How would you like to see Fulcrum torpedoes changed?

Post by **Vice** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:45 pm

How would you like to see Fulcrum torpedoes changed? Please vote.

Scavenger4711 · Post by **Scavenger4711** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:59 pm

Definately force an auto save. But I'd also like them to take up more than just one weapon slot (maybe 4).

Viper · Post by **Viper** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 4:11 pm

Voted 'other'.

Explanation:

- auto-save
- introduce price increase
- time delay when firing
- one FT should take up all weapon slots

It should require a LOT of consideration for a player to use a weapon of mass destruction. Introducing the four points above would see to that I think. Some might say it's exaggerated, but I don't think it is, considering the immense yield of the FT.

Munshine · Post by **Munshine** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 4:19 pm

Voted other.

Removing totally the FTs from the game would be too extreme. If an excessive use of them is ruining players 's fun in Multiplayer, an complete overhaul of this feature must be considered. The changes that I described below would solve the issue and introduce new gameplay mechanics :

New gameplay mechanics for Fulcrums:
Then Fulcrums should only be used against Capital ships or Stations and no more against all ships in the vincinity.

Thus as a specific weapon against Capital ships or Stations, I suggest that a Fulcrum would only be fired after their targets are acquired at the end of a time delay to be defined (for example 30s) .

That means it would take time locking a Capital Ship or a Station. And during this time, the attacking player is vulnerable. He can be protected by his wingmen or defend herself/himself against the Defenders.

Once a Fulcrum is launched, it would severly damage a Capital Ship or a Station .
As for destroying successfully a Capital Ship or a Station, at least several Fulcrums would be required. For example only two Fulcrums for a Capital Ship but four Fulcrums for a Station.

[Edited on 12-25-2012 by Munshine]

MiaZ · Post by **MiaZ** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 4:26 pm

I voted Force an auto-save.
Thought I would comment here though because I think proxi mines will then
be seen as the preferred choice of weapon for people wanting to do suicide attacks.

So whatever you do with Fulcrums maybe should be done for mines too.
Removing them entirely is going too far though I think.

Maarschalk · Post by **Maarschalk** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:14 pm

I voted other!

This is a complicated issue since the measures to be taken to make a change is to prevent excessive abuse by a minority of players and changes might take the fun out of the game for other players who know how to control themselfs and are not out to spoil the game for others.

My only suggestion would be to make them more difficult to use!....!

1. A target lock required so that you can not fire them indiscriminately!
2. An input code or safety lock required before you can fire them! So it will take time for you to put in the code and you have 30 seconds to input the code and once you have input the code the remaining time of the 30 seconds will be the countdown before it fires!

Changes that will not work imho are:

Forced Auto Save can be exploited! Explaining why would give the ones wanting to exploit it Ideas!
Making them take up more slots will ruin the fun for many players who like to trade!
Making them more expensive will only make the trading of them a bigger possible exploit!

Rubber Chicken · Post by **Rubber Chicken** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:28 pm

I voted other.

- Autosave upon firing. - During missions as well.
- Increase price.
- Torpedo would remain a non-guided weapon, but would require an impact to detonate.
- Torpedo would only have enough power to destroy a Cap Ship and fighters in a clos(er) proximity from the target.

[Edited on 12-25-2012 by Rubber Chicken]

Post by **Vice** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:30 pm

Good feedback, thanks. Some important points raised. Some suggestions would appear to 'limit' the scope of the problem or just shift it to other forms (ie changing the mechanics of how it works), while others would more directly address the core problem raised.

Requiring 4 or 8 hardpoints might be an option, but could obviously still be used the same way. Changing operation might delay the inevitable, but some kind of removal option/factor would likely be the only effective solution for the problem described in the other thread.

I kind of like the idea of an arming sequence myself. An alert would be broadcasted that a Fulcrum weapon has been armed, then it is fired 20-30 seconds later. But the original problem would still remain, you'd have all players just having to evacuate every time that happens. They would only have more time to get away, but the annoyance of having to would still remain.

And yes, forced auto-saving isn't a full-proof solution. I'm surprised there seems to be so little interest in having the option to remove them from the multiplayer equation entirely based on the other thread. If you let the server operator set the parameters, then players can join in and be under the same restrictions they prefer along with everyone else.

Also, there never really seemed to be much interest in server admins/moderators enforcing desired gameplay conditions. That is, if a player abused FT's, another player would kick or ban them, or the server operator would. But since that never really seemed to be used in this game, it would appear that a game-side forced condition is the most viable way to go, hence the options above.

Rubber Chicken · Post by **Rubber Chicken** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:37 pm

I think most of us don't want to eliminate them, we would just like the 'suicide' exploit made into a non-factor.

Star King · Post by **Star King** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:44 pm

I voted other but my changes are simple:

1. One Fulcrum takes up Eight Hard points (only a ship that has eight hard points can fire one).
2. One Fulcrum costs one billion credits or more.
3. Target lock required with pilot name who fired it.
4. Auto-save after you fire it.
5. Keep the current launch time the same.

Please don't eliminate it just control it. This weapon is an against all odds weapons (last resort).

Maarschalk · Post by **Maarschalk** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:46 pm

From post: 153066, Topic: tid=10234, author=Vice wrote:
I kind of like the idea of an arming sequence myself. An alert would be broadcasted that a Fulcrum weapon has been armed, then it is fired 20-30 seconds later. But the original problem would still remain, you'd have all players just having to evacuate every time that happens. They would only have more time to get away, but the annoyance of having to would still remain.

This is a more realistic approach imho, even if the annoyance is still there, There are always annoyances in real life and in games! But it will be limited and usually a person who wants to use them excessively to annoy others usually wants a quick and effective way and does not have the patients to go through a 30 seconds firing sequence!....

