Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Someone mentioned something like this and I dredged up my old idea and got carried away in my response, so I figured I would post it here. I think it would be a good thing to consider implementing, but I also realize that due to it being a major overhaul it isn't likely to happen. Still, this info might be useful to someone.

My post in response to the other post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6215847#post6215847



BASE SHIP WARP CORE STRENGTH
Small-rig ships have warp strength of 1 (can be tackled with 1 warp jam strength)
Medium-rig ships have warp strength of 2 (can be tackled with 2 warp jam strength)
Large-rig ships have warp strength of 3 (can be tackled with 3 warp jam strength)
Capital ships have much higher warp strengths which are specific to the type of capital ship


WARP DISRUPTORS AND SCRAMBLERS
small scrambler: 2MW // 20Tf // 8km // 3 jam strength - this is just enough to tackle a battleship that has no warp stabs
small disruptor: 4MW // 40Tf // 20km // 1 jam strength
medium scrambler: 30MW // 30Tf // 12km // 5 jam strength
medium disruptor: 60MW // 50Tf // 30km // 2 jam strength
large scrambler: 450MW // 40Tf // 18km // 7 jam strength
large disruptor: 900MW // 60Tf // 45km // 4 jam strength
mega scrambler: 6750MW // 50Tf // 27km // 12 jam strength (6 vs. subcaps)
mega diusruptor: 13500MW // 70Tf // 67.5km // 6 jam strength (3 vs. subcaps)
Any ship can fit an oversize scrambler or disruptor though it costs a lot of powergrid. Disruptors are especially expensive with powergrid and also cost a lot of capacitor so it is difficult to run an oversized disruptor. Tech 1 tackle frigates cannot easily fit a medium disruptor but it can be squeezed in, and their role bonus makes it far cheaper to run. Interceptors and interdictors will have a 50% reduction to power cost of tackle modules, and heavy interdictors will have a 98% reduction in powergrid cost of specifically mega scramblers/disruptors which are made for tackling capital ships.


WARP CORE REINFORCER
New active module with same fitting cost and penalties of Warp Core Stabilizer, but this module grants no bonus initially. When activated, it begins a 3-second cycle and at the end of the cycle it grants +1 warp strength. It then performs another cycle, at the end of which it upgrades to +2 warp strength. After this point, it will continue to cycle and use capacitor, remaining at +2 warp strength. If you overheat it, it will begin overheating no earlier than the start of the third cycle, and give +3 warp core strength at the end of the first overheated cycle.

Multiple warp core reinforcers must be queued separately, for instance if a Megathron with 8 WCR modules overheats and turns on all 8 modules at the same time, it will activate them one at a time, allowing each one to cycle twice before moving onto the next module. None of the modules will begin overheating until all queued modules have finished their first two cycles. The Megathron will start with +2 warp strength (battleships have a base of 3) and will gain +1 every 3 seconds for 72 seconds, maxing out at +26 (27 total) warp strength. These modules will barely survive overheating this long and will soon begin to fail, however if you overheat fewer modules you can maintain the overheat much longer.

This new module allows larger ships which have more low slots to gain a higher warp strength, but also forces them to take advantage of their higher hit points because they have to wait for the modules to come online. This means that ships will likely try to balance between WCR modules and buffer tank, and may also mix in WCS to get instant warp strength. This also means that armor tank ships do not get an unfair advantage in the use of these modules, as shield ships can make up for their lack of low slots by fitting more buffer tank which is crucial to have. Lastly, the time cost makes it difficult to use on small ships as they are less likely to be able to wait that long. Ultimately it's balancing warp strength bonuses to prevent unfairly benefiting small ships.

Capital WCR modules will have much higher fitting and capacitor cost, and will activate more slowly but will offer much more warp core strength. Battleships can fit these modules, though not easily. A battleship fit with these is potentially very difficult to tackle but will struggle to fit enough buffer tank and capacitor to make it worthwhile.

having read this - what would the current HIC bubble do? or are you replacing current hic bubble with a dic probe launcher?

I like this idea, makes tackle much more dynamic. +10

I'd much rather one module only which continues to gain +1 warp stability constantly. And no need for downsides like the current ones. The current downsides are actually what lead to the current all or nothing fits. Assuming you even keep a module, I don't think the module is needed, it could be built into basic ship functionality to stop the 30 minute lockdown with a single point while a fleet flies 40 jumps to kill you. Use it or lose it basically.

The basics of what I'd like to see.
Scrams & disruptors have fall off. Fall off reduces them by the normal percentages for ewar. So at one fall off they are at about 50% effective etc. This makes it harder for kite fits to avoid gangs, but not impossible.
Bigger ships have more inate stability, like mentioned above. Battleships could even exceed a single scram.
Scrams no longer auto disrupt MWD. Instead your MWD is disrupted when the warp disruption strength on you exceeds your basic stability by a certain level, could be +2 above, could be double your basic stability. Scrams then become the short range strong tackle, disruptors the long range weak, but both versions 'can' disrupt MWD if enough are put on.
Built in or single module warp stabiliser. That cycles slowly, adds +1 per cycle, and could require no weapons flag. Built in is my preference to stop long duration stalemates. Either you can kill the target in 5-10 minutes, or they escape. Being locked down for ages isn't exciting gameplay.

