15km?

It has been proposed countless times. Imagine a ship with that module at every gate camp. Now imagine a cloaky dying fast with no tank and low dps. Now imagine cloaky technology becoming almost worthless. Bad idea. Now see my proposal 2 posts up to handle afk cloakers.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#1379 - 2012-09-27 17:23:46 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:
A DNA Transponder Signature Doppleganger Doo-Hicky


This module allows you to impersonate another character in space. In order for this to work, you have to have the corpse of the person you want to impersonate.

This could allow you to get past gate camps, or fool a person into thinking they should trust you in a exploration site, etc.

The corpse is consumed by this module.

The effect should only last up to 5 minutes or so.

Lets CCP let corpses get consumed, and gives them an actual value besides trophy status.

Do it! ;)


Thats actually pretty funny and would be a GREAT use of rare and valuable corpses
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#1380 - 2012-09-27 17:26:43 UTC
Axe Samsanese wrote:
Trillian Zaphod wrote:
* Player modified modules *

Here is an idea i have. Think of faction or officer mods, but created by players.
It would work like this:
- Start with a standard blueprint for a T1 module
- Perform a new "R&D" operation that would allow the player to generate a limited run BPC with slightly better attributes.
- The R&D operation takes a lot of time and consume a lot of resources and incrementally improves a given attribute.

For instance if you perform this R&D operation on a standard warp scrambler BPC, you would be able to improve its optimal range by 2% each time. For each attribute type it would consume a different set of resources. The cost and the time needed for the R&D would reflect the power being added to the BPC.

This would even work on ship modules and allow additional slots (for example), better resists, better heat dissipation, better
velocity , cargohold etc.

This would add a whole new dimension to the game and make it lot more fun for both experienced and new players.

Balancing Concerns:

If we set the time and ISK cost for these R&D jobs, it would be possible to balance the power very similar to faction mods.
For instance if I create a cruiser with one extra slot or better resists, it should take me a few weeks and cost 40-50 million -
comparable to a faction cruiser. But in this case I get to make my own according to my needs.

Naming Concerns:

Each variant of a BPC should have an unique ID (like Vexor #1007). It would also be reflected in the module. A player who is the first to create a variant should be able to name the variant (Trillian's modified Vexor). Show info on a module (either ship in space, or module in a contract) should highlight the variant attributes.

I would really love to know what others think of this idea.


Very interesting idea. Trying to think if we are missing some obvious flaw here.
As long as this whole process is "expensive" I am all for it.


The obvious flaw is CCP would have to anticipate EVERY possible change to EVERY possible mod/ship and balance accordingly, or someone will find a completely overpowered improvement that creates an incredibly imbalanced ship for 40-50m.

The other obvious flaw is that currently each ship/module has a typeid which determines its base stats. With this system there would be infinite typeids.