| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mack Haggis
Fleet Escort Services
0
   |
Posted - 2015.07.14 13:12:08 -
[31] - Quote
I understand where you're coming from.
As to the rubbish gameplay, wait 5-6 mins and you can limp away in your ship rather than have to spend isk to replace the whole thing may seem a long time for some, but may be the preferred option for a lot of pilots.
As to the capture, if there are concerns regarding the economic impact of fewer fully destroyed ships, simply implement a 'ship recovery' cost which applies to any pilot other than the original owner when it comes to repairing the vessel. Any pilot who's ship is captured will still have to replace their vessel. The only difference is whomever did the taking will have a ship to sell.
If the recovery cost was set at say 50% of the production cost of a vessel and there was a resource requirement rather than a straight up isk cost there would still be an associated economic cost.
Basically, if its your ship and its damaged, isk repair at a station, instant fix.
If you've 'recovered' a ship, resource repair cost, associated industry production time. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
266
|
Posted - 2015.07.14 16:57:40 -
[32] - Quote
Thread number 30 today where you are asking for a nerf to someone elses income so you can make more profit. Every ship that gets destroyed has to be replaced by one made by one or more industrialists (miners,haulers.moon goo harvesters, ice farmers. etc, etc...).
So, no you dont get to crush industrialists incomes to supplement your own.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Mack Haggis
Fleet Escort Services
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 12:53:43 -
[33] - Quote
The intent is in no way directed at reducing the income of ship manufacturers as you suggest, not do i believe it will have as significant an impact as you seem to believe given that there is the potential for a new market area based around the repair/refurbishment of damaged ships and modules, which as i suggested could be based on industry skill requirements. In that way it would simply add a new area for industrialists rather than as you suggest 'crush industrialists incomes to supplement your own.'
The main intent was to add a new dynamic to the game, perhaps providing a drive to see more pilots actively engaging in combat and to add some new dynamics to the combat system itself.
In all honesty i had not even considered the implications of the economic impact of the changes prior to it being raised in this thread. I was simply interested in discussing a new idea.
I apologise if you feel the idea was some kind of targeted attack on industrialists. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1417
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 13:09:21 -
[34] - Quote
Mack Haggis wrote:The intent is in no way directed at reducing the income of ship manufacturers as you suggest, not do i believe it will have as significant an impact as you seem to believe given that there is the potential for a new market area based around the repair/refurbishment of damaged ships and modules, which as i suggested could be based on industry skill requirements. In that way it would simply add a new area for industrialists rather than as you suggest 'crush industrialists incomes to supplement your own.'
The main intent was to add a new dynamic to the game, perhaps providing a drive to see more pilots actively engaging in combat and to add some new dynamics to the combat system itself.
In all honesty i had not even considered the implications of the economic impact of the changes prior to it being raised in this thread. I was simply interested in discussing a new idea.
I apologise if you feel the idea was some kind of targeted attack on industrialists.
The problem is for it to be useful to recover/refurb captured ships then it has to take a reasonable amount less materials to do so than simply building the ships. This takes the equivalent amount of materials out of all ship production, depressing materials demand and therefore prices. This would adversely impact most areas of the economy and so it's much simpler to simply destroy and build ships as we do now.
Ed: if you ant to make more money from blowing up ships get an industrial wing to start building them and use your PvP skills to drive up demand. |
Mack Haggis
Fleet Escort Services
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 13:20:10 -
[35] - Quote
Ok, so we've established that there are potentially some issues with regards to the salvaging of disabled ships and all the associated economic impacts.
If we table that idea, I still think there is potential for combat based degradation of systems. If your ship takes a pounding, you should suffer some minor damage to your ship systems. The actual mechanic is already in place from the ability to overhead modules. Adding damage to modules based on incoming fire would add a more realistic combat mechanic. It would also make sense for certain modules to be susceptible to being disabled and thus offlined during combat. In that way, if you're taking a beating, some modules may end up offline, but you can still end up being the victor in the fight. You'll just be slightly less able for the next fight unless you take the time to dock up and repair. (this could potentially be extended to outright destruction of modules if your ship is near death)
Simple mechanic, already partially in place. Just needs a bit of tweaking. |
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden
Workers Trade Federation
356
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 15:46:15 -
[36] - Quote
And what would happen to hull tankers? |
Ghaustyl Kathix
Quantum Singularities
Half Massed
59
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 17:56:32 -
[37] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:And what would happen to hull tankers? Hull-tanking's already pretty bad. The only ship I can see that actually benefits from it is the Exqueror Navy Issue (doesn't take as much power grid, gets about as much buffer as armor buffer-tanking, doesn't slow you down). The Dominix Navy Issue and Brutix Navy Issue also benefit from it, stat-wise, but they don't have the same power grid issues the Exqueror Navy Issue has, they're still slower than armor-buffer cruisers and hull-tanking effectively prevents logi from working on them, so they're less useful in fleets.
So what about hull-tanking? From what I understand, CCP never really meant it to be a thing. |
Shallanna Yassavi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2015.07.27 20:44:55 -
[38] - Quote
Bring mobile depot + spare, just in case.
If it meant your ship had to be stranded for a few minutes so someone might find it and then steal it, it would make most ships quite vulnerable while the new warp drive went through its diagnostics.
A signature :o
|
Jason Amelana
Ninja Kitty's
The Blood Covenant
10
|
Posted - 2015.07.28 09:10:38 -
[39] - Quote
+1
|
Lion Drome
Der Wehrmacht
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.28 15:22:00 -
[40] - Quote
Positive sides:
I would be interested in seeing CCP test this idea. Since after all, in PVP one of the greatest joys is loot. Nothing like seeing shiny modules in that wreck and this would make it even better. It would promote piracy even more. "Incapacitate your victims ship and steal their ship and modules whole"
It would most likely even increase gate camps and nullsec PVP. Gatecamps in the regard that you have more pirate corporations making systems their homes and frequently camping them. And at the same time giving increased incentives for new players to join roams.
And I doubt it would go to "Wait for corpmate to save you" in a fleet brawl. Most likely you would get destroyed either way since the biggest thing is to get enemy players off the field.
In gate camps the ship would be damaged and incapacitated. Then boarded by one of the campers (After reshipping to a pod. Or they have people in shuttles just waiting by near the gate) to come in and board the vessel. Then take it to a POS or a station for repairs and module unfitting.
Negative sides:
This would most likely affect the expensive module market in a large part. No idea honestly how much since if you say capture a ship in null, then take it to a POS. Strip the ship of modules and save it for later. Then most likely they'll end up just being used up in a fight or as backups for when your current ship & modules get destroyed later (which will happen)
Affecting the ship market? Well I doubt it. The amount produced is so large and again. You'd most likely simply see that in large scale battles afterwards (Unless the ships were destroyed before to make sure they won't be revived) so you'd probably just see more market movement in lowsec space since small gangs would just take the ships that they manage to incapacitate, repair and board only to be taken to a local station and sold there. So increased supply to lowsec and increased market activity. Sounds good to me.
End of sides.
Of course this would have to be tested by CCP. How it would affect things in the long term. Would the surplus of ships be too great or would things become actually more active since you'd have greater incentives to go say hi to your neighbours with a warp distruptor and a small group of friends. Ships and modules also get destroyed all the time when POS's are being attacked. So pros and cons. Definetly an interesting idea though. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |