Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
AshtarDJ
Filthy Scum Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 09:05:00 -
[1]
The "eject" function in Eve is rarely used today as a tactical choice because it pretty useless for it. It pretty much only works for changing ships in space (in a POS).
I used to play Ambrosia: Escape Velocity (an old shareware game for Mac that pretty much was a 2d, offline version of Eve) where you actually needed to eject from your ship before it blew up if you wanted your pod to survive. Now, I think it would be a bit too much to implement that in Eve, but how about an eject (that you can map to a shortcut) that instead of just putting your pod stationary 1km from your ship, it shoots the pod off (let's say 50km) to a random direction. Giving you a chance of evading the bubble you are trapped inside. Off course, you need to use this eject BEFORE your ship explodes.
That will give PvPers a bigger chance of keeping their expensive implants while fighting out in 0.0 space.
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 10:58:00 -
[2]
Sounds like a fun idea tbh.
Your cap ship deserves CPR's! |
SpawnSupreme
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 11:16:00 -
[3]
i created this idea shortly after the invention of rigs and thought it would be a cool rig option. if you blow 1 rig slot for a pod launcher rig your ship on explosion would fire your pod out of ship much like in the movies like 5th element where the cruse ship had a bomb on it and everyone ejected .
i was thinking this rig will lower the ships combat effectiveness for the cost of pod safty feature. i also said something of the 50k range. i think this rig would use tritainium bars so it would somwhere above 30 mill isk.
the pod is by no means safe especialy in a lag enviroment and often in empty space youcan find a 1 vs 1 ship loss can still lag you long enough to wind up dead before you realize your now in pod. so 50 km launch should allow time to get away from anything but a quick whited insta lock interceptor pilot.
but i think without a rig slot im not sure it makes much sence to me.
|
Major Celine
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 11:32:00 -
[4]
Originally by: AshtarDJ The "eject" function in Eve is rarely used today as a tactical choice because it pretty useless for it. It pretty much only works for changing ships in space (in a POS).
I used to play Ambrosia: Escape Velocity (an old shareware game for Mac that pretty much was a 2d, offline version of Eve) where you actually needed to eject from your ship before it blew up if you wanted your pod to survive. Now, I think it would be a bit too much to implement that in Eve, but how about an eject (that you can map to a shortcut) that instead of just putting your pod stationary 1km from your ship, it shoots the pod off (let's say 50km) to a random direction. Giving you a chance of evading the bubble you are trapped inside. Off course, you need to use this eject BEFORE your ship explodes.
That will give PvPers a bigger chance of keeping their expensive implants while fighting out in 0.0 space.
Interesting idea tbh.
|
Reeno Coleman
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 11:45:00 -
[5]
I like the idea, as long as you got to manually eject to receive the distance/speed/warp bonus.
It will still be hard to hit the eject button before your ship explodes so its not a free ticket out.
|
AshtarDJ
Filthy Scum Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 12:40:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Reeno Coleman I like the idea, as long as you got to manually eject to receive the distance/speed/warp bonus.
It will still be hard to hit the eject button before your ship explodes so its not a free ticket out.
Exactly. The idea is not to make it completely safe, just give you a chance to evade a certain death. There's nothing that stops that "random direction" that the pod is ejected to from being towards another bubble or perhaps a BS with a smartbomb turned on...
|
David Grogan
Gallente The Motley Crew
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 12:59:00 -
[7]
Edited by: David Grogan on 13/02/2009 12:59:54 signed i like this idea :) might even encoarage +5 headboob (implants) users to go into low sec a lil more SIG: if my message has spelling errors its cos i fail at typing properly :P |
H Lecter
Gallente The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 13:03:00 -
[8]
Very nice idea from both perspectives:
Defeated pilot saves his pod. Attacker has a minimal chance of ceasing fire and thus keeping the ship of the opponent.
I like it - even without sacrificing a rig slot, though it's an option.
The feature will need to be seperated from the normal 'eject from ship' functionality or you will have a long ride back in your pod when changing ships at a pos
My opinion may or may not be shared by my alliance |
Cadde
Gallente Gene Works AKA-AHN KINGDOM
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 13:16:00 -
[9]
What about the gate campers though? A bubble serves two purposes:
1) Hold the ship down. 2) Hold the pod down so it can't slip the net.
What about a booster rocket on the pod that makes it fly at 2500 m/s at first and burns for 10 seconds, then it gradually burns out over 5 seconds slowing the speed. After the complete 15 seconds have elapsed the pod can initiate warp. This makes it so the best interceptor pilot will have a shot at your pod in a gatecamp to preserve a balance of the current functionality and your idea, which is a good one but 0.0 gate campers might disagree.
Of course, if there is no bubble you are better off using the old mechanic. |
Maceross
DEATHFUNK Doctrine.
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 16:38:00 -
[10]
I like the OPs idea too, it sounds like fun :)
|
|
el caido
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 16:41:00 -
[11]
/signed |
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 17:22:00 -
[12]
Originally by: AshtarDJ The "eject" function in Eve is rarely used today as a tactical choice because it pretty useless for it. It pretty much only works for changing ships in space (in a POS).
I used to play Ambrosia: Escape Velocity (an old shareware game for Mac that pretty much was a 2d, offline version of Eve) where you actually needed to eject from your ship before it blew up if you wanted your pod to survive. Now, I think it would be a bit too much to implement that in Eve, but how about an eject (that you can map to a shortcut) that instead of just putting your pod stationary 1km from your ship, it shoots the pod off (let's say 50km) to a random direction. Giving you a chance of evading the bubble you are trapped inside. Off course, you need to use this eject BEFORE your ship explodes.
That will give PvPers a bigger chance of keeping their expensive implants while fighting out in 0.0 space.
As a pirate, I love this idea. You get to keep your shiny implants, and whilst I don't get a kill I do get the odd free ship!
/signed for sure One client: Three Screens! |
Lucjan
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 17:27:00 -
[13]
It works very well. Try to combine with Self-Destruct as well if you have the time.
|
5pinDizzy
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 17:36:00 -
[14]
Nice idea.
/signed |
Karrade Krise
Galatic P0RN Starz
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 18:40:00 -
[15]
/signed, awsome idea
Apoctasy > unfortunately, Concord does not reimburse citizens for their own stupidity
|
Sir Substance
Minmatar MagiTech Alliance Inc. MagiTech Corp
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 00:03:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Sokratesz Sounds like a fun idea tbh.
until you try to swap ships in your POS bubble and ping 10km outside the shield while its under siege........
|
Cedric Diggory
Perfunctory Oleaginous Laocoon Mugwumps
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 00:11:00 -
[17]
Quote: until you try to swap ships in your POS bubble and ping 10km outside the shield while its under siege........
This only adds to the appeal of the idea to my mind... I thought you could switch ships without ejecting anyway (and if not, there's your fix!)
|
Vaerla Myshtana
Gallente LiveTech Cold Fusion Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 00:29:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Sir Substance
Originally by: Sokratesz Sounds like a fun idea tbh.
until you try to swap ships in your POS bubble and ping 10km outside the shield while its under siege........
This would be not problem if there was a distinction between "leave ship" and "eject".
I agree that "eject" should be with force, perhaps like the rocket mentioned earlier.
|
Sigras
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 01:35:00 -
[19]
/signed . . . awesome
|
Alexander Vallen
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 02:51:00 -
[20]
Sounds like an excelent idea. Give a half decent chance to those trying to bail out of a hopeless situation. |
|
Matari Langour
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 04:56:00 -
[21]
This sounds like a great idea too me as well.
/signed
|
swisher
Caldari Mentis Fidelis Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 05:07:00 -
[22]
great idea. as normally the one on the good end of the gun, this would probably hurt me. perhaps giving pods an eject velocity of 1 km/s, which will slow down to the pods max speed based on its inertia modifier. This can be like the bomb launching and be in the direction your ship is facing, and like undocking, going faster than your max speed makes it slower to warp.
|
Thunderbird Anthares
BLACK BARONS Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 09:44:00 -
[23]
/signed |
Lara Gosta
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 09:54:00 -
[24]
Very good idea, i like it. |
SpawnSupreme
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 12:45:00 -
[25]
seems like this idea is gettin more positive feedback
i say to counter this option have a new hull design interdictor (destroyer hull) but rather than droping a warp bubble drop a web bubble.
this web bubble if place onto a ship prior to it poping will reduce the pods random launce distance from 50km to 25km this bubble will also have a second perpose. any ships caught in bubble will be reduced in speed anywhere from 22% at level 1 24% at level 2 26% at level 3 28% at level 4 and a max of 30% at level 5.
im thinking the bubbles can be stackable but i think it be to strong but 30% orb of web is perdy uber
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 16:38:00 -
[26]
Originally by: SpawnSupreme seems like this idea is gettin more positive feedback
i say to counter this option have a new hull design interdictor (destroyer hull) but rather than droping a warp bubble drop a web bubble.
