Exodus Spam - Suicide - Base runs

[Vice]

Have some code maker that sets for station/city saves. If saved at one of those locations there is no weapon/equipment loss, but if you saved at deploy hanger or open space then you lose it.

That could be an elegant solution. Would this solve the repeat missile-self-destruct-missile attack approach? As long as a lone player could still effectively destroy a command module (no changes in shield or armor levels), it might be a good direction to go.

One side effect of this is that a deep space explorer would then lose their secondary items when respawning from open space/hangar if they make one bad jump or otherwise accidently collide with something. A possible solution to this problem is that only secondary items the player has at the time they are destroyed are restored. So if they fire everything, nothing respawns. If they keep everything, everything will respawn with them when in open space.

[Serayl]

Have some code maker that sets for station/city saves. If saved at one of those locations there is no weapon/equipment loss, but if you saved at deploy hanger or open space then you lose it.

That could be an elegant solution. Would this solve the repeat missile-self-destruct-missile attack approach? As long as a lone player could still effectively destroy a command module (no changes in shield or armor levels), it might be a good direction to go.

One side effect of this is that a deep space explorer would then lose their secondary items when respawning from open space/hangar if they make one bad jump or otherwise accidently collide with something. A possible solution to this problem is that only secondary items the player has at the time they are destroyed are restored. So if they fire everything, nothing respawns. If they keep everything, everything will respawn with them when in open space.

It would until somebody brings 250 Metal, drops a temporary station and tries the same thing or in charted space, saves at a friendly station in the system next door: it'd make it require more effort initially only.

In an uncharted system case, the former would almost certainly happen as there's no way to take a station out when you're unable to procure ammo without spending mega fuel and mega time obtaining it. You could get near your target, drop the station, reconfig your frame in the Shipyard, undock and go to town assuming nobody's around to stop you. The root of the issue, in my eyes, is that this behaviour is necessary against shield module farms that make your supply line long enough as to cause reloading to be too time-consuming.

Heck, you don't even need turrets at that point: place 50 shield modules in a small area and the sheer effort required to clear them would make attacks without exploiting suiciding for ammo completely impractical.

[Edited on 2-10-2016 by Serayl]

[Vice]

It sounds like a self-perpetuating scenario. Because command modules can be destroyed, more shield modules are built to better protect them, resulting in players restoring weapons to continue attacks to get through them. I've read that the difficulty in building a command module is greater than the effort to destroy it. So here are a couple of possible options:

- Reduce the difficulty required to build command modules. Allow them to be destroyed as they can be now, but make it easier to rebuild them, maybe half the metal ore currently required. If/when they are destroyed, it's then much easier to rebuild them.

- Cap shield modules in a sector. Limit to perhaps 5, 10, or 15 maximum.

[Bodega]

I don't think the cost should be reduced, but maybe make a cap on the shields. Maybe the shields should depend on the available power modules. And missile fire rate could depend on the crew modules, more crew = faster reloading of missiles. production modules = inventory turnover rate, engineering lab. Storage = more hangar space, maybe more ordinance space. The crew reloads but once the ammo magazines are empty there is a timer based on the number of storage modules. This would add a lot of strategy to destroying the base. Take out the supply, take out the crews, take out the missiles, shields and finally you can attack the command module. The command module should have it's own shield based on the power modules too, as Vice said, a special shield that can only protect the command module because it's so vital.

[Serayl]

It sounds like a self-perpetuating scenario. Because command modules can be destroyed, more shield modules are built to better protect them, resulting in players restoring weapons to continue attacks to get through them. I've read that the difficulty in building a command module is greater than the effort to destroy it. So here are a couple of possible options:

- Reduce the difficulty required to build command modules. Allow them to be destroyed as they can be now, but make it easier to rebuild them, maybe half the metal ore currently required. If/when they are destroyed, it's then much easier to rebuild them.

- Cap shield modules in a sector. Limit to perhaps 5, 10, or 15 maximum.

It kind of is. It also has elements of the ever-increasing retaliation problem too: if I pop your station, you pop two of mine and on & on it goes until someone calls for a time-out. By then, you may have entire systems devoid of dockable station infrastructure that has to be replaced.

Personally I'd be quite happy to see shield module counts get capped, whether via a hardcap or a softcap by tying them to power and crew module counts. Capping shield #s would also force more planning to go into station construction, although some folks may compensate for this by adding even more turrets.

