These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

Forum Index

EVE Forums » Council of Stellar Management » Assembly Hall » [Proposal] Aegis Destroyers

Topic is locked indefinitely.

[Proposal] Aegis Destroyers
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Talisa Latarien

Dark Tempest Enterprises

Likes received: 31

#81 - 2012-07-16 19:25:20 UTC | Edited by: Talisa Latarien

Valerie Tessel wrote:

...

You're right, though. There is a scaling issue. But I'm of the opinion that overwhelming force should actually be overwhelming. Only, now the bar would be set a fair bit higher. For all the while the opposing fleet is chewing through destroyers, your fleet isn't going to sit back and watch. Perhaps Tech 2 for better resistances for ~ 12K EHP when max-tanked lets say, might make more sense.

Again, I don't think we have to ask CCP "build me exactly this." Rather, we ought to say, "build me something that lets me play this way."

Thank you again for the feedback. Keep it comping.

First, you're perfectly welcome, it is one of those few suggestion threads worth spending time on, I think.

Second, about the scaling. It's not that the overwhelming fleet is going to wipe the nearest moon with Aegis boats that worries me, but the fact that at certain fleet size (on both sides) using Aegis boats becomes ineffecient, as it all comes down to blob alphaing primaries, and no damage interception will save against that, while having more alpha of your own instead makes perfect sense. That's why I think having flak boats does make sense, because this is one functionality that would scale incredibly well with fleet size, making these boats useful even in large scale pvp. Plus, BS won't be easy pickings to carrier gangs, and having a strong frigate fleet to remove Aegis boats will be a must.

Actually, it could even give some role for your ordinary tech 1 dessies - to trap and kill incoming frigates before they get to Aegis boats! Which in turn means the enemy needs cruisers to deal with your T1 dessies...

I do think that if we provide CCP with a solution on a platter, and one that players consider balanced, there is a chance it gets implemented right from the start, rather than within next few expansions. There will still be balancing issues, of course, but the core mechanics do need to be polished here. That's why I think we should get the details as fine as possible, because most of these threads never go beyond "make this so that I can do that", and nobody will bother thinking how it's supposed to work. We need to present a solution for implementation, not just an idea. That's the way you prepare projects in business. Cool

Talisa Latarien

Dark Tempest Enterprises

Likes received: 31

#82 - 2012-07-16 19:42:06 UTC | Edited by: Talisa Latarien

Valerie Tessel wrote:

Talisa Latarien wrote:

[Snip...]

Now, one thing I could imagine as useful in large scale battle, is using Aegis platforms in Anti-Drone warfare. While some people said here that drones should be excluded, I think that good old flak screen is quite viable against those pesky Fighters and Fighter-Bombers, making carriers a bit less OP - you'd have to actually remove enemy's SAM capability before having a go at bombing them. Plus, this could be an AOE effect with modules dealing automatic damage to anything within range (smartbomb style, with a chance to hit based on drone signature and speed, and working only on drones). Again, short duration due to loads of ammo expended while operating.

[snip]

I like that idea, a sort of drone disruption smart bomb. How about it having a small chance to disconnect the drone?

Like I said, it's your thread, so, all the power is yours here. Smile

I certainly would not wish for any obscene ugliness that is smartbomb animation in use here. What I meant was smartbomb mechanics, meaning area of effect, objects within it receive damage per module cycle, only this time based on chance and their speed/sig (nothing new to EvE, and simple to calculate), and the dessie spends as many ammo rounds, as there are targets within AOE. Looks like classic flak fire on the client with explosions around drones (adjusted to airless environment). Different ammo could have different effects - there could be, certainly, link disruption ammo, that could have temporary or chance-based disconnection for drones, or even a chance of disabling them. There could even be target disruption ammo, which would make drone target acquisition systems ineffective thus reducing their DPS. But that would require some server-based computations that are beyond existing mechanics, while the classic flak screen is pretty simple - you are a drone, you get fired upon, you get hit, you take damage, you pull out before it's too late or go boom.

And, since an Aegis dessie could be used against one damage type AND against drones at the same time, it would be versatile without becoming universal: you still would need 4 dessies at least to have protection against all four weapon types, while at the same time having four flak screen sources means drones die four times as fast.

Here is an extremely rough sketch of what Caldari Aegis boat could look like - at least, the way I see it. It is a heavily modified Cormorant chassis adapted to house heavy Aegis equipment. It has 2 (x2) standard gun hardpoints (green on the drawing), 2(x2) Aegis module hardpoints (blue), and 1 (x2) flak cannon hardpoint (pinkish). Don't be too strict, I don't have a Wacom tablet at work, neither do I have too much time, so had to use the mouse and make it quick. Smile

Plaude Pollard

Aliastra

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 100

#83 - 2012-07-18 16:36:52 UTC

YuuKnow wrote:

That would be a natural development for a race designed to fight hoards of missile ships. Unfortunately, Eve doesn't really follow logic in terms of its ship design. Look at the Amarrian which specialize in cap draining, but whoses main enemy use cap-less weapons...

Or the Minmatar, whose EWAR-frigates get a bonus to Target Painting and Stasis Webifying, both of which make it easier to hit the already slow-as-bricks Amarr Ships. Looks to me like the Minmatar and Amarr actually hope their enemy will use their own ships (Amarr will use Minmatar ships and Minmatar wil use Amarr ships)...

