open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Minefields, a new system
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Iella Tesla
Posted - 2011.07.11 08:03:00 - [1]
 

I wasn't around when mines first came out, so I don't know what happened with them. But I was thinking that maybe a new system is in order, and it would be done using current mechanics.

Meant to be used in conjunction with mobile warp disruption bubbles, they deploy from a new class of ship, the minelayer. They would anchor the same but instead of scramming they would have three damage modes, Dense, Standard, Light, and each mode uses more ammo(mines).

Sizes: Large, Medium, Small.

Large minefields would have a radius of thirty kilometers, mediums would be twenty kilometers, smalls ten kilometers, with a central command structure that is linked to the mines and is vulnerable, if the command structure is destroyed the mines linked to it detonate.


Ammo bays would be varied depending on the size of the minefield. Larges would hold sixty mines, mediums forty, smalls twenty.

Ammo: Five types of mines. EM, Thermal, Kinetic, Explosive and Multispectral.
Bomb type signature radius damage reduction.



Dense field: A dense mine field would use 50% of the on board ammo in a maximum of two volleys.

Standard(Medium) field: A standard mine field would use 20% of the on board ammo, in a maximum of five volleys.

Light(small) field: A small mine field would use 10% of the on board ammo, in a maximum ten volleys.

Each mine should do around eight hundred damage so the minefields should not be something to take lightly. While they are deadly to enter they can be destroyed just like the mobile warp disruption bubbles.


Optional: If the command center is destroyed it will send out a distress call to it's owners. And/or it sends out a shockwave of damage farther than the original field.

Thoughts and opinions?

Mystical Might
Amarr
The Imperial Fedaykin
Posted - 2011.07.11 09:40:00 - [2]
 

Only in null-sec I presume?

And will it be anchorable within jump distance of the gate? Because if so, I could see null-sec alliances insta-killing anything that jumps through a gate by anchoring these mine fields.

azrael211
Caldari
Interstellar eXodus
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.07.11 10:46:00 - [3]
 

I was around when they first were used and they were fairly much used to block off a jump gate...useful if a gang of frigs all landed at the same time.

It was hard to setup properly making sure you didnt set off a mine whilst laying another which could trip the whole field. I would like to see mines back...you could mine POS stations and gates they just need to be balanced.

Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
Posted - 2011.07.11 12:51:00 - [4]
 

I'd love to see mines in w-space

did those things work with drag bubbles when they where initially available ?

Iella Tesla
Posted - 2011.07.12 03:54:00 - [5]
 

Would you mind telling us about the original mines? I still find contracts for them around, but know nothing about how they worked or their strengths and weakness.

Infinint
Interwebs Cooter Explosion
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.07.12 04:10:00 - [6]
 

Would be interesting to see mines as an anti-super weapon.

Iella Tesla
Posted - 2011.07.12 04:46:00 - [7]
 

I didn't think about that. I was mostly thinking about how to secure nullsec border systems and pos's. Though if the super cap warped in badly it could enter multiple fields and that would wreck it's day a bit. Also after some further thought, I think the damage should be increased to a base of 2000 or 2500 so it's higher than bombs.

Stegas Tyrano
Posted - 2011.07.12 07:48:00 - [8]
 

Instead of a command structure make it a new ship. That also means that players can't leave it unattended.

Like the HIC it deploys a minefield and cannot move from the spot. If the pilot ejects the mine field is destroyed.

Eperor
Posted - 2011.07.12 08:07:00 - [9]
 

i to wish mines back.

Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari
draketrain
Posted - 2011.07.12 10:13:00 - [10]
 

bring back DD

Ineka
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2011.07.12 10:19:00 - [11]
 

Yes let me solo gate/station camp.

I want it nao!!

Iella Tesla
Posted - 2011.07.12 14:27:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Stegas Tyrano
Instead of a command structure make it a new ship. That also means that players can't leave it unattended.

Like the HIC it deploys a minefield and cannot move from the spot. If the pilot ejects the mine field is destroyed.


While I was hoping for an around the clock defense system, the second option could be worthwhile. A new ship styled for gatecamping, or both types, anchor type for nullsec defense with heavy damage or HIC style for lowsec/nullsec gatecamping, limited damage but much greater mobility.

Only thing to make the ship balanced would be one high slot to fit the mine launcher, so it isn't overpowered.

Iella Tesla
Posted - 2011.07.12 16:54:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Mystical Might
Only in null-sec I presume?

