Player Features and Ideas Discussion

When i talk about my idea i will compare it with Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series).

Nowadays at EVE i "see" ships not damaged (100%HP) or total destroyed (BOOM and there is wreck only).

Why not make things more complicated. When plane gets some damage, it may lose power on a board, may lose control of some modules, it also can lose part of itself i mean cut wing or lost engine. Why not make it here. When your ship doesnt have shield, and it got big damage from missle or torpedo, it will burn, or lose control of some gun, or lose part of ship. That would make battles harder, more realistic, tactic at battlefield will be more important than crazy rush.

Other way may be "control of shields". If i have a big ship, i would like to control my power and direction of shields. If my enemy is only in front of me, so i dont need my back shield, i can put it in front of me. Now at battlefield you must be not only strong, but smart also. Small bomber at your back may finish you ( EVE is co-op game).

Returning to damage control. When you lose at fight your one engine, or some guns, or part of hull, someone another can pick them up, fix them and sell on a market ( i am sure most of you saw outer space battlefields full of wrecks and parts). But you must buy another for your ship, you can fix your ship but you cant fix what you dont have. So if you fly without some engine your speed is reduced or even you can not leave system, when you lost part of hull your hp is reduced/ modules may work not at 100%, or make random events.

For a first message I think it is enough, but when i think more about it, i get more ideas.

He is probably new and has no idea what he is talking about

I suppose you are asking more for internal damages and a slight step closer to realism. Or somewhat a mix of what World of Tanks has in terms of negative effects when specific modules like engines and crew get destroyed/injured.

Yes, EVE's gamemodel in terms of hitpoints is just a big hp bar.
Unfortunately, not many fancy the idea of what you ask for. Elaborate more about what you desire or mean.

I've already ask before about it though. You will only get unnecessary results.

I don't think anyone is going to want to add in a feature that makes both armour and hull tanking worthless.

If I get my engines and guns smashed off when I try to armour tank, then armour tanking is worthless.

If I have 50% of my armour left intact, but my guns and engines are still getting shot off, then my armour tank is useless. Buffer armour tanks, logi supported armour tanks and non-perma repping armour tanks would just get crippled in any kind of a challenging fight, while a shield boat would just laugh.

Counterpoint: If you shield tank you don't lose anything for dropping below 50%. Why would anyone armour tank?

This is not an advocating rally to this type of mechanic but no one here is taking the objective point so...

Stop thinking about the possible mechanic in flat realism. Shields are not "100%" shields in EVE or for that matter many game/book universes. They are buffers generated by energy of some sort. These things require multiple systems working together to function. Hence a "shield" is just as vulnerable to "failures" ship wide as a physical punch into the armor or hull. In some cases one could fathom they would be even more devastating.

For a mechanic like this to be fair the above must be considered. Hence..

We consider shields with some of the following possible mechanics:
1] If the shields take a percentage of their total remaining amount(say 10%) they have a random percentage to have a "critical power system failure". This means the more the shields are damaged the more likely you will have a critical failure.
In EVE terms these failures could be cap reduction, cap recharge reduction, shield recharge reduction, booster cycle time increase, etc. Power and engineering system failures basically.

2] A more basic and "nonlethal" mechanic is "annoyances" that don't directly end combat but rather act like glancing shots for hybrids. A shot has a percentage to get "lucky" and hit at a slightly better vector which allows it to overload a shield more than normal(IE more damage taken from the shot). This mechanic would be redundant however with the way weapons in eve work.

3] A modification of mechanic 2 would be secondary effects. Again only at annoyance levels. A shot overloads the capacitor and removes 2% of your current remaining capacitor for example.

---

To fold into lore on races with shield bias vs armor bias is rather easy to explain as well. A simple shield system used on say Amarr ships designed for armor tanking would be just that.. simple. Less need to tie into the grid for performance gains as it is not a primary means of defense. This means some critical failures would be flat out impossible(why would Amarr shields go near the capacitor system for example?) and others would be vastly reduced.

---

Again however.. I'm not advocating this. It would add a ******** level of combat complexity to an already complex game. I'm not entirely sure the extra "randomness" to combat would be worthwhile for the performance and balancing iteration time costs.

No matter how the shields lore wise operate they still must interconnect to ship power grids. It does not matter in the slightest what happens after the power hits the emitter for damage control purposes. That is a device failure. The OP is talking about hard failures and overloads within the actual superstructure. A "backlash" into the power grid will act.. well like backlashes to a power grid. Depending on the level of engineering involved you CAN make repairable portions that fry instead of taking out the entire system.

Again.. once the power is IN the shield system itself.. that is a whole different ballgame. Think when you plug a toaster in. Even if the socket seems to work perfectly how much back end is in place to make it provide power?

--
Secondly a reactor breach would be pretty darn bad.. If you only had one and they had no form of shutdown systems for combat situations resulting in failure. Which wouldn't make sense on a combat ship to have no form of safe shutdown at all. Sure not every ship has multiple power sources but at the end of the day the point is made. Redundancy allows for repair. Redundancy also requires active control to ensure optimal efficiency under stress. Automated systems in any universe cant always respond to catastrophic failure in the most efficient way possible because by nature catastrophic failure is unexpected and chaotic. Losing one capacitor subsystem doesn't mean the entire grid is totaled on a battleship over a kilometer in length. The only way to create a total system failure in something that large is to well.. cut it in half.

Thirdly only the OP wishes function removal. I merely stated reduction via percentages which is pretty much in line with EWAR mechanics as they currently stand. Nothing breaks.. it just gets less efficient randomly. Adding an additional layer would certainly increase balancing complexity though but only by nature of increasing the complexities of combat variations.

I know there are some parts at wrecks. But i think about something bigger. If you destroy something big i would like to See sea of trushes. Big size loot May be outside, smaller at some bins. World of eve is big, but IT could be more beautifull. About too complicated changes for models of the shop and performance of fights: Game is for the People, not People for a game. We make rules. We control that universe. SO i want to better control for my ship.