this web bubble if place onto a ship prior to it poping will reduce the pods random launce distance from 50km to 25km this bubble will also have a second perpose. any ships caught in bubble will be reduced in speed anywhere from 22% at level 1 24% at level 2 26% at level 3 28% at level 4 and a max of 30% at level 5.
im thinking the bubbles can be stackable but i think it be to strong but 30% orb of web is perdy uber
No. The proposed mechanic wouldn't change what happens to a pod if you destroy the ship, only if the person decides to eject before their ship is destroyed. If you kill the ship, the pod would just appear in space where the ship was destroyed - only if the person manually ejects during combat would they be "fired" out of range in an attempt to save themselves.
Bump for the original idea though One client: Three Screens! |
Mezikk
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 16:41:00 -
[27]
yea cam just told me about this thread, an incentive to eject would be cool
|
TigerXtrm
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 22:18:00 -
[28]
I'd question the amount of abuse this would get. Not abuse per ce, but it would mess with a lot of things, bubbles for one. Killmails for another. Would a destroyed ship still be counted as belonging to someone after someone ejects? I believe that at the moment, if you eject, the ship becomes neutral and this would belong to no-one when it's destroyed.
Also the incentive to simply give your ship to the enemy has to be pretty high, I don't think many people will sleep well at night at the thought of giving people their ship each time they start to lose a fight. Sure you get ejected to a safe distance but it's only a matter of time before people adapt to this and find a way to still kill you. Then you lose your implants and gave your killers a free fitted ship.
I like the idea, though it needs a lot of overhauling.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 23:30:00 -
[29]
Has a lot of merit.
Pirates and other miscreants can secure new ships and victims get a chance to evade the session-change lag associated with being killed.
For 0.0 nay-sayers ..; Would you rather a person stick in bubble to be podded back home to reship instantly or have at least 2 minute self-destruct time before being on the way back? Defensively it might not be desirable, but then no one is forcing you to eject as proposed.
Would give a whole new meaning to salvage theft though, not sure if that is a good or bad thing
|
Kharnakh
Acheron Imperial Ascendancy Acheron Imperial Dominion
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 23:50:00 -
[30]
I really like this idea, especially when put in the context of the new T3 ships where you lose skill points if you get destroyed (and ejecting beforehand prevents this).
It would add funtionality to that manoeuvre (eject to save imps in T1/2 ships, eject to save imps and skills in T3) and also make ejecting before your ship pops a definate tactical choice, rather than how it is now where it's pretty much completely pointless in a combat setting.
|
|
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 23:50:00 -
[31]
/signed
this will work even better when you need to eject from your T3 ship to save you an SP headache.
|
Epegi Givo
Amarr Demon Theory UNLeashed Legion
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 01:10:00 -
[32]
Great Idea, would love to see this implemented.
Might want to move it to assembly hall to get more attention. ------------------------------------- My other alt is a Ferrari |
ShadowandLight
Amarr Hammer Of Light Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 02:05:00 -
[33]
/signed
should increase the price of corpses -_-
|
Emporors Champian
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 11:33:00 -
[34]
like it, and want it, but isnt a pod launch for free to much? dont you think there should be a modual that does this? i seen the idea for a rig to make this happen and i like it. you should need a rig or something fitted to ship to get this just eject will suck because what if you wanna stay near your ship when you eject but you shoot off 50km :(
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 14:22:00 -
[35]
Quote: like it, and want it, but isnt a pod launch for free to much? dont you think there should be a modual that does this?
Nope, I think it should be a skill. Without the skill, eject leaves you next to the ship you just left. Each level of the skill adds (for the sake of argument) 5,000 metres to the random ejection distance. One client: Three Screens! |
Typhado3
Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 14:53:00 -
[36]
/signed
how would u direct it?? sry if someones already answered....
ccp fix mining agent missions % pls |
Xianthar
STK Scientific The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 21:57:00 -
[37]
won't work in even semi laggy combat
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.02.15 23:56:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Xianthar won't work in even semi laggy combat
This requires qualification to stand up to scrutiny. What out of the existing ejection mechanics would actually be changed so drastically that lag would play any part on this? If you eject in large fleet combat, you're effectively reloading the grid and the screen locks up. This flaw has no bearing on such a suggestion to be honest...
