EVE Search - Self-Destruct Inhibiter

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Self-Destruct Inhibiter

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
ClawHammer III	Posted - 2003.10.07 02:17:00 - [1] I was thinking about how TomB's dream of pirate hijacking (see the latest CSM log) could be accomplished and the idea of a Self-Destruct Inhibiter came to mind. Correct me if IÆm wrong but if someone self destructs their ship all their contents and modules are destroyed as well which means that pirates wouldnÆt get anything for their efforts to hijack people with knowledge of self-destruct. If the ability to self-destruct were disabled then people would either have to try to escape or surrender their ships. If they were destroyed in the process of escape then at least you would get some loot rather then nothing if they self-destruct. My idea of such a module is as follows: Medium slot, 100tf, 50MW, 100 energy, 10 sec duration, -2 self-destruct ability. My idea of a counter is: Medium slot, 75tf, 50MW, 50 energy, 5 sec duration, +1 self-destruct ability. In order to self-destruct you must have a self-destruct ability of >= 0. So what do you guys think?
Roba	Posted - 2003.10.07 02:31:00 - [2] Ummm sounds crazy.
Roba	Posted - 2003.10.07 02:35:00 - [3] Well actually not. If they actually allow ships to do major dmg to stuff within really close range when they blow their drives (self destruct) then this would be intresting. I want to see a crusier do at least 2000dmg when it blows to all that is within 1km. And more for a b-ship. double at leat. Then you got yourself something intresting. Set that self destruct jammer up so it needs to be within 1km to activate and hack the other ships computers. That way there is alot of risk in using it. Like if that other guy had enough counters to over pwr it and do major dmg to the ship trying to jam. Or if the jamming ship was partially dmged during the capture of the other ship it might end up getting destoried.
Gaijin Lanis	Posted - 2003.10.07 05:06:00 - [4] Edited by: Gaijin Lanis on 07/10/2003 05:07:29 ... i think i like that idea... get a buncha rifters and suicide bomb people! a module that increases the damage/range of self-destructing would also rock rather hard.
Sara Kerrigan	Posted - 2003.10.07 05:49:00 - [5] Edited by: Sara Kerrigan on 07/10/2003 06:34:15 * Removed post because I misunderstood the first post, and hence nothing constructive toward the topic. * ______________ The Kerrigan Chronicles
ClawHammer III	Posted - 2003.10.07 06:10:00 - [6] I think you guys miss-understand. I'm talking about inhibiting an enemy ship FROM self-destructing not making it self-destruct. I intended this as a possible way to make hijacking ships more feasible. For example issue and ultimatum telling the enemy pilot that he doesnÆt eject and warp away you will destroy his ship AND pod kill him. Of course you will have to develop a reputation for not indiscriminately pod killing people for them to actually consider surrendering. Although, if self-destructing actually did damage to surrounding ships then an SDI module would have added value.
Sara Kerrigan	Posted - 2003.10.07 06:31:00 - [7] My apologies-- you are correct, I did misunderstand your initial post. In that case, I agree with your ideas and don't see any problems with that module pair. ______________ The Kerrigan Chronicles
Fausto	Posted - 2003.10.07 07:31:00 - [8] How do you inhibit a selfdestruct? It's just a bomb set to go off 'internaly'. Preventing that would be ridicilous. And self destruct skill is about what? The ability to push a self-destruct button at speed of light? Nah, I don't agree. You pirates should do some work instead. Just my opinion. ______ <brainpodder>
Sara Kerrigan	Posted - 2003.10.07 07:39:00 - [9] Quote: How do you inhibit a selfdestruct? It's just a bomb set to go off 'internaly'. Preventing that would be ridicilous. And self destruct skill is about what? The ability to push a self-destruct button at speed of light? Nah, I don't agree. You pirates should do some work instead. Just my opinion. Logically, a set of computer commands onboard the ship would need to go off to detonate the "internal bomb". It makes sense to consider this module on the 'hacking' skill tree, and the itent of it being to specifically target and disable the command lines that a pilot might use to self destruct his ship. ______________ The Kerrigan Chronicles
ClawHammer III	Posted - 2003.10.07 07:43:00 - [10] I was trying to think of a skill that these modules should require and I think that Hacking would be a really good one. Good logic Sara. :)
ClawHammer III	Posted - 2003.10.07 07:49:00 - [11] I'd also like to point out that I'm not a pirate. I would just like to see the pirates engage in more pirate-like activities besides indiscriminate killing. I think a module that disables self-destruct would help along those lines and help accomplish TomBÆs vision of ship hijacking.