And will it be anchorable within jump distance of the gate? Because if so, I could see null-sec alliances insta-killing anything that jumps through a gate by anchoring these mine fields.


I think it should be similar to the mobile warp bubbles. If an alliance sets them up around a gate it will hit anything that goes either way through the gate, hitting their own ships as well, if they seal off every gate in a system they will be stuck.
If they are under attack it's not a bad option, but it will limit their own mobility otherwise. A decent balance.

foksieloy
Minmatar
Rockets ponies and rainbows
Posted - 2011.07.13 06:26:00 - [14]
 

Only if you made it a module for the supercarrier. And for the minefield to stay, the supercarrier has to be on grid with it, outside of POS shields.

Kain Kodiak
Minmatar
United Stardrive Services
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:00:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Kain Kodiak on 13/07/2011 15:02:54
Originally by: foksieloy
Only if you made it a module for the supercarrier. And for the minefield to stay, the supercarrier has to be on grid with it, outside of POS shields.


No. 0.0 needs to get away from supercaps. Just make it a new sub cap ship, the mine layer. It's the only one that can deploy or use mine launchers, only way to make sure they aren't abused or broken.

Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
Posted - 2011.07.14 00:58:00 - [16]
 

Or maybe enhance destroyer hulls a little by giving them and only them the ability to use mine launchers, might give the class a bit of a shot in the arm.

Anyway the basic idea is sound, would just be a matter of tweaking for balance I think.

Iella Tesla
Posted - 2011.07.14 03:55:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Darek Castigatus
Or maybe enhance destroyer hulls a little by giving them and only them the ability to use mine launchers, might give the class a bit of a shot in the arm.

Anyway the basic idea is sound, would just be a matter of tweaking for balance I think.


I was thinking that, but I thought the destroyer wouldn't be strong enough to handle gate guns, I could be wrong. I was actually thinking that one of the tier 2 battlecruiser hulls would be a better fit, or another cruiser hull, as if there aren't a ton of those already.

Aries Aion
Posted - 2011.07.14 06:53:00 - [18]
 

I like the idea of mines, lets give them a detection range (30km for example) before they explode and a deployment range (35km apart) A cleaver pilot could set a maze around a gate and give his corp way points to navigate past it. After all, mines in real life don,t know if your on the same team.

Iella Tesla
Posted - 2011.07.14 07:51:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Aries Aion
I like the idea of mines, lets give them a detection range (30km for example) before they explode and a deployment range (35km apart) A cleaver pilot could set a maze around a gate and give his corp way points to navigate past it. After all, mines in real life don,t know if your on the same team.


I was hoping to just have them be like the bombs, hit's everything in the area, friend and foe, that way you can setup a passage of same space but if you stray a bit or try it with too big of a ship and pop. very hard thing for scouting, skills required? very high, danger? extreme, rewards? great.


Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles

Posted - 2011.07.14 10:39:00 - [20]
 

I think letting people place hundreds of aoe weapons on a grid is a recipe for massive lag followed by node crashes, especially if any reasonably large fleet warps there.

Another question to consider: if someone is undocked in highsec when one of their 0.0 mines kills someone, do they get concorded?

I would get around these problems by turning mines into single-use, high-damage drones, doing self-damage each time they fire at a target and blowing themselves up after 4 or 5 shots. Optionally, make the drones fire missiles rather than doing turret damage, so that smartbombs can be used as a counter.

Also: create a new minelayer ship class, with a massive bonus to # of active drones, but not drone bandwidth. Give 'mines' a very low bandwidth requirement, but a moderate to high volume to stop other ships using them excessively (except maybe the odd carrier or Guardian-Vexor).




Doctor Invictus
Gallente
Industry and Investments
Posted - 2011.07.14 11:11:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Doctor Invictus on 14/07/2011 11:11:51
I like the idea of mines, and this thread has kind of inspired me to tweak the concept. Instead of mines being a singular, one-shot AoE weapon with a given radius, players would deploy entire minefields via a minelayer module. The size of the field can be manipulated by players, but at the cost of the damage generated; small/tight fields (~30km radius) will generate a lot of damage but cover a very limited area, large/dispersed fields (~1000s km radius) will generate limited damage but might do so over a wide area. Multiple fields can overlap with one another, allowing players to customize their minefields. Since Each field is made up of some enormous number of mines, each 'unit' of mines has substantial material costs.