New to EVE? Want to learn? The Crimson Cartel will train you in the fields of _**your **_choice. Mainly active in EU afternoons and evenings. Contact me for more info.

Jahah Smith

Imperial Academy

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 2

#84 - 2012-07-19 15:13:01 UTC

Loius Woo wrote:

Implementation could be difficult. I am not sure that the game is built to do complex geometry for EVERY weapon firing. That could get pretty messy.

Eve already does this that is why when you have an angular velocity, you get less damage than if you are sitting still.

So as I said with angular and radial velocitys already calculated the calculation for this, while it would add a bit of server side lag, should not be too difficult.

Jahah Smith

Imperial Academy

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 2

#85 - 2012-07-19 15:15:21 UTC

Mallak Azaria wrote:

I get what you're aiming at here, but this idea has been brought up many times in the past & shot down each & every time.

Lets say you have 2 blob fleets facing each other, both completely protected by these Aegis Destroyers. Both fleets need smaller ships to kill the 'Ship creating big shield preventing all incomming damage'. Smaller ships race toward said Aegis Destroyer, out of the protection of their own. The small ships on both side get alpha'd. The result? 2 blob fleets are still facing each other & the only damage happening was on some cheap frigates.

I'm not denying that it's a cool idea in theory, but cool theories often don't work out in this game.

Or you just utilize tactics that have been in the game for over two years and move your damage dealers around the battlefield.

Saede Riordan

Alexylva Paradox

Likes received: 7,896

#86 - 2012-09-11 12:52:08 UTC

I like the idea, I do, but allow me to play the devil here for a bit:

Eve does not currently calculate weapon trajectory. When you fire your guns at a target, the game rolls a hit dice to determine if you hit it or not. Having each shot physically simulated is just not possible with current generation computing, the servers would melt.

What could work now, is if you have to target a friendly, and activate this new module on the friendly target. Each CIWS module would afford a certain level of damage mitigation to the friendly ship, and you would need to fit a full rack of the CIWS to protect more ships. It would also mean that the AEGIS ships couldn't protect themselves, since it doesn't generate a bubble of protection.

Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships

Seara Arrodan

Whiskey and Cigars

Likes received: 3

#87 - 2012-09-17 02:49:07 UTC | Edited by: Seara Arrodan

Interesting ideas BUT

This is not really how AEGIS works. As I type this I am sitting in Combat Systems Maintenance Central on board an East Cost based Arleigh Burke -class destroyer currently deployed to the Middle East.

AEGIS allows AEGIS equipped ships to share information with other ship (not necessarily AEGIS ships) and to fire defensively and offensively from that data. The problem is there is no real reason to do this with a few exceptions and most of the time we are not close enough to other ships for this to be practical . Some of this may not make sense because I will have to leave out some classified stuff that limits AEGIS. If AEGIS detects a vampire (inbound missile) it will find a firing solution and depending on the ships weapons posture will automatically fire an Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) to intercept it, or the ESSM will be command launched by a watch stander. If the ESSM misses or for some reason does not kill the vampire then Super Rapid Blooming Off-board Chaff (SRBOC) will fire and the Close in Weapons System (CIWS) will get it. For offensive we have the SM-2 Standard Missile for surface targets and the Block "C" and "D" Tomahawk Missiles for longer range strike packages. Now for the classified omission: for reason I cannot discuss we cannot in practice shoot off of another ships data unless we are out of missiles (not likely to happen) If a technical problem prevents us from shooting off of our own data, that same problem will prevent us from using another ships data and that's all I can say about that.

So in summery the biggest advantage of AEGIS is allowing AEGIS ships to share data (primarily from the AN/SPY-1 3 dimensional Air search Radar) with other ships allowing the battle group to use that combined data "see" the strategic picture covering thousands of square miles. And to use that data to plan; air strikes from carriers, Tomahawk missile strikes from VLS equipped ships, assist in deployment of marines, and overall fleet defense because knowledge is power.

Oh we also have Vertically Launched (VLS) Anti-submarine Rockets (ASROC) for offensive and defensive anti-submarine warfare (think torpedo deployed by a rocket)

Arleigh Burke class destroyer

Hmm.... Not sure if troll?...

Valerie Tessel

Center for Advanced Studies

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 731

#88 - 2012-11-15 21:33:39 UTC

Seara Arrodan wrote:

That is very cool, and thank you for your service.

Although replicating what modern Arleigh Burke-class destroyers do would be interesting, much of that function is currently abstracted in the form of Command Ships, Gang Links, and Remote Sensor Boosters (if I'm recalling correctly).

What I was looking for here was the shield aspect in the older sense of Greek mythology. In other words, an in-game abstraction of effective defensive fire on behalf of another player.

There's a few other posts yet that I have to respond to and will try to get to.

Note: Moderators, please move this thread to F&I

Tactical destroyers... I'll take a dozen Gallente, please.


Valerie Tessel Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation Likes received: 731	#89 - 2012-12-15 05:29:45 UTC F&I thread started: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=182567 Tactical destroyers... I'll take a dozen Gallente, please.

First pagePrevious page345