The former option by itself would reverse the balance, in my opinion. Combined with #2, that may be a step in the right direction, though I'd need some more time to think about all the possible ramifications.

[Vice]

Soft cap sounds intriguing. I like the idea of limiting shield modules to power modules. If you could only build up to two shield modules per power module, it would apply such a limitation while also increasing the benefit of the other module type. Then if a player knocked out the power module along with a shield module or two, it would limit what the defender could put back into place until they restored the power module first.

Another possibility is to link it by percentage for building. And this could be threaded all through the building mechanism. For example, whatever shield modules are desired requires 50% the same number of power modules. The player could build up to 2 on their own, but would then need another power module to continue building them. Crew modules could be required to operate more power modules (again maybe more than 2). The remaining dependent modules could still survive and operate if their support modules were destroyed, but it would make building new ones impossible until those supporting modules are rebuilt.

Wouldn't really solve a dive bomber issue, but would make shield stacking much more difficult and create new build conditions. Perhaps the loss of freedom in design might be a negative to some though.

[Serayl]

Soft cap sounds intriguing. I like the idea of limiting shield modules to power modules. If you could only build up to two shield modules per power module, it would apply such a limitation while also increasing the benefit of the other module type. Then if a player knocked out the power module along with a shield module or two, it would limit what the defender could put back into place until they restored the power module first.

Another possibility is to link it by percentage for building. And this could be threaded all through the building mechanism. For example, whatever shield modules are desired requires 50% the same number of power modules. The player could build up to 2 on their own, but would then need another power module to continue building them. Crew modules could be required to operate more power modules (again maybe more than 2). The remaining dependent modules could still survive and operate if their support modules were destroyed, but it would make building new ones impossible until those supporting modules are rebuilt.

Wouldn't really solve a dive bomber issue, but would make shield stacking much more difficult and create new build conditions. Perhaps the loss of freedom in design might be a negative to some though.

Pretty much this. I don't think there'd be a lot of lost design freedom, to be honest. Most stations are built to be as defensible as possible currently, where large sprawling designs such as with pre-made stations are not used by players from what I've seen.

The only detail that the softcap needs is those modules must be near the modules they power/staff, or connected somehow. Otherwise, you can sock the power & crew modules away in a non-descript corner of the sector where they'll never be found. The shield stacks would be smaller while still supported by a forest of turrets.

With the command shield-feeding idea on top of softcapping the # of shields you can place with the tweak for proximity/connectivity, I think taken together it all would be a step in the right direction. A station would be defended against being junked in one pass, while still offering avenues for attack that hopefully would not have gigantic time requirements to achieve success.

[Vice]

Yes, totally agree, the range must be within the same 500 or so that existing range conditions require (shield, power).

Here are some of the initial build conditions I've been considering:

- Every 2 shield modules above 2 require 1 power module
- Every 5 weapon turrets above 5 require 1 storage module
- Every 2 power modules above 2 requires 1 crew/living module

This would preserve the ability for players to build quick small scale stations without the dependencies, but then start applying limits once things get bigger to restrict the number of shield modules and weapon turrets without including other module types.

[CS-ACI-]

Hello,

Whilst playing online last night, it appears that one or more players were destroying Command Modules only in ALC space.

This meant that other players lost saved equipment and or supplies and the stations they had built.

The time needed to destroy a station is about 1/4 - 1/5 that needed to build one.

Steve

[Bodega]

Vice, that sounds really good and will give a purpose to those other modules. It makes sense. To be honest, that's how I thought the base building actually worked before I really got into it, if you remember you and I had a conversation about it not too long ago. I think making certain amenities in the command module relying on the support modules is more intuitive and will add a lot to the game. Currently, the support modules, with the exception of shield and turrets, add to the tech level, but if a system is already at 100 then they're just cosmetic. This is excellent and will add a lot more strategy to the PvP aspect. Maybe we could even keep the ~ sector information ;P

[Vice]

What would everyone think about an additional armor buff for command modules specifically? Maybe a 200% increase, so that it would take about twice as long to cut through their armor compared to other modules. A lone player could still be able to take one out (likely after taking out supporting shield modules), but the command modules would be able to be better defended against attacks, at least for a while longer.

[matchbox2022]

The current system is very broken.

Anyone thinking stations are "weak" clearly haven't exploited the shield stacking tactic.

Stations are all but invulnerable to anything but 16 people firing at the same time. And even that, if you build a tower of shield generators will eventually be defendable.

