These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] Re-Evaluate Loot Drops for Large Collidable Objects
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1 - 2011-12-18 18:46:11 UTC
When running missions or deadspace complexes, there are frequently structures there that can be blown up. I would like to propose that CCP revisit how these large collidable objects (LCO's) behave and what they leave behind when they are destroyed. Specifically, I would like to propose the following:
Idea Expand the loot drop tables to include more random, mundane items like trade goods. On stations and large structures, these should be in abundance, intermingled with the occasional valuable bauble.
Idea All LCO vessels (this means the prop ships floating in plexes) should be destructible unless there is a stated reason for them not to be so.
IdeaEvery LCO that gets destroyed should leave behind at least metal scraps and token garbage (even if it is mostly worthless). The more massive the LCO, the more there should be. It is preposterous to see a giant space station explode after prolonged bombardment and have absolutely nothing left behind. Consider what gets left behind when a ship is destroyed, and then try to explain why structures many times more massive simply evaporate into nothing.
Idea If CCP decides to make a given LCO drop nothing, that structure should be untargetable (or otherwise marked) so players don't waste their time.
Idea Replace the largest LCO's with wrecked versions or debris fields when they are destroyed. When ships are blown up, they leave behind wreckage, shouldn't there still be something left in space? Perhaps this wreckage could be both salvaged and looted, and not just a lone jet can in space.

I look forward to your feedback.
D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#2 - 2011-12-19 22:50:57 UTC
As an addendum, I would like CCP to revisit the drop tables (or lack thereof) for Sleeper and Talocan structures.

From my experience, destroying Sleeper or Talocan LCO's drops nothing. This is a missed opportunity, and I expect that the PvP crowd would agree. Someone trying to blow up a Sleeper structure is pretty much a sitting duck for an extended period of time, exactly what gankers would look for.

Encouraging PvE ships to stick around and shoot at the structures gives a little more opportunity to PvP ships that might be lurking. This opportunity does not arise, because there is currently no reason to shoot at a LCO in a wormhole.

A little more risk, a little more reward... what do you think?
Gorki Andropov
I Dn't Knw Wht You Wnt Bt I Cn't Gve It Anymre
#3 - 2011-12-21 18:23:56 UTC
Actually, you are mistaken. LCOs are the indestructable objects; LCSs (Large Collidable Structures) are the destructable ones.



This is a very low priority 'issue' with very limited impact on the universe. Not supported, sorry, but at the very least I like your thinking Smile
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2011-12-21 20:06:26 UTC
Supported. It is an improvement even if it is a low priority one that will likely never be addressed.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#5 - 2011-12-21 21:33:12 UTC
Gorki Andropov wrote:
Actually, you are mistaken. LCOs are the indestructable objects; LCSs (Large Collidable Structures) are the destructable ones.

This is a very low priority 'issue' with very limited impact on the universe. Not supported, sorry, but at the very least I like your thinking Smile
Did I get that wrong? Oh well, they're listed as Large Collidable Objects in the data dump (some are even titled LCO Angel Bunker), but If they're LCS's instead I can roll with that.

I bet you're right that this is a low priority thing. I just can't imagine it taking all that long to program. I might be underestimating the tangle of coding, but I'm guessing it is just a randomizer and a couple of tables.

Give it a like anyway. Little thing, little time, makes the game better. It is an achievable goal, let me put it that way.
Sephiroth Clone VII
Brothers of Tyr
Goonswarm Federation
#6 - 2011-12-22 00:06:29 UTC
I would say they should clearly label structures differently that could drop loot items and pertain to the mission, to those that don't. Have large coliable object be the category for structures that don't drop things or have any impact on mission, and 'structures' be for anything potentially useful.
D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#7 - 2012-01-13 00:22:45 UTC
Sephiroth CloneIIV wrote:
I would say they should clearly label structures differently that could drop loot items and pertain to the mission, to those that don't. Have large coliable object be the category for structures that don't drop things or have any impact on mission, and 'structures' be for anything potentially useful.
They could just make them untargetable, or undamageable. There were a number of missions I used to run in hi-sec where some structures could be destroyed while others simply took no damage from anything. It is do-able.
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
#8 - 2012-01-14 18:17:10 UTC
Not a bad idea. And the proposed line of thinking saves ammunition on shooting things that don't drop ****.

I am the One who exists in Shadow. I am the Devil your parents warned you about.

||CEO: Order of the Shadow||Executor: The Revenant Order||Creator: Bowhead||
Domukuan II
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#9 - 2012-01-14 19:35:33 UTC
I'll support this as a low priority idea as written, since from both an RP and player perspective it is useful, if not ideal from a developer point of view.