It's broken because it's just a pair of people holding down the Enter key until they either accidentally jump to an unmarked asteroid sector, randomly spawn very close together, or randomly spawn far apart, with almost no ability to influence the process through skill. It's boring and unsatisfying for both parties.

The OP would at least result in a player's efficacy at random-hopping being tied to their skill at avoiding damage prior to jumping vs. the opponent's skill at dealing damage.

As for the XC, the whole point of the XC is that it's a dangerous gamble to fly it -- you can haul significantly more cargo, but with significantly more risk of dying. You are not entitled to the ability to escape from anyone you come across.

No one is entitled to escape, but they should have a chance, correct? If I make it 3000m out in a loaded XC and don't get boomed, I deserve a chance to get away.

If you make it to 3km unscathed and with nobody near, then sure, you deserve to escape. But if they're right on top of you and midway through killing you? In that scenario, you don't really deserve anything but death, as you've already lost. If you're somewhere between those two scenarios, then you deserve -- and would still get -- a chance to escape. It's just that the chance would be weighted based on how much you actually deserve it. In fact, even with 99% damage there would still be the possibility of getting away. Just a lower possibility, which is totally appropriate.

And keep in mind that if you're not specifically in an XC, then you have the opportunity to turn this around to work against the pirate. The way things are now, attacking the pirate is all-or-nothing. If you only wound him, it's of no benefit to you. With damage increasing jump costs, however, wounding the pirate will make it harder for him to pursue. That makes mines and turrets a bit more helpful. What might not be enough damage to kill the pirate could very well be enough to prevent him from keeping up once you hit 3km.

What about this be an additional built-in attribute of a ship? Essentially, have a yes/no attribute for every ship that says if that ship behaves as the OP suggested. In RP terms, it can be something like, does this ship have a built-in system to prevent damage from having a negative impact on jumping. I'd imagine we'd want to put this on ships that are rather defenseless, like behemoths, atlases, and maybe even most base variant ships (MkI?).

I find this better than making the effects based on something like size. I can't really say exactly why I feel that way, but I guess it just seems more consistent to anticipate. In general though, I love this idea. Huge +1 from me, with an addition of minimizing negative effects on defenseless ships.

We're putting this into production.. now. Should be present after the restart.

If it all goes horribly awry, and is terrible, we can revert. But, it sounds intriguing, and worth trying. It was pretty fast to implement, as we had something similar for wormholes already, of course.

Holy smokes, this is cool.

Corvus shares just rose by 200%

This is going to be fun. Both as an aggressor and a defender.

If pirates are granted this to make killing moths even easier than it is now, where does it end?

The only people affected by this are players who start a fight then try to run away at 30%. Moths will always be easy kills. Now the pilot can try and damage his attacker ti make him jump slower thus increasing odds of escape

People that start a fight then run away are a large problem to be solved via game mechanics? I thought I was playing a space combat game in a persistent universe. I didn't realize we were trying to emulate an instance-based game.

This is the Suggestions forum. Ideally this thread will now be populated with posts from people who have actually experienced the change and have suggestions for how to improve upon it.

Ideally, sure. But whether it works well or not from a technical perspective, I did want to state that I think it tries to solve a problem that doesn't need solving, will have unintended consequences, and with the exception of the pirate class will generally make the player base less happy as opposed to more happy.

Whistler isn't asking for feedback on "technical" functionality, he's asking for continued discussion to be based on gameplay experience, rather than just "how you think the game might work in your head".

Like, for instance, you mention there may be unintended consequence, but you can't seem to consider that this could have as many benefits for traders as it has for anyone else (tactical evolution is a thing). Or, you say it's solving a problem that doesn't exist, and yet I've been hearing people complain about boredom with running-based tactics since the beginning of time.

So, I'm open to feedback, nothing here is cast in stone, but I want experiential feedback and not just more "opinions" without meaningful data behind them.

Otherwise, why change anything, ever, because someone will always "think" it won't work, in their head? This is something we've all seen a thousand times, and seen proven wrong.

In-game observations:

First observation, this penalizes the heavy battery user more than the FC user because the penalty is based on the percentage of the capacity of the power cell, and in addition it has a lower recharge rate.

Second observation, there is less of an impact on the ability of a greyhound to get away since it can cruise at 225 while recharging.

in game observation: this takes your chances of narrowly escaping NPC rats from slim to incredibly slim.

This sucks a lot for new players. Sure it addresses the issue of people running away in PvP which is annoying, but a hive bot wouldn't care if someone ran away. This makes it more difficult to PvE for newbies with the already aggressive AI.

As a player who has spent a lot of time in an xc and who views running as a legitimate strategy, I do not like this update.
It appears to me to strongly favor the aggressor. The pirates just got, the CUP, better drain guns and now jumping away is harder.
I do not like the direction these updates are going.
Just my 2 cents.

This is one of the simplest yet best gameplay updates that I've ever seen (and I've kinda seen a lot of them).

To address the issue of the different recharge rates, the formula should perhaps require a higher threshold where faster charging low capacity cells are used.

That said, on balance there being a penalty for high capacity power cells is nothing to write home about, there's supposed to be a balance between the recharge rate and the capacity.

As a player who has spent a lot of time in an xc and who views running as a legitimate strategy, I do not like this update.

As a player who views running as a legitimate strategy, you are a fun killer, and you are objecting to an update that increases fun. Go away.

I was victim to this new rule last night as I was returning through B8. PaintedBlack was waiting for pews and i just wanted to get past so headed for the WH but of course he intercepted me and we exchanged a few shots. As I jumped, he landed a lot on me and i was down to 6% and you can guess what happened next - he of course followed me and now I need 94% energy to make a jump so he caught me and that was that.

So how do I feel about this change ? I actually think it's fair, i should have stayed and fought but then i was in a corvult so evenly matched whereas if i was in a Centaur or Moth I would have been at a disadvantage.