What it should simply be is a regular recharge rate and simply more shield.
And for the love of god, the moment I took out a stations undefended power supply...and nothing happened? That made power supplies basically unneeded. They should be of higher metal value and should be needed to power EVERYTHING, shields and command included. Weapon pods included so long as it's in "range". There should also be a limit to how many power supplies can be built to prevent people exploiting those as well.

The current system people are exploiting is to build a base with an insane amount of weapon and shield pods, with no regard to power at all. Im not saying a station should be able to be taken out by one person (unless it has only one or two shield generators and the required power supplies).

In fact that's no fun, if you spend the time to build a "good" station, a fortress, it should still be able to be taken out when a sizeable force is present...furthermore, that station should have weak points where people can in fact punch through. Aka. Shield generators may be able to stack with a station, but shouldn't stack to defend "each other" so that a team of people can strategically strike one generator at a time, and then finally a power supply. With the shield regen tactics, it's simply not possible to fire enough shots to get through.

The biggest thing by far, I understand a station "weakly defended" being able to be taken out by a single person, but if it was well defended, like the fortresses people have been making, even by weakening it substantially using the factors I describe above, it could potentially be killable by one person, which THEN I agree..... shouldn't be able to happen.

By far and large the reason for this I have found has been missiles from station weapon pods which are ineffective at taking out a target at speeds past 4000k. The missiles simply explode and do not continue accelerating to meet the target.

In conclusion, I think a big improvement in station defending exploits and attacking exploits would be greatly fixed by.....

more effective weapon turrets, with much more powerful / faster / more aggressively tracking missiles.
Shields that stack in quantity, not regen times
Power supplies that in fact are required and not simply for asthetics.
More expensive components, most notably power supplies if they are to power everything.
If that won't change, then more expensive (metal) weapon turrets and shielding.
And beefier command modules (more hit points to destroy)
**AND perhaps, a notification when a station is under attack to the general MP server to everyone, or a much more aggressive response via NPCs of that station, warping in and otherwise...helping to prevent single players doing multiple suicide runs at a station. Where that should be effective against a small outpost, I believe a "well built" (2500+ Metal construction station in total) needs to have a more "this should be suicide for a single player" feeling, where only a group could take it out, and indeed, would allow the general server public to aid in its defense.



This would allow for a lot more balancing in station attacking / defending I believe.

But the biggest concerns by far are the invincible shield stacks and underaggressive / slow missiles fired from pods, followed closely by required power supplies...being more "Required".

Long post, but I've done a lot of station attacks so far and that's pretty much the list I've come up with that's fair.

[Bodega]

Matchbox, I think what you said is exactly what's been suggested. More armor on CMD modules, finite power stations because they'll have prerequisites, everything will have a prerequisite that must be satisfied.

I do also think that that higher the Territory % then the more severe the NPC response. If I fly into 100% ALC space I should expect a very harsh response. So much that it should move the tactic to me taking out NPC's one by one to whittle down the % until I, or a force with me can take down the bigger stuff? It would lead to longer more important battles.

[matchbox2022]

Matchbox, I think what you said is exactly what's been suggested. More armor on CMD modules, finite power stations because they'll have prerequisites, everything will have a prerequisite that must be satisfied.

I do also think that that higher the Territory % then the more severe the NPC response. If I fly into 100% ALC space I should expect a very harsh response. So much that it should move the tactic to me taking out NPC's one by one to whittle down the % until I, or a force with me can take down the bigger stuff? It would lead to longer more important battles.

Ha probably, I just had some time today and vomited my experience on the forums.

You are correct, in a high % territory the NPC response should be like white on rice. Where you can't avoid it.

For all the flaws though, I realize its a work in progress......by and large its difficult to balance.

The two BIGGEST gamebreaker flaws in my mind as exploits....are the shields regen tricks, and the 4000+ speeds tricks.
Using either of those will either make your base invincible, or yourself invincible to the bases missiles / weapons.

[Vice]

I'm having trouble reviewing parts of your post match:

Stations are all but invulnerable to anything but 16 people firing at the same time. And even that, if you build a tower of shield generators will eventually be defendable.

You say they are invulnerable, but then can be defendable with a tower of shield generators? Have you read the previous posts on solutions to such conditions? Do you have thoughts on those specifically?

That made power supplies basically unneeded. They should be of higher metal value and should be needed to power EVERYTHING, shields and command included. Weapon pods included so long as it's in "range". There should also be a limit to how many power supplies can be built to prevent people exploiting those as well.