StiZum Hilidii	Posted - 2003.10.07 12:00:00 - [12] if your gonna be able to capture a ship i would like to see a mdoule added which allows you to tow a ship. a tractor beam as such or a drone you can deplor which controls the ship to follow you. of you would take a hit on speed and drain cap but iw ould mean you could capture ships and then tow when your done back to you home base. STAN FACTA NON VERBA
ClawHammer III	Posted - 2003.10.07 12:17:00 - [13] That's also a good point. Ship towing would have to be implemented for this to be an option for large-scale hijacking. However, you could still hijack the ship if you have someone standing by in an expendable ship waiting to fly the more valuable one back to your base.
Serina Verity	Posted - 2003.10.07 12:34:00 - [14] I have to say that, under the current game conditions, I totally disagree. I will qualify this by saying, very clearly, that the idea itself is not bad, and would be a great idea if other things were different. With the way the game is at the moment, it would give WAY too much power to the pirates. Look at it this way. Gate campers have a huge advantage over anyone warping in - they see you long before you have control of your ship, and if you are in a flimsy ship you are in a pod anyway. The practise has recently extended to camping in jump points, compounding the problem. Gate to gate jumping, IMO, will only exacerbate the situation. So, you arrive out of warp, target locked, scrambled and webified and the only - repeat - only negotiating point you have is to destroy your ship. That way the rats get nowt. So, the true pirate, interested in cash rather than your corpse will negotiate a release fee. Take this away and the pirates have all of the power. Not balanced, is it? If the lag problems when jumping and warping were dealt with (i.e. You don't appear to the other players until you see where you are) then fair enough. You at least have some chance of escape; the playing field becomes level again and this gives something else to the pirates to continue in their quest for illicit gains.
Jash Illian	Posted - 2003.10.07 12:47:00 - [15] Quote: I have to say that, under the current game conditions, I totally disagree. I will qualify this by saying, very clearly, that the idea itself is not bad, and would be a great idea if other things were different. With the way the game is at the moment, it would give WAY too much power to the pirates. Look at it this way. Gate campers have a huge advantage over anyone warping in - they see you long before you have control of your ship, and if you are in a flimsy ship you are in a pod anyway. The practise has recently extended to camping in jump points, compounding the problem. Gate to gate jumping, IMO, will only exacerbate the situation. So, you arrive out of warp, target locked, scrambled and webified and the only - repeat - only negotiating point you have is to destroy your ship. That way the rats get nowt. So, the true pirate, interested in cash rather than your corpse will negotiate a release fee. Take this away and the pirates have all of the power. Not balanced, is it? If the lag problems when jumping and warping were dealt with (i.e. You don't appear to the other players until you see where you are) then fair enough. You at least have some chance of escape; the playing field becomes level again and this gives something else to the pirates to continue in their quest for illicit gains. Ah...you're going by old stories and rumors aren't you? When was the last time you hit a blockaded gate? I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather *** my enemy.- Rohann Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!*- Lallante
j0sephine	Posted - 2003.10.07 13:09:00 - [16] ... Was thinking of slightly different take on the subject. It would involve removal of current auto-eject mechanism from the game, one which places the pilot in the pod when their ship is destroyed. The way i think could be interesting is, if the ship is destroyed, the pilot dies with it... unless they manually eject before that happens. Having it this way would mean, risking your life by staying in ship with bare scraps of armor/structure left could mean the victory against the enemy with weaker nerves... and it'd also more frequently provide the victor with damaged abandoned ship they could freely loot, repair and reuse or recycle. (it'd also provide purpose for the 'stolen ship' tagging CCP is supposedly to introduce)
Naz Farooq	Posted - 2003.10.07 14:54:00 - [17] Quote: ... Was thinking of slightly different take on the subject. It would involve removal of current auto-eject mechanism from the game, one which places the pilot in the pod when their ship is destroyed. The way i think could be interesting is, if the ship is destroyed, the pilot dies with it... unless they manually eject before that happens. I like this a lot. You could hopefully put something in where if the player loses connection (or disconnects) he automatically ejects right before the ship explodes (like it does now), saving his pod (in the case of a CTD) and saving the PC pirate from taking a podkill because someone is a dink and disconnects. Sure, everyone supports saving Einstein's brain, but when you put it in the body of a Great White Shark, suddenly you've "gone too far".
