Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Except for most combat ships, by the time you get into hull you're more or less finished - so wouldn't damaging modules merely hasten one's demise? I like the idea of weapons fire seeping through to heat damage modules, but maybe this should be with low armor or shields?

At least buy them a drink first.

Sounds logical and I could support this, however I would ask if it is chanced based for each hit?, or will damage always seep through to mods?

Hull HP should be much larger ehp wise than other tanks, but module damage makes it bad. For example battleship hull should be 200k ehp standard. Dip into hull and your guns and modules start quickly going boom.

Use for nanite repair, more logistics importance for fleet fights (alpha fleets incapacitate hulls but they may be still saved), longer fights escalate to more ship deaths...

Lots of interesting potential. Shield = low tank but absolutely not touching modules.
Armor = good buffer but if it dips below 1/4 hull damage seep all the way to modules.
Hull = best buffer but modules die.

First suggestion:
75% hull resist base. This quadruples hull phase of the fight. Damage control unstacked.

25% of hull damage goes straight to modules, make the number such that full hull damage kills all your modules proportionally. This module damage should have a falloff type declining probability:
• when you have 100% modules left, 100% of hull damage goes to modules
• 10% functional modules left, 10% hull damage hits modules
This way the module death would be instantaneous but hero scenarios like "that last functional gun killed the enemy" would happen.

New module: systematic damage control. Smaller hull resist bonus, but also halves the chance for module damage. For the die hards, cannot fit with other suitcases.

I like it.

Now the reasoning is hidden and there is no implication whether it's accurate today. Mechanics have changed a lot. Might have been lack of dev time causing a feature drop off.

Today the relevant reason to argue would be the lenght of fights. I think prolonged fights (but doomed to die if you dip into hull and module damage unless you get help) would cause more fights to escalate. However the lone wolf would suffer due to prolonged gank attempts being interrupted. Is the current system worth changing?

Personally I would like this. The economic balance (ship death frequency) has to be considered though. The more ships die the better, be it from pvp (escalation vs interruption) or pve (this would cut pve deaths but are those a myth?)

The radical idea is to make hull tank the biggest and best tank (accomplished by 75% base resists). The reason for this is that the hull phase of a fight is the most interesting by nature: flames, impending death etc.

The instant module damage on hitting hull would make going to hull very unwise and put a balance in hull tanking, a strong toll to go there.

Make shield and armor "preferable scenario" but hull the main scenario of tanking, because it is just more interesting to fight at hull as modules pop randomly. Note that for pve things won't change.

The thought occurs to me that this was potentially rather unfair, say two of Ye are engaging in the shamefull activities described above, both hit hull at the same time but one of Ye looses a mwd ( really doesn't matter yer both scrambled anyway) the other looses your rep mod or dmg control ( decidedly important) .

I fell like there wouldn't be a fair way to determine what gets damaged and what doesn't and if its random..... **** that.

This is good, since it removes partially the deciding impact of SP in fights. Right now you win if you have all V relevant and the other does not. This is uncompetitive.

thers no cure for being a dumbass, sp factors for less than you would like.

What matters is who has their head screwed on the tightest , I don't want to lose a fight cos the internet says no, ill want to lose it cos I ****** up.

Edit: not calling you a dumbass,just saying there's 10y characters with bad players behind them