That would be a pretty hefty rule change. Command modules carry their own power supply. I won't likely make big rule changes that would require re-doing parts of the training system (not too feasible at this point with everything else going on to re-record audio stages). Supplying their own power (but not that of other modules) is part of the offset for their high build requirement.

The addition of a linked dependency is designed to increase the value of power modules, so that's part of the system in planning. Something we've been discussing in previous posts.

more effective weapon turrets, with much more powerful / faster / more aggressively tracking missiles.

Maybe, but there are evasion and template conditions that would need to be considered (they currently use the same missile parameters available to ships, so would require their own separate system if this were to apply).

Shields that stack in quantity, not regen times

Are you referring to resistance rather than regeneration times?

Power supplies that in fact are required and not simply for asthetics.

Hence the changes we've been discussing. But not fundamental rule changes for command module (nor likely weapon turrets either) power functionality at least.

More expensive components, most notably power supplies if they are to power everything.

I'll certainly be interested in hearing feedback from players on something like that. Expanding things out beyond metal ore (unless you are referring to just increasing the metal ore requirement) would be quite a change.

If that won't change, then more expensive (metal) weapon turrets and shielding.

How much more?

And beefier command modules (more hit points to destroy)

That's the armor buff I was referring to.

**AND perhaps, a notification when a station is under attack to the general MP server to everyone

Certainly a possibility, much like contract notifications work now. This seems to have some solid support behind it overall.

[Edited on 2-10-2016 by Vice]

[Serayl]

more effective weapon turrets, with much more powerful / faster / more aggressively tracking missiles.

Maybe, but there are evasion and template conditions that would need to be considered (they currently use the same missile parameters available to ships, so would require their own separate system if this were to apply).

More expensive components, most notably power supplies if they are to power everything.

I'll certainly be interested in hearing feedback from players on something like that. Expanding things out beyond metal ore (unless you are referring to just increasing the metal ore requirement) would be quite a change.

If that won't change, then more expensive (metal) weapon turrets and shielding.

How much more?

Gonna add onto these two points originally from matchbox.

Missiles are a tough thing to tweak, as it's not as easy as 'increase speed' or 'increase yield'. The main thing that makes turret missiles ineffective is that they use lag-pursuit tracking, like all missiles in Legacy (and Mercenary, etc.). If they were switched, using a new tracking algorithm, to flying lead pursuit, chances are:

a) you'd simply get wrecked every single time, or
b) you'd strafe at even higher speeds, making Exodus spam even more necessary since you won't have time to bring particles to bear, assuming they don't lock out on you.

Turret particle guns are completely useless though, I agree. They seem to use the same setup found in Terrain Walkers, as they never, ever have tracked me properly (do they even have MDTS?). I could support turrets gaining a beam weapon with enough yield to make you take notice, yet not vaporize your shields in a matter of seconds.

On tweaking build material requirements, it'd depend on what degree we'd be talking here. Right now, the all-metal build setup places great emphasis on carting around Metal Mining Beams. Changing some modules to require, say, 5 Platinum on top of the existing Metal cost would throw a good wrench into that system. You'd have to swap beams in and out as required, which would be an annoyance for builders.

Another interesting avenue would be to gradually scale resource costs based on the # of space modules if possible in a sector beyond a certain value (say, 50 or 75) as a means of curbing station sprawl/stacking/turret farming.

By the way, while we've got the station topic open, cities currently are strategically fairly insignificant, as by far the best way to deal with one is to blast the station in orbit. I am curious to see what everyone else thinks on that matter too.

[matchbox2022]

I do think a soft cap is a good idea, but still feel like
1) power modules if taken out...should stop other modules like shields from functioning.
2) the soft cap idea on shields and weapons is a great idea.
3) shield modules instead of stacking "regen" times, stacking capacity.
4) biggest one for station "defense" by far, is better weapon pods...such as lead pursuit like above said missiles
*you wouldn't get wrecked every time....especially if you are shooting down missiles.
And if would make anything with more than a couple weapon pods needing to be a joint effort to assault and not one guy screaming along at 4000+ speeds.
To prevent exodus scamming, I think simply "stopping" the ability to fire weapons above a certain speed, much like what happens to particle cannons, happen to missiles as well.
Top speed where weapons can be fired should be very similar to the top speed of the missiles in the first place.

That's probably the biggest things.
And yes I very much agree about the cities on planetside.....they don't have too much strategic significance. Unless you are unable to build in sector if an enemy base is still planetside.

[Vice]

To prevent exodus scamming, I think simply "stopping" the ability to fire weapons above a certain speed, much like what happens to particle cannons, happen to missiles as well.
Top speed where weapons can be fired should be very similar to the top speed of the missiles in the first place.

I'd like to hear more feedback on this particular point.

[Serayl]

I do think a soft cap is a good idea, but still feel like
1) power modules if taken out...should stop other modules like shields from functioning.
2) the soft cap idea on shields and weapons is a great idea.
3) shield modules instead of stacking "regen" times, stacking capacity.
4) biggest one for station "defense" by far, is better weapon pods...such as lead pursuit like above said missiles
*you wouldn't get wrecked every time....especially if you are shooting down missiles.
And if would make anything with more than a couple weapon pods needing to be a joint effort to assault and not one guy screaming along at 4000+ speeds.
To prevent exodus scamming, I think simply "stopping" the ability to fire weapons above a certain speed, much like what happens to particle cannons, happen to missiles as well.
Top speed where weapons can be fired should be very similar to the top speed of the missiles in the first place.

That's probably the biggest things.
And yes I very much agree about the cities on planetside.....they don't have too much strategic significance. Unless you are unable to build in sector if an enemy base is still planetside.

Shield modules used to work as per point #3. The problem was that stacking would still completely hose you - even if it was changed to capacity, you'll still be emptying your entire weapon battery of particle fire into a shield face just to barely scratch it since beams do not work against modules as they require a subsystem target with large objects. It'd be irritating and tedious for a different reason.

As for #4, lead-pursuit missiles would require a re-write of the missile tracking algorithms, which I believe Vice would much rather not do. Plus, shooting missiles down takes a lot of energy nowadays, plus your attention and time. If you're busy shooting missiles down to stay alive, you're not doing damage to the installation and thus you are accomplishing very little per pass except draining your fuel tanks. It is far more efficient overall to evade, equip an AMS or use CMs to deal with missiles in Legacy.

More on speed-limiting missiles below.

Cities assume the faction of the station in orbit. They can never be hostile to you unless there's a hostile station in the sector.

To prevent exodus scamming, I think simply "stopping" the ability to fire weapons above a certain speed, much like what happens to particle cannons, happen to missiles as well.
Top speed where weapons can be fired should be very similar to the top speed of the missiles in the first place.

I'd like to hear more feedback on this particular point.

Most missiles have a top speed of no greater than 1500. An Exodus in particular has a top speed of a whopping 800. You'd have to fly like an NPC to fire anything off, and you would get wrecked unless you popped CMs like pills or dropped a deployable shield to help protect yourself against a station.

This would also have some serious ramifications in both PvE and PvP, with potentially hilarious consequences as everyone loads up on Excals only due to their off-the-rack speed, or everyone avoids missiles altogether when there's anything else that could possibly gank them while they fly at a snail-like pace.

[Radikal]

To prevent exodus scamming, I think simply "stopping" the ability to fire weapons above a certain speed, much like what happens to particle cannons, happen to missiles as well.
Top speed where weapons can be fired should be very similar to the top speed of the missiles in the first place.

I'd like to hear more feedback on this particular point.

I'd presume that during a "missile strafe" one would be firing off those missiles sideways and moving backwards, this would pretty much null out the whole "can't fire due to high forward speed" that shuts off particle weapons, correct?
Although I would like to see high FVL shut down missiles as well as particle weapons, but that would allow them to still be fired when turned sideways and drifting past.

[Rubber Chicken]

To prevent exodus scamming, I think simply "stopping" the ability to fire weapons above a certain speed, much like what happens to particle cannons, happen to missiles as well.
Top speed where weapons can be fired should be very similar to the top speed of the missiles in the first place.

I'd like to hear more feedback on this particular point.

I don't think that missiles should have forward-firing speed limits. IMO particle weapons shouldn't have them either. Even though the flight model is quite Newtonian, in some ways the projectile model, even for missiles, is just not.

For example, if the missiles fire from "belly bay" or under-wing harpoints, then any sort of high velocity acceleration vertically downward would either prevent launch of the missiles or slam them into the undercarriage of the ship, potentially damaging the frame . Either that, or there is an auxiliary set of thrusters on the hardoints or the missile itself to force it clear of the ship before it actually engages the missile's main motor. Obviously, systems are in place to prevent the missile from detonating before it clears a safe distance from the launching ship.