For those of us who enjoy PvP rather than being told what to shoot at from 200km away, this would make an excellent addition to the game. One client: Three Screens! |
Esiel
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 00:50:00 -
[39]
I would support this idea, as for those worring about changing ships... just board the waiting ship don't eject first. *
Beat the dead horse |
AshtarDJ
Filthy Scum Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 12:50:00 -
[40]
Originally by: TigerXtrm I'd question the amount of abuse this would get. Not abuse per ce, but it would mess with a lot of things, bubbles for one. Killmails for another. Would a destroyed ship still be counted as belonging to someone after someone ejects? I believe that at the moment, if you eject, the ship becomes neutral and this would belong to no-one when it's destroyed.
Also the incentive to simply give your ship to the enemy has to be pretty high, I don't think many people will sleep well at night at the thought of giving people their ship each time they start to lose a fight. Sure you get ejected to a safe distance but it's only a matter of time before people adapt to this and find a way to still kill you. Then you lose your implants and gave your killers a free fitted ship.
I like the idea, though it needs a lot of overhauling.
It doesn't change the mechanics so much mate. 1. As Eve is today, if you kill an abandoned ship you will still get the killmail for it and the last person that flew it will get the loss mail. So no change there. 2. Most of Eve space is 0.0. If you lose your ship inside a bubble, you have an average of 0.001% chance of getting your pod out. That kinda makes the whole "pod in ship" idea pretty pointless. Might aswell just kill the pod with the ship. 3. You say this could be abused? I don't see how. If you eject from your ship when you know that you are going towards a certain death, either your ship will get killed anyway (kill and loss mail sent to everyone involved) or your enemy will stop shooting, getting your ship, ALL of your fittings + you don't get the insurance for it. This is only a better choice if you have very expensive implants or an enormous bounty.
Remember that even tho this idea give you a chance of getting your pod out of a fight, you still need to get your pod home safe...
|
|
AshtarDJ
Filthy Scum Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 12:54:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Vaerla Myshtana This would be not problem if there was a distinction between "leave ship" and "eject".
I agree that "eject" should be with force, perhaps like the rocket mentioned earlier.
That is exactly what I had in mind. This is not supposed to replace the current "eject" that we have in game (altho CCP would probably have to change its name to "leave ship"). It is an additional feature that you should be able to map to a shortcut (because having to scroll thru under-menus and confirmation popups won't be very useful).
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 15:59:00 -
[42]
Adds a nice new layer to combat; I like it.
The issue with swapping ships vs ejecting is easy. The pod launch would only occur if the ship is locked or scrammed.
Logistics deployables mean less grind and more pewpew! |
Poreuomai
Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 16:34:00 -
[43]
I really like this idea.
"Abandon ship" becomes a real option, pirates can confiscate vessels, and the pod can still be probed down and killed ...
Let My People Go |
Irn Bruce
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 18:12:00 -
[44]
Why not go further with it? Self destructing your ship should mean you lose your pod as well, and you get no insurance. There are 3 outcomes to combat that way:
1. Don't eject, let your enemies destroy you. They get the loot and killmail, you stand a chance of getting your pod away, and you get insurance.
2. Don't eject, self destruct. You lose ship and pod, and get no insurance, but your enemies get no killmails or loot either.
3. Eject, leave your ship to the mercy of your enemies. If they don't notice you've ejected, or are just too slow to react, they'll destroy it anyway, they'll get loot and killmail, you'll get insurance and a decent chance of escaping with your pod. If they do notice, or you eject too soon and give them loads of time to react, they'll get a free ship and everything on it, and you'll get no insurance.
I reckon this would add an extra layer of skill to losing in combat. You'd have to time your ejection right, and self destructing would no longer be the default option when you know you're going to lose.
Perhaps add AoE damage to self destructing to give a reason why you would still do it, though obviously not in highsec.
|
Vyktor Abyss
IONSTAR Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 21:41:00 -
[45]
Like everyone else, I like this idea.
Definately a rig slot device, definately manually operated only.
|
Allahs Warrior
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 22:14:00 -
[46]
Dont you lose insurance for ejecting?
|
Ma'kal
Caldari SUNDERING Zenith Affinity
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 00:53:00 -
[47]
/signed
|
Boby Cola
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 08:33:00 -
[48]
Nice idea
|
Cheekything
Gallente Fallen Angel's Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 09:28:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Cheekything on 17/02/2009 09:28:22 Sounds good but maybe have a "leave ship" for at 0km and emergency eject for fast get away :3 ... I don't wanna be 50km away from the POS shields when changing ships lol
|
Poreuomai
Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 18:09:00 -
[50]
Remember, you can change ships without first leaving your own ship.
