Player Features and Ideas Discussion

New idea for a defensive Electonics module as an alternative to Warp Core Stabilizers primarily intended for use by industrial ships during high risk operations.


Summery of module function:

.An active *mid slot module that disables all the functions of your ship but prevents others from
achieving a target lock for a period (*10s). (Ships may still dock)

.The ship may still achieve warp during the module's
effect if the ship's warp drive is engaged when the module is activated.



Details and balancing:

1. The disabling effect of the module last longer than the lock preventing effect (*30-45s)

2. The module is "one use". It is destroyed up activation and must be repaired and on-lined before it can be reactivated.

3. If a certain counter-module is fitted to a ship (*perhaps passive targeter) it may still achieve a lock on a ship using the EMP module.

4. As all the ships equipment has been shut off due to the module's EMP effect, a reduction to ship signature radius is provided during the module's active duration (*10-30%), so any lock achievable with the counter-module will take longer.

5. It would be costly to fit and represent a significant commitment of fitting resources. There would be Cruiser/Bc and Battleship sized variants but the item would not be usable on frigate or destroyer class hulls.



Reasons for above balances:

. 1,2 and 5 are to reduce the attractiveness of the module as a fitting option on combat vessels.
The long disable time, as well as the need to repair and on-line it before re-use prevents it from being an effective tool for dis-engage/re-engage tactics during combat.
As well as this it uses up a valuable mid slot and costs capacitor to activate unlike a low slot Warp Core Stabilizer.

. 3 is a consideration for gankers so that Gate/Station camps and suicide ganking will still be possible on ships fitting the module.

. 4 allows the module to still be an attractive option for high risk transport and hauling purposes given 3.

. 5 is warranted as it would be a powerful defensive option and its fitting cost should reflect this. I feel that frigates and destroyers are already elusive enough and it is intended mostly for industrial ships most of which are cruiser size or larger.



Why would you fit the module?:

. As mentioned it would provide a new escape mechanism from gate camps for ships travelling in high risk areas and may be attractive for use on haulers with high value cargo.

. Although it would cost more to buy, fit and maintain than Warp Core Stabilizers, it would not penalize your ships targeting range and scan resolution the way they do.
This would make it an attractive defensive alternative on salvaging vessels in high risk areas that want to lock and salvage wrecks as quickly as possible, and on some mining and missioning vessels for the same reasons.


Quesions, comments and suggestions please.
Thanks. :)

(Figures with [*] may change)

Killing everyone is not an option for an industrial ship, nor is burning to back to gate most likely. Target breaker maybe, but its a BS only mod and it basically suck unless you have 20 ships on you. ECM Burst is definitely viable to remove scrams but not much good if you're pointed. Thats why Stabs are better in most cases to allow industrials an escape mechanism, and I'm proposing a mod that would be a situational alternative to them.

Its a fair point you make I guess I agree generally. Do you think even with the balance considerations i suggest that it would still be imbalanced then? Maybe I'm in the minority but yeah I do like flying solo and I got thinking about it because I wanted to fly a ship that would be able to tractor in wrecks to steal loot and salvage whilst a fight was going, pirate salvager style. But putting stabs on the Noctis seemed a shame what with the targeting nukes you get, and I dreded the thought of flying it without some sort of get out clause as it would be too expensive for me to lose with any regularity. I don't fly Indi ships much but I wondered if there were other Indi pilots that felt the same way.

You said "Free ehp", is that in regards to the sig radius reduction? 30% is too much maybe but it was only an upper limit not a firm idea thats why its in brackets with asteriks.

ty for your comment

isn't this just a stronger version of the TSB?