open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Tech 2/Tier 2 Destroyers as a fix for a myriad of issues
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Dodona
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2007.04.11 00:38:00 - [1]
 

Did anyone else enjoy, in Homeworld and other games, capturing the enemies ships and making them your own? It was one of my favorite tactics: so fun to make use of what others failed to protect. EVE, unfortunately, doesn't have this opportunity; the lucky pirate may lure a trapped and unwitting pod pilot out of their ship, but it doesn't happen very often.

What if we could fly specialized hijacking ships -- ships that forced a pod to eject? Destroyer sized, with good speed and agility, tech 2 resists but still a relatively weak skin. Limited fitting ability, with few to no high slots. A per level bonus to stasis web resistance and hijacking speed. We know the game can handle formation flight; it should be able to handle the requisite ship-to-ship docking and takeover. Of course, it would take more hijackers to overtake larger ships faster.

What might this solve?

Titans and Motherships: no longer would they be invincible. If you can surprise jump the ship with enough hijackers and keep the support force occupied, it should be possible to take over. You might have to repeat this several times within an hour, but at least it's an option.

Nos and smart bombs: hijackers wouldn't be capacitor-dependent ships. Because of their speed and proximity, hijackers would be best countered by smart bombs. Perhaps smart bombs would need an adjustment: lowering the optimal range and implementing falloff, while increasing damage. Pilots would have to make a choice to mount either nos as a counter to cap recharge and smaller ships, or smart bombs as a counter to hijackers. Finally, nos wouldn't be the only go-to module for leftover high slots.

Caldari: let's play around with this and say a ship can't be taken over until its shields are down, which is reasonable to say and simple to implement. Caldari gain a sudden boost in PVP effectiveness. This would also prevents roaming bands of un-supported hijackers taking down ships by themselves.

Amarr: The more Caldari and shield-dependent ships that take the field, and with fewer nos boats, the more Amarr can do their thang.

Logistics ships: the need to keep the relatively weak hijacking ships alive may press into service the varied logistics ships as they have the speed and range to keep up with a traveling target.

Tactical combat: small and fast ships need a good counter, which we can already find in interceptors, tier one destroyers, and assault frigates. A small battleships-only gang, however, would find itself in trouble. It might spice up POS warfare too, who knows.

Drawbacks


The fewer ships that are destroyed, the less the ISK sink. A decent counter to prevent this might be the destruction of modules once a ship is commandeered. Maybe this wouldn't be a problem at all, as pod pilots would sooner scuttle their ships before it can be fully taken over.

I can't think of anything else, really, besides the potential for lag. I don't know enough about the infrastructure of the game to determine if this feature would have a negative effect on system performance.

EadTaes
Minmatar
d o o m
Posted - 2007.04.11 05:44:00 - [2]
 

Hehe nice Idea. But as much as i want new destroyers i dunno if a destroyer sized ship is teh one for that particuler role. In ship crew treads their is talk of such hijak situations and possibilaties. How ever for a "boarding" ship I think an intererly new class ofve ship would be needed.

Like one that could lunch "breaching pods" sorta like in Babylon 5. I think that would be what works best.

Drakus
Minmatar
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2007.04.11 06:06:00 - [3]
 

This idea has been brought up time after time, and it will NEVER work.

And i can tell ya why.

Forum whiners. Now, in this case i would not really call them "whiners" but its the standard term.

If someone spends months, planning and building a mothership only to have it "highjacked" there would be NO END to the amount of *****ing people would hear.

as well, it would just encourge people to use these expensive ships behind pos shields or very close to them. I don't like anything that disuades the use of these ships as front line ships.


you would see fleets of these highjacker ships, and i mean FLEETS. Think about it.

lets say that these ships cost about the same as the most expensive dictor. so say 30m.
a mothership costs what? 30b? thats before any fittings.

So people would feild a fleet of these cheap ships (relative to the MS). So even if you have only a 1% chance of getting the mothership, you almost guarentee that you'll get it if ya just put in enough ships. And its worse then that, becase even if you need 150 ships to get it you still end up ahead because you not only "stole" 30b from them, but you gain that 30b yourself.

There are just way to many problems with this idea for it to ever be implemented.


Captain Schmungles
Caldari
Freelancing Corp
Confederation of Independent Corporations
Posted - 2007.04.11 15:30:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Captain Schmungles on 11/04/2007 15:27:33
I really like this idea, but there are a few issues:

1. Skills. You can't pilot ships you don't have the skills for, so it doesn't make sense that you could hijack ships you couldn't fly.

2. The point about fleets of hijackers. In Homeworld, the "salvagers" were weak non-combat ships that would die very quickly if they were sent in without any kind of distraction or support. If CCP were to create a hijacking class of ships, they would also need to follow the Homeworld model: have a low amount of hp, have little tanking ability, and have no combat abilities. Of course, even then you run into a sheer numbers game. Even with super-weak ships, a large enough fleet can simply overwhelm a ship with numbers (think the Chinese in the Korean War: no one had guns, but the fact that there were so many of them was enough to force the Americans to pull back).