Damage taken will be probability based. Every second a ship spends inside a field it has some probability of being hit by a mine, based on the size of the ship (the larger the ship, the more likely they are to get hit) and the density of the field (probabilities higher in smaller, more focused fields). The total damage taken could be expressed as a percentage, rather than as a total amount of DPS. Given lower chances of being hit, this would mean that small, fast ships would be able to sail through fields without much hassle, while larger ships (I'm looking at you, capital ships) would be largely unable to safely access mined areas. So this would allow for more strategic play, and act as a defacto nerf for capital and supercapital ships.

Thoughts?

I may have to add this to my nullsec omni-proposal.

Iella Tesla
Posted - 2011.07.14 14:23:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Doctor Invictus
Edited by: Doctor Invictus on 14/07/2011 11:11:51
I like the idea of mines, and this thread has kind of inspired me to tweak the concept. Instead of mines being a singular, one-shot AoE weapon with a given radius, players would deploy entire minefields via a minelayer module. The size of the field can be manipulated by players, but at the cost of the damage generated; small/tight fields (~30km radius) will generate a lot of damage but cover a very limited area, large/dispersed fields (~1000s km radius) will generate limited damage but might do so over a wide area. Multiple fields can overlap with one another, allowing players to customize their minefields. Since Each field is made up of some enormous number of mines, each 'unit' of mines has substantial material costs.

Damage taken will be probability based. Every second a ship spends inside a field it has some probability of being hit by a mine, based on the size of the ship (the larger the ship, the more likely they are to get hit) and the density of the field (probabilities higher in smaller, more focused fields). The total damage taken could be expressed as a percentage, rather than as a total amount of DPS. Given lower chances of being hit, this would mean that small, fast ships would be able to sail through fields without much hassle, while larger ships (I'm looking at you, capital ships) would be largely unable to safely access mined areas. So this would allow for more strategic play, and act as a defacto nerf for capital and supercapital ships.


This is very close to my original thought but I toned it down so it wasn't so overpowered. I wanted some type of limit to the number of mines and max damage it could do so large alliances wouldn't just set up an unassailable wall and jump bridge over it, while also not adding to lag that much(individual mines would, like drones, stress the servers.)

Iella Tesla
Posted - 2011.07.15 05:51:00 - [23]
 

The lag issue really bugged me, which is why I thought the minefield would be better than reintroducing individual mines. And with three sizes and three damage modes with in each size it would allow for greater customization of the defenses without making it too overpowered and while still keeping it dangerous for both the owners and the victims.

Iella Tesla
Posted - 2011.07.17 18:48:00 - [24]
 

Does anyone think this is a bad idea? Any negative thoughts? Or am I so awesome that I balanced everything out before hand and came up with a great idea with few downsides?

Mara Villoso
Posted - 2011.07.24 21:04:00 - [25]
 

Why not use the "mines" from the old Tie Fighter/X-Wing games? If you're not familiar with them, they are essentially sentry drones with proximity activation. In a mass field they can be dangerous, but one by itself is just a nuisance. It made it possible to pick off the mines one at a time with some good aim and stand-off piloting.

Plug in a new mine skill using the sentry drone skill tree, geared to max number anchored, and an anchoring distance skill tied to it and anchoring. The maxed skills would allow you to anchor bubbles close, but not overlapping, minefields. Add in a minimum distance from celestials/anchored objects and each other. Just a thought.

Egilmonsc
Minmatar
Massively Mob

Posted - 2011.07.25 06:18:00 - [26]
 

Supporting this discussion~

Ejderdisi
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.07.25 08:24:00 - [27]
 

problem will be the minefields themselves. Think about it. You can literally spam a gate with 1000s of mines if you have like 100 minelaying hulls. Well actually you will drop like 10000s of mines if it can be done. This will cause 2 big problems:

1- With suggested damage amount, for example half a damage of Bomb it is like 50 bombs triggered to explode. That **** is extremelly powerful if you give them a very long AOE range.

Like if its 30km you'll literally DD the gate and all who enter. I can see 2 possible solutions though.

a- If their trigger range is like 30km, first ship decloacks should ignite the full minefield and only the first uncloaked ship should take the damage. (It will be like that as others are not moved and gate cloaked at that moment.)

b- or mines should only explode if there is a ship in 1km proximity of themselves with a blast radius of 1km. So 1 ship can try to dodge minefield. or at least not DD'ed in the instant it jumped to system. And also it will some how pain the jumping in fleet but not DD everything at an instant ruining the game for attackers.

2nd problem is the great lag it will generate. As you know u can't spam containers around a gate to create lag as it is a known exploit. Think about it. Any sizeable alliance can spam 1000 maybe more mines around gate.. Well even it is on the grid it should work lagwise. It will definitively give the processor something to calculate as proximity and damage wise..

In conclusion, If you want minefields they should created like that you can't mass them in an area. Maybe to cover a gate you can put down 10 of them at most. A minefield may and should hold of a lone or very small enemy gang. But it shouldn't be the new Titan with AOE damage. It wasn't fun at all.

If you want system defense another good idea is paying bills for gate sentry guns and even faction NPC guards. They will create some defense + isk sink which is much needed anyway.

And to add the insult of minefields they shouldn't generate kill mails. So ppl shouldn't randomly minefield every gate in 0.0 to get AFK mails... For one, I will lay fields every f***ing gate as long as it will generate kms :P

Mara Villoso
Posted - 2011.07.25 14:54:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Ejderdisi
discussion

Thus my tie fighter mine idea. They're just like sentry drones. They fire lasers, projectiles, missiles. There is no AoE or bomb-like effect. Large numbers could be devestating to a single ship, which is the point, but a well tanked group could survive. In tie fighter the real game mechanic point of the mine fields was to eat into your tank a bit and soften you up.

Iella Tesla
Posted - 2011.07.25 16:04:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Ejderdisi
problem will be the minefields themselves. Think about it. You can literally spam a gate with 1000s of mines if you have like 100 minelaying hulls. Well actually you will drop like 10000s of mines if it can be done. This will cause 2 big problems:

1- With suggested damage amount, for example half a damage of Bomb it is like 50 bombs triggered to explode. That **** is extremelly powerful if you give them a very long AOE range.

Like if its 30km you'll literally DD the gate and all who enter. I can see 2 possible solutions though.

a- If their trigger range is like 30km, first ship decloacks should ignite the full minefield and only the first uncloaked ship should take the damage. (It will be like that as others are not moved and gate cloaked at that moment.)

b- or mines should only explode if there is a ship in 1km proximity of themselves with a blast radius of 1km. So 1 ship can try to dodge minefield. or at least not DD'ed in the instant it jumped to system. And also it will some how pain the jumping in fleet but not DD everything at an instant ruining the game for attackers.

2nd problem is the great lag it will generate. As you know u can't spam containers around a gate to create lag as it is a known exploit. Think about it. Any sizeable alliance can spam 1000 maybe more mines around gate.. Well even it is on the grid it should work lagwise. It will definitively give the processor something to calculate as proximity and damage wise..

In conclusion, If you want minefields they should created like that you can't mass them in an area. Maybe to cover a gate you can put down 10 of them at most. A minefield may and should hold of a lone or very small enemy gang. But it shouldn't be the new Titan with AOE damage. It wasn't fun at all.



I guess I didn't describe this properly. The Minefield would be an anchorable module, much like the mobile warp disruption bubbles, they would also have an ammo bay, with a limited number of mines, these are not launched into space, they just vanish from the ammo bay as the minefield damages a target. They are AOE only within the minefield and effect everyone, friend or foe. The module can be targeted and destroyed just like bubbles.

The minefields come in three sizes, small, medium and large (just like the mobile warp disruption bubbles) Each minefield would have three settings:

Dense field(uses half of the onboard ammo, 50%, you get a max of two attacks)

Normal field(uses one fifth of the onboard ammo, 20%, you get a max of five attacks)

Small field(uses one tenth of the onboard ammo, 10%, you get a max of ten attacks)

These would not be a new DD, they would just make certain routes more secure. Yes you could close off an entire system, mine every gate, but you'd be unable to leave. As for the spamming around a gate, they can't be within reaction range of each other as that would set off the other field/fields. There are limits to their effectiveness, damage reduction as with bombs, and limited number of uses, and should be comparable to bomb mineral regs for each mine, and MWDB for the fields.

I don't remember do smartbombs and ecm bursts hit gate cloaked ships? I want to say they do but it's been a long time since I've run into them.

I think no killmails for the owner of the minefield would be best as well.

As I've said before the lag issues bug me, that is why I've tried to stick to only mechanics that are already in game, MWDB=minefield, bombs=mines, damage style=Recon(part 3) it's a level 4 mission that I'm sure most of us have done.

Let me know if I missed something.

Mara Villoso
Posted - 2011.07.25 17:18:00 - [30]
 

*sniffle* I guess I'm not part of the discussion. Sad

They'll never go for AoE mines. AoE is just too easy mode.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only