Post by **Marvin** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:50 pm

Whatever takes the least amount of additional code. Not counting total deletion ... which I think is too extreme a remedy.

Post by **Vice** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:52 pm

The problem still remain with some of these suggestions though:

1. One Fulcrum takes up Eight Hard points (only a ship that has eight hard points can fire one).

Only reduces trade exploit. A player can still respawn and use it again immediately after their suicide run.

2. One Fulcrum costs one billion credits or more.

Further harms the trade problem rather than reduce it.

3. Target lock required with pilot name who fired it.

Eliminates it for those players who use it as a ship suppression weapon (its original design intent).

4. Auto-save after you fire it.

Still vulnerable to exploit.

The problem stems from its core capability. Some other possibilities could be:

- Nerf the weapon to some degree, either range or yield. Decrease its effective range so players only need to be about 1000m away from it to be safe, rather than 2000m or so. Right now, it can be a little difficult for a player with a heavy ship to get away in time if the weapon is fired close to them. Small/light ships can often easily get away with a quick afterburner burst.

- Provide a counter-move. Some kind of high shield mode or protection equipment system that protects the player from the blast wave when installed/active. Much like an 'ECM' system you find in other games protects against excessive long range missile attacks.

Rubber Chicken · Post by **Rubber Chicken** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:52 pm

I agree Marvin. No need for extremism, just a solution to reduce exploiting.

MiaZ · Post by **MiaZ** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:54 pm

LOL
I still like my idea of a penalty when dying in the game.
Maybe could be Mp only where any death results in you losing your secondary weapons.
Not your cargo though.

I guess the option to let the server operator decide if they can be fired might be the simplest solution.

I still don't think it is as big a problem as what it seems and i wouldn't mind if they were left as they are actually.

Post by **Marvin** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:05 pm

Vice, I think you're missing the point. Most of the complaints concern the ability to die with the FT and then re-spawn with the weapon still in the pilot's inventory. To use over and over again. What you might call the "suicide loophole" ... which is what needs to be filled. Auto-saving should deny the suicide bomber the ability to have additional FTs at no additional cost.

Rubber Chicken · Post by **Rubber Chicken** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:07 pm

OK from what I'm reading I've refined my view.....

1. Fulcrum would be unguided and require an impact to detonate.
2. The weapon should have a reduced radius so firing at a mission waypoint would only destroy the target cap ship and fighters in close proximity. (not both Caps and all the fighters)
3. An arming sequence - with warning.
4 Cap ships would be (occasionally) be able to fire them at other Caps. (Wishful thinking:))
5. Since the FT would need an impact (Cap, Station hull, or Fighter) to detonate, the autosave would be not needed.
The exploit would still exist, but more than likely be more trouble to use than it's worth.

Proximity Mines are also Kamikaze exploitable. Perhaps there's a solution for those as well?

[Edited on 12-25-2012 by Rubber Chicken]

Post by **Marvin** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:11 pm

Except, of course, for RC. Who doesn't seem concerned about the loophole.

Rubber Chicken · Post by **Rubber Chicken** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:16 pm

From post: 153087, Topic: tid=10234, author=Marvin wrote: Except, of course, for RC. Who doesn't seem concerned about the loophole.

I am concerned about the loophole Marvin.
I am one of it's greatest proponents for eliminating it.
I really am trying to just offer ideas in order to come to a reasonable solution with a minimal amount of work on Vice's end. Some or none of them may be used.

I am Pro Nuke, but Anti-Kamikaze Eploiting.

Star King · Post by **Star King** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:22 pm

The suicide loop hole is exactly the issue!!!!! Its the pilot suicide that keeps on giving fulcrums!!!!!

Post by **Marvin** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:26 pm

From post: 153088, Topic: tid=10234, author=Rubber Chicken wrote:I am Pro Nuke, but Anti-Kamikaze Eploiting.

My mistake, RC. One that I'm happy to admit.

Rubber Chicken · Post by **Rubber Chicken** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:27 pm

True and Proximity Mines fall into the loophole too. So while many people (myself included) have some ideas of what they want to see done with the FT, if the solution doesn't cover the Prox Mine as well then this is all moot.

@ Marvin - No harm, no foul, (no pun intended:P) my friend!

[Edited on 12-25-2012 by Rubber Chicken]

Munshine · Post by **Munshine** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:38 pm

Destroying a cap ship and only a few ships wouldn't prevent the suicide loop. Destroying only a cap ship would.

Post by **Marvin** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:41 pm

From post: 153101, Topic: tid=10234, author=Munshine wrote:Destroying a cap ship and only a few ships wouldn't prevent the suicide loop. Destroying only a cap ship would.

I was going to correct you by saying it's a loop"hole" ... but, in fact, it is also a loop. 'Cause the player can do it over and over again.

Post by **Vice** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:41 pm

Vice, I think you're missing the point. Most of the complaints concern the ability to die with the FT and then re-spawn with the weapon still in the pilot's inventory. To use over and over again. What you might call the "suicide loophole" ... which is what needs to be filled. Auto-saving should deny the suicide bomber the ability to have additional FTs at no additional cost.

That's actually what I'm trying to get at with my points. The problem is shoot-suicide-spawn-shoot. Other suggestions relating to how to limit their load, limit their launch time, expand thier cost, etc, don't actually address the core problem (as I was trying to point out).

Auto-saving doesn't solve it entirely either, for reasons I won't go into here.

The only truly effective way to stop 'shoot-suicide-spawn-shoot' is to limit their capability directly as a weapon (ie nerf what they can do), provide a counter-move to block what they can do, and/or block them entirely under certain conditions.

Yes, proximity mines will need addressing with similar factors as well. Server side disabling, countering, and nerfing can be applied there as well.

[Edited on 12-25-2012 by Vice]