3. Length of combat. Combat in EVE isn't long enough to permit hijacking tactics. There simply isn't enough time to cleverly sneak in a hijacker or two. In Homeworld, you could distract a capital ship with a few small, and cheap, fighters because the AI was dumb enough to go after harmless fighters instead of popping the defenseless salvagers. Humans are not that stupid. If I see a flight of weak, defenseless ships flying towards me to "hijack" my ship, they're going to die first.

4. Syle of combat. Damage in EVE is done in a very straightforward way: shields, then armor, then structure. In order to keep someone's shields down you have to keep shooting at them, but by doing so you also continue to damage their armor and risk destroying the ship before your weak, defenseless hijackers are able to do their thing.

5. Podding. If the hijackers work by forcing the person's pod to eject, then this is a cheap way to pod someone without actually having to fight their ship. You can pod the player without having to fight him, and so all of the time and ISK he's spent to create a really good ship doesn't matter at all. Why should anyone invest tons of time and money into creating a really nice battleship setup when an aggressor can pod them without ever having to face their ship?

Dirk Fallows
Caldari
Galley-la
Posted - 2007.04.11 15:59:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Dirk Fallows on 11/04/2007 16:00:25
I'd LOVE these ships.. I would bring an alt in this kind of ship with me next time I do a lvl 4 (or 5). Can you say "Rattlesnake", "Machariel" and "faction raven"? Twisted Evil

How would you solve insurance? It doesn't seem really fair that the player gets knocked out of the ship AND gets no isk? Unless the insurance is paid out anyways in which we suddenly get a HUUUUGE exploit & isk faucet (wanna trade ownership of this titan a couple of times?)

Of course, the possibility of scuttling the ship instead of getting it taken over is interesting, but it's simply too evil against new players. It's one thing to lose their cruiser and get 40% of it's value in insurance. It's another thing to start from scratch in a newb frig.

-- Edit:
Heey, maybe that's how you build up your anti-invasion fleet of npc battleships. Someone VERY long ago talked about being able to hire npcs to guard gates/belts etc. This would be a fun way to "recruit" npcs at gun-point to guard you. Basically they get "convinced" to stay near the grid where you took them over, and share the same standing as you do, shooting everything red or neutral.

Of course, they'd keep their reward, so if someone attacks you they need to fight off the ships, but stand to make a lot of isk in doing so.

Dodona
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2007.04.11 17:11:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Dodona on 11/04/2007 17:40:30
Originally by: Captain Schmungles
Edited by: Captain Schmungles on 11/04/2007 15:27:33
I really like this idea, but there are a few issues:

1. Skills. You can't pilot ships you don't have the skills for, so it doesn't make sense that you could hijack ships you couldn't fly.

2. The point about fleets of hijackers.

3. Length of combat.

4. Syle of combat. Damage in EVE is done in a very straightforward way: shields, then armor, then structure.

5. Podding.


Actually, I think some of these ideas do a lot to balance out potential "hijacker" problems.

1. Exactly right. Which means that as soon as the hijacker is popped by the target ship's buddies, the original pilot can get back in. You, personally, are not going to capture that ship unless you have an arranged deal with one of your teammates. Furthermore, your friend is going to have to take the risk of actually flying into the battle with a pod, unless you want to wait until battle is over, in which case you can't assure that the ship is still going to be there.

2. Fleets of hijackers just wouldn't work. They don't have any tackle ability. They don't have any damage capabilities. A hijacking fleet would definitely need some dedicated firepower support. If the enemy can field fifty 20 to 30 mil hijacking ships (I don't know what their actual cost would be, it would have to be balanced) You ought to be able to bring fifty very well-fitted assault ships. Or your own fleet of fifty hijackers -- which might make for an amusing battle (hey buddy, want to swap fleets?)

3. This is sort of the point, to make combat longer. If both sides of a conflict have gangs of hijackers ready to go, would they really want to destroy each other as quickly as possible? Maybe not. It'd be a balance between getting a hostile ship into a weakened position, keeping yourself alive, defending yourself against enemy hijackers, and protecting your hijackers. Then again, fleets who focus entirely on destructive power would still have an advantage; if they can knock out the enemy damage-dealers quickly enough, they won't have to worry about the hijackers. From my view, this choice between brute force and tactical firepower enhances combat.

4. I think this is actually an integral point; It shouldn't be easy to take over a ship. The best idea might be to bring a boat to half armor, then sic the hijackers while it's recovering -- again, it's a balance and a risk. You also have the hazard of leaving an uncaptured ship floating in space without any means of self-repair. The discerning captain wouldn't let their own ships be captured, no matter what.


5. In an ideal game, you wouldn't be able to hijack a ship any faster than you'd be able to destroy it with the same number of boats. Besides, you'd still need someone to take down their shields, which is going to give that faction-fitted battleship a good way to show its ability.

Originally by: Drakus
If someone spends months, planning and building a mothership only to have it "highjacked" there would be NO END to the amount of *****ing people would hear.

as well, it would just encourge people to use these expensive ships behind pos shields or very close to them.


The balance issue here is the time it takes one ship to hijack another. Let's say, for this argument, that it takes 150 ships half an hour to take over a mothership. That is a lot of risk for the attacking fleet -- that's 4.5 billion in hijackers alone, sitting for half an hour while their support fleet takes care of the mothership's defenses and its friends. Like I said, it shouldn't be easy, and it ought to take the same amount of resources as it would take to destroy the target. The only benefit is that you end up with the ship.

I may have to rescind my comment about it being easier to take down titans and motherships; you'd still have to bubble and cap drain them. Perhaps it could be evened out but I don't have the best reply to this issue.

Dodona
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2007.04.11 17:41:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Dirk Fallows
Edited by: Dirk Fallows on 11/04/2007 16:00:25
I'd LOVE these ships.. I would bring an alt in this kind of ship with me next time I do a lvl 4 (or 5). Can you say "Rattlesnake", "Machariel" and "faction raven"? Twisted Evil

How would you solve insurance? It doesn't seem really fair that the player gets knocked out of the ship AND gets no isk? Unless the insurance is paid out anyways in which we suddenly get a HUUUUGE exploit & isk faucet (wanna trade ownership of this titan a couple of times?)

Of course, the possibility of scuttling the ship instead of getting it taken over is interesting, but it's simply too evil against new players. It's one thing to lose their cruiser and get 40% of it's value in insurance. It's another thing to start from scratch in a newb frig.



This is a good point. The easiest answer is to reward insurance once, regardless of how the ship is lost the second (or third) time. I believe every ship has a unique ID of some sort, so this should be possible to implement. After all, insurance as most people know it doesn't cover stolen property.

As an aside, I don't think it ought to be possible to hijack NPC ships; it's just too easy to get a battleship by itself. Are NPC ships even pod-piloted?

EadTaes
Minmatar
d o o m
Posted - 2007.04.11 23:13:00 - [8]
 

I don't think you shoudl eb abel to hijack battleships or anythgin smaller. Shoudl be kept as a captol ship feature. And the hijackign ship shoudl relay be small and weak. To save combat in eve you soemhow have to force people back down from tons of BSs vs BSs in fleet battles to a few BSs + tons ofve smaller support ships.

The nerfing of speed in big ships. The lenghthening ofve combat. Anty blob weapons and their counters. Lots of new specialised small class ships none stronger then a HAC. Will eventuly force more varyaty into fleets then we have right now.

SpeedoMan
Caldari
Posted - 2007.04.11 23:23:00 - [9]
 

Don't EVER, EVER malign Homeworld again by comparing it to EVE :P

Mik Nostrebor
Minmatar
Ex Coelis
Posted - 2007.04.12 06:06:00 - [10]
 

This would indeed be funny

Scenario 1.
Macro miner sitting in a belt. Hijacker shows up and steals ship. 3 minutes later broken English comes across local from very confused and poor operator. He has lost 6 ships in half an hour!

Scenario 2.
AFK miner in badger goes and gets a coffee. Comes back to a pod floating in space with no clue as to what happened.

Scenario 3.
Noob undocks for first time. 10 seconds later noob is divested of ship without really knowing what happened. Noob docks and quits Eve.

Scenario 5.
See Scenario 4.

LOL.

Anyway, I think that there should be some sort of ability for shipboard fighting but perhaps it can only take place on incapacitated ships. Eg ones with 0 shield and cap (and armour?). A hijack force would need to be very very careful not to blow up ship and then to be able to disable the power systems using a device that can only work on a ship with no 0 shield/cap. It would require careful use of NOS and a very good control of the situation to be able to work.

Not to mention there should be risk for the boarding person. IE if the onboard ship battle goes poorly there is a chance that the boarding ship (which should not be cheap) could be taken by the victims crew etc.

Who knows. Might be a thing for the 'walking in station' crew to enable as a First Person Shooter styled fight. One which means that both victim and pirate become occupied and therefore vulnerable to being attacked by another roving band.



Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
Posted - 2007.04.12 20:01:00 - [11]
 

I seriously think the highjacking or i would rather call a tug boat ship shouldnt control the ship but still kick the previous pilot out once certain requirements are meet (theres always a chance you may not be able to fly it anyways) so add a few more vunerablities at the cost of hauling the stolen ship away, this would also work on moving derlect ships, bigger the ship is than you the more effort it takes to haul it and capitols im not sure how that would work. In this vunerable time the hijacker would be also vunerable and get killed making the ship neautral again allowing the podded pilot to hop back in if possible in a gang vs gang fight. But i can see this getting overabused in lowsec to make gate camps into chop shops so to say.


 

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