Jarjar	Posted - 2003.10.07 15:16:00 - [18] Very nice j0sephine, the only problem I see is sadly enough lag.
Agent Red	Posted - 2003.10.07 15:37:00 - [19] ummm ok. so why not make "self destructed" ships drop normal loot just like if they were blown up? it seems, clawhammer, your solution is the long convoluted way round the problem. all you need to do is make self destructed ships drop loot like if you were blown up. as for j0sephine ... cool idea lass. but unfortunately unless armor + shields on every ship is increased x10 it would be worthless because of how fast people die to pirate blockades. you barely have time to do anything before your ship starts going down in flames. kthx agent red
ClawHammer III	Posted - 2003.10.07 16:02:00 - [20] Red, getting the loot isn't the only point. The main point is to allow the capure of ships and you can't do that if they self-destruct.
Valeria	Posted - 2003.10.07 16:27:00 - [21] There should be a delay (10 seconds?) on self-destructing, if there isn't already. Been a while since someone self-destructed on me. Your 425mm Prototype I Gauss Gun perfectly strikes some nublar, wrecking for 1155.0 damage.
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2003.10.07 16:37:00 - [22] I think it sucks, has no science fiction basis, and removes the option of royally **ing off a pirate who manages to get you. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!**
Naz Farooq	Posted - 2003.10.07 17:59:00 - [23] Quote: I think it sucks, has no science fiction basis, and removes the option of royally ***ing off a pirate who manages to get you. I dunno about that one Joshua. How many episodes of Star Trek involved the crew waking up mysteriously someplace they shouldn't be? Instead of a 'self-destruct inhibitor' think of it as a 'sleepy ray'. 'Spock! How DID we get HERE?!?' Sure, everyone supports saving Einstein's brain, but when you put it in the body of a Great White Shark, suddenly you've "gone too far".*
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2003.10.07 18:53:00 - [24] I spent too much time telling the guy in the red jumper not to volunteer for planetary missions! LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Rayne	Posted - 2003.10.08 01:48:00 - [25] lol, now you people complain about the self destruct of all things, what next...Should be kept just the way it is, you pirates will never be satisfied
Dragon Emperor	Posted - 2003.10.08 02:55:00 - [26] Edited by: Dragon Emperor on 08/10/2003 03:00:09 there's no logical reason self-destruct system would share main computer system, most likely it's physically disconnectted from ANY other systems. If somebody can disable self-destruct system from outside, then why the hell the ship has a self-destruct system? or even more seriously, if self-destruct system can be controlled from outside, then why anybody need fit a gun? just fit as many computer as possible and bring all hacker crew, that's it, just make other ships self-destruct, there's no need to bring a gun
ClawHammer III	Posted - 2003.10.08 05:11:00 - [27] Quote: Edited by: Dragon Emperor on 08/10/2003 03:00:09 there's no logical reason self-destruct system would share main computer system, most likely it's physically disconnectted from ANY other systems. If somebody can disable self-destruct system from outside, then why the hell the ship has a self-destruct system? or even more seriously, if self-destruct system can be controlled from outside, then why anybody need fit a gun? just fit as many computer as possible and bring all hacker crew, that's it, just make other ships self-destruct, there's no need to bring a gun Yeah, just like its logical to not be able to target an enemy using ECM when you can still see him visually, or logical that ships have a maximum velocity because of friction in space, or my personal favorite: no massive recoil on railguns or projectiles that would make such weapons next to useless. Sorry, but the logic card doesn't work with this game so far as realism goes. I'm looking for comments on rather or not this would help people be able to capture ships and why or why not. As well as what would be necessary for it to be balanced.
SilverWidow	Posted - 2003.10.08 19:00:00 - [28] Edited by: SilverWidow on 08/10/2003 19:02:48 The problem with a self destruct jammer is the fact it lacks the realism that CCP appears to be shooting for. Assuming that we can draw ideas from true Sci-Fi, what is to say that the pilots themselves arent armed with a personal side arm? What good would your jammer do if the pilot simply turned around in his****pit and blasted the reactor causing a critical overload, or for that matter using a manual self destruct sequence. I applaud the pirates for looking for more creative ways to carry out their activities, however there is a much more realistic means of "highjacking" a ship. Instead of a anti-destruct jammer module, introduce a "forced ejection module" that sends and overide signal to the "target" causing the ejection system to activate(between 1-5km). This would leave the "target" with the option to either attempt to flee or re-enter the ship and regain control. In order to avoid serious exploting, add a restriction to the "overide" module Targeted ship has not sustained adequate damage to force an overide* (meaning it could not be attempted until the structure of the ship had been breached and reduced to less than 30%. This would make the pirate ship use very careful firing tactics to avoid destroying his prize and also consume an additional slot for the module, which imo should be a high slot instead of a medium thereby sacraficing one of his weapons. The basic formula you came up with for the jamming module, Claw, is a good one, similar to the way warp scramblers work, but the value should be +1, -1 respectivly... seeing as how your stealing an entire ship and not just locking up the warp drive. If you want a stronger overide, you use more modules. This prevents the average newb from pulling it off (this action is reserve for skilled pirates only, go mine more omber). The defense to the overide should work the same way, requiring a highslot but requiring slightly less cpu and powergrid, allowing them to be fitted on any ship. I mean lets face it, if your going to get the prize, it should not be an easy task to accomplish. If its too easy then you become no better than the carebears that you slam on the boards for trying to take the easy way out. BTW, for those intrested in the info. your ship can be destroyed from a distance after you eject allowing you to escape and deny them any prize at all, but requires some serious timing and alot of luck. (Have a course plotted and a autopilot hotkey mapped, select self destruct and confirm as you press the autopilot hotkey simultaneously) Poof begone. SilverWidow - Legion Elite Just my 2 isk worth Bu Loyal Approval - Director
Ackron	Posted - 2003.10.08 19:34:00 - [29] Edited by: Ackron on 08/10/2003 19:35:42 What I would rather see is the same thing an Alt of mine used to do when under attack from pirates in his trade ship.... All the trade goods are kept in a secure container with pw.... if you are getting blasted with no chance of getting away.... Jettison the secure can and bookmark if you can... Your investment is protected... Same deal with modules would be nice if you could unequip in space... Carry a secure can in your hold, once you are getting blasted in combat / pirate attack, whip off your modules and dump em in the can. If secure cans where made indestructible in a self destruct, your modules are saved :) If someone uses the 'self-destruct inhibitor' on you, they get the ship, but not your irreplaceble looted modules :) Just a few more isk for the kitty...
Bobby Wilson	Posted - 2003.10.08 22:20:00 - [30] Quote: I think it sucks, has no science fiction basis, and removes the option of royally **ing off a pirate who manages to get you. I agree. Personally, I think not only should you be allowed to self-destruct, 20% of the time a ship destroyed in combat should not leave any loot behind, the reasonably likely outcome of blowing the heck out of it... But then, I'm all for intentionally making it harder to steal from me :) Originally by:** Selim Cool, congrats. Oh, stupid idea by the way.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.