If the above happened I'd have no real objection to minimum time to warp to stop the webbing sillyness.

It is frustrating to get locked down for long periods of time, but it is a learning experience and you can choose to self-destruct. New players are always told (by veteran players) that they need to focus on flying frigates, and just forget that battleships exist for their first few months, because the first thing new players want to fly is battleships and capital ships, and they're completely unaware of the difficulty in flying those ships properly. In a frigate you virtually never get stuck in a situation in which you're unable to fight or get away for several minutes. It can happen in a cruiser but is still rare. For these reasons I do not see a need to give players a way to get their ships free just because they have been waiting for a while. If the attackers can successfully hold on to you until their fleet arrives to kill you, then they have essentially won and the best you can do is deny them the killmail.



One module constantly gaining bonus warp strength is a bad idea because it allows the fitting of just one module, which leaves all the other low slots open as well as giving the ship a very manageable penalty to targeting range and scan resolution. This will actually be used more aggressively than defensively, since the pilots trying to run away don't mind the penalties. That's the most important reason for the penalty: it discourages using warp stabs to attack, but does not discourage using warp stabs for their intended purpose: to get away.

Forcing players to choose between more warp stabs, more tanks mods, or more mobility mods is a good balancing factor which makes the best fit vary a lot by many factors. That way there is no one best fit. Industrials further have to choose between those things and cargo space--I want to see cargo expanders get a stacking penalty instead of having DSTs and specialized industrials using special bays that aren't affected by cargo expanders, because then industrials will gain the best bonus from the first and second cargo expanders, and less afterwards which lends better to mixing with other module types. This way we will see mixed lowslot setups on industrials, instead of always either all cargo expanders or no cargo expanders.

I also made tackling less binary: as your warp strength goes up you eventually become able to warp, but you need almost twice as much before you can warp completely uninhibited. This makes it so that tackles that aren't quite enough are still helpful, and also makes it so that if you fit more warp stabs/warp reinforcers than you need, the extra will help you get away faster.

======================================================

Adding falloff to scrams/disruptors is an excellent idea. This is a rare case in which I would advocate for a binary falloff: either the point works or it doesn't. This makes it so that a target pointing you in falloff has a chance of failing suddenly, possibly allowing you to escape. There are lots of things than can happen from this:

• tackle module fails a cycle, prey gets away
• scrambler fails a cycle, prey is too slow to get away but gets a MWD cycle in which lets them coast out of scram range
• tackler orbits durable prey in point falloff, one failed cycle is okay but 2-3 fails in a row risks letting prey get away, but getting closer is unsafe
• small fleet has tackled a fast ship with lots of warp strength, as it struggles to get away some attackers are thrown into falloff, risking letting the ship go
• tackler opts to orbit in falloff to stay out of web range, risks losing prey//makes calculated decision

I'm on the fence about this once. Scrams would definitely still get used if they didn't have their bonus effect, but part of the reasoning behind it is to prevent ships from using their MWD to rubberband the scrambling ship out of scramble range. Also if they can MJD away, that definitely gets them out of scram range. Scrams are partly the short range strong tackle, but are also the short range reliable tackle.

Howabout both your idea and mine?
Yours: if tackle strength is at least 2x target's warp strength, they can't use MWD or MJD even without scrams
Middle: if tackle strength is more than half but less than double target's warp strength, they can't use MWD or MJD as long as tackler is using a scram
Mine: if target's warp strength is at least 2x tackle strength, they can use MWD or MJD even with scrams

The balance range in the middle lets scrams prevent MWD and MJD while disruptors will not prevent those.

I'd rather see mass play a larger role. A freighter shouldn't be easy to bump. It aligns so slow that it's easy for a gang of three battleships to hit it repeatedly before it can align, so it might as well require three battleships to keep it bumped indefinitely, and that's when it isn't using a Higgs Anchor.

I would also like to see capital ships (including freighters and Orcas) have a built-in micro jump drive which expends a small amount of jump fuel in order to jump them a short distance away, say, 200km. The drawback to these built-in ship functions, aside from the fuel cost, would be a longer spool-up time and full jump capacitor consumption (requires 95%, expends 75%). They could spend the capacitor at the end of the spool-up time provided they succeed in the jump. A function like this would allow freighters to jump away from being bumped if their capacitor was nearly full and they were not warp scrambled. The fuel could be stored in their cargohold since they don't have a fuel bay.

I don't see the bumping of freighters as a problem, I see how easy it is currently being the problem.