These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Ship Incapacitated

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#21 - 2015-07-12 01:30:29 UTC
just point it, jam it, then neut it dry..... nothing goes anywhere, all you need for anything below capital size is falcon and curse/pilgrim, for caps, I guess you'd need a bhaalgorn?

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2015-07-12 01:52:50 UTC
It would make actual piracy profitable, which is a thing I'd like. But only in the short term - it would probably hurt the economy a lot later on. Less ships destroyed means less minerals needed means lower mineral prices means miners quitting.

Prices for ships and modules would drop as well, making even now expensive stuff very well affordable for about everyone not making his money mining. Especially faction and t2 hull prices would plummet, because their high price stems from their limited supply, and nobody in their right mind would leave that incapacitated Machariel hull behind.

It would probably throw everything out of balance.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2015-07-12 02:23:14 UTC
You already can of sorts. Hard tackle and jam/neutral out then convoy and demand ransom. Most people choose to shoot though

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#24 - 2015-07-12 03:10:18 UTC
Lagstrider wrote:
Of course seeing body's floating in space and burning ships is what it is all about.

It would be cool to leave the Body floating in space as you steal and fix their burning ship Big smile


-> Star Trek Online

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Lugia3
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2015-07-12 09:06:13 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
Make the warp drive overheat-able and you can have this. As an incentive, you could allow faster warp speed. Perhaps variable while warping. If you drop out of warp and can only travel at subwarp speeds, the ship is stranded until something with a ship maintenance bay comes and picks it up.

Or you cyno out, via jump drive or bridge.

For the sake of ships that are too big to fit in a ship maintenance bay, the warp drive would need to become a module with a fitting slot. Off on its own between lows and rigs. That way if you burn out a warp drive on a capital, you can bring another warp drive and replace it.

This starts getting complicated like modules do, for build cost and volume and whatnot. But it seems workable and interesting.

If you want to make the consequences particularly painful, you can make the volume of the warp drive too big for the cargo of the size ship they're meant for. Then you can't haul a spare warp drive and a mobile depot around. This means frigates would use small warp drives, cruisers = medium, etc.


This... is a better idea than op.

Give all ships one additional slot, like rigs, where they can fit a warp drive. Perhaps there could be different sized and pros/cons to each warp drive too, tradeoffs.

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik
Fatoria Hemah
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2015-07-12 10:05:41 UTC
Not supported, this would give gankers waaaay more loot and ganking seems to be too profitable nowadays
Netan MalDoran
Hail To The King
The Silent Syndicate
#27 - 2015-07-12 16:56:05 UTC
+2, First good AND original idea that I've seen in awhile.

"Your security status has been lowered." - Hell yeah it was!

Falcon's truth
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2015-07-12 17:36:20 UTC
Netan MalDoran wrote:
+2, First good AND original idea that I've seen in awhile.


Not precisely original. Various iterations of it come and go periodically, though it has been a while since the last one

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Mack Haggis
Fleet Escort Services
#29 - 2015-07-14 12:01:24 UTC
Expanding on the original discussion Lagstrider and I had when we came up with this idea....

The original idea was that during a confrontation between ships, after a certain point any damage applied would result in the various ship modules becoming inactive through applied dps. Say one ship has been damaged to the point where all shields and armor have been depleted. The vessel is now essentially a lump of steel in space with no means of defending itself.

At this point, any damage applied at this point leads to direct damage to modules, resulting in them being damaged or rendered inert. This could be done on a on/off system, or for more variation on a decreasing functionality basis. i.e. Guns doing less damage (lower fire rate/reduced tracking speed etc.), MWD/AB's providing lower boosts, ECM's becoming less effective etc.

As damage is continually applied, each module would slowly be completely disabled (with some being potentially destroyed). At this stage ships main systems would also be effected. It is at this stage that engines / warp drives would be disabled, leaving a pilot floating in space.

If you were in a fleet engagement and a ship suddenly wasn't a threat any more as it had reached this disabled state, it could be ignored for other targets. If in a 1v1 its at this stage you can play pirate. Kill or salvage.

The final part of the incapacitation would be a base time before your pilot can get the ships engines online again. Say 5 mins after being incapacitated, your engines go online again (at maybe 50% power). A further 1-2 minutes and you can warp (again highly reduced speed). This would mean that if left alone, you can still potentially recover your ship, return to a station, repair your ship and modules (all those that had not been destroyed completely) and re-engage.

The hardest part would be figuring out how to get a pilot to leave his ship when it is in a disabled state. Perhaps the new entosis modules could be utilised for this purpose?

The main problem would be figuring out at which point module damage begins, I would have suggested at 75% structure or so but I'm aware there are structure tank pilots out there and they would be singularly effected by this. That being said, if you've lost 50% of your ships structure, your ship is half gone, so why not half your modules too?

Let me know your thoughts guys n gals.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2015-07-14 12:08:53 UTC
2 thoughts on this:

Leaving a pilot stuck in a ship that can't do anything is absolutely rubbish gameplay for that pilot.

Nothing built should be able to be captured in my view, it should be destruction only to keep the economy cycling (this applies to entosisisingering structures, no capture just destruction)
Mack Haggis
Fleet Escort Services
#31 - 2015-07-14 13:12:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Mack Haggis
I understand where you're coming from.

As to the rubbish gameplay, wait 5-6 mins and you can limp away in your ship rather than have to spend isk to replace the whole thing may seem a long time for some, but may be the preferred option for a lot of pilots.

As to the capture, if there are concerns regarding the economic impact of fewer fully destroyed ships, simply implement a 'ship recovery' cost which applies to any pilot other than the original owner when it comes to repairing the vessel. Any pilot who's ship is captured will still have to replace their vessel. The only difference is whomever did the taking will have a ship to sell.

If the recovery cost was set at say 50% of the production cost of a vessel and there was a resource requirement rather than a straight up isk cost there would still be an associated economic cost.

Basically, if its your ship and its damaged, isk repair at a station, instant fix.
If you've 'recovered' a ship, resource repair cost, associated industry production time.

You could also have a skill based recovery system, better skill, smaller/less advanced ship, lower resource cost required etc...you get the idea.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#32 - 2015-07-14 16:57:40 UTC
Thread number 30 today where you are asking for a nerf to someone elses income so you can make more profit. Every ship that gets destroyed has to be replaced by one made by one or more industrialists (miners,haulers.moon goo harvesters, ice farmers. etc, etc...).

So, no you dont get to crush industrialists incomes to supplement your own.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Mack Haggis
Fleet Escort Services
#33 - 2015-07-17 12:53:43 UTC
The intent is in no way directed at reducing the income of ship manufacturers as you suggest, not do i believe it will have as significant an impact as you seem to believe given that there is the potential for a new market area based around the repair/refurbishment of damaged ships and modules, which as i suggested could be based on industry skill requirements. In that way it would simply add a new area for industrialists rather than as you suggest 'crush industrialists incomes to supplement your own.'

The main intent was to add a new dynamic to the game, perhaps providing a drive to see more pilots actively engaging in combat and to add some new dynamics to the combat system itself.

In all honesty i had not even considered the implications of the economic impact of the changes prior to it being raised in this thread. I was simply interested in discussing a new idea.

I apologise if you feel the idea was some kind of targeted attack on industrialists.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2015-07-17 13:09:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
Mack Haggis wrote:
The intent is in no way directed at reducing the income of ship manufacturers as you suggest, not do i believe it will have as significant an impact as you seem to believe given that there is the potential for a new market area based around the repair/refurbishment of damaged ships and modules, which as i suggested could be based on industry skill requirements. In that way it would simply add a new area for industrialists rather than as you suggest 'crush industrialists incomes to supplement your own.'

The main intent was to add a new dynamic to the game, perhaps providing a drive to see more pilots actively engaging in combat and to add some new dynamics to the combat system itself.

In all honesty i had not even considered the implications of the economic impact of the changes prior to it being raised in this thread. I was simply interested in discussing a new idea.

I apologise if you feel the idea was some kind of targeted attack on industrialists.


The problem is for it to be useful to recover/refurb captured ships then it has to take a reasonable amount less materials to do so than simply building the ships. This takes the equivalent amount of materials out of all ship production, depressing materials demand and therefore prices. This would adversely impact most areas of the economy and so it's much simpler to simply destroy and build ships as we do now.

Ed: if you ant to make more money from blowing up ships get an industrial wing to start building them and use your PvP skills to drive up demand.
Mack Haggis
Fleet Escort Services
#35 - 2015-07-24 13:20:10 UTC
Ok, so we've established that there are potentially some issues with regards to the salvaging of disabled ships and all the associated economic impacts.

If we table that idea, I still think there is potential for combat based degradation of systems. If your ship takes a pounding, you should suffer some minor damage to your ship systems. The actual mechanic is already in place from the ability to overhead modules. Adding damage to modules based on incoming fire would add a more realistic combat mechanic. It would also make sense for certain modules to be susceptible to being disabled and thus offlined during combat. In that way, if you're taking a beating, some modules may end up offline, but you can still end up being the victor in the fight. You'll just be slightly less able for the next fight unless you take the time to dock up and repair. (this could potentially be extended to outright destruction of modules if your ship is near death)

Simple mechanic, already partially in place. Just needs a bit of tweaking.
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#36 - 2015-07-24 15:46:15 UTC
And what would happen to hull tankers?
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
#37 - 2015-07-24 17:56:32 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
And what would happen to hull tankers?
Hull-tanking's already pretty bad. The only ship I can see that actually benefits from it is the Exqueror Navy Issue (doesn't take as much power grid, gets about as much buffer as armor buffer-tanking, doesn't slow you down). The Dominix Navy Issue and Brutix Navy Issue also benefit from it, stat-wise, but they don't have the same power grid issues the Exqueror Navy Issue has, they're still slower than armor-buffer cruisers and hull-tanking effectively prevents logi from working on them, so they're less useful in fleets.

So what about hull-tanking? From what I understand, CCP never really meant it to be a thing.
Shallanna Yassavi
qwertz corp
#38 - 2015-07-27 20:44:55 UTC
Bring mobile depot + spare, just in case.

If it meant your ship had to be stranded for a few minutes so someone might find it and then steal it, it would make most ships quite vulnerable while the new warp drive went through its diagnostics.

A signature :o
Jason Amelana
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2015-07-28 09:10:38 UTC
+1
Lion Drome
Armilies Corporation
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#40 - 2015-07-28 15:22:00 UTC
Positive sides:

I would be interested in seeing CCP test this idea. Since after all, in PVP one of the greatest joys is loot. Nothing like seeing shiny modules in that wreck and this would make it even better. It would promote piracy even more. "Incapacitate your victims ship and steal their ship and modules whole"

It would most likely even increase gate camps and nullsec PVP. Gatecamps in the regard that you have more pirate corporations making systems their homes and frequently camping them. And at the same time giving increased incentives for new players to join roams.

And I doubt it would go to "Wait for corpmate to save you" in a fleet brawl. Most likely you would get destroyed either way since the biggest thing is to get enemy players off the field.

In gate camps the ship would be damaged and incapacitated. Then boarded by one of the campers (After reshipping to a pod. Or they have people in shuttles just waiting by near the gate) to come in and board the vessel. Then take it to a POS or a station for repairs and module unfitting.

Negative sides:

This would most likely affect the expensive module market in a large part. No idea honestly how much since if you say capture a ship in null, then take it to a POS. Strip the ship of modules and save it for later. Then most likely they'll end up just being used up in a fight or as backups for when your current ship & modules get destroyed later (which will happen)

Affecting the ship market? Well I doubt it. The amount produced is so large and again. You'd most likely simply see that in large scale battles afterwards (Unless the ships were destroyed before to make sure they won't be revived) so you'd probably just see more market movement in lowsec space since small gangs would just take the ships that they manage to incapacitate, repair and board only to be taken to a local station and sold there. So increased supply to lowsec and increased market activity. Sounds good to me.

End of sides.

Of course this would have to be tested by CCP. How it would affect things in the long term. Would the surplus of ships be too great or would things become actually more active since you'd have greater incentives to go say hi to your neighbours with a warp distruptor and a small group of friends. Ships and modules also get destroyed all the time when POS's are being attacked. So pros and cons. Definetly an interesting idea though.
Previous page12