Let My People Go |
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 09:22:00 -
[51]
Hmm, what's this idea doing off the front page? -
Originally by: The Cuckoo Good luck in defending idiotic and greedy noobs, as far as I'm concerned, you are their champion.
|
Sir Molly
Caldari ELTIE PVPER'S
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 09:32:00 -
[52]
this owns
|
AshtarDJ
Filthy Scum Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.20 09:05:00 -
[53]
I'll give a cookie to the dev that posts here: This is an old idea that is already in the changes for march 10... ;)
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.02.20 09:20:00 -
[54]
I'll match your cookie and raise you a bree... -
Originally by: The Cuckoo Good luck in defending idiotic and greedy noobs, as far as I'm concerned, you are their champion.
|
Jahpahjay
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 05:03:00 -
[55]
Excellent idea. I look forward to seeing it in the game one day.
|
Cedric Diggory
Perfunctory Oleaginous Laocoon Mugwumps
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 21:56:00 -
[56]
Hmph, what's this awesome idea doing slipping away to page two? ---
Originally by: 7shining7one7 a) there are no conspiracies whatsoever b) those who believe there are are nuts
|
Ezethiel
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 23:42:00 -
[57]
.signed
|
Zeerover
Caldari DeadSpace Exploration and Investigations
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 08:53:00 -
[58]
Great idea. Adds to the options in a fight, and has an inherent balance (if you do it too soon the pirates get your ship).
|
AshtarDJ
Filthy Scum Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 15:22:00 -
[59]
...would also work very well with the new shiny t3 ships.
|
Cedric Diggory
Perfunctory Oleaginous Laocoon Mugwumps
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 22:36:00 -
[60]
Just a wonderful idea and should be implemented. Please? ---
Originally by: 7shining7one7 a) there are no conspiracies whatsoever b) those who believe there are are nuts
|
|
otea mai
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 10:56:00 -
[61]
THIS IS WHAT I MISS in EVE! Great post, plz make this happen!
|
falcn
|
Posted - 2009.04.25 11:00:00 -
[62]
/signed Great idea.
|
Uzume Ame
|
Posted - 2009.04.25 11:08:00 -
[63]
/signed, people (casual/semicasual) will be able to use implants on 0.0 with this more usually
|
Yakius Warkar
Minmatar Industrial Limited New Eden Commonwealth
|
Posted - 2009.05.31 05:55:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Yakius Warkar on 31/05/2009 05:55:04 really like the idea.
oh man e.v. was an awesome game back then.
|
King Rothgar
Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.05.31 10:00:00 -
[65]
I like the idea, it would make using good implants in 0.0 much more practical. It would also boost low sec piracy by making people eject in order to save their pod, thus I can steal their ship if I'm quick on deactivating guns.
-----------------------------------------------------
|
steave435
Caldari SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.05.31 12:39:00 -
[66]
Awesome idea, target get a higher chance to get their expensive pod away, and the attackers get a chance to secure a free ship if they notice fast enough, everyone benefit. With 1 single change, you boost both survival for targets, encouraging more people to go there, and boost profit for the attackers, making it easier to use piracy/pvp as an actual profession that you can make a living off rather then just something you do for fun while you make money by running missions, mining, manufacturing or whatever to pay for that fun. A side effect of that is that less PVPers will be doing those things, which means profit margins increase for miners and manufacturers aswell. It helps alot of people, doesn't hurt anyone, and you still have access to the old eject effect aswell, so all in all, AWESOME idea.
The only possible modification I'd consider would be to add something to encourage people to eject earlier to create a balance between the increased chance of saving your pod and the increased risk of the attacker managing to take your ship. This could be something like giving people the ability to choose in what direction they want to be ejected and how far in that direction they want to go, obviously with a max possible distance, and how badly damaged your ship is would be a modifier to the accuracy of the ejection. If you eject immedietly when you're still at full shields, you have very good accuracy and can be almost certain you'll land where you wanted to (for example, you got stuck outside the shields of your POS, so now you want to direct the ejection towards the tower so you get protection from the shield), but the more damage you take, the more likely it is that you will go too far, passing trough the pos shield and out again on the other side, or not far enough, not reaching the pos shield, or the course is set slightly wrong, making you go land at the desired distance, but still not in the safety of the shield. Same thing would apply if you're in a 0.0 bubble and want to avoid that second bubble off to your right when you eject. This could be calculated by first adding up your max amount of HP in all 3 layers, and then doing the same with your remaining hp and comparing those to add a modifier to the accuracy. If you don't like chance based mechanics, you could instead make it so that your max ejection range decrease as you take more and more damage.
The result would be that the target need to make a tactical choice between ejecting early, making sure he gets his pod where he want it, but giving the attackers a higher chance of stealing his ship (so that the target does not get insurance), or ejecting late, making it more risky since he might end up going to the wrong place, or not be able to go far enough, but increasing the chance of getting his insurance and not giving the enemy a free ship.
|
4THELULZ
|
Posted - 2009.05.31 15:56:00 -
[67]
/signed for epic win
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War United Legion
|
Posted - 2009.06.01 04:04:00 -
[68]
lol that's awesome.
I want it now! ---
|
Katarlia Simov
Minmatar Cowboys From Hell
|
Posted - 2009.06.01 06:18:00 -
[69]
Yeah this is a great idea. Finally there would be a reason to eject, and a method of saving your pod. Brilliant.
|
Turelus
Caldari 22nd Black Rise Defensive Unit
|
Posted - 2009.06.01 08:13:00 -
[70]
Sounds like a cool idea, I don't do 0.0 warfare but I can see how this would be useful to those that do and doesn't sound horribly broken in any way.
/signed
|
|
Aastarius
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.06.01 10:46:00 -
[71]
Most definitely supported.
|
King Rothgar
Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.06.01 12:02:00 -
[72]
Wonder if the devs are paying attention to this. Anyways, I'm not sure choosing an eject direction is really practical (too clumsy of an interface) but altering distance/speed based on your ship's current condition is a good option.
-----------------------------------------------------
|
steave435
Caldari SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.06.03 11:18:00 -
[73]
Originally by: King Rothgar Wonder if the devs are paying attention to this. Anyways, I'm not sure choosing an eject direction is really practical (too clumsy of an interface) but altering distance/speed based on your ship's current condition is a good option.
If it's clumsy or not would depend on how well it's designed :)
|
Ranvaldy
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.06.03 11:54:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Ranvaldy on 03/06/2009 11:54:52
Originally by: AshtarDJ
2. Most of Eve space is 0.0. If you lose your ship inside a bubble, you have an average of 0.001% chance of getting your pod out. That kinda makes the whole "pod in ship" idea pretty pointless. Might aswell just kill the pod with the ship. Remember that even tho this idea give you a chance of getting your pod out of a fight, you still need to get your pod home safe...
Couldnt agree more /signed idea also + Also confiscating ships would be LEGEN---(wait for it)----DARY YARR PIRATE YARR
|
McEivalley
Fallen Angel's Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.06.03 12:01:00 -
[75]
/signed
Insert clever remark where?? |
Cebraio
|
Posted - 2009.06.03 13:28:00 -
[76]
/signed
I'd like to see a pod launcher rig/(high-)module for the job.
|
Lifelongnoob
Caldari Final Conflict UK Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.06.03 16:14:00 -
[77]
signed
|
BenjaminBarker
|
Posted - 2009.06.03 17:04:00 -
[78]
Cut the self destruct timer to 60 seconds, add a double confirm to trigger it, and eject the pod instantly (with 5km/s? velocity in a random direction).
An unprepared fleet will have to stop firing, eject a pilot, wait out a 30 second session timer and board the ship in order to steal it before it explodes. For real drama (or more lag petitions), make the pilot who boards the ship also have to disable the self destruct. A prepared fleet (or one who already lost a pod) will have to warp in the pod and board the ship in time to get it.
Pros: Cowards/Honorless Sc um have a chance at escaping in their pod and destroying their ship - but doing so gives their opponents a chance at the ship.
Cons: Cowards can't self destruct without risk. (Not sure it's a con - but there will still be complaints) Lag will be a huge factor in this. If you know you are going down in a lagfest, ejecting (with self destruct) is probably perfectly safe. I seriously doubt it will be a minor change to the mechanics to maintain a self destruct timer after an eject.
I'm really only thinking about this on the capital/supercap level, where a 2 minute self destruct means anything. For smaller fights lag will be less of an issue and this could be more interesting. Unfortunately in the few fights I've been in where a pilot bails ship before it goes down, it took us a lot longer then 60 seconds to be able to board the ship.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |