These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Junkers.

Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ren Coursa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2014-04-25 06:40:06 UTC
I have always loved the concepts of steampunk and post apocalypse and an integral part of those settings are cheap, crappy vehicles with a tendancy for malfunctioning in the most awkward of situations.

This concept works well in space settings to just not to the extreme of mad max-esque vehicles. But a good example of this is the Millennium Falcon. A ship han solo probably couldn't have afforded if it was new and in good shape. But really, it's a piece of crap with a tendancy to fail when you need it the most.
The other obvious example is the ship in fire fly/serenity. Parts falling off, maintenance costing more than the crew can bring in etc.

Inb4 minmatar i would really love something like this in eve. The concept being too allow people to fly ships they can't afford for a way cheaper penny but have them come with major, maybe randomized, drawbacks and be un-insureable and only tradeable via contracts.

Same fitting and skill requirement but just.. Crappy and cheap.

Maybe they could be built by fledgling industrialists entirely out of salvage?

Examples of effects could be anything from sudden drops in thrust, blooming sig radius, power/cpu drops offlining modules to a sudden dropping off the shield or unability to warp or dropping lock. Anything really.

This could also be extended to modules with the same traits.

You could also have new skills and riggs to mitigate these effects.

Thoughts?

Disclaimer: before posting this i did a search for "junk" and "malfunctioning" and didn't find anything similar, apologies if i missed something and this is an old idea. Truthfully i can't see how it hasn't been suggested before so I'm ready for the hate.
Luwc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2 - 2014-04-25 07:03:45 UTC
+1

It takes a lot of work to realize that though so it might something half ass like the other crap CCP did before but it sure has potential.

http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#3 - 2014-04-25 07:18:42 UTC
OP, have you looked at a Burst lately? I don't know why the BPO doesn't already call for that ugly thing to be made entirely out of salvage.

Oh well. In Rust We Trust. o7
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#4 - 2014-04-25 07:42:07 UTC
Could maybe realized with the T3 subsystem system. You can manufacture different parts of a ship, which give moderate T1 hull bonuses to stay in line with other T1 ships and interfere with each other (ie. the Pro Junker Sub gives speed, but reduces the armor repair, and the Defensive Junker Sub gives more armor at the expenses of Agility or reduction of Prop Mod speed). And they starkly influence the shape of the ship itself.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Ren Coursa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2014-04-25 08:51:02 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Could maybe realized with the T3 subsystem system. You can manufacture different parts of a ship, which give moderate T1 hull bonuses to stay in line with other T1 ships and interfere with each other (ie. the Pro Junker Sub gives speed, but reduces the armor repair, and the Defensive Junker Sub gives more armor at the expenses of Agility or reduction of Prop Mod speed). And they starkly influence the shape of the ship itself.


That would be awesome, cool concept. Love the t3 just because the modular look so more of that would always be a plus.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#6 - 2014-04-25 09:03:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
It would, however, be necessary to ensure that you can never create a subsystem combination that does not have at least 1 or 2 negatively affected subsystems, or that such a combination would be inferior to combinations with negatively affected subsystems save a very limited number of scenarios... and that causes a hell lot of balancing and theorycrafting work. Ugh

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Ren Coursa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2014-04-25 09:15:07 UTC
Luwc wrote:
+1

It takes a lot of work to realize that though so it might something half ass like the other crap CCP did before but it sure has potential.


Oh more than likely.

As for difficulty implementing it you could make it easy and borrow code from boosters and have a chance of a drawback anytime you activate a module for instance.

Im not sure there would have to be alot of code added and worked out, probably more of a balancing issue.

Might also be more of a burden to the art department of you want them to standout.
Imagine a beat up, rusty amarr ship with one thruster offline and sparks shooting out randomly. You could still see traces of the regal gold and red but it's mostly gone, along with its dignity.
But the owner loves ut because it allowed him to jump into a battleship without feeling limited by having to have everything at 5 and fitting it well.
You could just get in it and get a feel for battleship pvp without going bust by losing a single ship.
Ren Coursa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2014-04-25 09:24:39 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
It would, however, be necessary to ensure that you can never create a subsystem combination that does not have at least 1 or 2 negatively affected subsystems, or that such a combination would be inferior to combinations with negatively affected subsystems save a very limited number of scenarios... and that causes a hell lot of balancing and theorycrafting work. Ugh

No kidding. Wouldn't have to be 5 subsystems though. Might just be 3 or something to differentiate it some from the flexibility of a t3. Have them be tied to slot type, one for high, mid and low with a couple of variations.