If not this, then the missile hardpoints actually operate on a tube-launched model, which could have it's own problems with jamming during moments of sudden strafing acceleration or radical on-axis turning.
Realistically, it would only take a few millimeters or so of offset between the tube and the missile launching from it to create enough friction to cause a malfunction - provided the missile was still 'catching up' to the variations of axis orientation and velocity changes of the ship.
In the real world, there may be 'all aspect' firing systems, but a modern fighter still cannot safely launch a missile unless parity is reached between the aircraft and the missile itself as far as velocity and orientation go. A pilot may launch a missile once the plane has 'stabilized' into a 45-degree down-angle (a.k.a. "negative-G) dive, but would not dare to do so if they were still in process of shoving the control stick forward to achieve that angle. Pulling-up (a.k.a "positive-G") obviously gives much more leeway to 'fling' the missile free of the plane, and straight-and-level flying is most likely always the ideal platform to fire from.

Like the tube-launch missile model, particle cannons could potentially suffer the same jamming problems (to a much lesser extent) but, only in rare instances of extreme forward acceleration - such as firing while accelerating to jump speed - should they jam due to straight-and-level travel.

Realism aside, I'm against limiting missiles in such a way as is being discussed.

Also, being that the velocities many of the ships in Legacy can be comfortably controlled at has been given a healthy increase compared to Mercenary, I'm for having the forward speed-cap for particle-jamming increased by about 1000 speed units.
It's currently at ~5240. Somewhere in the vicinity of ~6000 would probably work very well. ...IMO, of course.

[starschulz]

I don't think the problem is the missiles, i think it is just that a command module is too easy to destroy at the moment. i could fly past the weapons of a station at 4000, run face first into the station, stop and then fire everything before i was horribly annihilated.

I was thinking about the idea with command being near invincible if a shield module was near it - If it takes an equal amount of time to blast a shield module as it would take to build it, that would seem balanced. If you spend say an hour mining and building a large amount of shield modules, it should take an equal amount of time to destroy them. This is the situation where you bring friends to build faster, or to destroy them quicker. So in this case, it doesn't take much time to mine 25 metal and to build a shield module, assuming there is a source nearby. Possibly very close to the time it would take to make a bombing run with a full rack of missiles, go back to base and reload.

[Rubber Chicken]

Perhaps one area to look into when buffing station modules is the Repair System they are equipped with. Granted, the Rep.Sys. on a station, despite being much more massive than that of a ship, also has a lot more mass to repair. But, with a Rep.Sys. of that size and possibly every module having it's own + the station possibly having multiple massive power generators, I see no reason why energy efficiency couldn't be traded for increased repair rate in times of emergency.

I just mention it, because of all the factors that have been looked at - armor, defense weaponry, shield strength, etc. The Repair System operating under battle conditions may have been overlooked.

---
(I always seem to get time to comment on these subjects after much has been discussed and the 'wall of posts' has come to pass... I don't have time to read a lot of them. Sorry if I've been redundant to ideas in prior posts.)

[Serayl]

Perhaps one area to look into when buffing station modules is the Repair System they are equipped with. Granted, the Rep.Sys. on a station, despite being much more massive than that of a ship, also has a lot more mass to repair. But, with a Rep.Sys. of that size and possibly every module having it's own + the station possibly having multiple massive power generators, I see no reason why energy efficiency couldn't be traded for increased repair rate in times of emergency.

I just mention it, because of all the factors that have been looked at - armor, defense weaponry, shield strength, etc. The Repair System operating under battle conditions may have been overlooked.

---
(I always seem to get time to comment on these subjects after much has been discussed and the 'wall of posts' has come to pass... I don't have time to read a lot of them. Sorry if I've been redundant to ideas in prior posts.)

My only question is, what aspect of the autorepair would be changed?

Modules do currently regenerate at a fair clip as it stands, usually at something like 1% every five seconds when they're not under direct attack. It's fast enough that if you get held up by someone or something, the module you were hacking away at can fix itself to 100% hull.

They can't be changed to regenerate too quickly otherwise it may cause a player some consternation as the module they're hammering on is repairing all of the particle weapon damage it is sustaining.

[Rubber Chicken]

I was thinking mainly repair rate, but if it's generally already viewed as well-adjusted, then I retract my suggestion.