Forums » Suggestions
So right now in-game, we have everything from small fighters like the Centurion, on up to the HAC that I think have one minor flaw. They don't "bleed" or suffer performance damage from fighting.
If you look at modern warplanes or warships, whenever one sustains damage, it usually suffers some sort of performance issue, from slower top-speed, maneuverability, even power/weapons failures.
I think that in game, some of these would add a spice to combat. The HAC for example, being a massive ship, could suffer decompression on certain decks under heavy fire. This would kill the gun-crews in those areas, and perhaps even destroy the gun's themselves. The HAC could also suffer power-failures as it sustains more damage, and it could shut off power to the turrets until it was rerouted, or in the case of severe hull damage, the turret might be off line permanently.
In the case of fighters, damage to the wings could result in decreased maneuverability, damage to the engines would cause a drop in top-speed (and might mean Turbo is offline, or has a risk of detonating the engines completely), and damage to the aft bottom/top could result in power fluctuations/failures due to battery damage.
Battery damage could also be expressed by lowering the maximum battery capacity 25% (yellow) to 50% (red). The ship would still be able to shoot and flee but it would suffer not being able to turbo as far or shoot as much.
Engine damage would lower the fighters top speed, just as with modern craft, but might also mean that Turbo couldn't be used, or perhaps if could be overridden by the pilot, and introduces a certain % chance of a critical engine failure, 15% (yellow), 45% (red) that would destroy the ship as the engines overheat, containment fails and they explode.
Additionally, in critical damage stages (<10% Hull) the game could introduce variables in terms of successful warp travel/navigation. The game might throw in a random variable at 10% hull of
-"5% chance of navigational error"
(depositing the player in a different sector than targeted)
-"15% chance of jump failure"
(player's attempt to jump fail, requiring a 15sec. reset of the ship before it can be attempted again)
At 5% hull, the ship would suffer 10% chance of failed navigation, 25% chance of jump failure, and a new variable of say,
-5% chance of critical engine failure
(Ship's engines overheat and explode, destroying the vessel)
If you look at modern warplanes or warships, whenever one sustains damage, it usually suffers some sort of performance issue, from slower top-speed, maneuverability, even power/weapons failures.
I think that in game, some of these would add a spice to combat. The HAC for example, being a massive ship, could suffer decompression on certain decks under heavy fire. This would kill the gun-crews in those areas, and perhaps even destroy the gun's themselves. The HAC could also suffer power-failures as it sustains more damage, and it could shut off power to the turrets until it was rerouted, or in the case of severe hull damage, the turret might be off line permanently.
In the case of fighters, damage to the wings could result in decreased maneuverability, damage to the engines would cause a drop in top-speed (and might mean Turbo is offline, or has a risk of detonating the engines completely), and damage to the aft bottom/top could result in power fluctuations/failures due to battery damage.
Battery damage could also be expressed by lowering the maximum battery capacity 25% (yellow) to 50% (red). The ship would still be able to shoot and flee but it would suffer not being able to turbo as far or shoot as much.
Engine damage would lower the fighters top speed, just as with modern craft, but might also mean that Turbo couldn't be used, or perhaps if could be overridden by the pilot, and introduces a certain % chance of a critical engine failure, 15% (yellow), 45% (red) that would destroy the ship as the engines overheat, containment fails and they explode.
Additionally, in critical damage stages (<10% Hull) the game could introduce variables in terms of successful warp travel/navigation. The game might throw in a random variable at 10% hull of
-"5% chance of navigational error"
(depositing the player in a different sector than targeted)
-"15% chance of jump failure"
(player's attempt to jump fail, requiring a 15sec. reset of the ship before it can be attempted again)
At 5% hull, the ship would suffer 10% chance of failed navigation, 25% chance of jump failure, and a new variable of say,
-5% chance of critical engine failure
(Ship's engines overheat and explode, destroying the vessel)
i failed to find it but it's been suggested before.
bunch of cry baby went "omg i wont be able to jump out?! no ways! pirates! noobs! boo-hoo-hoo".
edit: found one. i know there are others because i had suggested one once, with percentage damage failure tables.
bunch of cry baby went "omg i wont be able to jump out?! no ways! pirates! noobs! boo-hoo-hoo".
edit: found one. i know there are others because i had suggested one once, with percentage damage failure tables.
Yeah I made a search too and didn't return anything.
As for the crybabies:
If you aren't willing to lose your ship, don't fight. The % numbers are low enough though that it wouldn't be a major chance that they'd lose in any particular fight. It's a possibility, but it's low in any single engagement. Now if they're making regular runs through hostile space and pirate-controlled sectors, then well, that's just part of the inherited risk of working in those areas.
As for the crybabies:
If you aren't willing to lose your ship, don't fight. The % numbers are low enough though that it wouldn't be a major chance that they'd lose in any particular fight. It's a possibility, but it's low in any single engagement. Now if they're making regular runs through hostile space and pirate-controlled sectors, then well, that's just part of the inherited risk of working in those areas.
Cap ships can already lose turrets through targetted fire (though given how much effort it takes, I'm not convinced they're worth aiming for). Not sure how hard it would be to add other features such as engines, bridge or docking bay as targetable components.
As for fighters, the problem with losing capability as you take damage is that the advantage goes to whoever hits first. If you take damage, your ability to fight goes down, so the chance of taking more damage goes up. Combats will tend to be a lot quicker, possibly with luck and/or surprise being a bigger factor than currently.
Whether this would be good or bad is left as an exercise to the reader, but it could radically change combat and the balance of weapons and ships.
The extreme of this idea is to get rid of hull points altogether, and instead all damage is applied to a component and has an effect on ship performance. Bushido Blade did something very similar to this in a different genre, and worked very well. Of course, this would radically change gameplay even more than a simple critical hit system.
Sam.
As for fighters, the problem with losing capability as you take damage is that the advantage goes to whoever hits first. If you take damage, your ability to fight goes down, so the chance of taking more damage goes up. Combats will tend to be a lot quicker, possibly with luck and/or surprise being a bigger factor than currently.
Whether this would be good or bad is left as an exercise to the reader, but it could radically change combat and the balance of weapons and ships.
The extreme of this idea is to get rid of hull points altogether, and instead all damage is applied to a component and has an effect on ship performance. Bushido Blade did something very similar to this in a different genre, and worked very well. Of course, this would radically change gameplay even more than a simple critical hit system.
Sam.
To help mitigate the "whoever hits first wins" effect, make the loss of ability logarithmic. The first 25% of damage would have very little effect on the ship. The next 25% and the ship is still at ~80% effective. If you haven't managed to return significant fire by then, you are probably going to lose the encounter anyway. Then at higher damage percentages the ability loss becomes much more noticeable and each hit causes a significant performance drop.
Another problem I see is deciding where a shot landed and what part of the ship performance should suffer because of it.
Another problem I see is deciding where a shot landed and what part of the ship performance should suffer because of it.
I think the location is already calculated in some rough sense, since the wire diagram on the HUD appears to reflect area-specific damage.
the problem with losing capability as you take damage is that the advantage goes to whoever hits first
No, genius, that's actually the best part of the concept. If I shoot you in the back before you have a chance to swing around and shoot back, chances are I will definitly have an advantage in finishing you off, because you will be crippled.
Player interaction in this game is far too causal at this point; there's little sense of danger even when in close quarters with unknowns or hostiles. Though with this sort of thing, they would want to consider implementing a "weapons powered up" indicator for those within 1000m, and a brief delay in going from powered down to powered up and ready to shoot status.
No, genius, that's actually the best part of the concept. If I shoot you in the back before you have a chance to swing around and shoot back, chances are I will definitly have an advantage in finishing you off, because you will be crippled.
Player interaction in this game is far too causal at this point; there's little sense of danger even when in close quarters with unknowns or hostiles. Though with this sort of thing, they would want to consider implementing a "weapons powered up" indicator for those within 1000m, and a brief delay in going from powered down to powered up and ready to shoot status.
I'm going to point out how utterly lame chance based war games are. So, they're lame. There. I'd post something constructive next, but I used up all my ideas on the previous, similar threads to this one.
Dr. Lecter is absolutely correct:
If we aim for realism in the game, which is exactly what we do, then the "Who strikes first" point is dead on real. If you strike first, you win in real-life. Why do you think the military teaches ambush tactics?
As for damage calculations, it is already calculated, (as mentioned), based on the wire-frame ship-schematic. This is where I drew the "yellow" and "red" status' based on the color the wire-diagram shows as battle-damage is sustained.
As for Mynnayage, this isn't chance based warfare, this isn't remotely bringing chance based play into the larger whole. This is bringing an element of chance into play, which when you think about it, naturally exists in any game. These chances merely add realism and spice to combat, but will not govern the way players fight.
If we aim for realism in the game, which is exactly what we do, then the "Who strikes first" point is dead on real. If you strike first, you win in real-life. Why do you think the military teaches ambush tactics?
As for damage calculations, it is already calculated, (as mentioned), based on the wire-frame ship-schematic. This is where I drew the "yellow" and "red" status' based on the color the wire-diagram shows as battle-damage is sustained.
As for Mynnayage, this isn't chance based warfare, this isn't remotely bringing chance based play into the larger whole. This is bringing an element of chance into play, which when you think about it, naturally exists in any game. These chances merely add realism and spice to combat, but will not govern the way players fight.
Dr Lecter, read my third paragraph. I'm not saying that a fast disabling kill is a problem in itself, but that it radically changes the nature of the game. In particular, it changes one part of the game that has pretty much stabilised into a form many players are happy with, when there are other parts which really need work to bring them to the same level of quality.
Obviously Lecter, Pyroman and others, would prefer a game where first strike wins, and as it happens I'm not actually disagreeing with this, and would go with that option for a new game. It's a choice that has worked very well in other games (Thief and Bushido Blade for example). However, I'm not convinced that the changes fit the design goals which Vendetta is aiming for (where combat is 'fair' and not dominated by the player with the better ship or weapon).
And no Pyroman, we (or at least, the devs) don't aim for realism, otherwise the physics model would actually model physics and death would actually mean something (strangely, the military don't teach how to return to combat quickly after respawning). Dr Lecter is right in that combat is very casual, but that seems to be the point of the game, for better or worse.
Sam.
Obviously Lecter, Pyroman and others, would prefer a game where first strike wins, and as it happens I'm not actually disagreeing with this, and would go with that option for a new game. It's a choice that has worked very well in other games (Thief and Bushido Blade for example). However, I'm not convinced that the changes fit the design goals which Vendetta is aiming for (where combat is 'fair' and not dominated by the player with the better ship or weapon).
And no Pyroman, we (or at least, the devs) don't aim for realism, otherwise the physics model would actually model physics and death would actually mean something (strangely, the military don't teach how to return to combat quickly after respawning). Dr Lecter is right in that combat is very casual, but that seems to be the point of the game, for better or worse.
Sam.
I agree that giving a serious advantage to the first pilot to land one or two neutrons on a combat ship would be a Bad Thing, Sam. However, the converse is that if I run up behind your ship and empty a UC bat worth of mega posi into your ass, you should suddenly be in A World Of Shit (also known as crippled, or nearly so).
As a compromise, I think the logarithmic approach suggested by moving target is a great idea. Moreover, if it's a strict logarithmic correspondence, then the element of chance (stray shot happens to cut a vital power conduit, etc.) is cut waaaaay back.
Although I do think that the ship wire grid sections should come into play in a very crude way: ships are not equally armored all around (excepting some warships), as that would be inefficient. Ships like the Vulture, Cent, and Hog are weak when hit from behind, and this does X times worth of extra damage, both in terms of health and in terms of logarithmic decline in performance. Other ships, those used for trade, are strong in back but not made for facing off in combat: they are weak against hits to the front of the ship. Vary X factor and front/back/left/right combos as desired for a new and interesting combat quirk.
As a compromise, I think the logarithmic approach suggested by moving target is a great idea. Moreover, if it's a strict logarithmic correspondence, then the element of chance (stray shot happens to cut a vital power conduit, etc.) is cut waaaaay back.
Although I do think that the ship wire grid sections should come into play in a very crude way: ships are not equally armored all around (excepting some warships), as that would be inefficient. Ships like the Vulture, Cent, and Hog are weak when hit from behind, and this does X times worth of extra damage, both in terms of health and in terms of logarithmic decline in performance. Other ships, those used for trade, are strong in back but not made for facing off in combat: they are weak against hits to the front of the ship. Vary X factor and front/back/left/right combos as desired for a new and interesting combat quirk.
Okay Lecter, we're closer on agreement than I thought, and any further discussion is probably just about where exactly to draw the line that defines 'A World Of Shit'.
Sam.
Sam.
I had an idea similar to this just today. I didn't take it quite as far as this, and my focus was different. I'll post the idea I had below for comparison.
As an alternative to simply the current system of life or destruction, VO could have a third state for ships called 'disabled' for the lack of a better term. Disabled ships would be dysfunctional in some regard rather than exploding and giving the pilot a free ticket to a brand new working vessel. Here is how I imagined it working.
At any point a ship's armor drops below 40%, it has a chance of becoming disabled. This chance increases the more damaged the ship becomes. The decision between destruction and disabling any given ship would rest in the hands of the person shooting it. Similar to the auto-aim or flight-assist toggles, players should have a toggle for whether they intend to disable or destroy their targets. If Joe Serco's toggle is set to destroy, his opponent's vessel will operate just as it does today. Any armor percentage or disable chance will be irrelevant. If alternatively Joe's toggle is set to disable, he has an increasing chance between the percentages of 40%-1% to disable his opponent instead of destroying him. The duel command could be altered to lock the disable toggle in the on position, thus allowing players to use /duel to test their skills without the danger of losing their only hive positron blaster to someone they called a friend.
Disabling the enemy has several advantages. First, he cannot jump back into the sector with a new ship in seconds. Second, the person disabling a ship would not stand to lose any (or as much) faction standing for disabling in monitored space. Third, disabling a ship is faster than destroying it because you achieve it by doing less damage.
Disablement could work in either of two ways.
(A)The first option would be for separate systems to be disabled independently. Engines are down, but weapons, electronic systems, and maneuvering thrusters (turning in place) are still up. The determining factor for what system is disabled would be where your ship is literally shot. Shooting the engines is self-explanatory, electronics like communication and targeting would be damaged due to cockpit hits, and weapons would be taken out by shooting the weapon mounts (visible on some ships like the maud already).
(B)The second option is for a simple Green/Disabled/Destroyed system that does not differentiate between damage locations on the ship. This would be a lot simpler for the devs, and easier for players to grasp. A disabled ship would simply no longer respond to input from the pilot and float helplessly until assisted or destroyed.
What happens to you if you are disabled? This is the best part of my proposal, I think. Until you get repaired, you are operating in degraded fashion or dead in space as mentioned above. You have four options for getting back into a healthy ship. First, you could self-destruct. Second, you could be repaired at a station. Third, you could be repaired by an ally with a repair gun. Last, you could, when capships are player owned, be picked up by a capital ship and repaired that way.
For simplicity, any repair hit will un-disable your ship. A repair gun user would not need to bring you to 100% before you could move again.
Getting to a station with no engines sounds impossible... unless VO had a tow truck ship. This would be a perfect additional niche for the Marauder. Pirates could carry away their disabled kills, or friends could bring home their allies, all with the maud.
Ideally, and assuming disable method B from above, when a player's ship is disabled they would be presented with a dialog box similar to when you are asked to purchase 'Last Ship' or a preset. Instead, the disabled box would explain that you have basically two options. You can activate self-destruct with one button of the window, or you can send a system-wide distress call with the other. Since you are disabled, you will only get one shot at your SOS call before your power runs dry, so use it wisely.
In addition to methods of recovery making certain addons and ships more important, methods of disabling ships would also increase the value of certain addons. Lightning mines would be perfect for disabling someone by their very nature, since they apply damage at a constant rate. Concussion mines could be given a slight, maybe 10% chance of disabling vessels that they strike. Last, the railgun, due to its high penetration, could also be given the power to disable a vessel with a single shot by adding a 'weak point' or points on ships for rail users to try and hit.
Being able to disable hive vessels would also have advantages. Depending upon how aggressive this hive is in any given sector, it could respond differently to destruction vs. disablement of its vessels. Are observers dispatched to use their repair beams, or do a half dozen guardians jump in to quell the apparent threat? As it stands right now, any destroyed hive bot is instantly replaced with an identical bot. Miners could profit from choosing to disable their rivals- the collector bots- and having a friend make sure they aren't repaired; in this fashion, mining would become more of a team effort, with plenty of action for the escorts and peace and quiet for the helpless mining vessels. Not to mention, dragging a disabled Devus guardian around with your Maud until you find the perfect place to put it back into action would be.. well, the possibilities are endless.
Why is it a good idea to implement disabled ships?
-It could give outnumbered players more of a chance, since they can effectively take individual enemies out of the fight for more time.
-It makes dueling more attractive to timid players, which would increase the ability for everyone to find dueling opponents.
-It could increase the value of some of the less popular addons and ships.
-It necessitates having a friend or two.
-It gives players options for defending themselves in monitored space without taking faction penalties. Being disabled in monitored space wouldn't be a terrible burden either; NPCs similar to strike forces could be dispatched to repair vessels in good standing with them once detected.
-It is what pirates have always needed. Having to run off, grab a cargo ship, and run back before the person they preyed upon can do the same is not usually possible. Disabling the trader, returning in a cargo vessel, and THEN taking the final shot at a helpless target would enable pirates to actually LOOT as opposed to just killing everything they see.
-More challenges for players. Creating more roles for pilots to fill makes the game less monotonous.
-Capships! Integral to capship combat even now is the ability to target the enemy's turrets vs. his hull. Taken further, a battle between capships would be a lot more of an art form if eliminating the enemy's mobility, jump engines, or w/e else was available as an alternate strategy for victory. Even if this change is never applied to our fighters, I believe it is essential for addition to capships at some point in the future.
As an alternative to simply the current system of life or destruction, VO could have a third state for ships called 'disabled' for the lack of a better term. Disabled ships would be dysfunctional in some regard rather than exploding and giving the pilot a free ticket to a brand new working vessel. Here is how I imagined it working.
At any point a ship's armor drops below 40%, it has a chance of becoming disabled. This chance increases the more damaged the ship becomes. The decision between destruction and disabling any given ship would rest in the hands of the person shooting it. Similar to the auto-aim or flight-assist toggles, players should have a toggle for whether they intend to disable or destroy their targets. If Joe Serco's toggle is set to destroy, his opponent's vessel will operate just as it does today. Any armor percentage or disable chance will be irrelevant. If alternatively Joe's toggle is set to disable, he has an increasing chance between the percentages of 40%-1% to disable his opponent instead of destroying him. The duel command could be altered to lock the disable toggle in the on position, thus allowing players to use /duel to test their skills without the danger of losing their only hive positron blaster to someone they called a friend.
Disabling the enemy has several advantages. First, he cannot jump back into the sector with a new ship in seconds. Second, the person disabling a ship would not stand to lose any (or as much) faction standing for disabling in monitored space. Third, disabling a ship is faster than destroying it because you achieve it by doing less damage.
Disablement could work in either of two ways.
(A)The first option would be for separate systems to be disabled independently. Engines are down, but weapons, electronic systems, and maneuvering thrusters (turning in place) are still up. The determining factor for what system is disabled would be where your ship is literally shot. Shooting the engines is self-explanatory, electronics like communication and targeting would be damaged due to cockpit hits, and weapons would be taken out by shooting the weapon mounts (visible on some ships like the maud already).
(B)The second option is for a simple Green/Disabled/Destroyed system that does not differentiate between damage locations on the ship. This would be a lot simpler for the devs, and easier for players to grasp. A disabled ship would simply no longer respond to input from the pilot and float helplessly until assisted or destroyed.
What happens to you if you are disabled? This is the best part of my proposal, I think. Until you get repaired, you are operating in degraded fashion or dead in space as mentioned above. You have four options for getting back into a healthy ship. First, you could self-destruct. Second, you could be repaired at a station. Third, you could be repaired by an ally with a repair gun. Last, you could, when capships are player owned, be picked up by a capital ship and repaired that way.
For simplicity, any repair hit will un-disable your ship. A repair gun user would not need to bring you to 100% before you could move again.
Getting to a station with no engines sounds impossible... unless VO had a tow truck ship. This would be a perfect additional niche for the Marauder. Pirates could carry away their disabled kills, or friends could bring home their allies, all with the maud.
Ideally, and assuming disable method B from above, when a player's ship is disabled they would be presented with a dialog box similar to when you are asked to purchase 'Last Ship' or a preset. Instead, the disabled box would explain that you have basically two options. You can activate self-destruct with one button of the window, or you can send a system-wide distress call with the other. Since you are disabled, you will only get one shot at your SOS call before your power runs dry, so use it wisely.
In addition to methods of recovery making certain addons and ships more important, methods of disabling ships would also increase the value of certain addons. Lightning mines would be perfect for disabling someone by their very nature, since they apply damage at a constant rate. Concussion mines could be given a slight, maybe 10% chance of disabling vessels that they strike. Last, the railgun, due to its high penetration, could also be given the power to disable a vessel with a single shot by adding a 'weak point' or points on ships for rail users to try and hit.
Being able to disable hive vessels would also have advantages. Depending upon how aggressive this hive is in any given sector, it could respond differently to destruction vs. disablement of its vessels. Are observers dispatched to use their repair beams, or do a half dozen guardians jump in to quell the apparent threat? As it stands right now, any destroyed hive bot is instantly replaced with an identical bot. Miners could profit from choosing to disable their rivals- the collector bots- and having a friend make sure they aren't repaired; in this fashion, mining would become more of a team effort, with plenty of action for the escorts and peace and quiet for the helpless mining vessels. Not to mention, dragging a disabled Devus guardian around with your Maud until you find the perfect place to put it back into action would be.. well, the possibilities are endless.
Why is it a good idea to implement disabled ships?
-It could give outnumbered players more of a chance, since they can effectively take individual enemies out of the fight for more time.
-It makes dueling more attractive to timid players, which would increase the ability for everyone to find dueling opponents.
-It could increase the value of some of the less popular addons and ships.
-It necessitates having a friend or two.
-It gives players options for defending themselves in monitored space without taking faction penalties. Being disabled in monitored space wouldn't be a terrible burden either; NPCs similar to strike forces could be dispatched to repair vessels in good standing with them once detected.
-It is what pirates have always needed. Having to run off, grab a cargo ship, and run back before the person they preyed upon can do the same is not usually possible. Disabling the trader, returning in a cargo vessel, and THEN taking the final shot at a helpless target would enable pirates to actually LOOT as opposed to just killing everything they see.
-More challenges for players. Creating more roles for pilots to fill makes the game less monotonous.
-Capships! Integral to capship combat even now is the ability to target the enemy's turrets vs. his hull. Taken further, a battle between capships would be a lot more of an art form if eliminating the enemy's mobility, jump engines, or w/e else was available as an alternate strategy for victory. Even if this change is never applied to our fighters, I believe it is essential for addition to capships at some point in the future.
If you want to disable a person, hit them in the head. If you want to disable a ship, shoot the cockpit. The idea of clicking on a magical disabling button of wonderful goodness makes me ill.
see pyroman_ace? exactly what i said:
"omg i wont be able to jump out?! no ways! pirates! noobs! boo-hoo-hoo".
"omg i wont be able to jump out?! no ways! pirates! noobs! boo-hoo-hoo".
Upper case: Yup you called it perfectly. Mainly Mynnayage so far though.
Aramarth:
The only criticism I have of your idea is that I just generally dislike the idea of bringing "disabled ships" into the current VO universe. I'd say it's not a bad idea for future implementation, perhaps once player-controlled capitals are introduced on a large scale.
Additionally, I wouldn't say a gun could be toggled between destroy/disable, as you're suggesting. Perhaps if you did certain amount of damage to the engine area of a ship, it would disable, or a general weapons class could be introduced:
-Ion Cannon: Fire's a energy bolt that impacts the hostile ship and blows the circuits on the enemy ship, disabling it.
-EMP Missile: Creates a concentrated blast of EMP energy after detonating at a certain proximity to the targeted hostile. The blast blows out the enemies circuits. The difference with this weapon is that it is an area-effect weapon, and can be used to disable clusters of enemy fighters.
-As for moving target's suggestion, I do think that balancing out the damage would be a plus, and might make selling the idea to the larger community. As for the exact math and base %'s, we'll have to sort that out in more detail at a later time.
Aramarth:
The only criticism I have of your idea is that I just generally dislike the idea of bringing "disabled ships" into the current VO universe. I'd say it's not a bad idea for future implementation, perhaps once player-controlled capitals are introduced on a large scale.
Additionally, I wouldn't say a gun could be toggled between destroy/disable, as you're suggesting. Perhaps if you did certain amount of damage to the engine area of a ship, it would disable, or a general weapons class could be introduced:
-Ion Cannon: Fire's a energy bolt that impacts the hostile ship and blows the circuits on the enemy ship, disabling it.
-EMP Missile: Creates a concentrated blast of EMP energy after detonating at a certain proximity to the targeted hostile. The blast blows out the enemies circuits. The difference with this weapon is that it is an area-effect weapon, and can be used to disable clusters of enemy fighters.
-As for moving target's suggestion, I do think that balancing out the damage would be a plus, and might make selling the idea to the larger community. As for the exact math and base %'s, we'll have to sort that out in more detail at a later time.
Maybe I wasn't clear.. your button toggle doesn't mean you automatically succeed in disabling an enemy vessel. It just means your HUD will let you know when to stop shooting, and your auto-aim will target the enemy's weak points instead of his hull. Picture the capships of today, where turrets can be targeted separately. The disable toggle would allow you to target these disable-able systems instead of the whole enemy vessel. You would still destroy a target that is disabled by not letting go of the trigger.
Setting your toggle to kill is, by contrast, basically a way to suppress the HUD from telling you the enemy is unfit to fight, and increase your chance to score a hit because you aren't aiming at a particular part of the enemy ship.
Setting your toggle to kill is, by contrast, basically a way to suppress the HUD from telling you the enemy is unfit to fight, and increase your chance to score a hit because you aren't aiming at a particular part of the enemy ship.
Not to mention, dragging a disabled Devus guardian around with your Maud until you find the perfect place to put it back into action would be.. well, the possibilities are endless.
Hehehehe, that would be fun. Itani n00b botting grounds to...
Disabled, towed-in Furies!
Hehehehe, that would be fun. Itani n00b botting grounds to...
Disabled, towed-in Furies!
Aramarth, I see. That's sexy.
Perhaps the speed of a weapon should factor in with damage to those weak points. Piercing damage, after a fashion.
Perhaps the speed of a weapon should factor in with damage to those weak points. Piercing damage, after a fashion.
Aramarth, I still find the element of chance in your approach problematic. Isn't there a strong preference for having the same type of weapon discharge, impacting the same point, on the same ship type, at a given state of ship health/disability level... do the same thing to that ship every single time?